Friday, June 02, 2006
Interesting Topic
This is an interesting question posed by JLF's Daren Bakst:
Is it appropriate for states to influence the direction and decisions of private corporations? I understand that NC owns stock in ExxonMobil and obviously needs pension funds, but isn't there a problem when the state can literally buy enough shares to influence a private company? Should there be laws prohibiting states from exercising any control over private companies (i.e. through votes)?
Personally, I am not a fan of laws that prohibit most any activity. This is an interesting issue, however I think that the influence of one group is rather over-exaggerated. With the likely hundreds of millions of shares of stocks and the continued emphasis on diversification, it seems unlikely that one firm, individual, or even public entity can easily manipulate a financial market -- unless of course you are George Soros.
What do you all think?
Is it appropriate for states to influence the direction and decisions of private corporations? I understand that NC owns stock in ExxonMobil and obviously needs pension funds, but isn't there a problem when the state can literally buy enough shares to influence a private company? Should there be laws prohibiting states from exercising any control over private companies (i.e. through votes)?
Personally, I am not a fan of laws that prohibit most any activity. This is an interesting issue, however I think that the influence of one group is rather over-exaggerated. With the likely hundreds of millions of shares of stocks and the continued emphasis on diversification, it seems unlikely that one firm, individual, or even public entity can easily manipulate a financial market -- unless of course you are George Soros.
What do you all think?
