--
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:22:32
Doug Henwood wrote:
>Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>>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
>But didn't "increasing shareholder value" save the American economy? If we had continued investing in the the rust belt we'd be where Russia is now.
Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/