I am not arguing for a solution, at the moment anyway, but withdrawing "real" money (read: CalPERS or some such entity) from the market would have a dramatic affect on how business is done and for whom. Take away the dominant corporate consituency of today -- shareholders -- and that leaves it open for the workers to fill the void. AFterall, you can't have a product or service without real people working (unless, you are Enron, the world's greatest company)
eric
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> eric dorkin wrote:
>
> >I would say this Doug: what is consistent and
> >necessary across the board in all of those
> >transactions is the same "market" for stocks. To
> the
> >extent that the value of the stock on the "market"
> is
> >driven by concerns antithetical to the worker
> (e.g.,
> >layoffs = profits), then any particpant providing
> >liquidity to the market is complicit. That does
> not
> >mean they are all capitalists, but that they all
> >benefit from the subjugation of workers to capital.
> >Just a thought.
>
> Yup, sure, I agree completely. But there's a
> political/economic/subjective difference between
> being an active
> participant and a passive beneficiary. And there are
> some who benefit
> to the tune of 10 shares, and some to the tune of 1
> million shares.
>
> Doug
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com