Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] OT: Google Wave

Subject: Re: [OM] OT: Google Wave
From: Dawid Loubser <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 15:30:01 +0200
John, two things:

1.) I am specifically referring to publicly traded organisations, and
2.) I myself am not high enough "up the legal food chain" myself to  
cite better sources.

As I mentioned earlier, though, if you look at the history of several  
large corporations,
the stuff "this associate professor at UBC is perpetrating" are quite  
compelling.

Anyway, no harm done, I hope. I shall stick to making statements on  
photography
and technology, things I know a lot better than the law, especially in  
countries
other than my own.

You can go ahead and trust big publicly-traded corporations
all you like. But I have seen the damage many of them have done, to  
people, societies,
and the environment - all in the name of making money.

I did think "The Corporation" was a good book though, although the  
author was obviously
pushing a particular point/agenda. But I, as a legal n00b, saw no  
fallacies being
communicated.

regards,
Dawid

On 03 Dec 2009, at 1:20 PM, John Hudson wrote:

> Dawid:
>
> A corporation, public or private, as is understood in the western  
> world is
> obligated to to fulfill the mandate[s] as set out in the formal  
> documents
> used to bring it [the corporation] into existence.
>
> Your statement that
>
> "Bakan's argument includes the point that the corporation's sole  
> reason for
> being is to enhance the profits and power of the corporation. He  
> shows (by
> citing court cases) that it is the *duty* of management to make   
> money and
> that any compromise with that duty is *dereliction of duty*. "
>
> is nonsense and by extension so is Bakan's argument. If you were to  
> consult
> the memorandum of association, articles of association, letters  
> patent, etc
> or whatever documents gave rise to the creation and existence of the
> corporation you'd realize that a modern day corporation's objectives  
> and
> permissions are virtually limitless. Focus is placed on your  
> assertion of
> the "sole reason".
>
> Perhaps you should cite someone more elevated up the food chain than  
> an
> associate professor at UBC. If he is perpetrating the myth that the  
> sole
> reason for a corporation's existence is to enrich its shareholders  
> he should
> start all over as an undergraduate law student.
>
> jh

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz