Keith Hudson wrote:
> If there is one thing that multinational corporations have learned in the
> last 20 years it is that local management and boards of directors are
> highly desirable.
Yeah right, that's why they push for GATS, FTAA, EU etc. -- "All power to
the locals !"
> "**no democratic control at all**" Really? What about shareholders? What
> about investment funds? What about business analysts? What about the press?
This again shows that you don't know what democracy is. Shareholders are
not representative in the least, and only care for their own personal
profit maximization, which goes at the expense of the public. The same
goes for investors and business analysts. The press is mostly owned by
corporations (or they ARE corporations themselves) and also in industry's
pocket through advertizing. The press is instrumental in "selling" the
neoliberal "reforms" to the public, and is even performing them on itself
(merger-mania etc.).
> Two days ago it was announced that the (new) chief executive of Railtrack
> in the UK was going to receive a bonus of US$320,000 and share options
> worth $635,000. Since Railtrack has been incompetently managed hitherto,
> and since there's no evidence so far that the new chief executive is going
> to do the job any better, there was instant anger by shareholders and
> comments in the media. Today, he decided to relinquish his bonus and
> options.
The shareholders were probably anxious that if he gets too much money,
they will get less. I doubt that they protested out of concern for the
rail passengers and employees. Regarding public pressure: what sanctions
would the public have had if the CEO had insisted on his bonus &options ?
To change to a foreign railway company? <G>
Also note that the customer population of a corporation is usually only
a small faction of the whole population, and much too dispersed
geographically to excert any "concerted action" or democratic control
over the corporation's actions. And in most cases of corporate
misbehavior (external costs, environmental and social), the customers
even have a vested INTEREST in the misbehavior, as it makes the products
cheaper for them ! There, the NON-customers would have to put pressure
on the corporation, but how should they do this ?
> Without well-satisfied customers shareholders won't receive dividends and
> management won't receive salaries. Yes, of course, cartels don't care a
> great deal for customers but they tend not to last for long in modern times.
The trick is to give customers no real choice -- Micro$oft is the most
successful corporation in history. Does M$ have "well-satisfied customers"?
Hey, this trick even works with political parties... (U$ 2-party duopoly:
"The best politicians money can buy!")
Chris
