General > General Technical Chat

Apple to have asked its suppliers in Taiwan to avoid using "Made in Taiwan!?

<< < (7/10) > >>

james_s:

--- Quote from: Halcyon on August 09, 2022, 01:07:27 pm ---I don't know... I think it has potential. After the sanctions that China placed on Australian coal and iron, we've seen nothing but a strong economy. The world is realising that relying less on China isn't necessarily bad or unachievable. Even average consumers here have been turning away from Chinese produce and electronics for years. Seldom do you see food made in China in Australian supermarkets anymore and the same goes with consumer goods and electronics. Household products made by Bosch/Siemens is one example, it's used as a marketing tool.

--- End quote ---

People have short memories, it doesn't take long for them to forget a major catastrophe and go back to doing whatever they were doing that led up to it. Production may well move away from China, but I suspect it will be to some other lower cost region of the world with a new set of problems. It should be obvious though that relying too much on ANY other nation no matter how friendly is a risky situation. Global politics are hard to predict and harder to control.

PlainName:

--- Quote from: tooki on August 09, 2022, 04:10:03 pm ---
--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on August 09, 2022, 03:00:39 pm ---
--- Quote from: tooki on August 09, 2022, 11:39:28 am ---But as a publicly traded company, making money is their primary goal, as is literally required by law.

--- End quote ---

This is a myth and wrong. You shouldn't be propagating such an untruth.



--- Quote from: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/13-354.html ---Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.
--- End quote ---

--- End quote ---
Soooo close but no cigar: your quote is true. So is my claim. How can both be true? Because not all corporations are publicly traded. The case you linked to was one regarding a privately-held company, which has much more freedom to manage itself how it wants. But once you have publicly traded shares, the doctrine of maximizing shareholder value comes into play, and there have been many court decisions supporting this. I specifically said “publicly traded” because this is the key condition.


From https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/a-duty-to-shareholder-value


--- Quote ---The leading statement of the law's view on corporate social responsibility goes back to Dodge v. Ford Motor Co, a 1919 decision that held that "a business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders." That case — in which Henry Ford was challenged by shareholders when he tried to reduce car prices at their expense — also established that "it is not within the lawful powers of a board of directors to shape and conduct the affairs of a corporation for the merely incidental benefit of shareholders and for the primary purpose of benefiting others."

Despite contrary claims by some academics and Occupy Wall Street-type partisans, this remains the law today. A 2010 decision, for example, eBay Domestic Holdings Inc. v. Newmark, held that corporate directors are bound by "fiduciary duties and standards" which include "acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders."

--- End quote ---
(Emphasis mine.)

--- End quote ---

Talk about cherry-picking! From the very same article you selectively quoted:


--- Quote from: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits ---The Hobby Lobby case dealt with a closely held company with controlling shareholders, but the Court’s statement on corporate purpose was not limited to such companies. State codes (including that of Delaware, the preeminent state for corporate law) similarly allow corporations to be formed for "any lawful business or purpose,” and the corporate charters of big public firms typically also define company purpose in these broad terms. And corporate case law describes directors as fiduciaries who owe duties not only to shareholders but also to the corporate entity itself, and instructs directors to use their powers in “the best interests of the company.”

Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits, or maximizing shareholder value. "Shareholder value," for one thing, is a vague objective: No single “shareholder value” can exist, because different shareholders have different values. Some are long-term investors planning to hold stock for years or decades; others are short-term speculators.
--- End quote ---

David Hess:

--- Quote from: AndyBeez on August 09, 2022, 09:17:43 am ---Maybe the Taiwan's chip fab houses should stamp "Taiwan Is A Sovereign Nation" round the edge of their silicon, in 60nm. Or even inside multi layer boards.
--- End quote ---

Taiwan goes to considerable effort not to poke the Chinese dragon needlessly.  Eventually that will not be enough, but enough provocation now would provoke a war or punitive actions.

tooki:

--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on August 09, 2022, 06:23:48 pm ---Talk about cherry-picking! From the very same article you selectively quoted:

--- End quote ---
Ummm… duh? “Quoting” is selective copying, otherwise it’s just copying the whole thing.

That article is an opinion piece showing both sides. But frankly, one side (my side) is much more strongly supported by evidence than the other. The author of the opposing argument is precisely the “some academics” the author I quoted is referring to!

 
--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on August 09, 2022, 06:23:48 pm ---
--- Quote from: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits ---The Hobby Lobby case dealt with a closely held company with controlling shareholders, but the Court’s statement on corporate purpose was not limited to such companies. State codes (including that of Delaware, the preeminent state for corporate law) similarly allow corporations to be formed for "any lawful business or purpose,” and the corporate charters of big public firms typically also define company purpose in these broad terms. And corporate case law describes directors as fiduciaries who owe duties not only to shareholders but also to the corporate entity itself, and instructs directors to use their powers in “the best interests of the company.”

Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits, or maximizing shareholder value. "Shareholder value," for one thing, is a vague objective: No single “shareholder value” can exist, because different shareholders have different values. Some are long-term investors planning to hold stock for years or decades; others are short-term speculators.
--- End quote ---

--- End quote ---
And again, the key issue is publicly traded. Every publicly traded corporation is a corporation, but not every corporation is a publicly traded corporation. (The existence of stockholders does NOT mean it’s publicly traded.) So the officers of “a corporation” do not have to maximize shareholder value, but the officers of a publicly traded corporation do. This distinction, which you pretended I didn’t explain to you already, is not that hard to grasp!

AndyBeez:

--- Quote from: David Hess on August 09, 2022, 07:53:26 pm ---Taiwan goes to considerable effort not to poke the Chinese dragon needlessly.  Eventually that will not be enough, but enough provocation now would provoke a war or punitive actions.

--- End quote ---
Interesting idea, China invades Taiwan because someone used "tiananmen square freedom democracy massacre" as a their crypto vault's private keypair? I'm sure the red army will receive the same warm welcome from the Taiwanese people as the Russian's special operation received.

:-X Too provocative? Not our problem Mr Hess. Any shooting shit show is Australia and Japan's problemo. We'll just send 'technology' plus a load of Starlink dishes - so we can watch the explosions on Fox News.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod