So, I've bitched and moaned about how corporations screw us over, in the never ending quest for (ignore TRVTH), (disregard JVSTICE), and the American Way (that is, more profits, and higher rewards for CEOs, only). Do I have anything to suggest to improve this situation?
Funny you should ask....
Clearly, total state control over all business and industry does not work well (1). On the other hand, "unbridled business" is about as good to live in, for half or three-quarters of the population, as is living next door to a bar where some stereotypical motorcycle outlaw gangs hang out (or being Clark Kent's neighbor). So, where do we see a model for something that has both social control, and works? Let's try Comsat. US gov't holds 51%, I believe, of the stock. It works fine, as far as I can tell.
So...a public held company, that has some government regulation, and the government also holds a majority of the stock. Suppose we take this model, and have either an elected, or appointed board to deal with the companies of which stocks are held "in the public trust": the non-publicly held profits are taxable, and the publicly held ones pay dividends. Having a major vote, through the shared owned, the public, through the board, can make its voice heard. Such a voice might, for example, keep jobs from being shipped overseas, or from plant relocations that result in extreme hardship on local communities, for trivial, short-term profits, that are often bad in the longer term.
In addition, note that this does not affect private companies, nor small business. It only affects the kind of companies that have a major impact in our lives, and on our neighborhoods and economies.
The transition to such social control is relatively easy, as well: you pass a law, where, as part of a tax authorization bill, which required companies, when they reach certain levels of impact on a given economy, to begin to remit shares of voting stock, along with their normal taxes. There would, of course, be a limit to the percentage of shares held by the government, and whether this is 49%, 51%, or some other figure is a point to be negotiated. When a corporation affects a larger-than-local region (e.g., GM, which has plants in many places), the shares are apportioned between the local, state, and federal government, proportionally dependent upon the economic impact. This assures that there is a local, as well as national, voice.
Note that the government does not make money by trading stocks, but from the actual profits of the company. Further, with this arrangement, people are more confident that they will have the money to buy the fruits of their labor.
This is to be considered an RFC, and I look forward to *rational* commentary (see the argument FAQ). Flames may be laughed at, and then either deleted, or responded to, in kind, in public...so if you don't want other folks reading what you have to say to me, don't send it.
mark
1) Note that I am not talking about the old Soviet Union, since that spent about 85% of its entire history: