SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Capitalism is in trouble – at least judging by recent polls.
A majority of American millennials reject the economic system, while 55% of women age 18 to 54 say they prefer socialism. More Democrats now have a positive view of socialism than capitalism. And globally, 56% of respondents to a new survey agree "capitalism as it exists today does more harm than good in the world."
One problem interpreting numbers like these is that there are many definitions of capitalism and socialism. More to the point, people seem to be thinking of a specific form of capitalism that deems the sole purpose of companies is to increase stock prices and enrich investors. Known as shareholder capitalism, it's been the guiding light of American business for more than four decades. That's what the survey meant by "as it exists today."
As a scholar of socially responsible companies, however, I cannot help but notice a shift in corporate behavior in recent years. A new kind of capitalism seems to be emerging, one in which companies value communities, the environment and workers just as much as profits.
The latest evidence: Companies as diverse as alcohol maker AB InBev, airline JetBlue and money manager BlackRock have all in recent weeks made new commitments to pursue more sustainable business practices.
[...] A 2017 study showed that many companies with climate change goals actually scaled back their ambitions over time as the reality clashed with their lofty goals.
But businesses can't afford to ignore their customers' wishes. Nor can they ignore their workers in a tight labor market. And if they disregard socially responsible investors, they risk both losing out on important investments and facing shareholder resolutions that force change.
The shareholder value doctrine is not dead, but we are beginning to see major cracks in its armor. And as long as investors, customers and employees continue to push for more responsible behavior, you should expect to see those cracks grow.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @11:05PM (2 children)
You mean Sanders, don't you?
We can at least sort of see how Trump got rich. He started with a small loan from his father, and then invested it in real estate, and he did a bunch of brand licensing.
Sanders has 3 houses. How? He has never worked a high-paying or non-elected job. Is this how socialism works?
Without a legitimate and independent source of money, Sanders is more vulnerable to the temptations of corruption. Bribing him would be cheap. Bribing somebody like Trump would be about 1000 times more expensive. Heck, even I can afford to bribe Sanders. Probably half of the software developers at Facebook could afford to bribe Sanders. That isn't good at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @11:55PM
Bernie is cancelled [foxnews.com]
(Score: 2) by McGruber on Saturday January 25 2020, @02:43PM
Houses used to be much more affordable.
Back in the 70s (when I was a kid) in the northeast US, it was quite common for blue-collar workers to own two homes - their main residence and a second home, a summer vacation "camp" in the Adirondacks