Page 4 of 47
#121
Quote by Lemoninfluence
not really.

shareholder apathy has only just started to wane.

large investment companies didn't really exercise their vote to try and alter the way the company was run. When a company took a course of action that made the share price drop, instead of getting rid of the directors who thought that course of action was good, they simply sold the shares and moved on to greener pastures.

Pension funds and investment companies don't really care how other companies are doing, only how valuable their shares are (i.e. how the pension fund/investment company itself is performing). And many of the minority shareholders don't attend the general meetings (mainly due to geographic restrictions but also due to apathy), they just give a director their proxy.

Shareholders only have sway if they attend the general meetings. A resolution needs 50%+1 of the votes in attendance to pass, not 50% + 1 of all votes.


Investors dont exercise their voice to alter the companies direction, but their profits and growth determine whether or not they retain their stock or simply pull out.

Which results in a company worth less, with less capital for R&D and investment, resulting in a weaker company.

Losing investment and stock price is something a company clearly does not for those few reasons plus hundreds of more, while the investors dont have a demanding power on the company, they are a heavy force in the companies decisions as the company needs to retain the investors the best they can.

They are a silent controlling factor. And an early investor in big successful company is worth exceptionally large amounts of money as well, still being rich, what plenty of the protestors are against.

Either way i feel like this is starting to derail. And i believe my buddy will be here soon so i dont expect to be responding anymore.
Sell and Promote your music TuneHub!



wy is yer mad at muy gramhar fer?


Quote by jimmyled
jimmybanks youre a genius.


aparently i ar smrt?
Quote by dyingLeper
jimmybanks youre a genius


GO SENS GO
#122
Quote by JimmyBanks6
Investors dont exercise their voice to alter the companies direction, but their profits and growth determine whether or not they retain their stock or simply pull out.

Which results in a company worth less, with less capital for R&D and investment, resulting in a weaker company.

Losing investment and stock price is something a company clearly does not for those few reasons plus hundreds of more, while the investors dont have a demanding power on the company, they are heavily controlling what the company does as the company needs to retain the investors the best they can.

They are a silent controlling factor. And an early investor in big successful company is worth exceptionally large amounts of money as well, still being rich, what plenty of the protestors are against.

Either way i feel like this is starting to derail. And i believe my buddy will be here soon so i dont expect to be responding anymore.

Apart from newly issued shares companies don't gain or lose any capital from a sale of shares. Especially when they were previously owned by apathetic shareholders. And while the Directors don't want to annoy the shareholders too much (otherwise they might exercise their vote at the next meeting) none of this helps the people on the street.

Directors merely concern themselves with 2 things, sating the shareholder's appetite for dividends and sorting themselves out. The risky decisions they take still disproportionately affect the workers while exposing them to very little liability.

That's the point. These people are afforded levels of protection that the normal person can only dream of. They can control their own pay (as long as they don't piss off the boss), they can take risky decisions without facing any personal liability (unless they chose to invest personally in the company or are fraudulent) and they are the last to be hurt when something does go wrong.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#128
Ok, so I'm not in to politics/political science at all, so could someone dumb this stuff down for me?

I can hearing about it, and from what I can gather, it seems like a pretty solid deal.

However, it's difficult to give much sympathy to the cause, given that everyone at my college that supports it is a hipster bitching about how their art and history degrees aren't paying off their ~$80,000 student loans...
#129
Quote by jumi1174
Ok, so I'm not in to politics/political science at all, so could someone dumb this stuff down for me?

I can hearing about it, and from what I can gather, it seems like a pretty solid deal.

However, it's difficult to give much sympathy to the cause, given that everyone at my college that supports it is a hipster bitching about how their art and history degrees aren't paying off their ~$80,000 student loans...

Okay, here's the summary.

Regular people are fed up of being ****ed over by the system. The business interests who own the world and have the government in their back pockets exist as a seperate entity to the rest of us who serve as little more than cogs in the machine, or wage slaves, to keep the business world going.

In other words, the 99% are all serving the 1% and people are sick of being screwed over quite so much, you only need to view the recession to see this. Bankers get given millions, banks get bailed out for failing and we're all in debt and meanwhile all of the regular people are losing their jobs as the money filters slowly back up.

This creates a few things, demand for jobs at increasingly lower pay, people joining the millitary just to pay to get an education (applies for america more than elsewhere) which is helpful to the worlds major hostile terrorist state that is in almost a constant state of imperialist invasion for obvious reasons. And as i said before, it filters money back upwards.

You get a video like this http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23991638-trader-i-dream-of-another-recession-so-i-can-make-money.do on the BBC and people are outraged, the only difference between what this guy said and what Noam Chomsky says is that Chomsky would say it's a bad thing, which it obviously is since it causes a lot of suffering, but that's it. The fundaments are correct,

this is worth reading too
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article12687.html
#130
Quote by Zoot Allures
You seen any other michael parenti vids on there? You or anyone whos interested should check em out.


I doubt they have, seeing as they're an adbot.
#132
Quote by Zoot Allures
They're learning


Most adbots I've researched usually have a few random posts that they make before they get down to business.

You were just unlucky in replying, but at least you didn't pull an IRISH_PUNK13.
#133
@ recommending Michael Parenti to adbots.

Maybe he'll go organize the other adbots...
Quote by EpiExplorer
I swear this guy in particular writes for the telegraph or some shit.

Quote by Fat Lard
My name can actually be traced back to as early as the 1990s, it means "fuck off data miner"
#134
Quote by devourke
Most adbots I've researched usually have a few random posts that they make before they get down to business.

You were just unlucky in replying, but at least you didn't pull an IRISH_PUNK13.


What did he do?
#136


I know it's a strawman, but still lol'd
Quote by Ian_the_fox
You're not girly enough of a boy for me, and you're not man enough to take the top. So like, sorry bitch but you ain't mine! Sorry.
#137
There are still good corporations out there. Like P&G. I know a ton of people who have gotten good jobs there almost straight out of college.

Also, the Occupy America protests were on campus today, and everyone was like, "What is this for?"

And the general reply was, "We're just trying to like, oppose the corporations, they're just putting us down." Then when asked how the would oppose the corporations, they just kept chanting "United we stand, divided we fall!" Needless to say, most people just laughed at them before going on their way.
#138
Quote by CrossBack7
There are still good corporations out there. Like P&G. I know a ton of people who have gotten good jobs there almost straight out of college.


Quote by CrossBack7
ton of people who have gotten good jobs there almost straight out of college.


Quote by CrossBack7
gotten good jobs


Quote by CrossBack7
gotten


Quote by CrossBack7
gotten


Maybe you should gotten some better grammar, nigga.
#140
Quote by CrossBack7
Learn the English language, ya twat.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gotten


Gotten is correct, and very old. In England many people wrongly assume that gotten is a modern Americanism, but the truth is the English more-or-less stopped using it, and have forgotten (!) that they used to use it.

That said, "gotten" isn't good English. In most cases other, more precise and meaningful words should be used in its place.

While "have got" sounds wrong to American ears, "have gotten" can usually be replaced by "have become", and "have been able to" or "have had the chance/opportunity to" would make better sense in other situations.

"You would have got along with him" is proper English.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_gotten_correct_grammar

Gotten isn't good English brah. Get some skill.
#142
Yeah, cause wikianswers is such a reliable source.

Many of my fellow acquaintances were bestowed with professions most fitting to their personal desires.

Happy now? Nitpicky douchebag...No reason to point that out in the first place.
#143
Quote by CrossBack7
Yeah, cause wikianswers is such a reliable source.

Many of my fellow acquaintances were bestowed with professions most fitting to their personal desires.

Happy now? Nitpicky douchebag...No reason to point that out in the first place.


You Americans are so uptight
#145
Quote by Lemoninfluence

Directors merely concern themselves with 2 things, sating the shareholder's appetite for dividends and sorting themselves out. The risky decisions they take still disproportionately affect the workers while exposing them to very little liability.

Directors = Shareholders. I think you meant executives. And just in any other job, you are usually not exposed to any liability. That is, if you lose your job, they don't expect you to sell your house to pay company debts.


That's the point. These people are afforded levels of protection that the normal person can only dream of. They can control their own pay (as long as they don't piss off the boss), they can take risky decisions without facing any personal liability (unless they chose to invest personally in the company or are fraudulent) and they are the last to be hurt when something does go wrong.


Who're they? If by directors, keep in mind the amount of shares they would need to hold in order to be on the board of directors. That in itself usually requires a substantial amount of investment so they don't really get out of things unscathed. If their company goes under, they are closer to the first to get hurt than the last. Gotta pay debtors and preferential shareholders first, if anything is left.

Btw, executives are the ones who make risky decisions.
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ
#146
Quote by devourke
Gotten is correct, and very old. In England many people wrongly assume that gotten is a modern Americanism, but the truth is the English more-or-less stopped using it, and have forgotten (!) that they used to use it.

That said, "gotten" isn't good English. In most cases other, more precise and meaningful words should be used in its place.

While "have got" sounds wrong to American ears, "have gotten" can usually be replaced by "have become", and "have been able to" or "have had the chance/opportunity to" would make better sense in other situations.

"You would have got along with him" is proper English.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_gotten_correct_grammar

Gotten isn't good English brah. Get some skill.


Originally Posted by CrossBack7
ton of people who have had become good jobs there almost straight out of college.



That's longer and if it was put as 'have been able to' then it's longer. Gotten is a good word, we need to bring it back.
#147
Quote by fail


I know it's a strawman, but still lol'd

It's not even a strawman, it just shows that people have no understanding of what the problem is.
No-one is trying to say that corporations should be dismantled, that's not the goal. The idea is to separate corporations from government and media. This is because private returns do not line up with social returns in those areas.

Panasonic can still make cameras, just not policy.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#148
Quote by devourke
You Americans are so uptight


You're the one that got upset over him using gotten.
#149
Quote by Cianyx
Directors = Shareholders. I think you meant executives. And just in any other job, you are usually not exposed to any liability. That is, if you lose your job, they don't expect you to sell your house to pay company debts.

directors are the executives.

a CEO is a director as is the chief financial officer and the chairman etc.

It's called the board of directors for a reason. They direct how the company works.

And although a lot of the time there is an overlap (i.e. directors have shares in the company) they are separate things for the purposes of running the company. And if directors lose their jobs they aren't expected to sell their house to pay company debts unless they've acted negligently or fraudulently.

The point that I was making was that if their choice of action doesn't pan out, they aren't the one who faces the consequences. In fact they're usually the last to feel the consequences of their actions.

If an ordinary employee makes a call to pursue a particular action and it costs the company money, they're likely to face some disciplinary procedure if not lose their job altogether. Directors just make their excuses to the shareholders, maybe cut a few overheads in order to maintain profits (read cut jobs) and everything is hunky dory.

Who're they? If by directors, keep in mind the amount of shares they would need to hold in order to be on the board of directors. That in itself usually requires a substantial amount of investment so they don't really get out of things unscathed. If their company goes under, they are closer to the first to get hurt than the last. Gotta pay debtors and preferential shareholders first, if anything is left.

Btw, executives are the ones who make risky decisions.

executives are directors, directors are executives.

Shareholders are the people (or corporations) that 'own' the company, directors are the day to day managers.

You don't get on the board by buying shares. You can, but it's not an automatic thing and you'd have to purchase a significant amount of the company's equity to guarantee it. But usually, directors of large companies are appointed by other directors. They need a position filling and they know someone who's been doing well at company Y so they invite him to join the board of Company X and recommend them to the shareholders who then authorise the appointment by ordinary resolution.

And shareholders are only hurt to the extent that they lose their initial investment and lose out on dividends. Considering their initial investment is out of their reach when the company is going well, that's not much of a loss if it goes under. And they only lose this if the company goes under. Where a company is still going but limping along, the employees are the ones to feel the burden as you end up with job cuts and cost cutting in order to try and maintain that profit margin to keep the shareholders happy.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#150
My favorite part about the protests are young, college/high school students, in debt, living with parents, have done nothing of significance in their lifetime are accusing the protesters of being lazy, good-for-nothing hippies, who need to get a job.

The irony overwhelms my brain -- and they don't realize the protests are for their benefit.
The lake was silent for some time. Finally it said:
"I weep for Narcissus, but I never noticed that Narcissus was beautiful. I weep because, each time he knelt beside my banks, I could see, in the depths of his eyes, my own beauty reflected."
#151
wall street is a joke imo. the shift of money and confidence can influence further shift of money. that is an hypothetical market with hypothetical currency. i'm a firm believer in what you reap is what you sow.
and then you have the banks with their hypothetical interest rates which everyone is bound by. and then you have the fact that you're born into debt whether it be that you need to buy a house, get an education or set up a business. the only exception is if you're born rich; i.e. born into royalty. we're all slaves really
the worst thing is land ownership. no one is born with a fair chance of survival relative to another person.
riches are one thing - i have no problem with rich people as long as everyone has the absolute same chance of survival and wealth is proportional to the work done by a person. that is not the case anymore and it is sad to see people fighting over land when we're all one race.

in short, occupy wall street is a waste if they hope to change the world. it'll take something epic to make the world a better place. incremental changes in a flawed system do nothing.
Quote by Meths

I don't think any words should be censored.

Especially faggot since homos aren't real people and all.

Quote by sam b
Man City wont win anything and finish below Arsenal.

city: 3rd + FA cup winners.
arsenal: 4th
#152
Quote by ErikLensherr
After 2 years of tea party chuckleheads dominating the media narrative, finally a protest movement that actually makes sense. You have to thank the NYPD for the free publicity.



The tea party had a clear message about why they protest, they want less government domination in their lives, they want wasteful spending to stop, they want less taxation burdening the people for wasteful adventures INCLUDING war, and this also includes the bailout using tax money that went to wall street. Then some republican conservatives who are part of the problem weasled their way into the tea party and corrupted it.

I'd say the tea party and the "occupy wall street" protesters have common ground with wasteful wars and protesting wall street welfare. However from what I am seeing of the occupy wall street protesters is they don't have a uniform message or goal. Some are just whining because they have tuition fees and expect to be given everything for free. Some are just ranting about tax the rich which ISN'T the real solution.

The occupy wall street protesters seem partisan and need to confess that their left side of liberal politics is in part to blame for the situation and that their politicians like Obama are as corrupt and greedy as they claim the republicans and wall street are. I see fringe elements of socialists joining those protesters and I cringe because socialism is not the way to prosperity.

Some of those protesters might be out of a job because it was out sourced or given to a illegal instead yet the democratic liberals pander to illegals and want to give them free healthcare at tax payers expense and refuse to do anything to stop illegal immigrants yet they place sole blame on business and wall street? Clinton, the hero of the liberal left, is the one who pushed NAFTA and China favored status which has led to jobs being lost. Republicans did support it also. We owe Ross Perot a apology because he was right after all.

The democrats and Obama pass a new credit card law that is suppose to help people and what happens?, the interest rates skyrocket hurting people. The democrats and Obama pass a law regulating bank fees and what happens?, the fees skyrocket and new charges start to make up. Don't blame wall street for all that is wrong although yes some banksters and corporations need to be challenged, but occupy Wash DC also because government is part of the problem also.
#153
Quote by Zoot Allures
Okay, here's the summary.

Regular people are fed up of being ****ed over by the system. The business interests who own the world and have the government in their back pockets exist as a seperate entity to the rest of us who serve as little more than cogs in the machine, or wage slaves, to keep the business world going.

In other words, the 99% are all serving the 1% and people are sick of being screwed over quite so much, you only need to view the recession to see this. Bankers get given millions, banks get bailed out for failing and we're all in debt and meanwhile all of the regular people are losing their jobs as the money filters slowly back up.

This creates a few things, demand for jobs at increasingly lower pay, people joining the millitary just to pay to get an education (applies for america more than elsewhere) which is helpful to the worlds major hostile terrorist state that is in almost a constant state of imperialist invasion for obvious reasons. And as i said before, it filters money back upwards.

You get a video like this http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23991638-trader-i-dream-of-another-recession-so-i-can-make-money.do on the BBC and people are outraged, the only difference between what this guy said and what Noam Chomsky says is that Chomsky would say it's a bad thing, which it obviously is since it causes a lot of suffering, but that's it. The fundaments are correct,

this is worth reading too
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article12687.html


Thanks for the nice reply, zoot

First time I've seen a response from you that doesn't make me want to punch you in the head

And this is not directed at you, more to the thread at large; I agree that people supporting this has an excellent motivation. However, the way they're putting their message across isn't doing it for me.

Again, I find it very hard to take seriously a bunch hipsters complaining about their art degrees.

#154


Quote by jumi1174
Again, I find it very hard to take seriously a bunch hipsters complaining about their art degrees.

That's not what's happening at all. I don't know why everyone keeps on trying to trivialize the protests by saying that. It's just a poor attempt at making the protesters, who can at this point be safely considered brave individuals, seem insincere or inauthentic.
Quote by CrunchyRoll
My favorite part about the protests are young, college/high school students, in debt, living with parents, have done nothing of significance in their lifetime are accusing the protesters of being lazy, good-for-nothing hippies, who need to get a job.

The irony overwhelms my brain -- and they don't realize the protests are for their benefit.

+1

It's just a way for them to avoid cognitive dissonance and make themselves feel better for doing fuck all.
Last edited by due 07 at Oct 8, 2011,
#156
I'm not reading 150+ posts so feel free to respond with a quote (even quote yourself) if this has been answered but dude, I don't get it.

What's all this standing about in the street supposed to gain? They don't have any official goals as a matter of policy. The people who are in position to know they're angry already do know--and they don't care because they're still profiting off them anyway. Public awareness? They do realize the media reports are ahem filtered through an American media that is nearly a solid corporate monopoly, which is seemingly exactly what these people are against, right? These are the same people who every October return to the polls and vote for fake liberal politicians who really just want to bend over for corporate money just as much as conservatives do. Doesn't matter if you vote heads or tails, you're voting for the same coin. Do they think businesses will stop trying to make money if they stand in the street for long enough? Do they think government will stop being run by people who want kickbacks from those businesses? Or is anything they're doing actually making it difficult for Wall Street to function, and I've missed it?

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#157
You answered your own question, really. They want to bring some semblance of democracy to their country, and their mobilization is an optimistic sign of rising political consciousness. It's become much more clear to most people that Democrats and Republicans are two factions of the same party.
#158
Quote by due 07
You answered your own question, really. They want to bring some semblance of democracy to their country, and their mobilization is an optimistic sign of rising political consciousness. It's become much more clear to most people that Democrats and Republicans are two factions of the same party.

About which this protest does..... what, exactly?

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#159
Quote by SteveHouse
About which this protest does..... what, exactly?

They're generally against the spectacularly top-heavy wealth concentration, corporate influence in the political sphere, the greedy misconduct of the financial district, corporate personhood, regressive taxation, the stingy public sector, and so on. The protesters want real change now, not pseudoliberal rhetoric, so they're organizing on the streets.

You asked what "standing about on the street" was supposed to do? Well, it's a peaceful protest. Don't expect them to start throwing molotov cocktails in the New York Stock Exchange or anything.
#160
Quote by due 07
They're generally against the spectacularly top-heavy wealth concentration,
Fixable by redistribution of wealth. Would any of these people self-identify as socialists? Hell no. Therefore they want an ideal with no way to reach it.
corporate influence in the political sphere,
This will never go away. Ever.
the greedy misconduct of the financial district,
Welcome to capitalism. Welcome to deregulation.
the stingy public sector,
I don't even know what this means.
and so on. The protesters want real change now, not pseudoliberal rhetoric, so they're organizing on the streets.

You asked what "standing about on the street" was supposed to do? Well, it's a peaceful protest. Don't expect them to start throwing molotov cocktails in the New York Stock Exchange or anything.

So they want real change now and they're doing it by exercising an ultimately futile right that the ruling classes both condone and encourage because it gives you the feeling of doing something when in reality it does dick. (And when it actually could have an impact, they intimidate and arrest everyone as fast as they can. See WTO, Seattle; G20, Toronto.)

So again, why? No one will change what goes on in the system without changing the system and the system is currently so well-entrenched that, at least without having real goals, I don't see this movement having a good tangible idea anywhere.

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)