PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Amazing!
Should Mitt release his tax returns?
- Thread starter northeast
- Start date
Amazing!
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
None that I know of. How is that relevant? I safeguarded my money. That's all I care about.
There ya go, so what makes you the authority on social morality if you care about nothing but yourself?.
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
Where did I say I was an authority on social morality?
Thatt in no way makes him a worse judge of morality than you, I or anyone else.
You didn't but that is what Northeast sees. In my opinion at least.
Its relevant because that was the whole point of your delusional post; the responsibility and power of non-insider individual shareholders to exert their oversight and power over executive performance and compensation packages, and thereby prevent executives from profiting improperly by engineered or random fluctuations in stock prices benefiting the voluminous stock options they get, (not to mention the generous severance packages now the norm as you pointed out.)
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
Second point - I said I only cared about safeguarding my money.
How do you equate that with caring about nothing but myself?
Are you saying I am my money?
Your logic escapes me.
He has logic? Where?
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
You are making some ridiculous leaps.
A non-insider does not have oversight. He votes on Board Members that exercise oversight.
I very specifically stated that if a shareholder does not like the current board, then they can sell their stock if they do not trust that their equity in the company is safe. The power on executive oversight and compensation packages lies with the board members.
In other words, I elect a President of the United States, and trust that he will govern the country in a way that is fair and equitable, and will maximize my experience as a United States Citizen. If I don't like the way he's governing things, I vote for a different president. The big difference here is that with stock, I can completely vacate any association with a company I don't agree with. With citizenship, it's not that easy.
Dude, you are ALL over the board, here. Focus.
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
I'm still hoping and searching.
here is lefty offering his authority on social morality (aka responsibility)
That's better, you are moving closer to reality now.
That depends on what the responsibility is for. Context man context...
and how realistic is it to expect a million shareholders to analyze the compensation packages and come to a unified consensus course of action regarding changing the board of directors or compensation packages.
Are not 99% of these votes an illusion, with no real impact except in the most extreme instances involving something much more unusual than executives getting larger pay checks than justified by the debatable value added by the executives?
and how does each member of the board of directors provide such great oversight when they are serving on 10 different boards?
Is it really in their interest to be powerful advocates for the shareholders, or does it make more sense for them to just show up for their meetings , to be good yes men, approve whatever the executives recommend, and try to use their compliant track record to get on more boards?
Is it really in their interest to be powerful advocates for the shareholders, or does it make more sense for them to just show up for their meetings , to be good yes men, approve whatever the executives recommend, and try to use their compliant track record to get on more boards?
You said this in your second post, backtracking from your first delusional post in which you celebrated the ability, power, and responsibility of stockholders to oversee executive compensation packages in our economic system. Stocks are bought and sold for thousands of reasons, and I maintain that a few people buying and selling some stock for what they perceive as good or bad compensation plans is not sufficient to ensure a healthy economic system as it is currently set up. If there was more disclosure of such matters, more discipline in public attitudes about wasting money, and stockholders generally had real power to make changes, I would be sympathetic to your perspective.
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
Basic tenets of my argument:
1. People who own stock are ultimately responsible for owning their own stock.
2. If they don't want to pay attention to decisions having to do with individual companies, then perhaps they should buy into mutual funds and trust the fund managers to do that research for them.
3. If they do get burned, it's because they gambled and lost.
4. Companies that give out golden parachutes are idiotic, and I do not invest in them.
5. It is not my responsibility to police what other people do with their money. I have enough responsibility safeguarding my own.
northeast, sir, you are emotional, you are not looking at these statements objectively, you are seeing them as an attack on your personal belief system.
Because of that, I don't think there's any way we would agree on anything - regardless of any logic presented in either individual's arguments.
1. People who own stock are ultimately responsible for owning their own stock.
2. If they don't want to pay attention to decisions having to do with individual companies, then perhaps they should buy into mutual funds and trust the fund managers to do that research for them.
3. If they do get burned, it's because they gambled and lost.
4. Companies that give out golden parachutes are idiotic, and I do not invest in them.
5. It is not my responsibility to police what other people do with their money. I have enough responsibility safeguarding my own.
northeast, sir, you are emotional, you are not looking at these statements objectively, you are seeing them as an attack on your personal belief system.
Because of that, I don't think there's any way we would agree on anything - regardless of any logic presented in either individual's arguments.