The individual buys shares in the HOPE that the shares will rise in value...not only from a profit but from other events.All to often this is not the case.
Exactly, they benefited from the exchange in that they were granted exactly what they wanted. In your world you, your union's super fund, the man on the street would not have an opportunity to invest in any company because you don't want freedom of choice, you want certainty of outcome.
Well,the laws didn't stop him
Nope. And you've proven my point. Introducing more government intervention and more laws won't stop people breaking those new laws either. People break laws. The only thing we do is punish those who break them. Restricting individual economic freedom will not stop that occuring. If you argued that government enforcement of current law should be better - not for more government intervention then you may have a point.
Actually,if it wasn't for the management that run so many organisations there would be no need for unions would there?
I don't think you really understand what unions are for. What exactly do you think unions do for yourself and more importantly those below you on the economic ladder.
Edit:
Just imagine how many jobs his millions would pay for. Please reply ElPerro.
Not a single one. Companies don't employ people based on how much cash they have in the bank, they employ people based on if they are going to make them money or not. Or to put it another way - if they will add to shareholder value. Geoff Dixon's payout has absolutely no effect on whether one more pilot, engineer, cabin crew or cleaner will make QANTAS any more money next year.