>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?
Yeah. They always had the potential power, but it didn't become actualized until the late 1970s/early 1980s (in the U.S., that is). Though in the old days, shares were held mainly by individuals; as institutional investors came to account for a larger portion of shareownership in the 1960s and 1970s, it became easier for shareholder to organize and lobby.
>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, ....??
Increasing shareholder value basically means doing everything you can to boost profits - cutting employment, busting unions, reducing social responsibilities, shutting divisions, abandoning risky long-term projects, outsourcing, etc. Firms were a bit slower to do those things in the past.
Doug