News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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.
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.