Ser Arthur Hightower Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Most publicly traded companies are owned largely by large funds and investment vehicles, rather than a few dozen individuals. In that sense they have many thousands (or even millions) of owners. For many, if not most, large companies, it is the funds who have the most influence, and there will always be a significant number of then. Compare that to government ownership when the government or its appointed civil servants make all the decisions. So yes, it spreads ownership relative to state ownership. especially when you consider that the government is comprised of people who are obliged to show similar views for political reasons. Similarly, for all large public companies (that is, companies that are traded on an exchange,) there is a very high level of visibility and accountability of both owners and directors. You probably have a better chance of naming the CEOs of the major banks than you do of the NHS, for example. Generally speaking, it's far easier to force out a CEO than a civil servant, even when you know who the civil servants are. The influence of the ordinary shareholders is so negligible as to be non-existent, saying they are all "owners" as if there is some sort of equality within the structure of a corporation is either incredibly naive or intentionally misleading. And indeed one of the few effects that the masses of ordinary shareholders have on a company is to demand constant quarterly profits, which can have the negative effect of preventing major investment in products or services that might be a good thing for the company and its customers in the long term but means the company runs a loss for a certain period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab aeterno Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 The influence of the ordinary shareholders is so negligible as to be non-existent, saying they are all "owners" as if there is some sort of equality within the structure of a corporation is either incredibly naive or intentionally misleading. And indeed one of the few effects that the masses of ordinary shareholders have on a company is to demand constant quarterly profits, which can have the negative effect of preventing major investment in products or services that might be a good thing for the company and its customers in the long term but means the company runs a loss for a certain period of time. So, firstly, I was referring not to individual ordinary shareholders, but to the large funds and trusts which represent a very large number of investors. It is those bodies which have the greatest amount of influence, outside of individual companies or persons with a large stake in the firm. I said nothing about equality, just about mass of ownership. Secondly, it is of course true that there are some significant mis-incentives that have emerged from the modern shareholder model, and in some cases, this has done real damage to companies. The best way to deal with this, I would argue, would be some targeted and subtle realignment of the incentive structures across the market. ETA: It is also worth noting, of course, that democracy has a largely similar effect. Governments are incentivised to provide short term returns to the electorate at the expense of the longer-term health of the country or economy. Despite the disincentives, it is still preferable, I would argue, to have an industry comprised of 6 companies, even if they each only have one owner, than an industry of just one company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebble thats Stubby Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I would say that multiple competing companies are often better under private management. but if there is only one company providing a service then I believe on average the general public are better served if that company owned by the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJDonegal Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Sinn Fein were playing it cool, but it is hard to imagine a reelected Stormont looking very different to the current one in which case a unionist+nationalist deal would be necessary to form an administration Too true. Just check out this graph of the make-up of Stormont following previous elections. Then he is clearly deluded about our capabilities and what is achievable. Though I wouldn't say that's a first for the foreign policy of British Prime Ministers. Who he exactly thinks will replace Assad I have no idea, considering that all of the groups fighting are unacceptable to someone in NATO, if he thinks the west can make a new government from scratch then I could point out a few very good examples from the 21st century alone of that failing horribly. It's a jump to say that thinking Syria could do without both Assad and ISIL means he thinks we have the means to do so and instil an adequate, Western-Approved replacement. Nobody think it's realistic that the West can achieve that. You only have to look at the ongoing chaos in Iraq (next-bloody-door) to know that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share Posted September 11, 2015 In the other Labour election going on, they've just announced Sadiq Khan is going to be their candidate for Mayor of London Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 He's a very formidable strategist, pollster, and spin doctor. But, I don't see how he can turn things round this late in the day.That was the reaction of a lot of people. This morning the Conservatives say that Crosby has been consulting with them since March. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northernmonkey Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 In the other Labour election going on, they've just announced Sadiq Khan is going to be their candidate for Mayor of London Seems like a good choice. He's fairly likeable and he'll be up against Zac Goldsmith - the son of a billionaire and another Etonian. Even in London that should give him an advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HexMachina Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 "Right to die" voted down in the commons Edit: Oops, forgot the link Assisted Dying Bill: MPs reject 'right to die' law http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34208624 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share Posted September 11, 2015 Seems like a good choice. He's fairly likeable and he'll be up against Zac Goldsmith - the son of a billionaire and another Etonian. Even in London that should give him an advantage. #YesWeKhan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCracken Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 JezWeKhan sorry coulnt resist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Arthur Hightower Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 "Right to die" voted down in the commons Edit: Oops, forgot the link Assisted Dying Bill: MPs reject 'right to die' lawhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34208624 Boo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Mongoose Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 I'm on the edge of my seat, waiting to know who's going to lose the next election (if they make it that far......). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 I'm on the edge of my seat, waiting to know who's going to lose the next election (if they make it that far......). Andrew Neil reports that everyone accepts Corbyn has won. The only doubt is whether it's 50%+ on round 1 or just short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Now being reported Corbyn has won 60%+. Labour have committed mass suicide. Images of Jonestown come to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Arthur Hightower Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Can anyone pretend to be surprised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Might it be possible that Jeremy Corbyn will neither destroy nor save the Labour Party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Might it be possible that Jeremy Corbyn will neither destroy nor save the Labour Party? Corbyn has won by a landslide. Labour is too big to kill off. But, I could see a Corbyn-led party losing another 20 seats to the Tories, even if they regain some in Scotland from the SNP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 No and yes. No, because of the polling. Yes, because it's unusual for parties to commit mass suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lessthanluke Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Now being reported Corbyn has won 60%+. Labour have committed mass suicide. Images of Jonestown come to mind. You're being a tad over dramatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VarysTheSpider Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Mass hara-kiri. Looking forward to seeing what his shadow cabinet will look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.