ELA 5/29

I had always considered the words “company” and “corporation” to be synonyms and did not know that corporations were companies with investors. I thought that the merit of having rich capitalists invest in a company is that the company can try out new ideas to create a more innovative company, similar to a patron. Hearing that shareholders can fire corporation leaders whose plans may decrease the profit of the corporation, our group wondered how corporations are supposed to produce new ideas if they are restrained like this. Wouldn’t corporations stay dull? Or do the investors know what items or ideas will be a big hit to the public? Either way, this is an exploitation because investors are taking away the freedom of companies. The colossal difference between a patron and investors is that the investors’ goal is only one: profit. It seems that they don’t care what products the company makes or how the products help citizens unless it is associated with the glamorous word “profit”. Having money gives them the right to dominate even the ideas of the company itself, and this tells me that basically money is everything. It also upset me how even the Supreme Court chooses rich capitalistic people over the actual creators of companies. The Supreme Court where “justice” takes place is also under the capitalistic spell. As Rab said, the Supreme Court judges are all lawyers who worked their way up the system, and in order to be a lawyer, they need to be relatively rich. The members of the judges of the Supreme Court are naturally inclined to put profit before everything, and I think this is not just in the U.S. but also in Japan as well. Is it hopeless to wish that the laws be changed?