A big focus in the Corporate World is on trying to manage the seperation of ownership and management. The equivalent in the Political World is seperation of government and the electorate.
The difference is that in the corporate world, some people have significantly more than one vote, and some have none. Capitalism is by nature not democratic. Yes there is a move towards more involvement of employees in decision making, and a focus on communicating strategy and discussion... BUT at the end of the day someone has to make a call, and it is not done by a majority decision. The buck stops somewhere. Normally the CEO. The CEO is accountable to the owners. Yes, this is where it becomes `partly' democratic in that a majority holding of 51% pretty much gives you control.
But if you are part of the 49%, and you are unhappy... you sell and buy elsewhere. I suppose that is the equivalent of packing your bags and leaving the country. Except it is easier to sell your shares than to move countries.
What loyalty should minority shareholders show if they think those running the company are not using their money the way they think they should?
What loyalty should people show if they think the government is not managing their interests properly?
5 comments:
I don't wanna expose my gross ignorance about this stuff too much.
But, maybe you should explain what you mean by loyalty... as per my understanding, unsurprisingly, I'd say exactly zero. inverst where return is highest. live where you wanna live, end of story.
Well yes and no.
I agree that in a capitalist philosophy the best decision should be where is the best return.
BUT... the answer is not always clear. Normally decisions made are based on short term performance. The average Mutual Fund in the US holds a stock for 1.9 years. By any token that is not enough time to realise the proper return.
Japan and Germany are known for thinking longer term.
The question of loyalty with countries is slightly different though. With companies, if you sell and things turn out well (contrary to your prediction) you have to pay more to buy the stock back... so your can return.
What right do people who ditch a country have to return once things are `all sorted'.
The risk seems disproportionately weighted to those who are loyal and the return is spread out evenly.
Doesn't seem fair to me.
"The risk seems disproportionately weighted to those who are loyal and the return is spread out evenly"
I'm not sure I understand.
I have no problem with people disappearing and then returning when things get better. People should be able to flow back and forth over borders like water.
So you get the good... but not the bad...
and that is fair?
I think everybody should do what they view as best for themselves. If people wanna stay through the shit, then good for them, I don't think there should be any indirect payment for this.
Post a Comment