Debt & Credit, Corporate Style

Posted by Moonage on 30 Nov 2004 | Tagged as: Businesses

Another piece of Debt & Credit, corporation style. By Calpinist from TMF and notes on the Doge vs Ford case around 1919. This was in replay to a piece on teaching proper "Credit Use" in the schools.

Interesting take off on that subject:

As follows

Social Clubs / The Land of Sisu

Subject:  Re: The Debt Burden  Date:  11/30/04 1:13 PM 
Author:  Calpinist  Number:  14703 of 14703
 

In fact, since Dodge v Ford. 1919, USA corporations’s duties are seen as solely to their stockholders —- in effect this means corporations are their own primary constituents.

I was interested in this part of your post because I was not familiar with that court case. Off I went on a google and this site gives a good synopsis:

Rather than pay regular and special dividends, as the company had done in previous years, Ford announced that only regular dividends would be paid. The remaining profits would be used to expand production capacity, increase wages, and offset losses expected from his cutting the price of cars.

(…) Ford proclaimed broader social goals: "to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes." The Dodge brothers sued, claiming that Ford was using shareholder equity to pursue his own personal philanthropic goals. The Michigan Supreme Court, while professing to respect Ford’s business judgment, agreed with the Dodges. It stated that a corporation exists to benefit its stockholders and that corporate directors have discretion only in the means to achieve that goal. It may not use profits for "other purposes."

http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/economics/freeenterpriseandentrepreneurship/corporationshave.shtml

In Europe as is well known, corporations have separate boards for employees and shareholders, and employees have a voice in how the business is run. This runs directly counter to the American situation. Quite interesting and I tend to agree with the U.S. position, as long as the government acts as a good steward of workers’ rights.

There have been instances recently — e.g Wal-Mart not offering most of its workers health benefits — where that stewardship appears to be failing, but in general I believe the U.S. system works. In contrast, the European system has contributed to the rigidity of their labor markets and thereby reduced economic growth and productivity.

Calpinist

Technorati Tags:

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

  • The National Debt
  • American household wealth surges to new record
  • Credit Card Bankuptcy Reform
  • G-8 Forgives African debt
  • “Better than economists expected”, Pt 2
  • Flip Flop Kerry Supporters
  • 2004 Candidate Economic Analysis
  • Medicare and SSI Necessary Changes
  • US Budgets and the Federal Debt
  • Taking Back the Democrat Party
  • Psst, I got $40 billion for ya…..
  • The root of a cause…. Wall-E
  • Thoughts on November ‘04 Numbers
  • Nancy Pelosi’s socialist economics
  • The Supreme Court looks at insurance
  • Free Enterprise Action Fund
  • Unsafe in any election
  • Michael Moore owns(ed) Halliburton
  • Government Liabilities
  • The Consequences of pork barrel spending?
  • « The Fed Box

    The Myth of Shock Free Monetary Policy »