I’m pretty anti capitalist and wish the whole system would fuck off but they’re not suing because of the lack of performance of their investment, they’re alleging that United didn’t give necessary information to investors
Seriously, how many times have I heard the argument that CEOs should be making “the big bucks” because they’re taking on “the big risks”? Yet except for Brian Thompson, I can’t think of any CEOs who’ve ever actually incurred risks from their “gambles.” They always seem to make cuts to everyone and everything else before accepting a loss, or else jump ship with a golden parachute (and probably go on to fuck up a different company afterwards.) Of course, I can’t deny the possibility that CEOs who fail don’t make the news, and this is just survivorship bias (no pun intended.)
The CEOs aren’t making any risks at all, it’s the shareholders taking risks. The unfairness comes in when the government protects them from their own risk while leaving the poor out to rot.
That’s a thing you can sue for?
Yes, shareholders in the US have rights to sue when their investments don’t return profits as promised.
It’s pretty sickening.
This is one of the biggest drivers of corporate greed in the US.
Investments are supposed to be a gamble. Imagine losing at the casino and then suing the casino because you didn’t get the advertised jackpot.
I’m pretty anti capitalist and wish the whole system would fuck off but they’re not suing because of the lack of performance of their investment, they’re alleging that United didn’t give necessary information to investors
This is unfortunately true, they’ll likely win the case on that angle.
My point is that legislation shouldn’t guarantee earnings from gambling under unforeseen circumstances. That’s just gambling.
Seriously, how many times have I heard the argument that CEOs should be making “the big bucks” because they’re taking on “the big risks”? Yet except for Brian Thompson, I can’t think of any CEOs who’ve ever actually incurred risks from their “gambles.” They always seem to make cuts to everyone and everything else before accepting a loss, or else jump ship with a golden parachute (and probably go on to fuck up a different company afterwards.) Of course, I can’t deny the possibility that CEOs who fail don’t make the news, and this is just survivorship bias (no pun intended.)
The CEOs aren’t making any risks at all, it’s the shareholders taking risks. The unfairness comes in when the government protects them from their own risk while leaving the poor out to rot.
This isn’t about a failed bet. It’s about investors not being informed of the changes.
It’s closer to having the odds and rules explained, then having the casino change both retroactively after they’ve taken your money.
That’s the problem with our entire system!
And this is why Health and Justice shouldn’t be for profit
You can sue for everything. If you win is another question.