Initially it would seem Alex has the altruistic position but in fact he is actually supporting the Friedman/Chicago school by saying "No no we don't need government regulation we need stakeholder capitalism" which is basically banking on the moral virtues of corporate CEO's. I'd rather leave this responsibility to democratically elected governments, let CEO's focus on the efficient allocation of capital in order to generate profit which is their main incentive in both models anyway
If the government doesn't provide any financial capital (probably via shareholding) to that particular company, then it shall be deemed as a stakeholder of the company.
Who comes up with the rules and ethics for the new Society? And who enforces penalties and makes judgements about changes in a company, and will stakeholders be chosen only based on Wealth status, if so....nothing's changed. Just rich people having a say in what a company does, and working employees harder to increase profits...I admit I don't understand it at All but I personally don't like change.
I didn't enjoy this debate. It seems they're both agree in all the terms. I think the interests of share and stakeholders are often Confronted and the gobernments take always bad decisions that affect badly to the companys.
Intellectuals are not necessarily smart. They somehow feel legitimate in their nihilistic and narcissistic perspectives based on their own beliefs, as opposed to real world experience. Who gets to determine what constitutes stakeholder benefit? Oligarchs? The one with the money makes the rules? Please. Do you take us for fools? Oh, Davos. You are so few and we are so many. Your days are numbered.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Where can we see all the questions.
Initially it would seem Alex has the altruistic position but in fact he is actually supporting the Friedman/Chicago school by saying "No no we don't need government regulation we need stakeholder capitalism" which is basically banking on the moral virtues of corporate CEO's. I'd rather leave this responsibility to democratically elected governments, let CEO's focus on the efficient allocation of capital in order to generate profit which is their main incentive in both models anyway
when the government requires the company to surrender its part is it called a stakeholder or shareholder of the company
Google it.
@@rushilkaul i want to listen from great minds
@@coolkid9602 Google has a lot of great minds
If the government doesn't provide any financial capital (probably via shareholding) to that particular company, then it shall be deemed as a stakeholder of the company.
Who comes up with the rules and ethics for the new Society? And who enforces penalties and makes judgements about changes in a company, and will stakeholders be chosen only based on Wealth status, if so....nothing's changed. Just rich people having a say in what a company does, and working employees harder to increase profits...I admit I don't understand it at All but I personally don't like change.
I didn't enjoy this debate. It seems they're both agree in all the terms. I think the interests of share and stakeholders are often Confronted and the gobernments take always bad decisions that affect badly to the companys.
Intellectuals are not necessarily smart. They somehow feel legitimate in their nihilistic and narcissistic perspectives based on their own beliefs, as opposed to real world experience.
Who gets to determine what constitutes stakeholder benefit? Oligarchs? The one with the money makes the rules? Please. Do you take us for fools? Oh, Davos. You are so few and we are so many. Your days are numbered.
They have bio weapons (and vaccinations) to make the masses compliant. Control has never been easier.