Aren't the sort of CEOs and board members (be they of accounting firms or other corporations) who have the ability to undercut the interest of other shareholders actually _owners_ themselves, rather than just managers? "On average, a CEO holds about 8 percent of the company's equity" (Cynthia Hobgood, "Highly paid CEOs," _Washington Business Journal_ August 2, 2002, <http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2002/08/05/focus5.html>). Therefore, the conflict in question here is not between allegedly separate classes of "managers" and "owners" but among one faction of owners (owners who actually control firms, accounting or non-accounting), another faction of owners (whose incomes mainly come from surplus value but do not individually have controlling interests in particular firms), and nominal "owners" (who are in reality non-owners but actually petty producers and proletarians who are forced to defer part of their compensation, to have it controlled by actual owner-managers, and worse yet in some cases to have it tied up with the fortune of just one corporation -- the very one that employs them)? -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://solidarity.igc.org/>