Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Brenda Rosser wrote:
>
> >On reading Galbraith [clip]
>
> That was sort of true of the 1950s and 1960s, when Galbraith was
> writing things like that, but no longer. Now, shareholders rule, and
> managers serve at their pleasure. I wrote a whole book more or less
> about this called Wall Street, but it'd be self-serving for me to say
> too much more than that.
>
Might it not be correct to say that "shareholders" (the 1% or so who count) have _always_ determined the policies of the corporations, but that during the glory days of the '50s and '60s their errand boys were doing such a "good" job that there was no need to waste one's time interfering?
Incidentally, I still don't see the real point in increasing "shareholder value" or whatever. It seldom reflects (if I understand your _Wall Street_) actual change of wealth at the 'base.' Was it just a slogan for political purposes -- similar to the scam of claiming that it's the estate tax that drives family farmers out of business? It makes good rhetoric on the WSF editorial page, ....??
Carrol