Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust...
by PeterStuer on Friday April 13, 2018 @08:37AM
(#16829374)
"parasites that'll use it as money drain" sounds remarkably like shareholders.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust...
by rocqua on Friday April 13, 2018 @09:38AM
(#16829831)
The difference is that shareholders lose something (the value of their shares) when they drain a company of its assets. This might still be short-sighted, but there is at least a balancing force.
In public services, where making a loss is o.k. this is just included in the loss, and there is essentially nothing that encourages the 'parasite' to not drain the system.
Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust...
by FranzFerdiNaN on Friday April 13, 2018 @09:57AM
(#16829999)
Well, even that no longer seems to be assured. Plenty of ways to strip a company and make a profit in the short term, destroying the company in the long term.
Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust...
by ModernMech on Friday April 13, 2018 @11:41AM
(#16831044)
E.g. Toys R Us. It was bought then saddled with debt by the new investors, and is now dead.
Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust...
by Slansitartop on Friday April 13, 2018 @10:35AM
(#16830342)
> The difference is that shareholders lose something (the value of their shares) when they drain a company of its assets.
Not if they sell before the shit hits the fan.