I don't completely agree with you on (1). In fact I think exactly what you described has been attempted for years. When I was a kid in the McIntire School, they taught us that the goal of company managers was maximize shareholder wealth. Since then, business schools have tried to teach maximization of stakeholder wealth. "Stakeholder" includes not only shareholders, but creditors, suppliers, workers, and the country at large. And "wealth" goes beyond just money. I have to say IMO it hasn't caught on, as voted on by - you guessed it - shareholders. Shareholders are not only concerned with growth and profitability, and concerns vary based on the company. Much of the other concerns can be boiled down to "headline risk" - stocks suffer if a #metoo moment hits it, or if there's high profile employee disputes, or at times, if a news item about exorbitant pay makes the rounds. But by and large, people think about these things in terms of projections about growth and profitability. The markets wants returns on their investments. A govt of a certain political lean might disapprove, and try to use regulation to overrule the market (really a different side of the coin of Trump deciding he doesn't like the market's loss of interest in coal), but in the end, they just create market distortions.

There is a ton of activism among business leaders and investors. There is a non-binding initiative called "UNPRI" that solicits signatories among investors. There is a whole new discipline among investors called "ESG" - Environment, Social, and Governance. The pace of the market on this is probably too slow for some, or even many of us. But having a govt decide politically (arbitrarily) that it will usurp the market on this and just force hands - that's how you get distortions, unintended consequences, and basically a road to hell paved with good intentions.

These activist investors do impact who sits on boards as well. Sometimes, with workers. I just don't agree with govt usurping the shareholders in determining board make-up.

I haven't read Golden Passport, but have read about it - positives and negatives. I am not a fan of MBAs, truth be told. I think they are good for two things - networking (very valuable), and training everyone to think the same, inside a box (IMO - helps cause a 2008). So I agree with much of that. But I also think there is no faster path into the proverbial thinking box than govt overreach.

And lastly I don't agree with Citizens United as it relates to corporate speech, but regardless of that decision, a corporation's standing as a "person" is not reliant on a govt's arbitrary determination of what comprises a good citizen. You might be happy with that power if EW is pres. But how about when Trump is pres? You'll have to live with it then too.

I feel the same way about Trump's efforts to invade boardrooms to bully them into doing things, and about his protectionism. Many of my objections to this kind of socialism are the exact same as my objections to Trump's national socialism. And that's my fear - in 2020 I'll be choosing between two different populist extremes - in some ways, socialist, market distorting extremes.

[Post edited by hoolstoptheheels at 08/15/2018 3:16PM]