Ok, let me see if I understand; a public bank is one owned by the government?
Ah, the penny drops! Yes.
I would argue, that while "they" do not have the best interests of the individual at heart, it is both counter-intuitive and counter-productive for "them" to not want a somewhat viable society.
Actually, legally they must not, not in the case of a publicly-held corporation. This precedent goes all the way back to Henry Ford. He decided not to pay a dividend on his stock one year, opting instead to build a factory and expand. The Dodge Brothers-the number one shareholders of the Ford Motor Corporation and a major manufacturer of parts for Ford-objected. The judge went with Dodge, forcing Ford not only to offer a dividend, but to buy out Dodge, which gave the brothers enough cash to start a rival motor company.
From this case is where we hear terms often bandied about like "enhancing shareholder value," as in that is the only job of a CEO. Yes, some of the actions of many CEOs in recent memory have been counter-productive to the interests of society at large-Enron, any one?-but had these companies not indulged in such short-term profiteering which went against the interests of society, he or she would have been staring down the legal-precedent-backed barrel of a shareholder revolt and fired.
And let's remember that big banks went public a few decades ago.
They, like Ford, must do nothing that does not make them profit, the more the better. This is what led them to eschew sound banking principles in lieu of the crap that led to the '08 collapse, not to mention '87's Black Friday and all that shit in '29.
Ah, the penny drops! Yes.
I would argue, that while "they" do not have the best interests of the individual at heart, it is both counter-intuitive and counter-productive for "them" to not want a somewhat viable society.
Actually, legally they must not, not in the case of a publicly-held corporation. This precedent goes all the way back to Henry Ford. He decided not to pay a dividend on his stock one year, opting instead to build a factory and expand. The Dodge Brothers-the number one shareholders of the Ford Motor Corporation and a major manufacturer of parts for Ford-objected. The judge went with Dodge, forcing Ford not only to offer a dividend, but to buy out Dodge, which gave the brothers enough cash to start a rival motor company.
From this case is where we hear terms often bandied about like "enhancing shareholder value," as in that is the only job of a CEO. Yes, some of the actions of many CEOs in recent memory have been counter-productive to the interests of society at large-Enron, any one?-but had these companies not indulged in such short-term profiteering which went against the interests of society, he or she would have been staring down the legal-precedent-backed barrel of a shareholder revolt and fired.
And let's remember that big banks went public a few decades ago.
They, like Ford, must do nothing that does not make them profit, the more the better. This is what led them to eschew sound banking principles in lieu of the crap that led to the '08 collapse, not to mention '87's Black Friday and all that shit in '29.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment