On Dec 1, 2008, at 9:21 AM, Charles Turner wrote:
> Well, I was keying off Doug's comment: "...but I can say that these
> overlaps just don't seem all that significant." In the words of
> Domhoff's essay, I'd say that Doug found no "strategic intent" in the
> composition of corporate boards:
>
> "This generates a community of directors who are not sitting on two or
> more boards for the purpose of cementing ties between the companies,
> i.e., with what is called "strategic intent" [...], but because they
> have experience with the kinds of issues that boards face."
>
> I view the quote(s) you selected as a comment on the more general
> question of how social networks of the wealthy maintain ruling class
> power, and I'd assume that Doug would support that analysis, but let
> me
> not speak for him.
I agree with Domhoff's analysis. Board interlocks, these days, are about the creation of a corporate elite, a reciprocal exercise of power and mutual inflation of prestige (plus some cash and some nice perks). But the specific interlocks just don't seem all that important. And in the case of the health insurance companies, the specific interlocks barely exist, if they do at all.
Doug