Seriously? Corporations are the problem? Really?
Here you are critiquing publicly owned corporations because privately owned companies provide more value for customers. Yet, answer me this...who provides more value for customers...corporations or government organizations? Obviously corporations provide infinitely more value for customers...yet where's your critique of government organizations? Do you not realize or comprehend or grasp that nearly half of our nation's resources are allocated by government organizations?
No matter how bad corporations are...they satisfy other people's preferences infinitely more than government organizations. You know why? Because customers and shareholders can always say "no thanks" if they feel that they have not been getting their money's worth. In other words, they have freedom of exit.
Milton Friedman understood this concept more than you ever will. Here's some excerpts from an interview he gave...
What Is Greed?
If you were truly interested in customer satisfaction...aka consumer sovereignty...then you would go after the government rather than corporations. But you're incapable of grasping any of the concepts involved.
This is what consumer sovereignty would look like...
So do you truly value consumer sovereignty? Or is this merely yet another attempt to critique economic concepts that are way way way over your head?
1. Corporations provide value to customers governments provide value to citizens, the difference is customers are valued according to their pocket book, citizens are valued according to their citizenship, i.e. can they vote.
How are half of our nation's resources allocated by government organizations??? What resources are nationalized?
Customers can say "no thanks" for some products, others they cannot, we HAVE to eat, we HAVE to ahve healthcare, we HAVE to have shelter, also only including "customers" in the equasion ignores the externalities ... governments CANNOT do this, they have to take into account ALL costs, not just internalized ones.
Milton said:
The government should not help to save Chrysler, of course not. This is a private enterprise system. It's often described as a profit system but that's a misleading label. It's a profit and loss system. And the loss part is even more important than the profit because it's what gets rid of badly managed, poorly operated companies. When Chrysler loses money...it's got to do something. When Amtrak loses money it goes to congress and gets a bigger appropriation.
When Chrysler looses, it puts as much of the cost as it can on Detroit ... and when it profits it keeps all the profits, so when Chrysler looses, it lays off people (who probably had nothing to do with the failure), makes those who remain work more, breaks unions, and thus reduces tax revenue, overall demand, and puts people on the government dole all detrimental to Detroit, it cuts pollution controls, so it creates more problems for detroit. When it makes profits that money goes to the CEO's in manhatten, and the HQ there.
It's the stockholders of Exxon who ultimately are buying it. If they don't like what Exxon is doing with their money, they have a perfectly good alternative...they can sell the stock. And as the stock went down, if the stockholders didn't like it, they would pay somebody to change the policy which Exxon is following. We have a far greater degree of control over what Exxon does than we have over what a lot of our government corporations do.
Both you and I know that's not how the stockholders work, they buy a stock, wait for it to go up, then sell it, no one looks at the corporate policy because owning a stock doesn't REALLY give you any power, just an opporunity to make a quick buck with the ebb and flows of the market. It's all short term gain, if Exxon enacts a policy that increases revenue in the next year, but down the road might crash the industry or make larger problems, people will buy the stock do get the short term cash and then sell ... it's no longer their problem.
If you were truly interested in customer satisfaction...aka consumer sovereignty...then you would go after the government rather than corporations. But you're incapable of grasping any of the concepts involved.
This is what consumer sovereignty would look like...
Again with your crackpot theory that's already been debunked over and over and over and over again.