Jim Webb

[Damocles]

FYI, Many shares of stock are non voting shares.

FYI, even those shares without a vote have the power of litigation. If a decision is made that can be shown as not good for the Corporation there is a strong ability to force them to change that position even without voting stock. However, enough of them are voting stock that even with just the voting there changes could be made nearly immediate.

 

[uscitizen]

but the more spread out the shares are the less likely litigation will happen. Hmm maybe that is one reason why personal accounts are so attractive to corporations....

 

[Damocles]

but the more spread out the shares are the less likely litigation will happen. Hmm maybe that is one reason why personal accounts are so attractive to corporations....

And the more ignorant the shareholders are of their rights also influences this particular issue. It is a large reason that Corps donate to the D Party, they get the result that they need...

 

[uscitizen]

So the corps do not donate to the republicans ?

LOL, good one there Damo.

 

[Damocles]

So the corps do not donate to the republicans ?

LOL, good one there Damo.

I never said that. I was pointing out that if they were enemies of the corps they wouldn't give them money. They give them money for a specific result, they get it. It is coin-operated government at its best.

 

[uscitizen]

The corpies just copper their bets especially in a divided congress. they are only out for all the money they can get, not for the good of the country.
A one million donation is a good investment if it gets you a 2 billion tax cut....

 

[Damocles]

The corpies just copper their bets especially in a divided congress. they are only out for all the money they can get, not for the good of the country.
A one million donation is a good investment if it gets you a 2 billion tax cut....

They are not out for the good of the Corp., they are out for the good of their own personal accounts. Using corp money to promote bad ideas that, in the long run, will simply leave the company wanting for customers as those who used to be able to afford it no longer have jobs is not good for the company.

They more than hedge, they buy, using the company money, influence to benefit their own pocketbook.

 

[uscitizen]

HUH, if the corp get 2 bill in tax cuts from a 1 million "donation". Most all businesses would consider that a good investment. What's up with the CEO's ???

 

[Damocles]

HUH, if the corp get 2 bill in tax cuts from a 1 million "donation". Most all businesses would consider that a good investment. What's up with the CEO's ???

Keeping them from litigation and punishment for running a company into the ground while paying themselves obscene salaries is incentive...

Subsidies are just the way that they can convince the shareholders they are doing good for the company with that money.

 

[uscitizen]

Making 1.999 more billion is running a company into the ground ?

I don't believe you and I are talking about the same aspects of corporations.

 

[Damocles]

Making 1.999 more billion is running a company into the ground ?

I don't believe you and I are talking about the same aspects of corporations.

No, Look at say AT&T. Dorman comes in, takes it apart sells it for less than it's worth and leaves with a 200 million dollar bonus. Do you see?

Now making a 1.999 Bill profit usually lies in the "moving away from those who can afford you" area.... They usually have short-term rather than long-term health of the company, in that way they "justify" their 400 mill salaries...

Either way, often CEOs and boards are not running companies for the good of the company past a decade or so. Plans are woefully inadequate and shareholders get immediate gain but the future can be grim indeed.

Now, giving yourself several hundred million a year and not spreading that among shareholders can be a reason for corporate litigation. It isn't good for the company in the long run.

 

[uscitizen]

As I said Damo I am talking apples ie corporate influence in govt and you are talking oranges ie mismanaged companies

 

[OrnotBitwise]

No, Look at say AT&T. Dorman comes in, takes it apart sells it for less than it's worth and leaves with a 200 million dollar bonus. Do you see?

Now making a 1.999 Bill profit usually lies in the "moving away from those who can afford you" area.... They usually have short-term rather than long-term health of the company, in that way they "justify" their 400 mill salaries...

Either way, often CEOs and boards are not running companies for the good of the company past a decade or so. Plans are woefully inadequate and shareholders get immediate gain but the future can be grim indeed.

Now, giving yourself several hundred million a year and not spreading that among shareholders can be a reason for corporate litigation. It isn't good for the company in the long run.

Granted, but what, in terms of simple profit motive, is so important about "the long run?"

 

[Damocles]

As I said Damo I am talking apples ie corporate influence in govt and you are talking oranges ie mismanaged companies

I am talking about both. Do you deliberately misread my posts?

They pay the government to keep people in the dark so they can mismanage...

It is one of the ways that corporations use the coin-operated government.

The only reason "hedging" their bets would work is if they got something for the cash they give to the Ds as well. If, truly, Ds were enemies of the way they do business they would not give money, in fact it would be illegal action as it would easily be seen as detrimental to the corporation and against business ethics laws.

 

[Damocles]

Granted, but what, in terms of simple profit motive, is so important about "the long run?"

They are required by law to work toward the health of the corporation, profit is not the only goal they are required to work toward. This is one more way people are ignorant of economics, they don't even know the requirements placed on them...

:shakes head:

 

[uscitizen]

Why should the bad corpies worry most fo them don't go to jail. Did Delta execs go to jail for mismanagemnt of pension funds, did GM, Ford, etc...and that is covered by federal law. The benefits manager can personally go to jail for that.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

They are required by law to work toward the health of the corporation, profit is not the only goal they are required to work toward. This is one more way people are ignorant of economics, they don't even know the requirements placed on them...

:shakes head:

If there is more profit, for the largest shareholders, in pilage then there's little incentive to rein in the practice. Which is what we're seeing now, in my opinion.

The question isn't really what's going on. The question is what to do about it. You seem to think that most shareholders are going to be more interested in the long term "health" of the company. I disagree: I see little evidence that most are.

 

[uscitizen]

This shareholder is just playing the game. As long as the price stays high till next week when I sell, I am happy. I expect to make 5 grand for a 2 week "investment".

 

[Damocles]

If there is more profit, for the largest shareholders, in pilage then there's little incentive to rein in the practice. Which is what we're seeing now, in my opinion.

The question isn't really what's going on. The question is what to do about it. You seem to think that most shareholders are going to be more interested in the long term "health" of the company. I disagree: I see little evidence that most are.

If you believe that the vast majority of the middle class are upset over the division of wages then say this you are directly in contradiction with yourself.

 

[Damocles]

This shareholder is just playing the game. As long as the price stays high till next week when I sell, I am happy. I expect to make 5 grand for a 2 week "investment".

Except you are not. You tell me that you are upset over the division of wages, I give you the tools to end it, instead you want the government to do it for you.

:More Head Shaking:

S'dayus'!