> Where there’s a funder, there’s necessarily a shareholder. Otherwise there’s > no accountability.
The problem with shareholder accountability is that it is, in principle, uniquely concerned with profitability. The eventual taking into account of all other issues, such as working conditions, product quality or suitability, environmental effects, depend solely upon their impact upon profitability, and not upon their general effects upon society or the environment. Accountability should concern all stakeholders, be it all workers in the company, clients, suppliers, society and the environment at large. Profits “earned” by shareholders, who have a parasitic relationship with the company, should be abolished. > I guess this makes me an apologist for the status quo, but I’m still not > seeing how these proposed alternatives would be superior in practice. Superior according to which criteria? Certainly capitalism has been a boon for bringing extraordinary living conditions to the privileged classes, but at a criminal cost to all others and the environment. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
