Comments on: Are CEO’s Accountable To Shareholders? http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/27/are-ceos-accountable-to-shareholders/ Life. Liberty. Property. Defending individual freedom and liberty, one post at a time. Wed, 22 May 2013 03:02:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: tkc http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/27/are-ceos-accountable-to-shareholders/#comment-22961 tkc Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:02:43 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/27/are-ceos-accountable-to-shareholders/#comment-22961 The difference between the elections of politicians and the elections of CEOs has to do with consent. If you own Acme Inc. stock and don’t like how things are going you can remove your consent simply by the act of selling.
Elections of politicians are different. Your consent is assumed and, as pointed out, the only real way to remove your consent is to leave. That is a scam in any book. To paraphrase Lysander Spooner, the US Constitution starts with “We the people…” but who ever specifically asked you? No one. Your consent was assumed. If I assumed your consent about a business arrangement and told you to pay up you’d tell me to take a hike. So why is it the other way around for electing politicians?

]]> By: Jawahar http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/27/are-ceos-accountable-to-shareholders/#comment-22711 Jawahar Wed, 28 Mar 2007 06:17:05 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/27/are-ceos-accountable-to-shareholders/#comment-22711 I think CEO is accountable if OPM (Other People’s Money) is involved.

]]> By: js290 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/27/are-ceos-accountable-to-shareholders/#comment-22706 js290 Wed, 28 Mar 2007 05:42:18 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/27/are-ceos-accountable-to-shareholders/#comment-22706 Blame government intervention:

Reuven Brenner claims that legislation and legal decisions between 1982 and 1992 made it more difficult to conduct a “hostile takeover.” Reuven notes, “If you look at what happened between 1980 and 1990 when companies were taken over, you see that new management was put in place with lower compensation, fewer fringe benefits, or with types of compensation that truly aligned shareholders’ and management’s interest. The 1990s saw CEOs being compensated with no downside risk, and boards in dormant mode.”

]]>