-
I think the point is that companies which have a legal obligation to return a profit and pay shareholders
No company has that. It's something made up and perpetuated by greedy folk as an excuse for being greedy.
Here's the law:
172: Duty to promote the success of the company
(1)A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—
(a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,
(b)the interests of the company’s employees,
(c)the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,
(d)the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment,
(e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and
(f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company.
(2)Where or to the extent that the purposes of the company consist of or include purposes other than the benefit of its members, subsection (1) has effect as if the reference to promoting the success of the company for the benefit of its members were to achieving those purposes.
(3)The duty imposed by this section has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law requiring directors, in certain circumstances, to consider or act in the interests of creditors of the company.
Your point still stands tho.
You are reading a single comment by @Hefty and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Hefty
I think the point is that companies which have a legal obligation to return a profit and pay shareholders, should not be running industries where there is a natural monopoly. All the money spent by the government subsidising and all the money spent by passengers should be going into running the service, not enriching a minority.