>There's something up, because I've found myself nodding agreement with virtually all of your statements for a good while now.
>

Wow!! Well, lets keep it up!!

>
It would be good if the plethora of market commentators/analysts would say that once in a while. Generally they focus on the current/next quarter and 'encourage' people to look for changes (layoffs, etc.) to "address" the bottom line "problems".
>

Some people do say this. Many who do are branded as liberal/anti-capitalist. Nothing of course could be further than the truth. With all that said, sometimes, layoffs and other short-term devices are a sad reality that have to be undertaken. When it does have to happen, companies could stand to have more compassion...



>
Agreed. It's just that fewer and fewer are practising such, apparently. As one other commented in this thread, 'once a competitor cheats, you have no choice but to do the same'. I think that's an over-simplification but does convey one major source of this change that is growing.
>

It is an over-simplification. It assumes that the only solution is to think like your competitor and to act accordingly. Who says that out-thinking your competitor and taking the high road can't necessarily go together...


>I don't think I was advocating taking the power away from the decision makers. It may have come across that way, but wasn't meant to. I was advocating for those of us who are like-minded (that integrity and responsibility to stakeholders matters too) to stop using "their job is to make a profit for their owners" and to question for details anyone who does say it.
>"Stock holder can mandate change..." is, in my opinion, a fallacy too. Of course I agree that they can, but the likelihood is that they won't. I say this because personal stockholders are very difficult to marshall to a concensus and to actually submit proxies or vote, while institutional shareholders have no trouble here. Add to this the fact that funds managers' primary job is to make as much money as possible, giving them the excuse they need to vote for instant profits and against corporate altruism/largess.
>

Good points. Only those stock holders that have large concentrations of ownership can mandate change. Rarely do grass-roots efforts work...

Good discussion..