In article , John T. McCracken says...

When 5% of the people hold 90% of the wealth in this country, most
business essentially operates to serve the interests of that 5%, not the
other 90%.

I disagree, business operates to satisfy the stockholder, and today, in the
U.S., that is every working stiff with a 401K or mutual fund investment,
plus a lot of small busnessmen who have their pension plan invested at least
partially in stocks and bonds. The 1960's idea that only the idle rich care
about stock prices is long gone, the man on the street is just as likely to
check his investments as the tycoon.

Here he may be talking about regulatory issues as well,
John. It is *certainly* true that large corporations that
contribute mightily to politicians' campaign funds *do*
get preferential treatment when the laws get written.

One simple example that I've trotted out time and time
again is the law that used to require businesses who
pay employees by check to allow those paychecks to be
cashed without fee, within a certain distance of the
workplace, or the wages would have to be paid in cash.

The banking industry got alhold of that and crushed it,
so now if a worker wants to actually cash his check, he
has to pay a fee, one that ranges between one and ten
dollars, typically.

Sure every joe has a bit in the stock market now (except
me I guess) but if you are really trying to convince anyone
here that just because somebody owns $10K in some mutual
fund, that this puts them on an even footing with, say,
Exxon-Mobil or Halliburton, I think this is not going to
work.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================