There's a very old case, Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., in which the Dodge brothers sued Ford for plowing all the profits from the company back into new factories and increased production, instead of issuing dividends.[1] Henry Ford said: "My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes. To do this we are putting the greatest share of our profits back in the business." Ford lost the case. The court held that the purpose of a corporation was to maximize shareholder value, not to employ the most people.[2]
Amazon reminds me a bit of Ford back in the day. Profitability is nice for the shareholders, but at the end of the day, the net benefit they create to the economy, just by employing all those people and spending all that money on development, isn't really a function of their profitability.
Amazon reminds me a bit of Ford back in the day. Profitability is nice for the shareholders, but at the end of the day, the net benefit they create to the economy, just by employing all those people and spending all that money on development, isn't really a function of their profitability.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company#Fac.... A fact often glossed over is that the Dodge brothers wanted Ford to pay dividends because they were investing money in launching a competing car company.
[2] Although that's unlikely to be good law today.