82,891
edits
Stakeholder capitalism: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
=== 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 spend more time managing the risk in my loan book tbh.]] | [[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.]] | ||
Of course the disenfranchised minorities at the margins of our community need a voice. As we argue [[Critical theory|elsewhere]], an optimal society is pluralistic, tolerant, defends those at the margins and, [[all other things being equal]], prefers their interests when they conflict with the majority that is perfectly able to look after itself. | |||
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 | The question before us 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 that directly. That is a far better way to allocate capital. It puts control in the investors’ hands, where it should be. Investors | |||
do not need to channel their charitable activity through the medium of their equity portfolio. | |||
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. | 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. | ||