Stakeholder vs Shareholder Capitalism

[Star]

.



"Then, [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][during the period of America's greatest growth][/FONT] most CEOs assumed they were responsible for all their stakeholders."


The Rebirth of Stakeholder Capitalism?
Robert Reich
08/09/2014


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]<snip>[/FONT]

We may be witnessing the beginning of a return to a form of capitalism that was taken for granted in America sixty years ago.

Then, most CEOs assumed they were responsible for all their stakeholders.

"The job of management," proclaimed Frank Abrams, chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey, in 1951, "is to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly interested groups ... stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large."

Johnson & Johnson publicly stated that its "first responsibility" was to patients, doctors, and nurses, and not to investors.

What changed? In the 1980s, corporate raiders began mounting unfriendly takeovers of companies that could deliver higher returns to their shareholders - if they abandoned their other stakeholders.

What changed? In the 1980s, corporate raiders began mounting unfriendly takeovers of companies that could deliver higher returns to their shareholders - if they abandoned their other stakeholders.

The raiders figured profits would be higher if the companies fought unions, cut workers' pay or fired them, automated as many jobs as possible or moved jobs abroad, shuttered factories, abandoned their communities, and squeezed their customers.

<snip>

.

 

[Nosmo King]

Another change is the way to get rich. It used to be that, in order to get rich, one would have to be inventive. Come up with the next great idea in consumer products or the manufacturing process. That's when the 'rich' could accurately be described as 'job creators'.

But the way to get rich now is to make a killing in the market where nothing is made but money. No inventiveness, save inventing a new way to game the system.

Which way is more productive? Which way is more equitable for all stakeholders? Which way is more noble? And which way 'creates' American jobs and strengthens the American middle class?

 

[Stephanie]

Oh boy, spew from the little man, Reich. what the hell is a stakeholder?

what's he going do FORCE companies to do what he wants ? Unfortunately, mush brain college kids (who hasn't had to deal with the Real world yet) eats this stuff up

we still live in a Free country don't we

 

[Nosmo King]

Oh boy, spew from the little man, Reich. what the hell is a stakeholder?

what's he going do FORCE companies to do what he wants ? Unfortunately, mush brain college kids (who hasn't had to deal with the Real world yet) eats this stuff up

we still live in a Free country don't we

You keep reading just what you want to read. But nowhere in this article is "force" mentioned. "Stakeholders" were defined in the article, but your level of comprehension failed to detect that.

And there is no doubt that Robert Reich is vastly more intelligent than you.

 

[Star]

Oh boy, spew from the little man, Reich. what the hell is a stakeholder?

what's he going do FORCE companies to do what he wants ? Unfortunately, mush brain college kids (who hasn't had to deal with the Real world yet) eats this stuff up

we still live in a Free country don't we

You keep reading just what you want to read. But nowhere in this article is "force" mentioned. "Stakeholders" were defined in the article, but your level of comprehension failed to detect that.

And there is no doubt that Robert Reich is vastly more intelligent than you.

Many-----many Republican's ability to misunderstand and/or overlook parts of, or all of an article(s) is well known. Reading impaired? From the OP article,- for the reading impaired... this quote: "But we're all stakeholders in the American economy"

.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Yeah, stakeholders can exist and exert influence on management when the corporate sector is firmly anchored in a society where tight bonds exist.

Today's liberals and rich elites frown on nationalism - they fancy themselves as cosmopolitans. A liberal in San Francisco will have more in common with a liberal in New York City and a liberal in London and a liberal in Paris than he will with the conservative accountant who works for him, with the Christian check-out girl at the supermarket, with red-neck bubba driving his General Lee.

IF you devalue bonds to your countrymen, then you become a mercenary - you're willing to sell out your country in order advance the interests of your new cosmopolitan class or your own interests.

Look at corporate leaders, the rich elite and the leading Democrats - they have more sympathy for illegal infiltrators and their hardships than they do for the poor of America and even if they are absent sympathy, they're willing to advance the interests of the infiltrators in order to boost their own profits, own political coalitions, and their own personal interests by keeping down the price paid to maids, nannies and gardeners.

This is part and parcel - liberals can't have a cosmopolitan outlook and then complain that corporate leaders aren't looking out for the welfare of the nation.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Oh yes, Reich is a putz because he writes moron-level analysis that appeals to liberals but is devoid of actual critical thinking.

 

[Dot Com]

.



"Then, [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][during the period of America's greatest growth][/FONT] most CEOs assumed they were responsible for all their stakeholders."


The Rebirth of Stakeholder Capitalism?
Robert Reich
08/09/2014


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]<snip>[/FONT]

We may be witnessing the beginning of a return to a form of capitalism that was taken for granted in America sixty years ago.

Then, most CEOs assumed they were responsible for all their stakeholders.

"The job of management," proclaimed Frank Abrams, chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey, in 1951, "is to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly interested groups ... stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large."

Johnson & Johnson publicly stated that its "first responsibility" was to patients, doctors, and nurses, and not to investors.

What changed? In the 1980s, corporate raiders began mounting unfriendly takeovers of companies that could deliver higher returns to their shareholders - if they abandoned their other stakeholders.

What changed? In the 1980s, corporate raiders began mounting unfriendly takeovers of companies that could deliver higher returns to their shareholders - if they abandoned their other stakeholders.

The raiders figured profits would be higher if the companies fought unions, cut workers' pay or fired them, automated as many jobs as possible or moved jobs abroad, shuttered factories, abandoned their communities, and squeezed their customers.

<snip>

.

sounds like what Romney used to do. Vulture capitalism.

Hope we return to the original model that protected all stakeholders.

 

[Dot Com]

Yeah, stakeholders can exist and exert influence on management when the corporate sector is firmly anchored in a society where tight bonds exist.

Today's liberals and rich elites frown on nationalism - they fancy themselves as cosmopolitans. A liberal in San Francisco will have more in common with a liberal in New York City and a liberal in London and a liberal in Paris than he will with the conservative accountant who works for him, with the Christian check-out girl at the supermarket, with red-neck bubba driving his General Lee.

IF you devalue bonds to your countrymen, then you become a mercenary - you're willing to sell out your country in order advance the interests of your new cosmopolitan class or your own interests.

Look at corporate leaders, the rich elite and the leading Democrats - they have more sympathy for illegal infiltrators and their hardships than they do for the poor of America and even if they are absent sympathy, they're willing to advance the interests of the infiltrators in order to boost their own profits, own political coalitions, and their own personal interests by keeping down the price paid to maids, nannies and gardeners.

This is part and parcel - liberals can't have a cosmopolitan outlook and then complain that corporate leaders aren't looking out for the welfare of the nation.

link?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Yeah, stakeholders can exist and exert influence on management when the corporate sector is firmly anchored in a society where tight bonds exist.

Today's liberals and rich elites frown on nationalism - they fancy themselves as cosmopolitans. A liberal in San Francisco will have more in common with a liberal in New York City and a liberal in London and a liberal in Paris than he will with the conservative accountant who works for him, with the Christian check-out girl at the supermarket, with red-neck bubba driving his General Lee.

IF you devalue bonds to your countrymen, then you become a mercenary - you're willing to sell out your country in order advance the interests of your new cosmopolitan class or your own interests.

Look at corporate leaders, the rich elite and the leading Democrats - they have more sympathy for illegal infiltrators and their hardships than they do for the poor of America and even if they are absent sympathy, they're willing to advance the interests of the infiltrators in order to boost their own profits, own political coalitions, and their own personal interests by keeping down the price paid to maids, nannies and gardeners.

This is part and parcel - liberals can't have a cosmopolitan outlook and then complain that corporate leaders aren't looking out for the welfare of the nation.

link?

Hope this helps. Alternatively you can ask me a question about a point you don't understand.