not necessarily,
as a shareholder in principle you have a say on these kinds of things.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 14:17, 1 reply)

Yes, a non-binding vote that no one bothers to turn up for
will really hold them to account.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 15:17, closed)

well turn up, then.
this is like saying it's immoral to be on the electoral role if there's a bad government and a lot of apathy.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 16:22, closed)

Umm...
I don't own any shares, but have no moral objections to democracy (aside from the fact that it doesn't work).
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 16:45, closed)

I don't either,
but if morally-responsible and pro-active people did, they could be a force for good. That's all I'm saying.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 16:53, closed)

This seems unlikely.
Pleasantly idealistic, though.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 17:12, closed)

It's seems unlikely the mgmgmt would propose an idea with some shallow appeal but absolutely no connection with reality.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 17:16, closed)

not saying it's likely to happen,
just that owning shares isn't immoral, it's what you do with them that counts.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 17:28, closed)

Share ownership is parasitic.
Company profits should be divided amongst the workers.
Fat fucking chance of that, though.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 18:03, closed)

If you own shares in a company,
you can choose to do exactly that with your dividends, if you like. Ideologically I agree with you, but if it weren't for the investment raised by selling shares most of those jobs may well not have existed in the first place.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 18:11, closed)

Yeah, it's a shitty system, but it's not going away anytime soon, so we may as well learn to make the best of it.
Pretty sure I started a similar argument on here before, with someone who traded in futures.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 20:21, closed)

My last employer (a multinational manufacturer) gave all permanent staff shares in the company.
At least, they did at their UK sites.

/two penn'orth
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 18:13, closed)

this is also interesting
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 18:46, closed)

Bollocks. Absolute bollocks.
The overwhelming number of shares in the UK are held by pension funds and insurance companies. The 'fat cat' shareholders are a tiny and irrelevant minority.
If shareholder benefits are seen as an easy target, pensions get cut. Simple as that.
( da5id <YOUR SIG HERE>, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 18:13, closed)

And the financial organisations that run pension schemes and insurance are absolutely famous for living in penury and never awarding themselves absurd bonuses.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 18:15, closed)

Indeed. But the headline grabbing 'fat cats' are financially an irrelevance.
The problem is the system that allowed cheap unsecured loans to people who couldn't afford the repayments, then created a financial instrument to allow selling on the liability as a healthy-looking package, with an extra percentage at each trade. The regulatory changes to allow these instruments were the travesty, not the likes of Fred Goodwin who were really nothing but bookies getting millions whether they won or lost.
( da5id <YOUR SIG HERE>, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 18:21, closed)

this is worth watching
www.ted.com/talks/james_b_glattfelder_who_controls_the_world.html

more here:
www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0025995
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 18:26, closed)

That was interesting. Thanks.
The appearance of individually random behaviours by companies moving towards a complex system is the basis of most evolutionary systems.
Of course, it may just be the appearance of random behaviour, and actually controlled by Skynet...
...now where did I put that tinfoil?
( da5id <YOUR SIG HERE>, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 18:55, closed)

it's the ownership links that go round in a circle that intrigue me,
because nobody is ultimately in control of that at all, it's like some kind of "invisible emergent corporation" that doesn't legally exist but is there if you look for it.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 19:00, closed)

I never said shareholders were fat cats.
Nor was I advocating a cut in dividends. I might object to the system, but I fully accept the necessity of living within it.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 20:18, closed)

lol commie povvo

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 18:14, closed)

Oi! I'm a Chardonnay Socialist, thank you very much.

( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 20:16, closed)

Are you a bare-faced hypocrite as well?

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 20:32, closed)

only chavs and yanks buy wine by the grape

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 23:25, closed)

You?
A wine snob.

Who'da thunk it?
(Misery McUglywife an attention seeking sociopathic fuckstain., Sat 27 Apr 2013, 1:51, closed)