comment: >
  
  But isn't that in so many words just proving the point? Like getting out would have been poor monetary decision (mismanagement) so that they're just staying in to keep making the most money? I get what your saying but I think the point is that if they said for moral and political reasons they would get out, they should get out regardless of taking the fiscal hit. Besides, I don't think the sec is going to grill any execs for getting out of Russia because of the war, that would look horrible. They don't even enforce their own policy int he states.
context: If no sanctions were put against Russia,most western companies who left would still be operating in Russia now. Those companies who closed their businesses left because they supply chain was disrupted by sanctions. Companies don't care about how many children are shelled. They care about profits. >
  
  Corporations are not people.  
  A corporation is a legal fiction that enables durable contracts that are not void upon death of the contracting party. 
  That's it.  
  Corporations only have one priority, "Maximize shareholder wealth". 
  This is why Citizens United is bullshit. If a Corporation cannot be put in prison or electrocuted in Old Sparky at Huntzville, Texas, it is NOT a person.  
  Corporations are amoral, profit-seeking mechanisms. No corporation would pull out of Russia as long as its shareholders could see returns for doing business there.  
  And for those who haven't been paying attention, the 'investment class' is a bunch of amoral parasites as well.  
  This is why Corporations must be forced to 'do the right thing' by making it a losing proposition for their shareholders to continue doing business in Russia. Therefore, sanctions.  
  And Corporations (aka their managers and shareholders) will FIGHT sanctions, laws, taxes designed to obstruct their making profit-driven decisions that are evil. So that means we-the-people must insist our elected representatives fight back and make them happen. >
  
  We really need to bring back criminal liability for corporate executives and board of directors. >
  
  No chance that was ever implemented for even 10 seconds >
  
  Bring back as in before corporations were a thing all business were proprietorships where the owners were legally responsible for their actions. Why not keep corporations but remove the limit to liability of it's owners/decision makers >
  
  Something something RISK!! something something RED TAPE!! something something FREEDOM!! >
  
  Well, I mean it would only be fair, right? After all, all those JOB CREATORS have to take all that RISK, which is why they get paid so much, right? >
  
  Ah yes, the awful risk of having to sell their labor for a wage, just like the rest of us. >
  
  The horror!! >
  
  wonder how they transfer money to pay for goods, send profit to HQ etc. Or are there so many loopholes still that sanctions dont really bite? >
  
  In truth it's more the opposite. The war started and effective sanctions landed so hard and so fast that companies had no way to divest their assets and relocate. Abandoning their operations is basically the only way for most of them to leave, which would immediately trip off fraud and mismanagement claims (for publicly traded companies at least, or really want company with loans).
  The article itself is kind of BS in that is using the most absolutist standard possible. Like a company that's closed their shop and still paying employees a stipend is still "doing business in Russia". When in truth most of them have shut down a lot, they just haven't turned the keys over to the new owner yet. Not like most of them can even find buyers to begin with.
  There's a lot of complicating factors that IMO sensationalist articles deliberately avoid discussing. Because they want reactions like your own, where people think it's business as usual over there. It's not. Just kind of hard to tell the bank you have to stop paying your mortgage because you donated your collateral to charity and stopped working.