Finally
only if it will keep production and quality of the product at the same or better than before staff cuts. Assuming that they understand the business process.First, I've seen plenty of examples where CEOs don't seem to understand the business process of the companies they're running. But beyond that, I suspect most of them don't give a shit about the quality of the product, so long as it keeps selling. And both driving your competition out of business and a good ad campaign can be cheaper than improving your quality.
Any public statement of a publically traded company has to accurately portray what can be proved to public oversight such as the SEC FCC etc.More like what can't be disproved. And when it comes to the SEC, the difference between those two is HUGE.
They are also beholden to their stockholders who are inclined to sue if false statements are made by senior management. [snip] The same measures of veracity do not apply to government officials to whom their supporters will believe any thing they say, they opponants will always believe that they are being facile in their statements.So it's not that business leaders are more or less honest than politicians, it's that voters are more gullible than stockholders? The only way to make any sense of that is if you believe that having enough money to be a stockholder proves you are smarter than people who don't invest in stocks.
So, your two positions seem to be:
1. Corporate executives and spokespeople must be telling the truth about why they do what they do because the SEC tells them to.
2. Stockholders are smarter than voters.
