|
Seems to me that if you want to change this situation, you have to change the nature of the corporation itself.
In the end, it is up to the board of directors and the SEC to decide if this is something they want to happen. Why should the market (as a whole rather than the stockmarket) care whether one company survives or not? If a company shoots itself in the foot and comes crashing down there is little anyone can do.
That's how the rules work. The example of something like Enron or Worldcom are examples of people who are not playing by the rules... these sorts of actions are different from what someone like Jobs (or any other legitimate sell off of stocks).
If Apple (or another company) founders because of these actions then so what? If there is a need in the marketplace for the services that that company offer then someone else will step in and fill the need.
If this was a privately held company and the owner decided to keep that amount of profit rather than reinvesting the amount into the company, the same thing would happen (regardless of what that "thing" might be -- continued success, failure or stagnation).
A corporation is only beholden to its shareholders. Employees are just cogs in the machine. A corporation has no conscience.
Like I said, if you want to change things, you have to change the nature of the corporation.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
|