They are economic entities. Not people. They do not own themselves otherwise a majority shareholder couldn't control them. — Cheshire
They are legal entities; that is not a person. The board is elected by the shareholders dumbass....aka the owners of the company.They are legal persons, not real persons. And they do own themselves, legally. That’s not the same thing as running itself, which is done by real humans. Mostly the board of directors and CEO. — Xtrix
They are legal entities; that is not a person. — Cheshire
The board is elected by the shareholders dumbass — Cheshire
aka the owners of the company. — Cheshire
The shareholders are not the owners of corporations. Neither are the board of directors, who run the company. The board of directors, although elected by shareholders, have no legal obligation to do what the shareholders want, and often don’t. There are plenty of court cases about this as well. — Xtrix
The shareholders are not the owners of corporations. Neither are the board of directors, who run the company. The board of directors, although elected by shareholders, have no legal obligation to do what the shareholders want, and often don’t. There are plenty of court cases about this as well.
— Xtrix
Fascinating. Now, tell me how they are different than worker-owners? — Cheshire
Oh, so the meaning of ownership changes when your position changes. All of a sudden that legal sense in regards to legal liability and direction of assets is a hologram. Which is it? Is a corporation owned or not by actual people.Well compare Microsoft to Mondragon, for example. Both corporations. One (it's claimed) is owned by shareholders, the other (also claimed) by workers. — Xtrix
Oh, so the meaning of ownership changes when your position changes. — Cheshire
All of a sudden that legal sense in regards to legal liability and direction of assets is a hologram. — Cheshire
Which is it? Is a corporation owned or not by actual people. — Cheshire
A corporation is not owned by anyone; a corporation, by law, as a legal person, owns itself. Persons, legal or otherwise, cannot be owned -- at least since we got rid of slavery. — Xtrix
Oh, so the meaning of ownership changes when your position changes.
— Cheshire
No. — Xtrix
About wraps that one up.Are you just an idiot? Apparently. Mondragon is OWNED BY THE WORKERS. That's a "lie"? Then why repeat the lie: — Xtrix
This doesn't make sense. I assume you mean here that the shareholders aren't in charge of corporations.The shareholders are not the owners of corporations. — Xtrix
The ordinary argument goes that as the shareholders elect the board of directors, they have the ultimate power. This is perhaps what you call "The shareholder primacy theory" or am I mistaken?The board of directors, although elected by shareholders, have no legal obligation to do what the shareholders want, and often don’t. — Xtrix
I think I understand your argument.A corporation is not owned by anyone; a corporation, by law, as a legal person, owns itself. Persons, legal or otherwise, cannot be owned -- at least since we got rid of slavery. — Xtrix
Good, so a worker-owner is a nonsense term by your own reasoning. — Cheshire
The shareholders are not the owners of corporations.
— Xtrix
This doesn't make sense. I assume you mean here that the shareholders aren't in charge of corporations. — ssu
The ordinary argument goes that as the shareholders elect the board of directors, they have the ultimate power. This is perhaps what you call "The shareholder primacy theory" or am I mistaken? — ssu
Always happy to disagree with an honest person. Cheers.Not nonsense, just legally wrong. But it's true, I do use it to refer to workers (rather than shareholders) being the "owners" of the company, because that's the conventional view and common language. But yes, legally speak it's not correct. — Xtrix
Ok, your response above was good and I got it. We avoided here stupid misunderstandings and bickering. (We will leave that to the future issues and topics :wink: )Here again I'm talking about legality, not what happens in practice. — Xtrix
Well, just add the fact that a huge chunk of those shareholders are institutional investors: mutual funds, hedge funds, pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds. Snd naturally other corporations. This makes it totally different to lets say that you have the board of Microsoft and there as a representative of the shareholders is Bill Gates as a representative of the shares he owns.You would certainly think that, because shareholders have the power to vote in board members, that they just vote in people who share their views, and vote themselves in -- and that's true. But it's also more complicated than that, because rarely is one person or company the controlling shareholder. — Xtrix
Ok, your response above was good and I got it. We avoided here stupid misunderstandings and bickering. (We will leave that to the future issues and topics :wink: ) — ssu
This transforms the corporation from being lead by founders to a high paid caste of professional leader-employees taking over the corporation. The corporations becomes dis-attached from humans as owners. Large family owned corporations are rare, even if there are those still. — ssu
(5) Where do the profits mostly go, in today's typical fortune 500 company?
(a) Infrastructure (factories, buildings, equipment)
(b) Workers wages, benefits
(c) Expanding the workforce (hiring)
(d) Dividends
(e) Stock buybacks
(f) Paying taxes
(g) Advertising
(h) Lobbying
(i) Research and development (creating new products) — Xtrix
(5) Where do the profits mostly go, in today's typical fortune 500 company? — Xtrix
It wouldn't make sense to say a companies profits go to wages, because those aren't profits by definition. — Cheshire
In fact, all profits go to dividends or retained earnings or a reduction in retained earnings from treasury stock transactions. — Cheshire
No. Profits can be reinvested in the company by building new factories, buying more equipment, renovation, research, etc. They can also go to increasing worker salaries, to dividends, or to stock buybacks. — Xtrix
You are right about the fact a problem exist, but what's needed is an innovative solution that functions with the rest of the economic forces in play. — Cheshire
The solution you are offering is an old one. Basically, force companies into being their own labor union or something of the sort. — Cheshire
"What conceptions of wealth drive today's economic activity — James Laughlin
Today, there is also the tendency to regard nationalization and privatization of industries and services as efforts aimed at redistribution. This is not so at all. — James Laughlin
It mostly only results in concentration of wealth. — James Laughlin
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.