4 ms·
It doesn’t in current state of affairs. There was a time - however brief - that it wasn’t line it is now. Where shareholders and investors didn’t have primacy
by no_wizard 2y ago
It doesn’t in current state of affairs.
There was a time - however brief - that it wasn’t line it is now. Where shareholders and investors didn’t have primacy
- MichaelZuo 2y agoThis doesn’t make sense, considering more than half of the population are shareholders (at least in the US). By definition, if a large enough group wields the majority of political power then they will always have “primacy”. It’s like complaining about rivers flowing downhill instead of uphill.
- no_wizard 2y agoIt’s a clear reference to shareholder primacy and it’s not wielded democratically nor is it something most even have a chance to participate in even though most have stock market exposure through retail buys, 401Ks, IRAs etc.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoHow does this affect the prior comment?
- no_wizard 2y agoHalf of the us population being shareholders doesn’t translate to a seat the table economically, not to mention is a red herring to the topic The real issue is that there is legal doctrine that makes it hard for businesses to not be dominated by their largest investors / shareholders in such a way that extracting short term profits every quarter has taken precedence over building healthy sustainable businesses. Everyone is chasing the absolute most % of profit to the detriment to even the business
- MichaelZuo 2y agoWho do you think supports and reinforces the “legal doctrine” on a daily basis? Some mysterious beings outside of society?