Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Greenbelt, MD 08/22

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Metaverse

View
879 Replies. 44 pages. Viewing page 9.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ] Older >

719. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 21:36 RollinThundr
 
Prez wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 19:46:
RT, you can call me a libtard or Obama apologist but on the subject of the ACA I honestly don't see enough evidence to prove that the ACA naysayers were right as you are claiming. Okay, so the rollout has been embarrassingly disastrous and indicates some serious incompetence in at least part of Obama's administration, but the piss-poor rollout in and of itself doesn't prove the whole program a failure. That determination will take some time. You can cite evidence of cases where people have been notified they are being dropped by their insurance carriers, and others where people have seen premium increases, but as of yet I don't think it is widespread enough to claim some sort of weird "victory".

Make no mistake - I don't have much faith in government. I am not at all surprised by the botched launch nor will I be shocked if the ACA ultimately fails and implodes. But the difference between you and me is that I am hoping that somehow it succeeds in fixing (at least in part) our woefully broken system; you on the other hand are rooting for its failure so we can go back to our hopelessly broken system.

Pres, I actually respect you unlike some other people on this site. You post well thought out opinions and don't sling bullshit just to sling it.

Personally like I've said, I don't think anything the government can do in regards to healthcare is ever going to be better than what the private sector could do with proper regulation.

I think a lot of people forget we in the US have the best and most advanced healthcare in the world, research and development also isn't cheap.

Do I think big pharma makes too much money? Yes I do, they also have quite the lobbying power which is why the healthcare industry has been able to get away with charging more than they realistic should.

I don't see that changing ACA or no ACA. Because at this point in time the "Afordable heath care act" is anything but affordable, and the only people it benefits are people that don't and haven't paid into the system in the first place on the backs of those of us who do. it's like welfare in healthcare form. And you surely by now know how I feel about welfare.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
718. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 21:31 RollinThundr
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 17:46:
This thread stands as a towering monument to RollinThundr's diminutive intellect.

Anytime RT tries to start some shit in a thread in the future, we should simply link this thread and say, "sorry, you're not qualified to make an argument."

This is the shit I mean, it's constant personal attacks with left leaning folks, it's like you can debate with out calling someone an idiot or a retard, you people don't attack their content just them to try and invalidate their opinions. It's ridiculous.

And it's all because you're the type of people that can't fucking stand that there are always going to be those who are more successful than you, like you have to get them, to make them somehow pay for those who refuse to elevate themselves.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
717. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 19:46 Prez
 
RT, you can call me a libtard or Obama apologist but on the subject of the ACA I honestly don't see enough evidence to prove that the ACA naysayers were right as you are claiming. Okay, so the rollout has been embarrassingly disastrous and indicates some serious incompetence in at least part of Obama's administration, but the piss-poor rollout in and of itself doesn't prove the whole program a failure. That determination will take some time. You can cite evidence of cases where people have been notified they are being dropped by their insurance carriers, and others where people have seen premium increases, but as of yet I don't think it is widespread enough to claim some sort of weird "victory".

Make no mistake - I don't have much faith in government. I am not at all surprised by the botched launch nor will I be shocked if the ACA ultimately fails and implodes. But the difference between you and me is that I am hoping that somehow it succeeds in fixing (at least in part) our woefully broken system; you on the other hand are rooting for its failure so we can go back to our hopelessly broken system.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
716. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 18:15 Beamer
 
Please show me one example of me contradicting myself. Or changing goalposts.

Whenever this happens, it's you misunderstanding me. Maybe it's like the CEO comment, where you thought I was speaking about CEOs and I was speaking in general, which could be just due to things getting lost in text. But, more often, you think I'm saying something I'm not, for reasons I just can't figure out. You think I'm saying something super liberal or super democratic. I can't count the amount of times I've said "man, Obama fucked that up" only to have you say "stop defending the president!"
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
715. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 18:06 nin
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 17:46:
This thread stands as a towering monument to trollindunder's diminutive intellect.

Anytime RT tries to start some shit in a thread in the future, we should simply link this thread and say, "sorry, you're not qualified to make an argument."

I'm laughing out loud - thank you!

 
http://www.nin.com/pub/tension/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
714. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 17:46 Wowbagger_TIP
 
This thread stands as a towering monument to RollinThundr's diminutive intellect.

Anytime RT tries to start some shit in a thread in the future, we should simply link this thread and say, "sorry, you're not qualified to make an argument."
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
713. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 17:17 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 16:53:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 16:26:
Beamer wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 12:58:

I love that he calls you cupcake, and that's ok, but when I did something similarly dismissive-but-not-aggressive he said "ADHOM" and didn't address the substance of the post.

Every one of your post has a derogatory sling or 3, often times for no reason.

You're going to try and tell me people are too stupid to know what stocks they have or what they're invested in? I'm sure some just have their broker or whatever deal with it, sure, but you seriously have this really terrible habit of over generalizing to try and make a point and I gotta say it's really fucking annoying.

Because you make your posts with such authority but they're so problematic.
For instance, we spent 300 posts dealing with your 23 Executive Orders. You refused to say which you meant. A simple link would have cut the discussion to 10% of what it became, but you refused. Then, when it was posted, you claimed it wasn't what you were talking about, but it was, meaning you had no clue what you were talking about but kept insisting you were right. You followed it up by claiming they were attempts to be laws, but most of them were "release a letter," which isn't remotely.

Never once did you actually say anything specific. You just said "they're orders meant to be laws." If you want to not be called an asshole, say something specific and cite it.

Then you make claims about other people's posts, but again, you do it in one phrase. Actually quote something. When am I overgeneralizing? Show me. Quote an example and say "here you are overgeneralizing."

Every time you're asked for specifics, be it about something you feel the government is doing or something you feel we are doing, you ignore it. If you can't show specifics you have no point and are wasting our time. But you keep making all kinds of claims without ever bothering to put some veracity behind them. You get called out and deny it. Or you say "read between the lines" without posting what the lines are and what we should be reading between them. And then you wonder why people think you have no point, no understanding, and think your arguments are horrible.

That whole entire thing was like ships passing in the night. I've paid enough attention to this president, and types like Feinstein to realize their end game, none of it is based on transparency or being at all honest to begin with. You seem to be content just blindly going along though, or at least you make it seem that way more often than not.

You ignore half of posts contents that you can't or won't dispute, and twist what people say when you disagree with them. To be honest it's flat out frustrating trying to have a discussion with you because the goal posts constantly change. You also seem to have this habit of being condescending to people regardless of the topic, be it games or government or whatever else.

We both know government is never going to do anything more efficient than the private sector, that should be pretty common fact at this point, yet that's still the democrat answer to everything MOAR GOVERNMENT!

What cracks me up the most about it actually is the poor and lower income people are only pandered to at all by the democrats for one reason and one reason only, votes. You know it, I know it, yet you seem to still more often than not side with them anyway. It's not like liberals don't get as much corporate lobbying as republicans either.

I think you're far more intelligent than a nin or redmask who only toss out personal attacks without any sort of substance at all, still it's hard to understand where you're coming from at times because you seem to contradict yourself often or at least hold back on how you really feel because whoever you're arguing with might think you're conceding a point? I don't know.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
712. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 16:53 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 16:26:
Beamer wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 12:58:

I love that he calls you cupcake, and that's ok, but when I did something similarly dismissive-but-not-aggressive he said "ADHOM" and didn't address the substance of the post.

Every one of your post has a derogatory sling or 3, often times for no reason.

You're going to try and tell me people are too stupid to know what stocks they have or what they're invested in? I'm sure some just have their broker or whatever deal with it, sure, but you seriously have this really terrible habit of over generalizing to try and make a point and I gotta say it's really fucking annoying.

Because you make your posts with such authority but they're so problematic.
For instance, we spent 300 posts dealing with your 23 Executive Orders. You refused to say which you meant. A simple link would have cut the discussion to 10% of what it became, but you refused. Then, when it was posted, you claimed it wasn't what you were talking about, but it was, meaning you had no clue what you were talking about but kept insisting you were right. You followed it up by claiming they were attempts to be laws, but most of them were "release a letter," which isn't remotely.

Never once did you actually say anything specific. You just said "they're orders meant to be laws." If you want to not be called an asshole, say something specific and cite it.

Then you make claims about other people's posts, but again, you do it in one phrase. Actually quote something. When am I overgeneralizing? Show me. Quote an example and say "here you are overgeneralizing."

Every time you're asked for specifics, be it about something you feel the government is doing or something you feel we are doing, you ignore it. If you can't show specifics you have no point and are wasting our time. But you keep making all kinds of claims without ever bothering to put some veracity behind them. You get called out and deny it. Or you say "read between the lines" without posting what the lines are and what we should be reading between them. And then you wonder why people think you have no point, no understanding, and think your arguments are horrible.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
711. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 16:26 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 12:58:

I love that he calls you cupcake, and that's ok, but when I did something similarly dismissive-but-not-aggressive he said "ADHOM" and didn't address the substance of the post.

Every one of your post has a derogatory sling or 3, often times for no reason.

You're going to try and tell me people are too stupid to know what stocks they have or what they're invested in? I'm sure some just have their broker or whatever deal with it, sure, but you seriously have this really terrible habit of over generalizing to try and make a point and I gotta say it's really fucking annoying.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
710. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 15:41 Mr. Tact
 
I've been out most of the last two weeks dealing with a family emergency, and I have to say probably one of the best things that happened, was I totally missed this 700+ response topic which I'm guessing has about 50 posts worth reading. Thanks guys!  
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
709. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 14:08 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Sepharo wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 13:09:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 13:00:
Sepharo wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 12:18:
Where'd that weird "Korea" come from in your Beamer quote Wowbagger?
Hah. I have no idea. Managing quotes and stuff is a PITA when I'm posting from my phone. Can't imagine where that word came from though.

Yeah I try to avoid posting from my phone because it's extremely frustrating. But one strategy I have, while at work when Bluesnews is blocked, is the chrome-to-phone extension/app. I type my whole post in a textbox on a site that's not blocked, select the text, and on a context menu select "Chrome to Phone" and then it appears on my phone clipboard and I can paste it here.

That sounds awesome! I gotta get that, thanks!
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
708. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 13:39 Beamer
 
Sepharo wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 13:09:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 13:00:
Sepharo wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 12:18:
Where'd that weird "Korea" come from in your Beamer quote Wowbagger?
Hah. I have no idea. Managing quotes and stuff is a PITA when I'm posting from my phone. Can't imagine where that word came from though.

Yeah I try to avoid posting from my phone because it's extremely frustrating. But one strategy I have, while at work when Bluesnews is blocked, is the chrome-to-phone extension/app. I type my whole post in a textbox on a site that's not blocked, select the text, and on a context menu select "Chrome to Phone" and then it appears on my phone clipboard and I can paste it here.

That's brilliant.
I only post from phone when I first get up. Before I'm even out of bed I'll check work, and then maybe one or two other sites. I posted mention of a book in another topic from my phone this morning. Typos and improperly capitalized starts of paragraphs will inevitably follow.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
707. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 13:09 Sepharo
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 13:00:
Sepharo wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 12:18:
Where'd that weird "Korea" come from in your Beamer quote Wowbagger?
Hah. I have no idea. Managing quotes and stuff is a PITA when I'm posting from my phone. Can't imagine where that word came from though.

Yeah I try to avoid posting from my phone because it's extremely frustrating. But one strategy I have, while at work when Bluesnews is blocked, is the chrome-to-phone extension/app. I type my whole post in a textbox on a site that's not blocked, select the text, and on a context menu select "Chrome to Phone" and then it appears on my phone clipboard and I can paste it here.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
706. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 13:00 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Sepharo wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 12:18:
Where'd that weird "Korea" come from in your Beamer quote Wowbagger?
Hah. I have no idea. Managing quotes and stuff is a PITA when I'm posting from my phone. Can't imagine where that word came from though.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
705. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 12:58 Beamer
 
Sepharo wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:48:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:42:
Beamer wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:33:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:27:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:23:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:17:
Beamer wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:15:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:14:
You're moving the goalpost, now it's only CEO's don't get fired, a minute ago it was no one in business ever gets fired.

No, no I am not. I am using CEOs as examples because they are high profile and it's easy to look at them - Johnny QA being fired never makes headlines.

But, to your point, in my first paragraph I say "President and VP," neither of whom are CEOs, and in my second paragraph I say "People," who certainly aren't CEOs.

Only my second to last sentence says "CEO." It isn't my fault you can't read and project that to all the lines you read before.

The reason they don't say fired is because they step down to save face, it's the same thing, if the share holders want a change, a change they get. Share holders being people, like you and me.

Lol. Most shareholders have little power over consequences for a CEO. They may step down after a major fuckup, but they're still gonna get paid tens of millions on the way out.

Because their contracts say that I'd imagine. Shareholders have more power than you think however.

When, in the last 40 years, has a change been brought about by shareholders other than someone with 5% or more of the company?
It does not happen.

Your belief in shareholder power is antiquated and naïve. Only a very small amount of shareholders have any power, and these days it's almost exclusively fund managers. Most companies are somewhere between 15% and 33% fund held. Those funds hold power. The hundreds of thousands of other shareholders have no power at all relative to them (interestingly, do you know how tiny a portion of Americans hold any stock at all?)

Much like my believe in the Constitution right? Naive and antiquated?

"Oh shit I don't know what I'm talking about... NON SEQUITUR GO!"
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink because you're a liberal."

I love that he calls you cupcake, and that's ok, but when I did something similarly dismissive-but-not-aggressive he said "ADHOM" and didn't address the substance of the post.

In any case, this all makes sense, doesn't it?
47% of Americans own stock, give or take, but 10% holds 81% of shares. Per economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University, the top 1% owns 36% of shares, and the top 0.1% holds somewhere around 20% of all shares.

The remainder, that 19% spread around the 90% of America, is meaningless. Most of them hold through funds and aren't even sure what they hold. Even the ones that do tend to be holding on long-term, in many cases "married" to their stocks, and not really following them day to day and certainly not paying attention to internal politics of the company.
You'd need to get 25% of them, for about 5% of the stock, to really make any waves. Good luck getting 25% of 90% of America to rally behind getting rid of a CEO. Getting any kind of mobilization of enough people holding a few shares to get any kind of notice is pretty much impossible. You'd need tens of thousands, if not millions, of shareholders to add up to the 5% needed for someone to pay attention. Good luck there. Seriously, good luck with it. Outside of flukes where the company is doing something so bad that it is unquestionable and not at all defensible good luck with it.

Actually, I'm not sure if fund-held stocks count in that 19%. Thinking about it, it likely doesn't, so that 19% actually chose to buy that stock.

Contrast that with everyone else holding. MSFT, for example, is 68% fund held. Vanguard alone holds 5% - only about 10% less than Bill Gates holds. If Vanguard wants something changed, the fund manager, the one guy that controls that 5%, will get listened to. And, if not, he calls State Street, Blackrock, Capital Research and Capital World. Now those 5 combined hold over 15% of the stock. 5 people represent 15%. They get listened to.

And, of course, here's where the fun really begins. Vanguard's conservative growth fund holds over 1% of MSFT. Let's say they begin short selling MSFT with their aggressive fund. It's aggressive, it moves fast, whereas the conservative one is in for the long haul, so this can make sense. But now Vanguard complains about something, and threatens to sell that 1.X%. Ultimately they do, flooding the market with more supply than there is demand, dropping the stock immediately. The guy in charge of the aggressive fund buys low, covering his short. Vanguard, now seeing the depressed price, buys low, because Microsoft is now undervalued. In a single day, doing something like that, they can create massive wealth for themselves by literally taking it from every other shareholder.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
704. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 12:18 Sepharo
 
Where'd that weird "Korea" come from in your Beamer quote Wowbagger?  
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
703. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 12:16 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:28:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:23:

Lol. Most shareholders have little power over consequences for a CEO. They may step down after a major fuckup, but they're still gonna get paid tens of millions on the way out.
Korea
Well, in theory that golden parachute serves two purposes:
1) To get them to be willing to take the job. CEO is an apex position, and a short lived one. Despite what you see from celeb CEOs, the average CEO tenure is something like 2 years. And it can be hard to go from being a CEO somewhere to anything anywhere - usually it's CEO then retirement, whether you want it or not. So that parachute is to help convince someone it's good to go from a VP job you can ride for a bit to a job where the clock ticks faster (in truth, VP jobs have a clicking clock, too. The new CEO wants his people. Someone younger is bringing in fresher ideas. Or you were in charge during bad years, which had nothing to do with you, and now that things turned around they want that stigma of older management gone)
2) It rewards risk. You don't want a CEO playing it safe and going for moderate growth afraid he'll fail and be ruined. You want a CEO willing to take chances. That golden parachute is his insurance in chase a risk doesn't pan out. If it pans out, the company gets huge growth. If it doesn't, the company has a bad few years and the CEO gets booted for one that hopefully can change things

Golden parachutes are infuriating and usually too large, but are inherently a good and necessary thing.

Oh look, I'm defending corporations and CEOs! I must be parroting the DNC!

That actually makes sense, and I get it that the incentives are needed. I just think that, like you said, they're often too large, and they often seem to have almost no strings attached, so it doesn't matter how spectacularly bad they perform. They're retiring rich regardless. Even if they've sent the company into a nosedive.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
702. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 12:03 Sepharo
 
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 12:01:
Sepharo wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:48:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:42:
Beamer wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:33:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:27:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:23:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:17:
Beamer wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:15:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:14:
You're moving the goalpost, now it's only CEO's don't get fired, a minute ago it was no one in business ever gets fired.

No, no I am not. I am using CEOs as examples because they are high profile and it's easy to look at them - Johnny QA being fired never makes headlines.

But, to your point, in my first paragraph I say "President and VP," neither of whom are CEOs, and in my second paragraph I say "People," who certainly aren't CEOs.

Only my second to last sentence says "CEO." It isn't my fault you can't read and project that to all the lines you read before.

The reason they don't say fired is because they step down to save face, it's the same thing, if the share holders want a change, a change they get. Share holders being people, like you and me.

Lol. Most shareholders have little power over consequences for a CEO. They may step down after a major fuckup, but they're still gonna get paid tens of millions on the way out.

Because their contracts say that I'd imagine. Shareholders have more power than you think however.

When, in the last 40 years, has a change been brought about by shareholders other than someone with 5% or more of the company?
It does not happen.

Your belief in shareholder power is antiquated and naïve. Only a very small amount of shareholders have any power, and these days it's almost exclusively fund managers. Most companies are somewhere between 15% and 33% fund held. Those funds hold power. The hundreds of thousands of other shareholders have no power at all relative to them (interestingly, do you know how tiny a portion of Americans hold any stock at all?)

Much like my believe in the Constitution right? Naive and antiquated?

"Oh shit I don't know what I'm talking about... NON SEQUITUR GO!"
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink because you're a liberal."

Whatever helps you sleep at night cupcake.

Well bless your heart.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
701. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 12:01 RollinThundr
 
Sepharo wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:48:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:42:
Beamer wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:33:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:27:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:23:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:17:
Beamer wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:15:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:14:
You're moving the goalpost, now it's only CEO's don't get fired, a minute ago it was no one in business ever gets fired.

No, no I am not. I am using CEOs as examples because they are high profile and it's easy to look at them - Johnny QA being fired never makes headlines.

But, to your point, in my first paragraph I say "President and VP," neither of whom are CEOs, and in my second paragraph I say "People," who certainly aren't CEOs.

Only my second to last sentence says "CEO." It isn't my fault you can't read and project that to all the lines you read before.

The reason they don't say fired is because they step down to save face, it's the same thing, if the share holders want a change, a change they get. Share holders being people, like you and me.

Lol. Most shareholders have little power over consequences for a CEO. They may step down after a major fuckup, but they're still gonna get paid tens of millions on the way out.

Because their contracts say that I'd imagine. Shareholders have more power than you think however.

When, in the last 40 years, has a change been brought about by shareholders other than someone with 5% or more of the company?
It does not happen.

Your belief in shareholder power is antiquated and naïve. Only a very small amount of shareholders have any power, and these days it's almost exclusively fund managers. Most companies are somewhere between 15% and 33% fund held. Those funds hold power. The hundreds of thousands of other shareholders have no power at all relative to them (interestingly, do you know how tiny a portion of Americans hold any stock at all?)

Much like my believe in the Constitution right? Naive and antiquated?

"Oh shit I don't know what I'm talking about... NON SEQUITUR GO!"
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink because you're a liberal."

Whatever helps you sleep at night cupcake.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
700. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 30, 2013, 11:48 Sepharo
 
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:42:
Beamer wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:33:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:27:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:23:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:17:
Beamer wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:15:
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 11:14:
You're moving the goalpost, now it's only CEO's don't get fired, a minute ago it was no one in business ever gets fired.

No, no I am not. I am using CEOs as examples because they are high profile and it's easy to look at them - Johnny QA being fired never makes headlines.

But, to your point, in my first paragraph I say "President and VP," neither of whom are CEOs, and in my second paragraph I say "People," who certainly aren't CEOs.

Only my second to last sentence says "CEO." It isn't my fault you can't read and project that to all the lines you read before.

The reason they don't say fired is because they step down to save face, it's the same thing, if the share holders want a change, a change they get. Share holders being people, like you and me.

Lol. Most shareholders have little power over consequences for a CEO. They may step down after a major fuckup, but they're still gonna get paid tens of millions on the way out.

Because their contracts say that I'd imagine. Shareholders have more power than you think however.

When, in the last 40 years, has a change been brought about by shareholders other than someone with 5% or more of the company?
It does not happen.

Your belief in shareholder power is antiquated and naïve. Only a very small amount of shareholders have any power, and these days it's almost exclusively fund managers. Most companies are somewhere between 15% and 33% fund held. Those funds hold power. The hundreds of thousands of other shareholders have no power at all relative to them (interestingly, do you know how tiny a portion of Americans hold any stock at all?)

Much like my believe in the Constitution right? Naive and antiquated?

"Oh shit I don't know what I'm talking about... NON SEQUITUR GO!"
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink because you're a liberal."
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
879 Replies. 44 pages. Viewing page 9.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo