← Pitchfork Economics with Nick Hanauer
Pitchfork Economics with Nick Hanauer
Good Company: Ending the Era of Shareholder Supremacy (with Lenore Palladino)
00:37:21
Loading summary
Transcript72 lines
- [00:02]
Nick Hanauer
The rising inequality and growing political instability that we see today are the direct result of decades of bad economic theory.
- [00:11]
Goldie
The last five decades of trickle down economics haven't worked. But what's the alternative?
- [00:16]
Nick Hanauer
Middle out economics is the answer because.
- [00:19]
Goldie
The middle class is the source of growth, not its consequence.
- [00:23]
Nick Hanauer
That's right.
- [00:29]
Lenore Palladino
This is Pitchfork Economics with Nick Hanauer.
- [00:33]
Goldie
A podcast about how to build the.
- [00:35]
Lenore Palladino
Economy from the middle out. Welcome to the show.
- [00:45]
Nick Hanauer
You know, Goldie, when I think about points of leverage in terms of shifting the kind of economy we have to the kind of economy that we want and would benefit more people in more ways, I just don't think that there's anything more important than the definition of the social purpose of the corporation. I just don't think that there's any change we could make in the structure of the economy that would reverberate more than moving from this shareholder value primacy definition that we have today to something else, some kind of stakeholder version of it or something more evolved because we live in a commercial society. And like it or not, corporations, companies are the dominant sort of topological feature of the economy. And how they think about what they should do and how they should do it is an extraordinarily important thing.
- [01:52]
Goldie
And you know, it gets to, I think, one of the core principles in the way we understand economics and understand the market, that the, you know, market competition is really important. We view it as an evolutionary system. And if you're not competing, you're not getting innovation. But it is competition between firms, between corporations, largely. The economy is largely happening inside these firms. And so it is what an evolutionary theory is called group selection or multilevel selection. It is competition between these highly cooperative groups of people because that is what is going on within the corporation. People are cooperating, a mix of voluntary and involuntary cooperation. It depends on, on the, your, the, the company you're working for and your job and how much you like it and how much you like the people and that you're working with. But for a corporation to be successful, people have to cooperate because that's where all the value is created. That's where all the innovation comes from. That's where all the productivity comes from. Otherwise we wouldn't have these corporations just be a bunch of individuals fighting with each other in the market.
- [03:07]
Nick Hanauer
Right.
- [03:08]
Goldie
And it's weird that economics loses sight of this.
- [03:13]
Nick Hanauer
Yes.
- [03:14]
Goldie
That it talks about this market of political producers and consumers setting prices and all that, when really most of the economy is not happening in the market. It's happening before you come to market. It's like viewing farming as selling vegetables in a farmer's market, when in fact, most of your year is spent growing and harvesting vegetables.
- [03:43]
Nick Hanauer
That's right. Which is what makes it all the stranger and sillier that the sort of governing framework that we use for managing corporations is shareholder primacy. This idea that the only people who count are shareholders. Not the community, not the employees, not the customers, nothing else. And again, I think of all the bad things that neoliberalism brought, put probably nothing is worse than the issue of than this idea of shareholder primacy, that the only purpose of the corporation is to enrich shareholders, to maximize value for shareholders.
- [04:26]
Goldie
There's this twisted idea of what the economy is for.
- [04:30]
Nick Hanauer
So it'll be really fun today to talk to our friend Lenore Paladino, who has a new book out called Good Economic Policy After Shareholder Primacy, where she discusses how to redesign corporate governance to shift power away from shareholders and towards other stakeholders like workers or the public good. Because I don't think that there's a more important, again, point of leverage available for policymakers.
- [05:02]
Lenore Palladino
I'm Lenore Palladino. I'm an associate professor of economics and public policy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and I'm the author Good Company Economic Policy After Shareholder Primacy.
- [05:16]
Nick Hanauer
Let's start with if you don't mind defining shareholder primacy. Obviously we have spoken about this on the podcast before, the social purpose of the corporation, but take a whack at it and let's expand from there.
- [05:30]
Lenore Palladino
Yeah, well, first let me just say thanks for having me, and I use so many of your podcasts in my teaching. So let me just also plug that. This is such a great teaching tool for people teaching economics and public policy, so I'm happy to be here. So shareholder primacy is this idea that the purpose of the corporation is to make as much money as possible for shareholders. And it really works two ways. It's this idea that profits should flow as much as possible to shareholders and that shareholders should be in charge. And it is the law of the State of Delaware, which is where, for plenty of odd reasons, the majority of large US Corporations are chartered corporate law in the United as state law, not federal law. And it's based on this idea that shareholders are the main group within a corporation that takes the risks. But I see it as something that really contributes to the problems we have in the US of wealth inequality, of declining innovation. And so that's why I got really interested in writing about both the idea of shareholder primacy, but More concretely, policies that we could put in place that would move us away from this framework and towards a better way of operating corporations.
- [06:46]
Goldie
I'm curious, when did it become the law in Delaware and is it different in other states?
- [06:53]
Lenore Palladino
Yeah, so it's been the law in Delaware for quite a long time. And it is with some variation, the way that corporate charter laws are written for for profit business corporations in most states in the US we do have, of course, also other options like public benefit corporations, nonprofits, et cetera. But this is the framework that govern most for profit businesses that are incorporating across the United States for decades and decades. But in the late 70s 80s, as you all have talked about so many times, we had this major shift in our political economy in the United States. And we also had major shifts in terms of who were shareholders. We had the rise of large institutional shareholders in the form of pension funds, endowments, other major pools of financial assets. And we had legal changes that enabled these big pools of assets to start investing in or purchasing corporate equity, whereas before they had been limited to government bonds or other more safe financial assets. So we had a lot of changes in the 80s that really gave shareholder primacy its power. And we also had a whole intellectual revolution that supported these transitions. You know, people love to talk about Milton Friedman's article in the New York Times about the purpose of the corporation is to maximize shareholder value. But we had lots and lots of other leading academics in the law and economics movement really push this idea forward in a way that it just wasn't dominant in the post war era. In the same way.
- [08:39]
Nick Hanauer
Yeah, there's so many ways to go in this conversation, but I think let's start with the idea that shareholders are the only ones who take risk, because that's just obviously not true.
- [08:51]
Lenore Palladino
Yeah, it's a fascinating issue when you really get into the academic literature, because what they're basically saying is that a shareholder who holds a share, because in the legal process of bankruptcy, they're the last one who's going to get a claim that they're the one who, they're the only group that takes risks. But for most of us, especially today in the 21st century, those of us holding equity in with publicly traded companies, we hold through an index fund or some other major. We buy our equities in big baskets. We don't know what companies we're even holding. We face risk if the financial markets broadly go up and down, but our risk doesn't really come from one particular company or another. In contrast, most workers hopefully have Just one job. And so in my view, they're the ones actually taking the most risk in terms of what happens with any given corporation. But the way that the academic law and economics works out, who takes risks. Workers are paid a fixed claim. I'm putting that in air quotes. And so they're not the ones taking any risk at all in these models. And so it's a very weird setup.
- [10:04]
Nick Hanauer
Well, yeah, it's just a setup designed to benefit owners of capital. But the other thing is that it seems intuitively true until you start to think about it. And I'm just, in my head, I'm drawing a contrast between real risk capital, which is sort of what people who start early stage companies do. Like me. Yeah, like me. When I write a check to a couple of people who are starting a company, I'm taking a lot of risk. Most particularly, and this is the key thing, is that if things go poorly, I can't get my money out. Right. Like it's gone.
- [10:42]
Lenore Palladino
Right.
- [10:42]
Nick Hanauer
And if you own shares in a public company, I mean, depending on how you manage yourself, you take almost no risk because if something bad happens, you can just sell the stock the next day.
- [10:56]
Lenore Palladino
Right, right.
- [10:56]
Nick Hanauer
Like you're not going to lose all your money unless you're an idiot.
- [11:00]
Goldie
Another big difference here, Nick, is that when you put money into Amazon when it was starting up, they used that money to start up Amazon. The money went to Amazon. Right. When if I buy a share of Amazon, they're not getting that money.
- [11:15]
Lenore Palladino
No, exactly.
- [11:16]
Goldie
It means nothing to them. I'm not investing, I'm speculating that the price will go up. I'm gambling.
- [11:23]
Lenore Palladino
Right. And that's where I think that so much of our, the cultural misunderstanding of the purpose of the stock market is really, really important in propping up shareholder primacy. So I have another book that I'm working on right now called the Myth that shareholders are always investors. And you know, our laws, the way we talk about shareholders, we call them investors. Because as you said, Nick, there are certain cases where, you know, equity going into an early stage company is, is necessary for that company to grow, to learn how to innovate, etc. But for our public markets today, we call shareholders investors. But most people don't actually realize that, as you said, you know, trading is happening on the secondary markets. That means when I buy st, that money is never going to the company at all. It's going to the person or financial institution that sold the stock. And so this whole, our language problems, the way that you see the Larry Finks of the world talk about the importance of shareholding and index funds to American prosperity and innovation. We have these cultural myths that really support this legal framework that I think are also incredibly important to break down and understand.
- [12:41]
Nick Hanauer
Yeah, And I think it is true that the capital markets are a good thing. It's just not also true that everything should be subordinated to them.
- [12:51]
Goldie
Lenore, I have this argument with people all the time, and they just can't wrap their mind around it where I say that I'm not investing. I'm not investing. And for me, it's not like Nick. I mean, it's just my retirement accounts. So if I buy into a fund or I buy into a stock, that's not investing. It is speculating that things will go up.
- [13:14]
Lenore Palladino
Right. And buying for, you know, financial asset appreciation is something necessary, you know, these days for retirement security. It's not a bad thing in and of itself. But the problem is that, you know, the SEC calls shareholders investors. Our laws are called the Investment Company act, the Investment Advisors Act. And so we've just got this confusion that I think causes a lot of. A lot of these issues to persist.
- [13:39]
Nick Hanauer
In your book, you talk about what makes a company good. What's your definition?
- [13:44]
Lenore Palladino
So a good company, I think, produces goods and services and reduces its negative impact on the world. It innovates through respecting its workforce and its customers. And it doesn't fight regulation, doesn't fight to have a sort of decent democratic political system. I also think that there are some activities that shouldn't be done by large private corporations. So I talk a little bit in the book about just sort of a caveat that, you know, activities like education, healthcare, the basic needs we have as a society, I actually think those are better done through having either public options and large private entities or, you know, through the public sector itself. But I think good companies, essentially, you know, what I'm focusing on in the book is private companies and, you know, their focus on innovation rather than simply.
- [14:38]
Goldie
Financial extraction, you know, and again, people push back to me. Well, companies aren't supposed to be good. They're supposed to just make money. It's about making a profit, not about being good. But in fact, corporations don't have natural rights. They're creations of law. And we charter them for a reason, and that is to improve the public good, isn't it?
- [15:05]
Lenore Palladino
Exactly. Yeah. So we are in a democratic society, which I hope we remain one. In a democratic society, we give a grant of a charter to a corporation that gives that entity the legal right to exist forever, perpetual existence, and gives the shareholders and other humans who are interacting with it some protection from if it goes bankrupt or has other financial challenges. And so for companies to have these benefits, we should also have the public power, public right to regulate them. And there's a lot of, I think, talk that's maybe died down recently, but over the last six or seven years about the changing purpose of the corporation towards paying attention to multiple groups of stakeholders. The Business Roundtable, the leading, you know, one of the leading corporate trade organizations in the US changed its statement on the purpose of the corporation back, you know, seven or eight years ago to say that stakeholders matter, not, you know, including workers, customers, the natural environment. And I think that's important, but I actually think at the end of the day, corporations, it still doesn't focus enough on the actual production process. Right. It's the production of goods and services and innovation over time that I think is what both the shareholder primacy framework and even the stakeholder governance framework. Ms. There's just a black box in the way we teach mainstream economics, even starting at the 101 level. We teach the production process as this black box. There's this mysterious alchemy by which inputs turn into outputs. And that's just been a real failing of economists and others who study the corporation. I think that has to be at the center of how we understand what, what is a good corporation.
- [17:06]
Goldie
It's like trying to an analogy I use. It's like trying to understand biology, the biological world, without ever looking inside the cell. It's like saying that, oh, the economy is all this competition between corporations, when in fact, that's the market, the economy, most of the economy is going on inside the corporations, and that is happening outside of the market.
- [17:33]
Nick Hanauer
That's right. Our friend Cesar Hidalgo, the physicist, says that the original sin of economics is starting with trade, because all the interesting bits come before you trade.
- [17:48]
Lenore Palladino
Exactly.
- [17:48]
Nick Hanauer
It's in the making of the stuff.
- [17:50]
Lenore Palladino
Yep, exactly. And that's what's so interesting. I think that's where in some ways I get jealous sometimes of people in business and management schools because they're actually studying the guts of what's happening. And this used to be part of institutional economics in the United States. It's, you know, it's part of our historical understanding of what corporations do and what happens in the economy. But it's just been totally lost in the last 50 years.
- [18:15]
Goldie
How did that happen? How did economics get so disassociated from things like business, finance and accounting?
- [18:24]
Lenore Palladino
You know, I think that's a great question. I don't know that I have a short answer. You know, economists clearly carved out a space for themselves, themselves of acting as if we could organize our economic life into models, into models that had to solve for optimization so that we would find some sort of perfect equilibrium. So we left out the messy stuff, right? We left out the actual process by which things are produced. We left out the ways in which consumers actually face their decision making around what they buy, what they need, what they want. So we just left it behind. And these other disciplines really took up the space.
- [19:09]
Goldie
Right.
- [19:09]
Nick Hanauer
So you use General Electric as an example in your book. Tell us about that.
- [19:14]
Lenore Palladino
It's a personal example. My grandfather, Arthur Palladino, worked at ge, was a factory worker at the Lynn, Massachusetts factory for many, many years after he came back from World War II. And so I grew up hearing some of those stories about what it was like to be. He didn't get a college education, he didn't. Sort of a classic white ethnic success story really, in that era of the 50s and 60s when you could come from a very poor immigrant family and raise a family into the middle class through a factory job. Right. So, and then I saw in his retirement, he was one of the last sets of workers who managed to hold on to the pension that they had been promised. So GE is the paradigmatic, I think, American corporation of the 20th century. And then we saw the rise of its innovative capacities in many ways. And then we saw it really be the leading corporation in the transition to shareholder primacy with Jack Welch. And there's great, great books out there telling the story in detail. But he is the one that a lot of people credit with training a whole generation of corporate executives to stop paying attention to innovation and really put their attention to, towards maximizing that chair price at all expenses. And we saw what happened. We saw what happened to the workforce at ge. We saw the disintegration of the company and its reconstitution. And I was really fascinated when Pat Gelsinger came in to GE and said, no more buybacks, we're not going to do stock buybacks anymore. That had been one of the biggest tools of the last 20 years of GE of keeping its stock price up. It's just, I think, a really interesting example to tell this broader story, although certainly it's not the only company that's gone through this process.
- [21:10]
Goldie
It's a great example also, just because of its long history. I mean, to go from Thomas Edison to Jack Welch, I mean, Edison, horrible person, but certainly the icon of innovation in American history, Jack Welch, also an awful person. Right. So that's what they have in common. But still very different ways of thinking about how you run the corporation and what the purpose is.
- [21:40]
Lenore Palladino
Absolutely.
- [21:42]
Nick Hanauer
Again, one of the things that you mentioned in your book is that companies are net destroyers of investment capital because they spend more on stock buybacks than they raise in equity. So just explain that and describe how we should respond to it. Yeah, it's kind of funny.
- [22:01]
Lenore Palladino
I'll say two things. One is that specifically I think this, the fact that companies that offer their equity to be traded on the open financial markets, on the public stock markets, they are repurchasing more of their own equity than they're issuing. Again, it's like we're so confused about what happens in the public stock markets. And that's a really surprising fact to people. And I got really focused and learned from one of my mentors, Bill Lazanik, who I know you've had on a bunch, learned from him about stock buybacks and just became fascinated by the fact that they are this legal form of the manipulation of a company stock price by the company. We don't allow that in so many other ways, but we allow it in this form in the open market share repurchases that companies do and we don't regulate it at all. So I've written and testified and done a lot of policy making work in the last administration trying to get limits put on stock buybacks. But I think it's indicative of this broader confusion that we have about the open stock markets. And then the other thing I'll say is that actually a lot of my work right now is studying the private financial markets. So lots of people have been studying and writing and organizing around private equity. I've become really interested in the private credit funds and their rapid, rapid growth and how pension funds and others are shifting more in that direction. And I think we have to also kind of remake our mental models for the next, the second quarter of the 21st century in terms of how corporations are financed. In general, there's going to be more and more non financial corporations that are taking on debt and equity in the private financial markets. They don't have to disclose what's going on. It's really very opaque to most people and it means that there's a lot of potential risk building up up in that sector. So we don't know there how the kind of flows are necessarily moving in terms of net equity issuance. They're certainly moving very differently. But I Think there's also the potential for a lot of risk and a lot of negative effects on innovation building up in the private financial markets as well.
- [24:15]
Nick Hanauer
What could go wrong?
- [24:17]
Lenore Palladino
Right. I mean, I try to not be a Cassandra, but I am a little bit. And I think the similarities that we see in private credit and their entanglement with non financial corporations have a lot of similarities to 2007, 2008. Maybe that's for another episode, but it's scary great.
- [24:34]
Goldie
Hey, Nick, it's capitalism. It's the best of all possible worlds. And if something goes wrong, it's because it's for the best. It's the invisible hand. It's just squeezing the inefficiencies out of the economy. We should probably get to a more positive take on this. What are the things we can do to prevent things from going wrong? What might corporate governance look like after the shareholder primacy era?
- [25:06]
Lenore Palladino
Yeah, I think that there was actually some great kind of green shoots in the Biden administration around industrial policy in particular. And many of the people who worked in the Biden administration really recognized that we needed to push our corporations. You know, we needed to structure regulation and industrial policy so that corporations would focus on innovation and production and not financial extraction. So I think going back to that, you know, going towards an understanding of the corporation as the site of production and innovation for most activities in our economy, you know, leads us to a very different policy framework. I think we need a federal chartering system. This was something that Senator Elizabeth Warren proposed way back in 2018, the Accountable Capitalism act, so that we can actually have the framework to regulate corporations at the federal level and not pretend anymore that they operate at the state level. When we live in a multinational economy and not allow them to choose just their, you know, their site of incorporation when that we don't allow them to choose where they operate, you know, what labor laws they operate under or what environmental laws they operate under. So one of the first kind of, you know, necessary but not sufficient proposals that's in my book is just a federal chartering system which has a whole history in the US That I won't go in here, into here, but it's really interesting. And then I think we need to look at corporate boards. We need to think about who actually has a voice in the main decision making practices of the corporation. There's lots of ways you can do this. There's models around the world that I think we can learn from but not adopt because we have a very unique set up in the US in the intersection between our corporate and labor laws. But you know, we can have worker voices on corporate boards. We can have boards be responsible for looking at the compensation across the company rather than focusing solely on C suite compensation. We can have boards fiduciary duties that their responsibilities be towards the corporation itself rather than simply towards shareholders. So there's another whole range of policies, ways you could do this, but really change what the corporate board is responsible for. You can then limit different types of corporate extractive financial practices. I focused a lot on stock buybacks because they're just fascinating and totally unregulated. But tax policy comes in here. Lots of other ways in which we can focus corporations on using their resources, their retained earnings to invest in the innovative process. And there's other approaches that I think are necessary to make corporate governance effective. We also need, I think, a strengthening of the right to organize. We need environmental laws to be stronger. We need a whole other ecosystem around it. But I've tried to focus on corporate governance really honestly, in part because it's something that I thought progressives weren't paying enough attention to. So before I was in academia, I was a union organizer, I worked at MoveOn for a long time. I was a political organizer, I was an economist at the Roosevelt Institute. And so I've seen the conversations that we've been having for lots and lots of years around what a progressive economic vision looks like. And I felt for a long time like corporate governance, how corporations actually work and are regulated wasn't enough part of that conversation. And so that's why in this book, what I'm trying to do is not necessarily put forward the end all, be all set of solutions, but say we actually have the power, we can regulate corporate governance in a different way. Shareholder primacy is not, you know, didn't come down on stone tablets from Moses. It's not the only way. And so hopefully the book provides a little bit of a opening of the aperture in terms of how we think about corporate governance.
- [29:04]
Goldie
Any ideas on how to change norms? Because in fact, when Friedman published was it 1970 in the New York Times, that was. He was widely ridiculed. It was a very fringe idea that was not the norm in American business back then and now it is. And to suggest otherwise is ridiculed. How do we reset our norms on this?
- [29:37]
Lenore Palladino
It's fascinating too, because people don't realize that he wrote that article in response to Ralph Nader's campaign. Gm so it was a moment when there was a civil society movement towards recognizing, I think some of the Harms of corporations. And this was a, you know, a response, a sort of way to say, no, we can't actually have the corporation have any set of social responsibilities. Although some people argue that he actually had a much narrower vision of what he meant than how it's been interpreted over the last 50 years or 55 years, I guess I think that norms shift through, over the long term through people understanding the harms that shareholder primacy has been created. That's really what motivates me, through people becoming more educated about how the system is set up and how it impacts the larger issues we care about, like economic inequality, climate change. And it'll take some brave political leaders to make this an area where they want to plant, you know, plant a flag. We've seen, you know, certainly different politicians over the last five or six years really focus on this, along with focusing on market power during the Biden administration. And I think that has an important effect of making people wake up and sort of see what the. What the impacts of shareholder primacy have been.
- [31:06]
Nick Hanauer
So final question. Why do you do this work?
- [31:08]
Lenore Palladino
Why I do this work in particular is because, as I said, I was a union organizer. I was a labor organizer. I come from a union family. You know, for a long time, in working on corporate power issues and fighting so hard for dignity and respect at the workplace, you have to ask, where is the money going? And that was, for me, just always the motivating question, where is this money going and why? And so I became focused on shareholder primacy as a place where I felt that I could help bring some more light to the system and hopefully give tools and resources to people who are doing workplace organizing and doing organizing to improve the economy, give them some more tools and frameworks to understand and hopefully change this larger system.
- [31:54]
Nick Hanauer
Awesome.
- [31:54]
Goldie
Great.
- [31:55]
Nick Hanauer
Well, thank you so much for being with us, Lenore.
- [31:57]
Lenore Palladino
Definitely. Thanks so much for having me.
- [32:06]
Goldie
So, a couple takeaways, Nick. One is, and this is something we repeat a lot, which people lose sight of, is that economics is a choice that corporations aren't structured this way, governed this way, because that's the only way to do it. It's a choice we've made both legally, morally, politically, socially, that it's okay and in fact, preferable for corporations to just focus on maximizing shareholder value, the public good be damned. It is a choice, Nick, to actually believe that managing corporations this way will transubstantiate investor selfishness into the public good. We choose to believe that because it's convenient for the people who own the shares Yep. No, my other takeaway, and that is we brought up the idea of risk, that the reason why the owners of shares should be rewarded is because they're taking the risk that if the company goes bankrupt, they're the last ones who get paid off. They lose everything. And I mean, any person who's worked in the real world knows that that's not true. And I'm going to use, I'm going to use my daughter as an example. She's 28 years old, she's in the industry of her choice. And you know, she was applying for jobs recently and she had to make this decision which one to take, which, you know, should she take the job that takes her out of the city, that she has to move someplace and take that risk, which is, you know, potentially a better job, but is isolated more from the rest of the industry. So if it doesn't go well, she's got fewer choices but move back. Does she take the job on at this company, which seems like the better job but it pays less and she knows it's more short term because the project she would be working on is coming to an end, or should she hold off and take neither of those jobs and wait for something else, which probably is coming along in another month, but might not happen? She doesn't know. And people are making these choices all the time. And that's one of the reasons why wages tend to stagnate, because it's risky to switch jobs and people make decisions all the time based on what they're promised by the new employer. And then a few months in that's reneged upon. And because almost everybody, very few people have a contract, they're just at will employees, they can change the terms on you, they can cut your wages.
- [35:11]
Nick Hanauer
And again, it's so easy to sell stock in a public company. It's so hard to quit a job and find a new one, right? The difference is so profound. And by the way, customers take risk too, right? Like when you buy a product from a company, you know, like, you assume that you will get what you paid for. You assume that it will harm, it won't create harm. You know, like there's all sorts of risks in any supply chain. And it's just not true that the only people who take real risk are shareholders. And I think in many ways the shareholders and public companies are the ones taking the least risk because they're in the position that's the most liquid, right? You can change your mind at any moment. Like you can just wake up in the morning and sell your whole position and you're out. But you know customers can't do that and employees can't do that, right?
- [36:06]
Goldie
You buy a GE fridge and, you know, one day out of warranty, the thing, the compressor breaks, you're shit out of luck.
- [36:19]
Nick Hanauer
Well, interesting subject.
- [36:21]
Goldie
Yep. And again, you know, you might not think there is such a thing as a good company, but we will provide a link in the show notes to Lenore's book, Good Company Economic Policy After Shareholder Primacy.
- [36:44]
Podcast Producer
Pitchfork Economics is produced by Civic Ventures. If you like the show, make sure to follow, rate and review us. Wherever you get your podcasts, find us on other platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and threads. Itchforceconomics Nick's on Twitter and Facebook as well. Ickhanhauer for more content from us, you can subscribe to our weekly newsletter, the Pitch over on Substack. And for links to everything we just mentioned, plus transcripts and more, visit our website, Pitchfork economics.com as always from our team at Civic Ventures, thanks for listening. See you next week.