From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Tue Sep 05 2000 - 10:38:24 MDT
"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> > > A corporate CEO, chairman, or president is held accountable by the board of
> > > directors (i.e. congress) who themselves are held accountable by the
> > > stockholders (the body of voters).
> > >
> > > If a corporation is a dictatorship, then so is every 'democratic' society that
> > > ever existed, and there is no such thing as democracy.
> >
> > Err...not quite. In a democracy, one person = one vote, and buying
> > votes is (supposedly) out of bounds. In a corporation, one stock = one
> > vote, and buying stock is how one is supposed to acquire votes. Thus,
> > those with the most money invested in the company have the largest say,
> > and they're going to be interested in making more money with their
> > money. They also tend to vote themselves into the board of directors,
> > thus making the board in practice accountable to no one but itself
> > (since they are typically the majority stockholders).
>
> In a world where the opinions of the population are controlled or manipulated by
> the media, those who own the presses are just as manipulative of a democratic
> system as a rich man is of a corporation.
Agreed. But the owners of the presses are not necessarily the same as
the owners of those who hold high elected offices. Plus, it is
possible, even if rare, for non-corporate-owned voices to gain a
significant foothold among the populace. A rich man owning a
corporation also controls all official communication in said
corporation.
> > > An employee has the choice whether or not to be a voter, by buying stock, just
> > > as every citizen of a democratic country is free to choose whether or not to
> > > vote. Is the elected president of a country a dictator simply because some part
> > > of the population decides not to vote?
> >
> > Unless said employee has lots of money to invest - which is almost never
> > the case - said votes will be worthless in practice, as described above.
>
> Not so. The employees typically outnumber other investors by far, and if they
> are unionized, their union would also tend to be one of the largest stockholders
> in the company (if they were smart).
Employee numbers don't matter; just the total amount of stock owned.
The tactic you cite is a good way to balance executive control;
unfortunately, it is far easier for an executive (one person) to recruit
other large shareholders with a consistent message (and, sometimes,
access to company info that the rank and file are forbidden to know)
than it is for a union.
(Granted, this is only for companies with a lot of union employees,
which excludes certain industries...but it is my impression - possibly
false - that those industries also tend to have flatter management
hierarchies, and thus don't have as much of a problem of seemingly
arbitrary executive decisions.)
> A voter in a nation of 200-300 million people is worth far less than an employee
> owning 100-1000 shares of stock in the company they are employed by.
Even if said company has over 200-300 billion shares outstanding? The
numbers (percent of control) disagree.
> When the
> parties are in league with the major media, which uses its propaganda power to
> program the sheeple, the vote of one individual is always outvoted as well.
And many investors (the general public) aren't sheeple too?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:47 MST