On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:38:39 -0800, wrote:

So, you think the small investor in a multinational has some actual
say in how the company is run and the ethics involved? It's only
recently that CEO pay has been on the table as needing non-binding
approval of the stockholders!

It doesn't really matter how much or how little say you have. If the
company is doing well, you share in the gains just like all of the
other owners. If it's not doing well you vote with your telephone and
sell the stock. Essentially you just fired the management.

On 2/2/11 5:12 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:38:39 -0800, wrote:

So, you think the small investor in a multinational has some actual
say in how the company is run and the ethics involved? It's only
recently that CEO pay has been on the table as needing non-binding
approval of the stockholders!

It doesn't really matter how much or how little say you have. If the
company is doing well, you share in the gains just like all of the
other owners. If it's not doing well you vote with your telephone and
sell the stock. Essentially you just fired the management.



Doing well only refers to one aspect of a corporation's performance,
typically. The problem is that corporations have become the actual
government in many countries, such as this one, and corporate actions
are destroying the middle class.

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:29:05 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:36:08 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:58:25 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:49:28 -0800, jps wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 02:00:06 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 22:00:40 -0800, jps wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 00:31:01 -0500, wrote:


Without the farm subsidies ethanol would be very expensive.


Right, let's do...nothing.

Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. Ethanol still has
not proved it's value.

Ethanol is a ruse. We should be investing in switchgrass or algae
production and refinement.


Why not CNG, it is cheap, clean and we have plenty of it?

Why not invest in something we can grow instead of ripping apart the
earth's crust while spoiling the water table with toxins and dangerous
gases?

Because we are going to run out of water long before we run out of
oil.

So, we should make the problem worse by using fracking?

Did you just learn a new word?

? Are you trying to insult me? If so, try again.

I agree there have been some problem in a few places with this but the
majority of the fracking does not hurt anyone.

Some problems? Lots of problems... igniting water from someone's tap
is pretty serious. Don't know about the majority. You mean more than
50%?

Do you know of anything that doesn't affect someone?

Sure. If my cat pees on a bush and I don't know about it, I suspect
nobody is affected. Is that an equivalency attempt you're trying to
make?

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:12:02 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:38:39 -0800, wrote:

So, you think the small investor in a multinational has some actual
say in how the company is run and the ethics involved? It's only
recently that CEO pay has been on the table as needing non-binding
approval of the stockholders!

It doesn't really matter how much or how little say you have. If the
company is doing well, you share in the gains just like all of the
other owners. If it's not doing well you vote with your telephone and
sell the stock. Essentially you just fired the management.

Doesn't matter? It matters to me if a stock I'm holding is destroying
the rainforest, but I have no control over the CEO. Selling the shares
doesn't have any affect on CEO salary, for example. They've got their
parachutes and are immune from my small action.

On Feb 2, 5:37*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:29:05 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:36:08 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:58:25 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:49:28 -0800, jps wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 02:00:06 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 22:00:40 -0800, jps wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 00:31:01 -0500, wrote:

Without the farm subsidies ethanol would be very expensive.

Right, let's do...nothing.

Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. Ethanol still has
not proved it's value.

Ethanol is a ruse. *We should be investing in switchgrass or algae
production and refinement.

Why not CNG, it is cheap, clean and we have plenty of it?

Why not invest in something we can grow instead of ripping apart the
earth's crust while spoiling the water table with toxins and dangerous
gases?

Because we are going to run out of water long before we run out of
oil.

So, we should make the problem worse by using fracking?

Did you just learn a new word?

? Are you trying to insult me? If so, try again.


No D'Plume. He asked you a question. Mentally are you really that
thick?

In article ,
says...

On 2/2/11 12:31 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:09:43 -0500,
wrote:

On 2/1/11 3:58 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:17:11 -0500,
wrote:



Read up on cellulosic ethanol,

Unfortunately virtually all of the ethanol made here comes from corn.


That doesn't mean we're going to be forever stupid.

Without the farm subsidies ethanol would be very expensive.


Right, let's do...nothing.

Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. Ethanol still has
not proved it's value.


There are other agricultural alternatives to corn ethanol. If we come up
with something, I'd like it owned by the people instead of by big,
multi-national corporations. We need to move away from "corporate uber
alles."

Why don't you start up a co-op.

What a freaking dumb****.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 2/2/11 8:06 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 06:30:35 -0500,
wrote:

Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. Ethanol still has
not proved it's value.


There are other agricultural alternatives to corn ethanol. If we come up
with something, I'd like it owned by the people instead of by big,
multi-national corporations. We need to move away from "corporate uber
alles."

You should buy some stock in some of those big, multi-national
corporations. It turns out that they are all owned by the people,
people just like us.



Right...small individual shareholders have the ability to control big,
multi-national corporations, and Hollywood starlets call me all the time
for dates.

Big, multi-national corporations...that's why everything is working out
so well. I prefer public ownership of the public's resources, the
public's highways, the public's schools, the public's hospitals, the
public's airports. et cetera.

When "the system" favors only the rich, when the middle and lower income
classes are regressing, when able-bodied, willing workers cannot find
decent, family supporting jobs, all because of the greed at the top,
it's time for serious, heavy duty change.

You are an idiot.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:38:39 -0800, wrote:

So, you think the small investor in a multinational has some actual
say in how the company is run and the ethics involved? It's only
recently that CEO pay has been on the table as needing non-binding
approval of the stockholders!

It doesn't really matter how much or how little say you have. If the
company is doing well, you share in the gains just like all of the
other owners. If it's not doing well you vote with your telephone and
sell the stock. Essentially you just fired the management.

The last six months have been very good to me. I have an unrealized gain
in one company of about 45%.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 2/2/11 5:12 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:38:39 -0800, wrote:

So, you think the small investor in a multinational has some actual
say in how the company is run and the ethics involved? It's only
recently that CEO pay has been on the table as needing non-binding
approval of the stockholders!

It doesn't really matter how much or how little say you have. If the
company is doing well, you share in the gains just like all of the
other owners. If it's not doing well you vote with your telephone and
sell the stock. Essentially you just fired the management.



Doing well only refers to one aspect of a corporation's performance,
typically. The problem is that corporations have become the actual
government in many countries, such as this one, and corporate actions
are destroying the middle class.

Businesses/corporations have always run the world. You really do need to
brush up on some history.

On 2/2/11 7:41 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleqaudnU5a7qnpStTQnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 2/2/11 5:12 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:38:39 -0800, wrote:

So, you think the small investor in a multinational has some actual
say in how the company is run and the ethics involved? It's only
recently that CEO pay has been on the table as needing non-binding
approval of the stockholders!

It doesn't really matter how much or how little say you have. If the
company is doing well, you share in the gains just like all of the
other owners. If it's not doing well you vote with your telephone and
sell the stock. Essentially you just fired the management.



Doing well only refers to one aspect of a corporation's performance,
typically. The problem is that corporations have become the actual
government in many countries, such as this one, and corporate actions
are destroying the middle class.

Businesses/corporations have always run the world. You really do need to
brush up on some history.




Slavery used to be "legal" in this country until we made it illegal.

We can change the negative impacts corporations have on society.

You're a real flatlander, eh?