Shareholders of one type or another have never NOT been a part of the system, though! Where would Hague come up with this nonsense about “co-creating” value? Every economic transaction in a relatively free system happens because both parties stand to gain. Hague appears to have the assumption that value is somehow intrinsic, and it most certainly is not.

When I exchange $1.20 for a bottle of soda, I am doing so because I believe that the soda has more value than $1.20. The owner of the convenience store (and thus his employee) agrees to this trade because he values $1.20 more than that bottle of soda – but only within that context and for the duration of that exchange!

Thus, it’s not to say that tomorrow, when that very same convenience store owner is thirsty, he *too* might consider the bottle of soda worth $1.20… But who knows? Maybe it will only be worth $1.00 to him… maybe he’d be willing to pay $1.50… I can’t know, and neither can you or Mr. Hague.

Point is, *all* companies, which are obtaining their profits by selling goods & services in a market ARE adding value for their customers. Where their profits go – that is, if they pay 1 guy (like the way I work) working from his own studio, or if those profits get split among investors – is irrelevant.

The problem with comments like this is that Hague has failed to recognize the difference between obtaining profits legitimately in a capitalist (free market) system, and obtaining profits through government protection and subsidies… I also reject the notion that *any* company “needs” to be bailed out. If they have failed to produce products that customers are willing to buy (i.e. GM), or have made foolish investment decisions (i.e. AIG), then they need to bear the losses commensurate with their choices. That feedback is crucially important! We cannot have a system where private companies benefit from profits when they make the right decisions, and yet can pass off their losses onto the American taxpayer. That is NOT capitalism and it’s not smart.

Jussssssssssst sayin. Nice post, otherwise

While it’s possible the cycle of domination/freedom will accelerate, we’ll still find ourselves locked in a pattern/mindset/platform 80% of the time. Why? Because to get through chaos and live with fear we create narratives that give us order and hope. And it’s the arbitrage of those narratives that our landlords use to comfort and enslave us.

In other words: it’s not whether Haque’s view will triumph. It’s how long it can give us courage before we need something else to get us through the night.

shit the Web is getting smaller.

Why? Well the big media started to buy up the small media. And then, over time, the Web that i used to see as democratic, started to reflect the corporate structure of NA.

Again, with social platforms we were getting back to the inherent dispersion of power. And then as more companies purchase the platforms it swings back again.

However, let me say Mark, I think the power of the Internet has always been that whenever it comes up against an obstacle, it inherently goes around it. This ebb and flow is the ray of hope that says in my mind, that Haque’s world view may triumph in the end.

It’s not that corporations may not continue to try to put individual and shareholder at the centre of the value exchange, but how long that strategy is able to sustain them as an entity may continue to shorten.

As for no more fear posts – you always scare me so not sure that’s possible

You have mojo to steal, and I will be reading your posts on the regular; however, I will hold you to your next post not including fear as a central point. What have you been reading, watching or living that has engendered so much passion for the business horrific?