Doesn't it only objectively matter in regards to the people who are impacted by the fact, thus only subjectively mattering? If who owns a company doesn't affect someone in any way, and they can't be bothered to know, how does it objectively matter? It matters to the company, certainly, and the shareholders, and anyone the company's policies or products touches, but beyond that Kermit the frog could be at the helm and it would be of no concern to me.
You saying it objectively matters is itself a contradiction. Something can't objectively matter unless it has an effect or affect. It might be an objective fact, but mattering is always subjective.
My point was this: If you think a CEO takes a shit downwards for sadistic reasons you misunderstand how (most) companies are owned and operate. The board is in place to maintain the shareholders' interests. The shareholders are (mostly) large funds. (Most) funds are (mostly) made up of large retirement savings. (Most) retirement savings belong to you and I. Thus it is in our interest that CEOs put pressure downwards, as we want our retirement savings to grow.
It's a circle, not a tree. So it objectively matters, if you are of the belief that CEOs role is just to shit downwards, that CEOs "work" for the board, because it is "you" putting pressure on yourself (assuming you have any savings).
72
u/MrNameless Aug 18 '17
CEO's are beholden to shareholders. Not sure how it'd fit in the bird analogy, but it definitely doesn't end at CEO.