Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-16-2012, 08:44 AM   #1
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
Mike D To The Internet's Rescue

I wonder why more rich people and groups (especially liberals like politicians, entertainers, and unions) who have the means to be activist shareholders don't use that power to affect the corporate policies enacted by the managers which they publicly decry. I usually discount it to being hypocritical doublespeak, but today I saw a story about one putting his money where his mouth is, good job Mike D!

SEC sides with Beastie Boys' Mike D, says AT&T must allow shareholder vote on net neutrality -- Engadget

02-16-2012, 03:52 PM   #2
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,559
QuoteOriginally posted by mikemike Quote
I wonder why more rich people and groups (especially liberals like politicians, entertainers, and unions) who have the means to be activist shareholders don't use that power to affect the corporate policies enacted by the managers which they publicly decry. I usually discount it to being hypocritical doublespeak, but today I saw a story about one putting his money where his mouth is, good job Mike D!

SEC sides with Beastie Boys' Mike D, says AT&T must allow shareholder vote on net neutrality -- Engadget

'Rich people like liberals?' Funny... I thought you were the one touting the bling of your enterpreneurial spirit, milemike.

Whos' *actually* trying to control the Net?


Look behind you, man.


And if not that, get off the labels and look at what the people you support actually *say.*

You saying 'Liberals musta did this' will not turn this Net back on if you let the people you support have their way. Look. Where. You. Vote.


Prime example of Roveian *backwards* right there. Blame me or Dems all you want, even if you "won" you'd get the opposite of what you think you're defending.

Wake. Up. Things we disagree about, we can disagree about, but all you're doing here is supporting the very people who *actually* do the things you want to blame someone else for.

If you believe in Net Neutrality or free speech, *pay attention. *

You're smarter than this.

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 02-16-2012 at 03:58 PM.
02-16-2012, 10:41 PM   #3
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratmagiclady Quote
'Rich people like liberals?' Funny... I thought you were the one touting the bling of your enterpreneurial spirit, milemike.

Whos' *actually* trying to control the Net?


Look behind you, man.


And if not that, get off the labels and look at what the people you support actually *say.*

You saying 'Liberals musta did this' will not turn this Net back on if you let the people you support have their way. Look. Where. You. Vote.


Prime example of Roveian *backwards* right there. Blame me or Dems all you want, even if you "won" you'd get the opposite of what you think you're defending.

Wake. Up. Things we disagree about, we can disagree about, but all you're doing here is supporting the very people who *actually* do the things you want to blame someone else for.

If you believe in Net Neutrality or free speech, *pay attention. *

You're smarter than this.
I am not that egotistical. My point is that liberals and progressives are as well moneyed and arguably more well moneyed than conservatives, but they don't use their power as the shareholders of corporations to affect the change they say they want to see in the world. If there were a "corporate responsibility index fund" that promised to use every proxy vote granted to them to exercise activist shareholders powers to combat global warming, treat employees right, produce in the USA, and restrict lobbying and political activities within S&P companies; I would put my money in that fund instead of a regular mutual fund that just lets the managers do whatever the hell they please. I am sure a lot of other people who are regular rank and file progressive/liberals would too and they would easily have enough voting power to influence corporate policies to reshape corporate america. When you look at the demographics of democrats vs. republicans the democrats (at least the democrat elites) are usually pretty well educated, well paid, and rich; they work in industries with pension funds and unions which can throw a lot of weight around on wall street and in the board room and they are also fairly prominent in very well compensated sectors of society such as entertainment (listen to "To the Five Burroughs" if you want insight into Mike D's politics.

Instead of exercising shareholder power and forcing an auto manufacturer who was building an SUV/truck business model which is harmful to the environment to straighten out through changing the board room, forcing the company to recognize global warming science and adopting business models based on increasingly expensive oil prices they let the industry run itself into the ground. Same thing is happening with the internet where you have information increasingly struggling to be free and networks trying to restrict that freedom, instead of getting with the program and supporting that trend the networks are trying to be autocratic and anti-consumer. The right place for action on these incongruences of interests is the board rooms and shareholder meetings rather than the US congress.
02-18-2012, 10:57 AM   #4
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,064
QuoteOriginally posted by mikemike Quote
I am not that egotistical. My point is that liberals and progressives are as well moneyed and arguably more well moneyed than conservatives, but they don't use their power as the shareholders of corporations to affect the change they say they want to see in the world.
I don't think they are more well-moneyed, and if they have got significant wealth, you can bet that a few of those progressive principles have taken a back seat at some point!

QuoteOriginally posted by mikemike Quote
If there were a "corporate responsibility index fund" that promised to use every proxy vote granted to them to exercise activist shareholders powers to combat global warming, treat employees right, produce in the USA, and restrict lobbying and political activities within S&P companies; I would put my money in that fund instead of a regular mutual fund that just lets the managers do whatever the hell they please.
Good idea but you can imagine how the tea party and libertarians (the mouthpiece of the 1% in other words) would reduce such a plan to tatters.... Lobbying is free speech, remember?

02-19-2012, 12:06 AM   #5
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,559
QuoteOriginally posted by mikemike Quote
I am not that egotistical. My point is that liberals and progressives are as well moneyed and arguably more well moneyed than conservatives, but they don't use their power as the shareholders of corporations to affect the change they say they want to see in the world.

I call BS. More than once you've claimed, as do conservative mouthpieces, these many years, that I don't have any dignity, never mind basis to speak, cause I *don't* have scads of money. While now you apparently try to claim 'Liberals are the shareholders responsible for conservative policies in the name of shareholders we deny are liberal....'


Now you try to reverse the narrative *again,* Mikemike. Bushit. Spelled just so.

You may want to use owning things to enforce ideology, that doesn't mean 'libruls' even care for the means you use.


If I wanted your *shit* and was willing to lie, I could have just broken into your houses for wardrobe and flash-money and told you what you wanted to hear.


Smart enough, agile enough...; Not mean or small-minded enough. If I wanted money or power by *any* wise, I sure wouldn't be sitting here explaining stuff to *you.*

When I was a kid, I used to break into rich people's houses and *give* them things. Pinecones, mostly. Sometimes flowers. I could have taken shit, but I'm the good guys. Still didn't dig the fences.

By your logic, and theirs, I should have.

Do you want to be right?

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 02-19-2012 at 12:13 AM.
02-20-2012, 07:58 PM   #6
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratmagiclady Quote
When I was a kid, I used to break into rich people's houses and *give* them things. Pinecones, mostly. Sometimes flowers. I could have taken shit, but I'm the good guys. Still didn't dig the fences.
By your logic, and theirs, I should have.
Do you want to be right?
Why would anyone do something so reckless, pointless, and illogical? If anyone ever tried to break into my house to steal shit, they would be sorely disappointed since I keep very little cash, we have very few things which are valuable (camera gear, cell phones, and computers), and nothing is irreplaceable. I would be more upset about wasting time and money filing a police report, getting any damage they did repaired, and installing an alarm system than I would about whatever they could possibly take.

Your youthful foolishness has nothing to do with the topic at hand though, my point is that change could be made to corporate policies and the corporate managers (CEOs, executives, and all the way down the line) could be put on notice that they need to be more responsible corporate citizens via shareholder action. If we don't want big business lobbying, restrictions on lobbying activity could be put into place by the shareholders or the board. If we want businesses to welcome organizing unions, direction could be given not to resist unionization. If we don't want businesses to outsource every job they possibly can, that too could be set as a policy or could be encouraged by the board.

Right now, the directive for businesses is to "maximize shareholder wealth," that is a directive that can be done on autopilot but if you want a more nebulous directive like "make the world a better place" or "maximize social welfare" there needs to be more participation and direction by the board and the shareholders to what that better place or social welfare looks like. The steps Apple needs to take are different than the steps Wal-Mart or United Healthcare need to take.

QuoteOriginally posted by ihasa Quote
Good idea but you can imagine how the tea party and libertarians (the mouthpiece of the 1% in other words) would reduce such a plan to tatters.... Lobbying is free speech, remember?
I approached a local mutual fund company here about it but they weren't interested then I looked into doing it but it is quite a PITA to start an ETF or mutual fund and requires at least a few hundred thousand to get going.

QuoteOriginally posted by ihasa Quote
I don't think they are more well-moneyed, and if they have got significant wealth, you can bet that a few of those progressive principles have taken a back seat at some point!
Liberals/progressives/democrats whatever you want to call them are, demographically speaking, a pretty affluent bunch. Their coalition counts a lot of down on your luck folks, but you have the "limousine liberals" who are the elite elected officials and donors, the celebrities, there are trial lawyers, more college educated people are democrats than republicans, middle class democrats are often in unions (who have organized there wealth into pensions which invest in hedge funds), you have higher education institutions which have huge endowments that are also invested in hedge funds. A lot of the republicans with a decent bit of money are small business owners who earned there money through hard work and not necessarily with a college education, that means they have their money tied up in those small businesses and less to invest in the financial markets. Old people are more likely to be republicans and also likely to have a nest egg but they are also more likely to have their money in bonds. The sizable part of the republican coalition - gun nuts, holy rollers, and miscellaneous country folk - are not wealthy. So it is not just the fact that liberals have a decent bit of money its also that their money is available to the stock markets and also likely to have money in hedge funds which are well suited to driving a point in the board room or annual meeting.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
mike
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Eurozone (Greece) rescue plan emerging (?) jolepp General Talk 9 10-24-2011 03:55 AM
A lady came to my rescue yesterday G_Money Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 10-06-2010 12:03 AM
Quantifying the government's rescue of the economy johnmflores General Talk 55 07-31-2010 02:41 PM
HDR to the rescue thomasjmpark Post Your Photos! 3 08-07-2008 11:27 AM
Cheerleader Rescue paden501 Post Your Photos! 12 01-13-2008 06:20 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:29 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top