Regular reminder that the high prices you pay at the supermarket are not because of "supply chain issues" or increased wages/costs.
You're paying shareholders. Period.
Hmm. 🤔
This issue's suddenly big news all over:
These companies could decide to maintain a steady profit and not increase prices to cover cost increases.
But they don't. They prioritise shareholders because - and this is the important bit ➡️ *that's how capitalism works*. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their investors.
The system is designed to funnel all the $$ to people who already own all the things.
There needs to be sensible regulation to stop it.
THAT'S OBSCENE!
@DyDave Filed under my ever growing folder of 'Capitalism has failed us'. The stock market is gambling. The laws put their fingers on the scales favoring investors to entice more people to invest and therefore they resist the needed changes for the sake of society. These laws then make both workers and customers distant concerns as managers, boards, and shareholders become the big gorillas.
@DyDave No one would argue that grocery monopolies all over the world make huge margins from an essential service. You could easily make a pitch that they rise to the level of a utility and require regulatory scrutiny.
Fiduciary responsibility to shareholders though? That's no the case in US and UK law. Is that an Ozzie quirk?
My understanding of the power dynamic is simply if the corp doesn't deliver big dividends, the CEO gets sent off by shareholders.
https://www.willans.co.uk/knowledge/director-fiduciary-duty/
Well, it's hard to be specific with limited characters so I simplified it a bit.
Here, company directors have fiduciary duties to the company and, thus, in practice, to the shareholders as "a general class of persons". I believe that's basically the same as in the linked article? I think it's addressing a finer point of legal identity though.
My point was that people responsible for running companies have almost no obligations to customers, but do have some to the company,
@DyDave I get what you're saying. It's kind of an academic distinction since a corp's behavior likely would not change either way.
Some good old fashioned govt-mandated transparency would go a long way towards making companies more accountable to customers without breaking the economy.
Exactly. I do some work in finance (I'd rather make music full time, but bills, etc 🤷♂️ ) and am not against fair profits. Indeed, we have compulsory superannuation here, so everyone's retirement fund relies on earnings in one way or another. That's okay.
It's *profiteering* I object to, and lean towards your good point of food = utility.
I'm also all for sensible finance regulation to protect consumers so everyone knows where they stand.
We have that here. Just gotta use it!
And still more.
My favourite part is the "may be".
If a consumer watchdog isn't for stopping two corporations that control 65 % of the market from profiteering, why have one at all?
It's good that we have a regulatory body with the power to do something, but we also need politicians with the guts to not prevent it from doing its job lest it pisses off their big donors.