Dawid
Thanks for that clarification, but it's not a legal requirement to maximise the
profits, merely what the shareholders will expect or they will take their
capital elsewhere.
I sympathise with your wariness of corporations, especially large ones. I base
my support for Google on my (perhaps naive) belief in the moral rectitude of
its management. Combined with that is the efficacy of its projects: I enjoy
using each of its gizmos. My antipathy towards Microsoft, on the other hand is
based on the opposite qualities: I mistrust it and their products are, for the
most part, bad or no fun to use.
I am tempted to read that book, but I hesitate on the grounds of trying
maintain a certain good humour in these dark winter months. I am naturallly
biased against large money-making enterprises and I am not sure that I want
that bias vindicated. There is enough to do so in the newspapers in this
country -- witness large bonus payments to bankers whose jobs are based on the
taxpayers' bailout only last year.
Now look what you've done, Dawid: you've made me swear in public, "bankers!".
Chris
;-)
On 3 Dec 2009, at 09:49, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> Chris,
>
> A individual or a company cannot, of course, take itself to court.
>
> I made the assertion that a publicly-traded corporation is legally
> mandated to
> pursue the monetary interest of its shareholders above all else.
> Certainly
> in U.S. and UK legal systems. This is, to my mind, damaging to mankind.
>
> If anybody doubts this, I suggest they read the book "The Corporation"
> by
> law professor Joel Bakan.
>
> Bakan's argument includes the point that the corporation's sole reason
> for being is to enhance the profits and power of the corporation. He
> shows
> (by citing court cases) that it is the *duty* of management to make
> money and
> that any compromise with that duty is *dereliction of duty*.
>
> Another point he illustrates (again, by citing court cases)
> is that "corporations are designed to externalize their costs."
> The corporation is "deliberately programmed, indeed legally compelled,
> to
> externalize costs without regard for the harm it may cause to people,
> communities, and the natural environment. Every cost it can unload
> onto someone
> else is a benefit to itself, a direct route to profit."
>
> It was an interesting and eye-opening read indeed, when I first laid
> eyes on it
> about 5 years ago.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|