Some would say that corporations and their quest for ever
increasing shareholder's equity and quarterly profits wreaks of greed,
corruption, and everything that is wrong in our society and
civilization. Okay so, I am not here to defend any big corporation, they
can very well take care of themselves, still, let look a little deeper
here before we point too many fingers shall we?
First, for a corporation to make more money, it must produce more of what society needs, wants, and desires - provided all things are equal and we are walking our talk when it comes to free-market capitalism. Unfortunately, we aren't are we? We have a terrible challenge with a pay-to-play government in Washington DC, with lobbyists making twice that of a US Congressperson. There is no honor in any of that, but much of the competitive force in our economy is played there instead of in the free-market place where all debts are settled by efficiency, and delivery of goods and services.
Remember, I didn't say corporations are perfect, they have all sorts of issues, like nepotism for instance, but what I am saying is that the system they are playing in is not as it was designed to be - basically with all the crony capitalism going on, we are practically proving Karl Marx right in his work Das Capital, not that Adam Smith didn't pre-warn us of this problem 100-years prior to Marx.
Not long ago, an acquaintance, Jared Kent explained to me; "Wall street demands the corporation not only get values but get very high scoreboard values. Another area I see this breaking down is in generational ownership. Just because a father was an ethical thinker does not mean a son will be, but the son will be immediately into the top tier of thinkers based on his/her ownership and scoreboard value."
Right! I talked about Nepotism, Jared is correct, the genetic son may well receive wealth passed down and smart genes to use as he pleases - but that doesn't make him ethical. Beware, skip-generation success models are real, and Nepotism is dangerous, not always but very often that is the case, although I did read an interesting book once; "In Defense of Elitism" by William Henry III, who also noted that the son, may very well have all the right potentials, upbringing and a deep understanding simply being so exposed to that of the parent's domain.
So, I think I concur, it "does not mean the son will be," as Jared says, but it also doesn't mean he won't be. We often see bad apples not falling far from the tree too, or is it just that we are looking for such? Remember the stereotype traps. Next, if we look at college buddies hijacking corporate boards and voting themselves higher salaries we see a similar issue.
But, in the end if the corporation does not provide the goods and services that the society needs, wants and desires, then all bets are off, as that corporation will fail to return on invested equity or match the streets expectations in subsequent future quarters. Maybe, the system is self-righting after all and maybe that's why nepotism is often so frowned upon and it a company cannot keep the scoreboard in their favor, they will lose the game. Please consider all this and think on it.
First, for a corporation to make more money, it must produce more of what society needs, wants, and desires - provided all things are equal and we are walking our talk when it comes to free-market capitalism. Unfortunately, we aren't are we? We have a terrible challenge with a pay-to-play government in Washington DC, with lobbyists making twice that of a US Congressperson. There is no honor in any of that, but much of the competitive force in our economy is played there instead of in the free-market place where all debts are settled by efficiency, and delivery of goods and services.
Remember, I didn't say corporations are perfect, they have all sorts of issues, like nepotism for instance, but what I am saying is that the system they are playing in is not as it was designed to be - basically with all the crony capitalism going on, we are practically proving Karl Marx right in his work Das Capital, not that Adam Smith didn't pre-warn us of this problem 100-years prior to Marx.
Not long ago, an acquaintance, Jared Kent explained to me; "Wall street demands the corporation not only get values but get very high scoreboard values. Another area I see this breaking down is in generational ownership. Just because a father was an ethical thinker does not mean a son will be, but the son will be immediately into the top tier of thinkers based on his/her ownership and scoreboard value."
Right! I talked about Nepotism, Jared is correct, the genetic son may well receive wealth passed down and smart genes to use as he pleases - but that doesn't make him ethical. Beware, skip-generation success models are real, and Nepotism is dangerous, not always but very often that is the case, although I did read an interesting book once; "In Defense of Elitism" by William Henry III, who also noted that the son, may very well have all the right potentials, upbringing and a deep understanding simply being so exposed to that of the parent's domain.
So, I think I concur, it "does not mean the son will be," as Jared says, but it also doesn't mean he won't be. We often see bad apples not falling far from the tree too, or is it just that we are looking for such? Remember the stereotype traps. Next, if we look at college buddies hijacking corporate boards and voting themselves higher salaries we see a similar issue.
But, in the end if the corporation does not provide the goods and services that the society needs, wants and desires, then all bets are off, as that corporation will fail to return on invested equity or match the streets expectations in subsequent future quarters. Maybe, the system is self-righting after all and maybe that's why nepotism is often so frowned upon and it a company cannot keep the scoreboard in their favor, they will lose the game. Please consider all this and think on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment