When I read a lot of these arguments, I wonder if people have ANY experience with finance, business, or anything. (I am not referring to you per se). The seem to float into the ether, making claims about items such as shareholder rights and dividends without knowing how it plays out with, oh, institutional investors such as public pension funds, who wield quite a lot of power as shareholders (I follow this, so I know).
Theory is all very well, but if it cannot survive even basic contact with reality.... what is its use?
I think it’s fair to say that they want to make a radical critique of modern society from a (nominally) Catholic perspective. They’re more than willing to just assert that Catholic Tradition suggests modern corporations shouldn’t exist and are gravely disordered systems of faux ownership.
I thought Jacob was a stock trader at some point but I have no confidence that either understand finance or the Catholic tradition.
That’s quite an interesting point about institutional investors I hadn’t thought about. I’ve read people respond to Jacob and Marc suggesting that Catholics or Christians or people of conscience gather together and invest to drive change in corporation through shareholding.
Oh -I- could make radical critiques of modern society from a Catholic perspective (oh wait, I do it all the time, but it's not exclusively Catholic in its outlook, so I don't reference those authorities, because I don't require them.)
I get the faux ownership critique, but I have watched activist shareholders, especially the institutional ones, and I argue re: fiduciary duty.
I have seen religious orders take retirement funds and do it right -- they have the proper level under subsidiarity and governance, and they can decide as a group to be activist shareholders. It's their money, their interests, and they don't go it alone. They look to find other shareholders to make common interest, such as with union funds, and they have been successful in some cases. I don't think it is as futile as some people think.
The problem I find is that a lot of these theoretical papers come across as deeply ignorant to those who actually have experience in the investment sphere (like me). It's not just a matter of strawmen, but that they argue things that are refuted by counterexamples in real life right in front of their faces if they actually looked for them. They don't even seek for them. Do they actually seek for truth?
Oh, and being a stock trader doesn't mean having a deep understanding of the system one operates in.
I have been appalled at the ignorance of others in finance about some financial news that I would expect they would know -- many people just put their heads down and focus only on what is in front of them.
Lol. I guess I have my own radical critiques of modern society as well. I guess its more the apparent wholesale rejection of modern institutions that I find problematic.
In an early draft, I tried to explain the fiduciary duties of the board and the logic of shareholder proposals, but it got long and off topic. I was partially responding to another article that suggested that because the board has control of the company they are the real owners. Jacob and co. at NewPolity have asserted that some tradition sees ownership and control as inseparable. How they explain leases, deposits, or a variety of other real life contracts where the owner loses control of his goods, I'm still not sure.
So I agree with you about them being simply false to facts. Its not even a dispute over theory, its simply the way things are, which is why I ended the essay the way I did, because I think they are committed to a particular ideological interpretation of Catholic Social Teaching and "The Tradition(TM)." If they're not going to do the work (ironically) to get the facts straight, why should anyone listen to them. Though I'll also admit that I should probably know more finance details than I do.
When I read a lot of these arguments, I wonder if people have ANY experience with finance, business, or anything. (I am not referring to you per se). The seem to float into the ether, making claims about items such as shareholder rights and dividends without knowing how it plays out with, oh, institutional investors such as public pension funds, who wield quite a lot of power as shareholders (I follow this, so I know).
Theory is all very well, but if it cannot survive even basic contact with reality.... what is its use?
I think it’s fair to say that they want to make a radical critique of modern society from a (nominally) Catholic perspective. They’re more than willing to just assert that Catholic Tradition suggests modern corporations shouldn’t exist and are gravely disordered systems of faux ownership.
I thought Jacob was a stock trader at some point but I have no confidence that either understand finance or the Catholic tradition.
That’s quite an interesting point about institutional investors I hadn’t thought about. I’ve read people respond to Jacob and Marc suggesting that Catholics or Christians or people of conscience gather together and invest to drive change in corporation through shareholding.
Oh -I- could make radical critiques of modern society from a Catholic perspective (oh wait, I do it all the time, but it's not exclusively Catholic in its outlook, so I don't reference those authorities, because I don't require them.)
I get the faux ownership critique, but I have watched activist shareholders, especially the institutional ones, and I argue re: fiduciary duty.
I have seen religious orders take retirement funds and do it right -- they have the proper level under subsidiarity and governance, and they can decide as a group to be activist shareholders. It's their money, their interests, and they don't go it alone. They look to find other shareholders to make common interest, such as with union funds, and they have been successful in some cases. I don't think it is as futile as some people think.
The problem I find is that a lot of these theoretical papers come across as deeply ignorant to those who actually have experience in the investment sphere (like me). It's not just a matter of strawmen, but that they argue things that are refuted by counterexamples in real life right in front of their faces if they actually looked for them. They don't even seek for them. Do they actually seek for truth?
Oh, and being a stock trader doesn't mean having a deep understanding of the system one operates in.
I have been appalled at the ignorance of others in finance about some financial news that I would expect they would know -- many people just put their heads down and focus only on what is in front of them.
Lol. I guess I have my own radical critiques of modern society as well. I guess its more the apparent wholesale rejection of modern institutions that I find problematic.
In an early draft, I tried to explain the fiduciary duties of the board and the logic of shareholder proposals, but it got long and off topic. I was partially responding to another article that suggested that because the board has control of the company they are the real owners. Jacob and co. at NewPolity have asserted that some tradition sees ownership and control as inseparable. How they explain leases, deposits, or a variety of other real life contracts where the owner loses control of his goods, I'm still not sure.
So I agree with you about them being simply false to facts. Its not even a dispute over theory, its simply the way things are, which is why I ended the essay the way I did, because I think they are committed to a particular ideological interpretation of Catholic Social Teaching and "The Tradition(TM)." If they're not going to do the work (ironically) to get the facts straight, why should anyone listen to them. Though I'll also admit that I should probably know more finance details than I do.