.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to arktouros.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="arktouros:1227235"]I can't talk numbers, but I'm talking about large shareholders, that may or may not be involved in the activities of a corporation. If this corporation lobbies congress to increase military spending so they grab a contract for a new amphibious tank (which indirectly cuts funding for a public school) or, more directly, lobbies for de-regulation of an environmental law so they can dump their waste in a local river, they are actively increasing their wealth at the expense of population. It's sort of the global malady of unregulated capitalism. The shareholders can put their hands up and say "I didn't do it". So to grab recent examples, look at the BP oil spill. BP and the government regulatory body that were both responsible for the safety of that equipment had their hands in each other's pockets and essentially deregulated themselves while no one else was watching, and when the pipe broke, their shares plummeted. Whether or not they will pay their fines has yet to be seen (Exxon still hasn't from 20+ years ago, last time I checked) their company brand is tarnished. Or the News Corp phone hacking scandal -- not only killed their shares but made David Cameron look like a joke. These have real effects on shares and real effects on public opinion. I guess my point is deregulation can both help and hurt a corporation, where the only thing that protects them from government and public scrutiny is walls of gold, and maybe their monopoly on a service that should be publically-owned and regulated. [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.004 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][