Hugo, I don't think this is an issue with the stock markets. This is an issue with people. Where greed rules, all is allowed. Both sides of this debate are correct - management is responsible to share holders but it is also responsible to the employee's and the communities it operates in. If the business motivation becomes obsessed with profit then the second two responsibilities become secondary to the first one. The faults lie with an environment that values profit over people. However, I think the problem is not solvable because the playing field is never level ...


>Robert,
>
>For me, and of course I know nothing, the problem is deeper, is the bastardization of the Share concept. It used to be a way of helping companies or individuals to get money to build/create/comercialize their products and then sharing the profits, now is just a mean for mean people to get rich at the expenses of the work of others, the shares are no longer serving its purpose of a relatively long term investement, it is just a tool for speculators with short term goals, sometimes shorter than a quarter, completely untying the value of the share with the value of the company. For example, Microsoft did not pay dividens for YEARS (I know they started paying not long ago), although my understanding is that by law it is mandatory to pay dividends and even more, it is not allowed to stockpile money unless there is a plan for it; of course Microsoft shareholders do not complain, for they can make money with the always rising price of the stock, and this creates the need for this ever rising
>price. I would like to see what would happen is the regulations change so you are committed to keep a share for at least one year from the time you bought it.
>
>>I agree that companies should be looking at the long term, but in reality they are looking quarter to quarter and so are their stockholders. If they felt that it was in their own interest to cultivate long term goodwill, they would do so.
>>