Abigail Disney finds Bob Iger's pay absurd

No, you're right.

And upon reading their manifesto, the last bulletpoint does indeed say:

• Generating long-term value for shareholders, who provide the capital that allows companies to invest, grow and innovate. We are committed to transparency and effective engagement with shareholders.

Which just makes this seem even more like a hollow demonstration by some of the biggest offenders to placate an increasingly vocal segment with a "friendly" headline.

Forgive me for being my cynical self, but revisit this in X amount of time and create some accountability and see how much actually changed.

Looks like they said many of the same things back in 1981:

GoBucks89 - according to the New York Time article posted below, "managerialism" was the corporate governance paradigm of the country from 1932 until the late 1970s when Milton Friedman persuasively advocated for "shareholder democracy" (the paradigm that has been en vogue and that set a corporation's sole priority as increasing investment value for its shareholders) arguing that the government was better suited to protect the corporate interests of customers, employees and society at large. Editorial: it should not come as a surprise that after allowing our state and federal governments to dismantle any regulations put in place to protect the other corporate interests during the same time that the corporate governance paradigm was shifting, that we find ourselves in a world in which there is an unequal distribution of power and control almost exclusively favoring shareholders.

link here

Would be helpful if I included the link to the 1981 statement. Sorry about that.

http://www.ralphgomory.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/1981-Business...ity-11.pdf

They said many of the same things back in 1981 that they said in yesterday's statement.

Ultimately, how will we know if corporations fail to live up to the new supposed priorities? Who gets to make that determination and on what basis?

Perhaps illuminating our current existential crisis is the inextricable dilemma explained via GoBucks89's and Lord Gonchar's reasonable lack of faith that corporate governance alone can be trusted and other commentator's reasonable lack of faith that the government can be trusted. In other words, it's easy to state "I do not trust others to do the right thing." But, I haven't read many people suggest where our trust should be given to protect such vital interests as "consumers," "communities," "environments" and "employees."

Once again, I think you're taking my posts to mean something a little to the side of what I actually intended.

I don't think these companies need to change. I think this is little more than a PR stunt. I'm ok with both.

I disagree with your initial post on the subject suggesting there are people in charge of large companies and corporations out there that agree with Abigail Disney. I don't think this story proves anything other than some CEO's see an opportunity to improve their corporate image to a certain vocal segment of the population.

"The right thing" is a loaded phrase and business morality in the sense of what to "protect" and to what degree is a dicsussion with infinite shades of grey.

TL;DR (yes, 6 sentences qualifies in 2019) - I've been chuckling at the idea that you seemed to be suggesting this whole thing:

1. Is a sincere gesture.
2. Indicates actual agreement of any kind with Abigail Disney's whack-ass statements.

I agree (and have always understood) that you don’t understand how the relationship between the original story and the signed letter has anything in common. But, I also find sophomoric cynicism uninteresting and often can’t see past this delusional bias.

I'm not sure a theme park forum is going to deliver what you're after in this case.

Lord Gonchar said:

I'm not sure a theme park forum is going to deliver what you're after in this case.

Haha, we finally found a place in which we agree. Welcome to my neurosis.

Loving the backhanded insults, though. Great stuff.

Is that sophomoric cynicism, or an inextricable dilemma?

My goal for tomorrow is to use both of those phrases in a complete sentence with another human.

the tribe often provides a false sense of courage, no doubt. But, trying to stay on topic, I hope I am not the only one who noted the possibility for irony where various contributors advocated that the CEO's of major corporations are worth / deserve whatever money and benefits they receive because they are (paraphrasing) highly skilled and because they possess unique knowledge and understanding about the complexities of multi-billion corporations and yet when 181 of those highly skilled and uniquely knowledgeable individuals draft a manifesto stating that they believe the US corporate-governance paradigm has shifted power too much in favor of shareholders, they're accused of having ulterior motives or of not properly understanding the true needs of corporate governance.

Why can't both of those things be true?

You're comparing a generalization of an entire field (CEO's are skilled and knowledgeable and worth their pay) with a specific action by a insignificant percentage of that field (a handful of CEO's made a very public decision that may be perceived as disagreeable).

its possible that both things can be true.

That they put forth what is essentially a marketing piece (were there dramatic changes for the supposed good after the 1981 statement?) aimed at the public in general and certain media outlets and politicians and that marketing piece appears to have been well received by such groups (at least judging from the media responses I have seen and discussions here and elsewhere -- even now calling it a "manifesto" of all things) is an indication to me of the skills they possess.

GoBucks89 said:

(were there dramatic changes for the supposed good after the 1981 statement?)

The 1981 statement ushered in the current state of affairs in which "greed is good" became the corporate mantra and trustees and executives began believing their sole priority was to increase corporate profits for shareholders, or so states the above posted articles.

Have you read the 1981 statement? It talks about employees, communities, society at large, suppliers and shareholders and the need to weigh and balance those constituencies. And to maintain long-range perspective. Not sure how someone can read the 1981 statement and say it supports the idea that the sole priority of corporations is to increase corporate profits for shareholders.

And to the extent you think the 1981 statement failed to live up to its lofty expectations, why would you think the 2019 statement will fare any better?

No, I did not read the entire 1981 document you posted and am sorry. I'm sure you know much more about this topic than I do as the corporate round table publications were not something with which I was familiar before yesterday. Having now briefly looked through the catalog of its publications, it seems that I confused the 1981 publication for the 1997 statement; a statement that appears to re-articulate Milton Friedman's 1970's position against "managerialism" in favor of "shareholder democracy." Or, as you now point out, it's a return to its 1981 position. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Bringing back an oldie but goodie... Abigail now has a movie.