¬snip¬
So, Romney is alleging that he is a super-capitalist who owned 100 percent of a company -- and had no influence over it whatsoever.
Conservative economic guru Milton Friedman must be spinning in his grave.
Friedman -- and conservative economists generally -- believe that it is the role of the shareholder, not government, to oversee business to reach optimal results -- both economically and socially. It is the shareholder, they argue, who holds corporate management accountable to achieve this goal. It is the shareholder who has the opportunity to do the right thing -- as the shareholders define it.
Obviously, Romney claiming no influence over corporate policy when he is the sole owner of the corporation runs directly counter to this conservative economic commandment.
So much for conservative economic principle. On the practical side, the situation is even more ridiculous.
Every CEO knows that he has to please his shareholders. One can argue what this means in a large, publicly-traded corporation. But when one shareholder owns 100 percent of the corporation, guess what: management will check with that shareholder on every major corporate decision to assure that that shareholder is happy.
More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitch-rofsky/mitt-romney-bain-capital_b_1681795.html
2 replies
Romney Says Shareholders Have No Influence Over Corporations. Where Are Our Conservative Economists? (Original post)
