Social Value - Larger concept which includes social capital as well as the subjective aspects of the citizens' well-being, such as their ability to participate in making decisions that affect them.
Governments around the globe have multiple performance measures employed to monitor and manage society for peaceful, stable and progressive improvement. Corporations are entities used for the efficient employment of resources in addition to government efforts. At one time, natural resources were thought to be public property of the “state” and access sold to individuals or groups of individuals who would best utilize the resources for the benefit of the society by providing adequate return of investments. Risk of loss has always been part of the assessment and contributed to the creation and development of the insurance industry. Assessments include but are not limited to the best utilization of human capital (education & employment); purpose and uses of the identified natural resources; economic development of the society in which the enterprise would operate to convert the natural resource. Other areas for consideration include government regulatory and safety concerns. However, I will not focus on these in lieu of a larger point to be made.
Expanding economic activity can lead social development around bonded communities requiring greater inclusion for successful, diversified, and balanced growth. Much effort was provided by government actions through laws and customs (old and new) to counter corporate self-interested, monopolistic control. The mechanism used to counter these actions was the creation of increased competition. Early U.S. economic competition was more direct by definition after Theodore Roosevelt’s anti-trust legislative initiatives. Increased competition introduced more product differentiation, greater technical product utility, and created new services which extended industries.Wikipedia definition:
Competition in economics is a term that encompasses the notion of individuals and firms striving for a greater share of a market to sell or buy goods and services. Merriam-Webster defines competition in business as "the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms."[1] Competition, according to the theory, causes commercial firms to develop new products, services and technologies, which would give consumers greater selection and better products. The greater selection typically causes lower prices for the products, compared to what the price would be if there was no competition (monopoly) or little competition (oligopoly).
The increased competitive environment required more corporate efficiency due to the limitations on pricing power with lower market share and greater product alternatives. The efficiency focus can also be extended to human capital and requires corporate leadership to emphasize the resource values of the corporation. Natural resource material requirements are easily identified and pricing controlled within a specified range of competitive demand. However, the extension and growth of the corporation and industry is the result of investment in human capital and social collaboration (skills, education, leadership training, knowledge sharing, & shared responsibility) to create new ideas, products, uses, and other related opportunities. Such requirements make valuation of the (human capital) resource more difficult because usually it is the created environment that produces and develops the creativity. Your employees are the consumer market of other industries, if not your own. Cost cutting efforts among the human capital to achieve increasing profitability disrupt the environment by reducing longer-term future value in exchange for increased administrative productivity gains and short-term profitability. However, from a social perspective the lower profitability is acceptable compared to higher unemployment and lower levels of skill development. Capitalistic principles of obsolescence work when there is continuing investment and development of technologies creating new opportunities. So, what is expected from a “public” company? How does society balance between the emphasis of the two interests (public investment and private returns)?
The American system was designed to allow entrepreneurial access to capital that would expand an opportunity to effectively employ capital for increased productivity and profitability by matching private interest with public resources. Under these terms, are the investors in mutual funds and savings instruments receiving enough compensation for the successful business endeavors and economic expansion relative to money managers (salary and bonus) and entrepreneurs / primary shareholders (business controlling interest)? Granted the business owner created the business and also received in many cases 500 to 1,000 times the initial investment leveraging the use of public money. The original savers through pensions, mutual funds, and other bank deposit instruments receive returns anywhere from 5% to 500% (.05 to 5 times investment) which effectively transfers public money into private profits and bonuses. This scenario is even more pronounced within hedge fund activity where the greater returns are accumulated by the financial institutions over business owners and stakeholders. I do not disparage the capitalist system; let’s just accurately identify what is taking place. Where exactly is the risk of economic loss in the system relative to the individual returns? Should economic risk and computerized financial system risk be compensated similarly? Is the risk in the stock market pricing and valuation techniques or with the actual longer term company performance?
The American government has always taken a varied clandestine and active participant role in businesses and industries deemed vital to the nation’s security interest (i.e. petroleum and computing technologies/internet). The largest financial market in the world is not and should not be an exception. The refocus on investment, productive uses of funds, and proper identification of risk and related return is a good thing for the American society and the global leadership influence.
