What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The GQP Thread: I'm even sick of that fuck's number and, anyway, he's gone (for now)

Status
Not open for further replies.
MichVandal said:
But history has shown that corporations are not capable of looking out for anyone but themselves
Click to expand...

Not just incapable but not permitted to. If you are an officer of a publicly traded corporation and you testify you made decisions for the good of humanity at net cost to your shareholders, you can be put in jail.

Our system deliberately, and formally, puts capital above human life. We have a little fairy tale about how this will better for everyone in the long run, but it's bunk just as the similar fairy tales for auto de fes and feudalism were before us. At the very root our system is set up to protect the property of billionaires against any diminution, even at the cost of the death of every person on the planet.
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
Not just incapable but not permitted to. If you are an officer of a publicly traded corporation and you testify you made decisions for the good of humanity at the cost of your shareholders', you can be put in jail.
Click to expand...

Thanks to the tax code giving shareholder a significant tax advantage- the desire to have low tax income has biased this far more to shareholders than ever before.

One of these years, we can get back to a tax code where all sources of income are treated exactly the same. When managers and VP's become major shareholders, there's a big problem.
 
Swansong said:
What in the name of hell is he even talking about? This is just insane blather. One private school (unnamed, of course) tries teaching god knows what (he doesn't even specify that) and this is somehow justification for installing cameras in... public schools?


I know I know. I'm trying to look at illogic through a logical lens.
Click to expand...

Party of small government, and less interference by government in people's lives.

Oh yeah, and cameras in every classroom.
 
Kepler said:
Not just incapable but not permitted to. If you are an officer of a publicly traded corporation and you testify you made decisions for the good of humanity at net cost to your shareholders, you can be put in jail.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. (I know, I’m calling out the exception to prove the rule here. With that…) While they are few and far between, there are publicly traded companies that have stated certain mores in their corporate charter. Because of that, the board and CEO are supposed to give consideration, and sometimes have to set as a top priority, some other consideration than just maximizing profits. So long as that’s in the charter, investors can’t sue for non-profit maximizing activity. AND investors could sue if the company strayed from the other priority.
 
Kepler said:
Not just incapable but not permitted to. If you are an officer of a publicly traded corporation and you testify you made decisions for the good of humanity at net cost to your shareholders, you can be put in jail.
Click to expand...


It's odd to me that people still believe this. I wonder if this has been perpetuated by corporations to avoid blowback for not switching to B-corp status (which allows them to consider the public good and in many states requires it) which can be done easily and freely.
 
bigus said:
It's odd to me that people still believe this.
Click to expand...

Possibly because noted Marxist agitprop Forbes says the same thing.

What are you saying, specifically? You stated my thesis was wrong and offered nothing. Tell us exactly what you think are the facts and why that refutes my original statement. St. Clown documented an exception, although it is vanishingly rare and very limited. You didn't even do that.
 
Last edited:
Liberals > conservatives

bi2t7mahd8a71.jpg


Fuck you conservatives and everyone who votes for you.
 
Kepler said:
Possibly because noted Marxist agitprop Forbes says the same thing.

What are you saying, specifically? You stated my thesis was wrong and offered nothing. Tell us exactly what you think are the facts and why that refutes my original statement. St. Clown documented an exception, although it is vanishingly rare and very limited. You didn't even do that.
Click to expand...

Your thesis statement is that corporations are legally required to maximize shareholder value over all else. This is false. The existence of B corp statutory schemes in most states that either allow or require corporations to consider the public good would be conclusive on that point. Beyond that, it's something of a myth even with C corps.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...rs/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits

(I know Cornell is a poor school but the piece is pretty good)
 
bigus said:
Your thesis statement is that corporations are legally required to maximize shareholder value over all else. This is false. The existence of B corp statutory schemes in most states that either allow or require corporations to consider the public good would be conclusive on that point. Beyond that, it's something of a myth even with C corps.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...ximize-profits

(I know Cornell is a poor school but the piece is pretty good)
Click to expand...

You are sidestepping the point and obviously not a sincere poster. Off to the Fish tank.
 
Kepler said:
You are sidestepping the point and obviously not a sincere poster. Off to the Fish tank.
Click to expand...

Well, it's possible that either I dont understand your point or that you made it incredibly poorly, or both, but I'm not getting much from you other then unwarranted ad hominem attacks. I engage here rarely, and only engaged on this point because it's a common misconception that's within my area of legal expertise, but I'm not particularly interested in engaging with you any further.
 
Kepler said:
Not just incapable but not permitted to. If you are an officer of a publicly traded corporation and you testify you made decisions for the good of humanity at net cost to your shareholders, you can be put in jail.
Click to expand...

Good Lord did the outcome of the Michigan court case of the Dodge Brothers vs Ford Motor Company (204 Mich. 459, 170 N.W. 668 (Mich. 1919)) really have some awful consequences....
 
You know it is hard for me to take people who call me paranoid seriously when the Right literally agrees with everything I say about them.
 
I thought the civil war would come with trump as president. Silly me. I was forgetting my side actually is made up of adults who will accept an election, no matter how awful the winning candidate was. Is it ironic that if we adults want to see the next presidential election accepted as fair and accurate a republican will have to win? If (when, most likely) a democratic candidate wins in 2024, the events of the months following that election are going to make what happened in 2020-21 look peaceful.
 
Qohmert Pyle Suggests Capitol Riot Was Set Up By Democrats

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert suggested that the January 6 was a conspiracy set-up by the Democrats and called the arrests of the Capitol rioters "tyranny" in a speech to the Dallas Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Sunday.

Gohmert suggested that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was responsible for the violent insurrection that forced lawmakers into hiding and left five people dead, including a Capitol police officer.

"On January 6th, the sergeant at arms had turned down, on behalf of the speaker, having the National Guard there to help protect the Capitol. Why did that happen? You think they were setting things up?" he said in his address to CPAC.

"We can't let them intimidate us from not protesting. That's what this treatment of people that got arrested was all about – intimidation," Gohmert added.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top