| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2011 07:20:36 PM · #401 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does everybody here on the OWS side NOT own stock or mutual funds of stocks in their IRAs? |
What are you SAYING? It sounds like you're saying "irresponsible corporate greed is OK because profit is a corporation's only responsibility, and anyway it's good my IRA"... You can't possibly believe that, can you?
R. |
No, I'm not saying that. But I AM saying that actions do often speak louder than words and it may be one thing to rail against the system verbally but quite another to consciously choose to not invest in corporate America (which is basically equal to "owning stock"). If someone owns stock or mutual funds then they are part of "the system" and that at least needs to be noted.
If you don't own stock or an IRA, then you are likely quite dependent on the government during your elder years. Let's say we extract increased taxes from the rich. Would you ALSO be willing to cut your benefits like Medicare and Social Security? Whoever thinks we can get by with only one of those bitter pills is fully delusional. We are in one deep, deep hole. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 07:30:54 PM · #402 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does everybody here on the OWS side NOT own stock or mutual funds of stocks in their IRAs? |
What are you SAYING? It sounds like you're saying "irresponsible corporate greed is OK because profit is a corporation's only responsibility, and anyway it's good my IRA"... You can't possibly believe that, can you?
R. |
No, I'm not saying that. But I AM saying that actions do often speak louder than words and it may be one thing to rail against the system verbally but quite another to consciously choose to not invest in corporate America (which is basically equal to "owning stock"). If someone owns stock or mutual funds then they are part of "the system" and that at least needs to be noted.
If you don't own stock or an IRA, then you are likely quite dependent on the government during your elder years. Let's say we extract increased taxes from the rich. Would you ALSO be willing to cut your benefits like Medicare and Social Security? Whoever thinks we can get by with only one of those bitter pills is fully delusional. We are in one deep, deep hole. |
collecting social security that you have already been paying into for your entire working life is not being dependent on the government. also you pay for medicare. but if u want to solve that issue they could tax us 50% off the top and use it for social security and nationwide healthcare. 50% of every person, corporation, and politician. and while they are at it they can just throw all that money they have stashed away for the politicians "social security fund" in with ours and they can be just like us. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 07:39:51 PM · #403 |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 07:40:13 PM · #404 |
ee cummings in the house!
Dang! Kelli beat me. :) |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 07:43:14 PM · #405 |
I believe that cutting Medicare responsibly, through thoughtful reform, is a necessity. If you look at the numbers in terms of how much of the federal budget Medicare spending will consume in 20 years, reform absolutely must happen. And there are many thoughtful proposals for reforming the system that have been made by health care economists that can be found and read online. Social Security, on the other hand, is solvent for many, many years to come.
With respect to our current national debt, there are proposals by the Congressional Progressive Caucus and other groups that contain ways to cut trillions of dollars from the budget over 10 years, along with raising revenue, to get us back to a healthy balance (debt-to-GDP ratio) without cutting Medicare and Social Security. I think Medicare reform should be dealt with separately from the current budget-cutting discussions.
Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 07:44:04 PM · #406 |
I have some IRA funds invested in a "socially responsible" mutual fund, which evaluates the companies it invests in according to criteria other than (in addition to) pure profitablity, such as energy policy, employee practices, pollution, etc.
And apparently not every corporation finds it necessary to screw the middle class while achieving a reasonable return on investment.
Originally posted by Costco Mission Statement and Code of Ethics:
Our Mission
To continually provide our members with quality goods and services at the lowest possible prices.
In order to achieve our mission we will conduct our business with the following Code of Ethics in mind:
Our Code of Ethics
1. Obey the law.
2. Take care of our members.
3. Take care of our employees.
4. Respect our suppliers.
If we do these four things throughout our organization, then we will achieve our ultimate goal, which is to:
5. Reward our shareholders. |
You can download the full document and other corporate governance documents here.
Message edited by author 2011-11-09 19:46:00. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 07:54:00 PM · #407 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's now a few dozen posts old, but Mike has it correct that a corporation has the legal responsibility to maximize shareholder value and the commonly held legal definition of this generally and specifically translates into "profits".
Right or wrong. Agree or disagree. That is the state of affairs. |
He DID say its "only" responsibility, Doc. And yes, we know that's the state of affairs, but maybe it's time to effect some change in that?
R. |
I think effectively it IS the only legal responsibility (other than not breaking the law). If the shareholders sue you for not maximizing shareholder value I am unaware of any defense other than to show you ARE maximizing shareholder value after all (but they just don't know it). The corporation cannot point to another responsibility as taking precedence in their defense. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 07:56:10 PM · #408 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I have some IRA funds invested in a "socially responsible" mutual fund, which evaluates the companies it invests in according to criteria other than (in addition to) pure profitablity, such as energy policy, employee practices, pollution, etc.
And apparently not every corporation finds it necessary to screw the middle class while achieving a reasonable return on investment.
Originally posted by Costco Mission Statement and Code of Ethics:
Our Mission
To continually provide our members with quality goods and services at the lowest possible prices.
In order to achieve our mission we will conduct our business with the following Code of Ethics in mind:
Our Code of Ethics
1. Obey the law.
2. Take care of our members.
3. Take care of our employees.
4. Respect our suppliers.
If we do these four things throughout our organization, then we will achieve our ultimate goal, which is to:
5. Reward our shareholders. |
You can download the full document and other corporate governance documents here. |
Costco just spent 22 million dollars to support the reforendum to dismantle the Washington State controlled distribution of liquor. It was, by far, the largest spender in the battle for and against. I'm not saying decentralized liquor sales is right or wrong, but certainly they are acting in their own interest just like a big company. I'm not blaming them at all, but that's a lot of money to spend and we both know it's because it improves their bottom line.
Costco pours money in to Washington State liquor vote
Message edited by author 2011-11-09 19:57:27. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 08:00:38 PM · #409 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does everybody here on the OWS side NOT own stock or mutual funds of stocks in their IRAs? |
LOL, that's funny, you're joking, right?
That money went to paying the mortgage, feeding the kids and keeping the lights on when I was laid off... I'm pretty sure that any hope I had of an actual retirement went along with it too. I'll just have to make sure I die before my ailments cause me to become a burden on my kids.
Message edited by author 2011-11-09 20:09:13. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 08:04:00 PM · #410 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Costco just spent 22 million dollars to support the reforendum to dismantle the Washington State controlled distribution of liquor. It was, by far, the largest spender in the battle for and against. I'm not saying decentralized liquor sales is right or wrong, but certainly they are acting in their own interest just like a big company. I'm not blaming them at all, but that's a lot of money to spend and we both know it's because it improves their bottom line.
Costco pours money in to Washington State liquor vote |
Ah, OK, the purport to achieve profits without screwing the public ... let's put it this way -- how long would you local shop or restaurant last if they treated the public the way the large corporations have? |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 08:05:05 PM · #411 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I believe that cutting Medicare responsibly, through thoughtful reform, is a necessity. If you look at the numbers in terms of how much of the federal budget Medicare spending will consume in 20 years, reform absolutely must happen. And there are many thoughtful proposals for reforming the system that have been made by health care economists that can be found and read online. Social Security, on the other hand, is solvent for many, many years to come.
With respect to our current national debt, there are proposals by the Congressional Progressive Caucus and other groups that contain ways to cut trillions of dollars from the budget over 10 years, along with raising revenue, to get us back to a healthy balance (debt-to-GDP ratio) without cutting Medicare and Social Security. I think Medicare reform should be dealt with separately from the current budget-cutting discussions.
Just my opinion. |
problem with cutting medicare is that is the only insurance most ppl have and those people are on a fixed income. so if you cut more things people are going to have to choose between taking their heart medicine or eating. there is another problem with the medicare supplemental insurances trying to rip old people off and not covering what they say they will.
and doc if you don't know sarcasm your an idiot.
Message edited by author 2011-11-09 20:05:27. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 08:15:38 PM · #412 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Costco just spent 22 million dollars to support the reforendum to dismantle the Washington State controlled distribution of liquor. It was, by far, the largest spender in the battle for and against. I'm not saying decentralized liquor sales is right or wrong, but certainly they are acting in their own interest just like a big company. I'm not blaming them at all, but that's a lot of money to spend and we both know it's because it improves their bottom line.
Costco pours money in to Washington State liquor vote |
Ah, OK, the purport to achieve profits without screwing the public ... let's put it this way -- how long would you local shop or restaurant last if they treated the public the way the large corporations have? |
they are starting to treat people like crap haven't you noticed? where my daughter works the manager told her if someone is complaining tell them we don't need your money leave. i almost died when she told me that.
wonder how long it will take costco to recoup that 22mil.
Message edited by author 2011-11-09 20:16:28. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 08:55:39 PM · #413 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does everybody here on the OWS side NOT own stock or mutual funds of stocks in their IRAs? |
What are you SAYING? It sounds like you're saying "irresponsible corporate greed is OK because profit is a corporation's only responsibility, and anyway it's good my IRA"... You can't possibly believe that, can you?
R. |
No, I'm not saying that. But I AM saying that actions do often speak louder than words and it may be one thing to rail against the system verbally but quite another to consciously choose to not invest in corporate America (which is basically equal to "owning stock"). If someone owns stock or mutual funds then they are part of "the system" and that at least needs to be noted.
If you don't own stock or an IRA, then you are likely quite dependent on the government during your elder years. Let's say we extract increased taxes from the rich. Would you ALSO be willing to cut your benefits like Medicare and Social Security? Whoever thinks we can get by with only one of those bitter pills is fully delusional. We are in one deep, deep hole. |
Shouldn't you be against gambling as a practice? I know the Bible doesn't specifically mention it, but everything else seems to suggest that working with your own two hands and not the accumulation of wealth was the way to go. Bible aside, we are seeing what happens when your retirement plan based on gambling. Social security may have its flaws but at least it's in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2011 10:34:20 PM · #414 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
He DID say its "only" responsibility, Doc. And yes, we know that's the state of affairs, but maybe it's time to effect some change in that?
R. |
besides profits and of course following the laws, what responsibilities do they have? their ethical decisions may benefit them in marketing, their employee treatment may help them acquire and maintain talented and skilled workers but their only true responsibility is the bottom line.
do i care if a company is ethical, somewhat yes, but some people don't and i dont lose sleep over it. if i invest in company x and they dont offer a substantial benefit package with healthcare to their employees, do i care? no, i care if my investment grows.
Do people care if apple produces their product in foreign factories where the suicide rate is through the roof? nope, they still buy ipads and macbooks and the investors see enormous returns.
hmmm, maybe the problem starts with us.
Message edited by author 2011-11-09 22:43:35. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 10:38:47 PM · #415 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Shouldn't you be against gambling as a practice? I know the Bible doesn't specifically mention it, but everything else seems to suggest that working with your own two hands and not the accumulation of wealth was the way to go. Bible aside, we are seeing what happens when your retirement plan based on gambling. Social security may have its flaws but at least it's in the right direction. |
Gambling, the potential short term gain in the face of certain long term losses, is antithetical to purposeful, directed, long-term investment in companies over time. Investing in the S&P over the last 100 years, for example, has represented nearly certain long term gains in the face of potential short term losses. Personally I think there is an obvious difference, but I share your distaste for gambling (if if really exist on your side and you aren't just trying to stick it to me). Lotteries, for example, are a heinous tax on those least equipped to deal with it. Even when working properly it serves to concentrate wealth instead of spread it out which is exactly opposite what we are talking about accomplishing on this thread. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 11:12:03 PM · #416 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
besides profits and of course following the laws, what responsibilities do they have? their ethical decisions may benefit them in marketing, their employee treatment may help them acquire and maintain talented and skilled workers but their only true responsibility is the bottom line.
do i care if a company is ethical, somewhat yes, but some people don't and i dont lose sleep over it. if i invest in company x and they dont offer a substantial benefit package with healthcare to their employees, do i care? no, i care if my investment grows.
Do people care if apple produces their product in foreign factories where the suicide rate is through the roof? nope, they still buy ipads and macbooks and the investors see enormous returns.
hmmm, maybe the problem starts with us. |
Since clearly all companies won't behave ethically, seems it's time to regulate them into behaving in ways that are acceptable. I have no problem with that.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2011 11:18:06 PM · #417 |
Originally posted by o2bskating:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I believe that cutting Medicare responsibly, through thoughtful reform, is a necessity. If you look at the numbers in terms of how much of the federal budget Medicare spending will consume in 20 years, reform absolutely must happen. And there are many thoughtful proposals for reforming the system that have been made by health care economists that can be found and read online. Social Security, on the other hand, is solvent for many, many years to come.
With respect to our current national debt, there are proposals by the Congressional Progressive Caucus and other groups that contain ways to cut trillions of dollars from the budget over 10 years, along with raising revenue, to get us back to a healthy balance (debt-to-GDP ratio) without cutting Medicare and Social Security. I think Medicare reform should be dealt with separately from the current budget-cutting discussions.
Just my opinion. |
problem with cutting medicare is that is the only insurance most ppl have and those people are on a fixed income. so if you cut more things people are going to have to choose between taking their heart medicine or eating. there is another problem with the medicare supplemental insurances trying to rip old people off and not covering what they say they will.
and doc if you don't know sarcasm your an idiot. |
I agree with you. I will not be able to get along without Medicare either when I reach retirement age. I should have said that "thoughtful reform" includes things like looking at the diseases that account for the lion's share of Medicare spending, diseases like diabetes, which is really largely a result of obesity, and figuring out ways to prevent and/or treat those diseases in a more cost-effective way. When I say "cut," I don't mean just take an axe to the program without any regard for how that will affect the beneficiaries, which is what will happen if they start cutting Medicare in the deficit reduction talks now taking place in Washington. Tomorrow I'll find some articles (and link to them) that I've been reading lately about how to make these sorts of positive reforms that can save billions and trillions of dollars over the next 10, 20, 30 years.
In any event, Medicare and Social Security have nothing to do with our current budget imbalances, and those imbalances can be put right without touching these programs. The politicians are using these imbalances as an excuse to cut the safety-net programs, and it stinks. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 11:18:14 PM · #418 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by mike_311:
besides profits and of course following the laws, what responsibilities do they have? their ethical decisions may benefit them in marketing, their employee treatment may help them acquire and maintain talented and skilled workers but their only true responsibility is the bottom line.
do i care if a company is ethical, somewhat yes, but some people don't and i dont lose sleep over it. if i invest in company x and they dont offer a substantial benefit package with healthcare to their employees, do i care? no, i care if my investment grows.
Do people care if apple produces their product in foreign factories where the suicide rate is through the roof? nope, they still buy ipads and macbooks and the investors see enormous returns.
hmmm, maybe the problem starts with us. |
Since clearly all companies won't behave ethically, seems it's time to regulate them into behaving in ways that are acceptable. I have no problem with that. |
Since companies are equivalent to people, do you likewise have no problem with regulating people into behaving ethically? And who is deciding what counts as ethical? Ouch. It's never as easy as it seems. The obvious answer often has unintended repercussions. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 11:21:33 PM · #419 |
Originally posted by o2bskating:
and doc if you don't know sarcasm your an idiot. |
You do realize that ee cummings was a poet famous for not using capital letters right? |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 11:32:31 PM · #420 |
Oh, and I watched the Republican debate tonight. (I don't know why I keep torturing myself with these things!) So I thought it important to correct at least one of the many misleading assertions made by the candidates re: Social Security. Several of them said that Social Security is in the red. This is false!! Social Security has a surplus of over $2 trillion and will be solvent for the next 36? years -- something like that. Social Security is cash-flow negative, meaning it's taking in less than it pays out. But Social Security will operate in the black for decades to come due to the surplus it accrued when it was cash-flow positive. Just sayin...
Over and out.
Message edited by author 2011-11-09 23:33:14. |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 11:34:54 PM · #421 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by o2bskating:
and doc if you don't know sarcasm your an idiot. |
You do realize that ee cummings was a poet famous for not using capital letters right? |
ooh i don't use capitals do i....bad chat habit, just wait till i start using my abbreviated words on you o noes. does he really not use capitals i have to see this...is he any good? |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 11:48:05 PM · #422 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Oh, and I watched the Republican debate tonight. (I don't know why I keep torturing myself with these things!) So I thought it important to correct at least one of the many misleading assertions made by the candidates re: Social Security. Several of them said that Social Security is in the red. This is false!! Social Security has a surplus of over $2 trillion and will be solvent for the next 36? years -- something like that. Social Security is cash-flow negative, meaning it's taking in less than it pays out. But Social Security will operate in the black for decades to come due to the surplus it accrued when it was cash-flow positive. Just sayin...
Over and out. |
I'm not defending the candidates (they don't represent me), but is there any chance they were referring to the fact we have borrowed against Social Security? In other words, the money that should be there isn't because it has been spent on other things? |
|
|
|
11/09/2011 11:49:37 PM · #423 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by mike_311:
besides profits and of course following the laws, what responsibilities do they have? their ethical decisions may benefit them in marketing, their employee treatment may help them acquire and maintain talented and skilled workers but their only true responsibility is the bottom line.
do i care if a company is ethical, somewhat yes, but some people don't and i dont lose sleep over it. if i invest in company x and they dont offer a substantial benefit package with healthcare to their employees, do i care? no, i care if my investment grows.
Do people care if apple produces their product in foreign factories where the suicide rate is through the roof? nope, they still buy ipads and macbooks and the investors see enormous returns.
hmmm, maybe the problem starts with us. |
Since clearly all companies won't behave ethically, seems it's time to regulate them into behaving in ways that are acceptable. I have no problem with that. |
Since companies are equivalent to people, do you likewise have no problem with regulating people into behaving ethically? And who is deciding what counts as ethical? Ouch. It's never as easy as it seems. The obvious answer often has unintended repercussions. |
Companies aren't equivalent to people. Despite SCOTUS.
In any event, peoples' behavior is subject to regulation all the time.
The only ouch is that you aren't smarter than that.
Message edited by author 2011-11-09 23:50:48. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 12:34:24 AM · #424 |
Haha. Your liberal cohort is slowy backing away from you and the trap you are walking into.
So, remind me again. When we regulate a company, it's because the company, not a person, is doing something wrong?
And when you say people's behavior is subject to regulation all the time, that might include things like, oh I don't know, smoking pot in you own home or one dude marrying another? Those count? We are allowed to regulate those per the whims of society?
And if you say society can't go against the constitution, haven't you just discounted the constitution because it has appointed the SCOTUS to decide things like...whether a company is the same as a person or whether corporations can lobby their representatives?
Yer right Spaz. I'm just a simpleton here who's got no clue about nuthin'. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 12:37:22 AM · #425 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yer right Spaz. I'm just a simpleton here who's got no clue about nuthin'. |
If you say so.
|
|
