... you're saying that the laws of supply & demand has
been temporarily suspended in this instance. Maybe the court
approved that too? I mean, doesn't water flow up hill if
your ideology demands that it do so?

Dave wrote:
The laws of supply and demand tell you that if there is an increase in the
number of shares held by people who want to sell, and there is not a
corresponding increase in the number of shares demanded by people who want
to buy, the price will decline.

Yep

.... That's all they tell you. It is certainly
not a fair conclusion that the shares held by people who wanted to sell
represented a majority of the outstanding shares.

And when the price goes from $80 to about $15 (both prices
split adjusted) a share?

You're tapdancing on a very wobbly plank, Dave.

But like I said, if your ideology demands that you say water
flows up hill, you say it vehemently and try to prove it
with all your lawyerly wiles. I guess that can be a good
characteristic. But the fact remains that water does not
flow up hill.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...

The laws of supply and demand tell you that if there is an
increase in the
number of shares held by people who want to sell, and there is
not a
corresponding increase in the number of shares demanded by
people who want
to buy, the price will decline.

Yep

.... That's all they tell you. It is certainly
not a fair conclusion that the shares held by people who wanted
to sell
represented a majority of the outstanding shares.

And when the price goes from $80 to about $15 (both prices split
adjusted) a share?

You're tapdancing on a very wobbly plank, Dave.

Well, this has been a fascinating debate. I've enjoyed listening
in, and I'm really glad you've shifted the debate from personal
attack to digging for the causes of difference. I've learnt a lot.
I guess it should have had a thread title of 'corporate
governance'. On balance, I guess I understand Dave's points a
little better - but thanks guys,
--
JimB
http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/
Describing some Greek and Spanish cruising areas

we've been trying to insure our boat for liability only and can not get
it without an out of water survey. It seems people with recked boats
from the canes are geting liability insurance and then letting calling
their boat in as a reck to get the insurance to clean it up. FL charges
the reg owner big bucks if you leave a boat sitting after it is recked.

Da Kine wrote:
we've been trying to insure our boat for liability only and can not get
it without an out of water survey. It seems people with recked boats
from the canes are geting liability insurance and then letting calling
their boat in as a reck to get the insurance to clean it up. FL charges
the reg owner big bucks if you leave a boat sitting after it is recked.

THANK YOU Da KINE

AT LAST........... SOMTHING ABOUT INSURANCE!

So far we have Allstate as a real bargin. About $300-340 for reasonable
coverage for boats 27'-39'

Any other owners out there who have insurance recomendations?
Bob

News f2s wrote:

I guess it should have had a thread title of 'corporate
governance'.

JimB

Hello Jim B:

I gotta know, from which university did you retire?
Inquiring Bob

"Bob"
I gotta know, from which university did you retire?
Inquiring Bob

I haven't retired from life yet . . .
--
JimB
http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/
Describing some Greek and Spanish cruising areas

News f2s wrote:
Well, this has been a fascinating debate. I've enjoyed listening
in, and I'm really glad you've shifted the debate from personal
attack to digging for the causes of difference.

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?

I apologize for going on at such length about the issue of
corproate kleptocracy. It's an important issue but this is
supposed to be a boating forum after all... maybe it's on
topic in consideration of how one affords a boat?


... I've learnt a lot.
I guess it should have had a thread title of 'corporate
governance'. On balance, I guess I understand Dave's points a
little better - but thanks guys,

Hey any time

Regards
Doug King

Don White wrote:

A former notoriously wasteful provincial gov't here once borrowed money
from oil rich Alberta do do just that.
The premier ended up being appointed to the Senate.

Are you referring to the bridge to PEI?

In article ,
says...


Sure. In many cases, perhaps most, the Board of Directos
hold a majority of common stock among themselves. In that
case, the public (individual & institutional) shareholders
are just along for the ride. Some surprisingly large
corporations are this way.

Wrong. In many cases, perhaps most, the directors own very few shares or nonbe
at all. Case in the paper today about a former Ford company where the CEO's
compensation soared 50% while the stock tanked 39% and the chairman of the
compensation committee owns not one share.

In article ,
says...

I apologize for going on at such length about the issue of
corproate kleptocracy. It's an important issue but this is
supposed to be a boating forum after all... maybe it's on
topic in consideration of how one affords a boat?

One affords a boat the same way working stiffs afford monster trucks.
You gotta have it, you have it. Regardless.

(Living on Social Security with 37 foot sailboat)