: the owners (mostly institutional investors and agnetless private individuals including employees) dont need / want to manage the business anymore, its recognised that they are not up to the job either.So, we come back then, to teh simple fact that their wealth is utterkly un-earned, and got simply through ownership of property?
: A community owned firm would be in a similar position in that ownership and management would be partially seperated so owners wouldnt need / want to manage the company. The same principle of wide diverse ownership (shares or community) and focussed professional management.
Except a socialised firm would probably be in the position of not being dominated by empire building cliques- the routine would be directional decisions being made by the wider interest group, with the workers making the implementatiuonal decisions...
: Ofcourse in a community owned egalitarian organisation there would be no greater reward for a professional manager than for a part time cleaner each achieving the same economic return for vastly different productivity - they (mgrs) would all have to rely on being held in esteem, personal pride etc to take on a perform well in the role. unlikely at best, but you can appreciate the parallels.
Why unlikely, I expect being put in such a position would reflect their long experience and their esteem among the workforce in general- and some admin posts may well be appointed by lottery (I like apppointment by lottery, fine greek idea...).
: 'budgets' are just resource allocaions, all structures encourage self interest, or rather self interest is inherant (you eat to live, seek pleasure and other values etc). The original 'problem' (empire building) wont go away.
If I have not wage, and no personal interest (income-wise) regarding the the size of my department, I will have no incentive to empire build- if my department exists solely to perform a function, and is not constantly trheatened by budget cuts (which is the real source of empire building- once you've got a budget, you have to spend it, lest they cut it, and you might well need that higher budget next year...etc.).
: rather broad use of the term 'initially' then, it seems.
Indeed.
: No amount of dollars, nor the liquidation of the entire company (making people unemployed 'guilty by association?') would have helped. the Hospitals since built (by UC) in the Bhopal area are too late. Its always too late once its happened.
Yes, many more dollars were needed, famillies lost income (bread winners down), the hospitals built by UC and the Indian government were utterly inadequate, the people of Bhopal were left to rot.
After folks received their small compensation, most of it had to go back to the Indian government (who'd made stop-over payments), or to pay off debts accrued, almost all suffered a serious decline of life-style because of the accident.
: The political establishment is always ready to blame companies for everything (obvserve smoking)
Especially when their factories release 40 tonnes of toxic gas- odd that. 'I do not believe nicotine is addictive' bwahahahahahaha!
: they are the universal scapegoats. the point was that UC may have been guilty as sin, or snow white innocent - its not necessarily relavent to what judgements follow.
Givcen the way the Indian government has failed to pursue the case, has backed down to UC (lowered compensation, changed charges of culpable homicide to mansluaghter, etc.), I think they haven't bbeen too willing to hold UC to account.
