What conflicts of interest does a CEO or the board of directors have from holding individual stocks? And why do you believe that to be as problematic as politicians holding stock in companies they are passing laws about?
In approximate terms, I think that I feel this way because large companies currently seem to have significant influence over the way that people conduct their lives.
If we're shifting to a situation where companies essentially regulate (and yes, that's a risky word to use in this context, but I'll do so anyway to provoke a bit of thought) social behaviour and norms, then I would see decision-makers in political spheres and corporate spheres as being relatively similar.
Conflicts of interest would arise based on corporate strategy, allegiances, and undisclosed information (not desirable properties in a market-driven system).
Under that kind of environment, enforcing rules on politicians while not enforcing them on corporate decision-makers could be seen as an attempt to shut down existing democratic processes.
This is probably a bit pithy, and off-topic from the thread regarding conflicts-of-interest, but the phrase "no installation without representation" occurred to me a few moments ago.
I think that's a neat way to counteract an underlying frustration I have (and I don't think I'm alone) regarding proprietary software/hardware and technical ecosystems/governance that don't seem open to feedback and change.
I think that politicians should be able to trade with similar controls as executives.
With the tokenization of securities, it could be a requirement that public figures publish their holding addresses, we get the desired transparency and they can trade within the rules. This would reduce reporting load and delays as the real time data could be inspected by any party.
jka|4 years ago
If we're shifting to a situation where companies essentially regulate (and yes, that's a risky word to use in this context, but I'll do so anyway to provoke a bit of thought) social behaviour and norms, then I would see decision-makers in political spheres and corporate spheres as being relatively similar.
Conflicts of interest would arise based on corporate strategy, allegiances, and undisclosed information (not desirable properties in a market-driven system).
Under that kind of environment, enforcing rules on politicians while not enforcing them on corporate decision-makers could be seen as an attempt to shut down existing democratic processes.
jka|4 years ago
I think that's a neat way to counteract an underlying frustration I have (and I don't think I'm alone) regarding proprietary software/hardware and technical ecosystems/governance that don't seem open to feedback and change.
randomhodler84|4 years ago
With the tokenization of securities, it could be a requirement that public figures publish their holding addresses, we get the desired transparency and they can trade within the rules. This would reduce reporting load and delays as the real time data could be inspected by any party.