82,891
edits
Stakeholder capitalism: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
=== About that disenfranchised underclass at the margins of society === | === About that disenfranchised underclass at the margins of society === | ||
[[File:Water Scarcity.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Well, if it were up to me I’d | [[File:Water Scarcity.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Well, if it were up to me I’d spend more time managing the risk in my loan book tbh.]] | ||
The disenfranchised minorities at the margins of our community do need a voice. As we argue [[Critical theory|elsewhere]], an optimal society is pluralistic, tolerant, it defends those at the margins and, [[all other things being equal]], prefers their interests when they conflict with the majority’s. The question is not ''whether'' to protect their interests, but ''how''. There are plenty of better ways: representative democracy, for a start. | The disenfranchised minorities at the margins of our community do need a voice. As we argue [[Critical theory|elsewhere]], an optimal society is pluralistic, tolerant, it defends those at the margins and, [[all other things being equal]], prefers their interests when they conflict with the majority’s. The question is not ''whether'' to protect their interests, but ''how''. There are plenty of better ways: representative democracy, for a start. | ||
But even so, shareholders are not monolithic investing homunculi: they are ordinary people with disposable income. If they want to beautify the inner city, save polar bears or fight water scarcity, they can do it themselves. They do not need to that through their corporate investments. That is a far better, more controlled, more efficient allocation of capital — it puts control in the investors’ hands, where it should be. | But even so, shareholders are not monolithic investing homunculi: they are ordinary people with disposable income. If they want to beautify the inner city, save polar bears or fight water scarcity, they can do it themselves. They do not need to that through their corporate investments. That is a far better, more controlled, more efficient allocation of capital — it puts control in the investors’ hands, where it should be. | ||
We cannot fathom the moral agenda — if there is one<ref>And honestly, is there likely to be a moral dimension to investing in a ''bank'' stock?</ref> — behind an investor’s decision to invest in a bank stock. Who knows if they care about water scarcity, or polar bears? But if the alternatives are “assume they are basically after a capital return” or “let the chief executive decide what the moral priorities of her shareholders are”, then it is not a difficult choice. | |||
===About those executives=== | |||
The proposition that a disembodied pile of papers is intrinsically psychopathic is a bit far-fetched. The proposition that the collected shareholders of all listed companies in the world are all psychopaths is even more far fetched. The idea that, against the average, those who make it to the top of the greasy corporate pole have an element of the sociopath to their personalities? That’s not far-fetched at all. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Stakeholder]] | *[[Stakeholder]] | ||
*[[Equities]] | *[[Equities]] | ||