I'm glad to see that you've joined me and the experts in understanding that it's a complicated issue and black and white statements like "to maximize their market share and stock price, which is the legal obligation of a publicly traded company" are factually untrue and little more than an opinion.
It's pretty clear to me by your resorting to ad hominems and focusing on the word that I hurt your feelings by the use of nonsense. If you were offended, I apologize, but your statement was still untrue.
1. YOU claimed that there is a legal obligation for corporations to maximize market share and shareholder profit without offering any proof or citations.
2. I call BS and ask for a citation.
3. You offer up 3 links to 2 papers written by "experts" (who, again, do not determine the law in papers written for journals) that shows your statement is incorrect and in fact, your experts side with me.
How does this prove your claim again? Who's not listening to experts?
It is nonsense. You presented it as a clear and legal obligation for corporations, and your very own references dispute that fact. A dominant view or opinion is not a legal precedent and therefore doesn't mean jack, surely you understand that.
You want me to prove that there is no law? Uhhh, it went this way -
You make a claim that there's a law or ruling obligating corporations to maximize market share and shareholder profit.
I call BS and ask for a citation. You throw out inconclusive articles without referencing anything in them and cling desperately to "dominant view" without ever showing a law or ruling that confirms YOUR claim.
Oh, we're arguing semantics. Let me change it then.
How do these blatantly incorrect statements keep getting trotted out as fact? Does that work better for you? Or would you like to read more into words to try to justify your false statement?
And since schools *always* teach factually correct information and *never* spin it based on erroneous majority views or political agendas, we can take that as meaning that there's a law or ruling stating that maximizing marketshare and shareholder profit is an obligation of all corporations? And experts (not judges) are who determines legal precedent?
Oh, excellent! You must have something to cite that shows that corporations are legally obligated to maximize market share and shareholder profit then?
Thank you, I'm not generally inclined to read 32 page scholarly papers posted in a comment thread unless there's more guidance to the info that proves a point than "it's somewhere in there". Page numbers would have been nice.
CAL. CORP. CODE tit. 1, 309(a) (2004) (“in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders"
NY CLS BUS. CORP. art. 7, 717(b) (2004) (“the long-term and the short-term interests of the corporation and its shareholders”)
All of these from the same footnote that quotes "the interests of the corporation." Referencing someone else's reference isn't citing anything. Page 4, footnote 7 for anyone else reading.
And you stated - "They are both just trying to do their best to maximize their market share and stock price, which is the legal obligation of a publicly traded company" which is substantially different in meaning than "the best interest of the shareholders". While it's obvious that those might generally align, there's no obligation for them to. The issue is substantially more complicated than "maximize market share and stock price", as you yourself noted.
Also, a dominant view is not a legal precedent, law, ruling, or anything other than a generally held view. The dominant view also is that colds are caused by the cold, yet it still isn't true. Scholarly journals are also not legally binding, as I stated before, particularly when it's an exploratory article that doesn't take a definitive position.
if you do want to make a case it's a good place to start;-)
I'm not making a case. I'm refuting your statement.
Thanks, but throwing another 130-page document without citing anything in it to prove your point just seems like you're trying to bury your false statement under false references. Unless you were just including it for general reading.
There is no law or ruling that obligates companies to "maximize their market share and stock price" that I'm aware of. If you know of one, please cite it. Otherwise, my refutation of that part of your post stands.
which is the legal obligation of a publicly traded company.
How does this nonsense keep getting trotted out? IANAL, but my understanding is that in the preamble of the ruling for the Dodge v Ford case (meaning not the legally binding part), the judge included a line finding that companies were for designed for profit and not charity.
"Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co."[1]
"Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate. The business judgment rule [which was also upheld in this decision] protects many decisions that deviate from this standard. This is one reading of Dodge. If this is all the case is about, however, it isn’t that interesting."[2]
And I can be out on the tarmac at JFK in 15 minutes. I quit working for an airline 5 years ago. Rigid security!
Oh, you're just talking about walking through a PAX terminal security checkpoint being rigid? Who would try to get at the guts of an airport from there?
I didn't imply anything other than that leaving the country had a legal implication with his charges, which is not the case, as he hadn't even been charged yet. Yes, there's a difference, hence me correcting it.
I don't have mod points, but I can say he's the only guy I've read so far (about 10 minutes of skimming) that doesn't sound like a "OOOH the bad people are conspiring against us again" tinfoil hat guy, to include you and your implied mod point conspiracy.
If you want to call it "muddy waters" you can, but most people would call it disagreeing with your claims. If *you* were interested in actually discussing the case, I would think you'd respond to the refutations, but instead you've gotten bitchy. Are you that sensitive to people disagreeing with you?
Manning didn't read all the cables himself. He saw the apache video, and in his REMF viewpoint, finally learned that war was ugly. Have you watched the unedited video in its entirety? The army investigated and saw nothing wrong, but hey, 22 year-old, demoted PFCs know better than the Army.
He then downloaded mass amounts of cables, unread, to leak (after supposedly bragging about his access level to Lamos). So what crime was he ignoring there? What illegal order was he defying?
Damn, at the end I thought you were being hilariously sarcastic, but you sounded earnest and I half expected you to start citing war movies and books, as well as every relation in the last 100 years. I'm appreciative of your family and those who have served, and I make no judgement on the fact that you haven't. But hearing stories is a little different than living them.
Not to mention, REMFs and fixed wing pilots don't exactly have the same military experience as gunships and ground troops.
I'll assume your lack of response means you have no response to the Nuremberg or Article 29 points.
I don't know if you've ever served in a combat zone (I'm guessing no), but I have, and while this does not make me a legal expert or the final authority on all things military, I can tell you that there are an awful lot of weirdly strict technicalities that you are taught. A.50 cal machine gun can't be aimed at personnel, but you sure as hell can aim it at the equipment the personnel are wearing/carrying. I had one instructor tell me that body armor was equipment enough for a.50 cal, though I believe there's a pretty strict US Army interpretation of it.
So, can you cite the law that you are referring to that requires positive identification? I would like to read it for myself.
I'd also like to see where the Hague convention permits body collection by unidentified people, if you have it. Does it also permit unidentified people to collect weapons as well?
Julian Assange has made many statements in the past that can easily be interpreted an anti-US stance. I'm not completely certain myself whether he's anti-US or if he's just opposed to whoever is in charge, but the effect remains. And as the head of an organization goes, so goes the organization.
Compliments generally need to be given by *other* people for them to mean anything.
If you aren't the AC who posted referring to Wikileaks, then how would you presume that I would know that your faceless post was different than the other guys faceless post? Try posting as a human who accepts the consequences of his words. Thanks.
Yup, rape can be tough to prove in cases where it was consensual sex and the woman changes her mind in the middle of it. That doesn't mean we should change the definition of rape.
Yup, rape trials can be a public hell for the accused and the accuser, regardless of the outcome. That doesn't justify changing the definition of rape.
The fact remains that any of us are liable to be charged with he-said-she-said rape charges, but we generally trust that the prosecutor, judge, and jury are smart enough to figure out when it's valid or not. That's what we pay them for.
I'd like to you to find me a DA who will prosecute based *solely* (meaning no text messages, like JA) on a victim's word with no other corroborating evidence.
Article 29 - He pretended he was listening to music while burning data to a CD, correct? Is that not false pretenses or clandestine? He then transmitted it to a foreign national with an axe to grind against the US. What do you consider a hostile party?
I believe you also read article 31 wrong. The context is a Spy in Army B who actually works for Army A. When he's returns to Army A, if he's captured by Army B he has to be treated as a regular POW and not a spy/traitor. Totally irrelevant in regards to Manning.
Nuremberg - No one gave him any illegal orders. He chose to collect information himself. Additionally, no clearcut crime has been exposed because of his leaks, only minor scandals that cause the REMFs of this world to suddenly think they're armchair Apache pilots.
Which brings us nicely to Article 5. If you're citing article 5 in reference to the apache crew (which, to be clear, even wikileaks grudgingly admits the targets were armed, as they state in the opening of their heavily edited version), it's really easy in warmth and safety to pretend you can tell those people were there to help the wounded. In reality, they had no red crescent, no red cross, didn't self-identify, and came storming onto a combat ground collecting up weapons and bodies - same thing the Viet Cong did to salvage weapons and hide the bodies (to prevent the US getting an accurate body count).
What order was he given that was illegal? And what crime has he revealed?
Or are we talking about the single translation he cited where he realized that the US Army tries to follow middle-eastern countries wishes within the context of those nations laws (including not having a free press)? Amazing crimes uncovered by a 22-year old demoted PFC awaiting a less-than-honorable discharge; no way he was just retaliating, is there?
Anyone allegedly committing treason in a combat zone, particularly of the scope and indiscriminate nature of Manning's alleged leak, would be held as a threat to national security.
Anyone who's ever served would know the consequences of that act and the fact that the death penalty can be applied. Anyone who's ever served knows the military does *nothing* quickly, to include processing a highly visible, highly sensitive treason case where the suspect would be held in solitary until his court-martial.
Assuming he is indeed guilty (which sounds pretty likely), he chose his fate.
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty clear to me by your resorting to ad hominems and focusing on the word that I hurt your feelings by the use of nonsense. If you were offended, I apologize, but your statement was still untrue.
Uh, you mean my original point?
Okay, you're missing the point here.
1. YOU claimed that there is a legal obligation for corporations to maximize market share and shareholder profit without offering any proof or citations.
2. I call BS and ask for a citation.
3. You offer up 3 links to 2 papers written by "experts" (who, again, do not determine the law in papers written for journals) that shows your statement is incorrect and in fact, your experts side with me.
How does this prove your claim again? Who's not listening to experts?
It is nonsense. You presented it as a clear and legal obligation for corporations, and your very own references dispute that fact. A dominant view or opinion is not a legal precedent and therefore doesn't mean jack, surely you understand that.
You want me to prove that there is no law? Uhhh, it went this way -
You make a claim that there's a law or ruling obligating corporations to maximize market share and shareholder profit.
I call BS and ask for a citation. You throw out inconclusive articles without referencing anything in them and cling desperately to "dominant view" without ever showing a law or ruling that confirms YOUR claim.
Why don't you try proving that there is one.
Oh right, there isn't.
Oh, we're arguing semantics. Let me change it then.
How do these blatantly incorrect statements keep getting trotted out as fact? Does that work better for you? Or would you like to read more into words to try to justify your false statement?
And since schools *always* teach factually correct information and *never* spin it based on erroneous majority views or political agendas, we can take that as meaning that there's a law or ruling stating that maximizing marketshare and shareholder profit is an obligation of all corporations? And experts (not judges) are who determines legal precedent?
Where was the misleading statement again?
Oh, excellent! You must have something to cite that shows that corporations are legally obligated to maximize market share and shareholder profit then?
No?
Well then...
Thank you, I'm not generally inclined to read 32 page scholarly papers posted in a comment thread unless there's more guidance to the info that proves a point than "it's somewhere in there". Page numbers would have been nice.
CAL. CORP. CODE tit. 1, 309(a) (2004) (“in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders" NY CLS BUS. CORP. art. 7, 717(b) (2004) (“the long-term and the short-term interests of the corporation and its shareholders”) All of these from the same footnote that quotes "the interests of the corporation." Referencing someone else's reference isn't citing anything. Page 4, footnote 7 for anyone else reading.
And you stated - "They are both just trying to do their best to maximize their market share and stock price, which is the legal obligation of a publicly traded company" which is substantially different in meaning than "the best interest of the shareholders". While it's obvious that those might generally align, there's no obligation for them to. The issue is substantially more complicated than "maximize market share and stock price", as you yourself noted.
Also, a dominant view is not a legal precedent, law, ruling, or anything other than a generally held view. The dominant view also is that colds are caused by the cold, yet it still isn't true. Scholarly journals are also not legally binding, as I stated before, particularly when it's an exploratory article that doesn't take a definitive position.
if you do want to make a case it's a good place to start ;-)
I'm not making a case. I'm refuting your statement.
Another similar discussion: http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/elhauge/pdf/sacrificing_corporate_profits.pdf
Thanks, but throwing another 130-page document without citing anything in it to prove your point just seems like you're trying to bury your false statement under false references. Unless you were just including it for general reading.
There is no law or ruling that obligates companies to "maximize their market share and stock price" that I'm aware of. If you know of one, please cite it. Otherwise, my refutation of that part of your post stands.
Scholarly papers are not legally binding.
which is the legal obligation of a publicly traded company.
How does this nonsense keep getting trotted out? IANAL, but my understanding is that in the preamble of the ruling for the Dodge v Ford case (meaning not the legally binding part), the judge included a line finding that companies were for designed for profit and not charity.
"Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co."[1]
"Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate. The business judgment rule [which was also upheld in this decision] protects many decisions that deviate from this standard. This is one reading of Dodge. If this is all the case is about, however, it isn’t that interesting."[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company
For the record, I agree with the rest of your post.
The National Park Service. Private enterprise would no doubt log all of our wilderness to death and turn anything left into tourist trap hell.
And I can be out on the tarmac at JFK in 15 minutes. I quit working for an airline 5 years ago. Rigid security! Oh, you're just talking about walking through a PAX terminal security checkpoint being rigid? Who would try to get at the guts of an airport from there?
In NYC (and as far as I know most, if not all, of the Northeast Corridor) everything starts at 9.
I didn't imply anything other than that leaving the country had a legal implication with his charges, which is not the case, as he hadn't even been charged yet. Yes, there's a difference, hence me correcting it.
I don't have mod points, but I can say he's the only guy I've read so far (about 10 minutes of skimming) that doesn't sound like a "OOOH the bad people are conspiring against us again" tinfoil hat guy, to include you and your implied mod point conspiracy.
Manning didn't read all the cables himself. He saw the apache video, and in his REMF viewpoint, finally learned that war was ugly. Have you watched the unedited video in its entirety? The army investigated and saw nothing wrong, but hey, 22 year-old, demoted PFCs know better than the Army.
He then downloaded mass amounts of cables, unread, to leak (after supposedly bragging about his access level to Lamos). So what crime was he ignoring there? What illegal order was he defying?
Damn, at the end I thought you were being hilariously sarcastic, but you sounded earnest and I half expected you to start citing war movies and books, as well as every relation in the last 100 years. I'm appreciative of your family and those who have served, and I make no judgement on the fact that you haven't. But hearing stories is a little different than living them.
Not to mention, REMFs and fixed wing pilots don't exactly have the same military experience as gunships and ground troops.
I don't know if you've ever served in a combat zone (I'm guessing no), but I have, and while this does not make me a legal expert or the final authority on all things military, I can tell you that there are an awful lot of weirdly strict technicalities that you are taught. A .50 cal machine gun can't be aimed at personnel, but you sure as hell can aim it at the equipment the personnel are wearing/carrying. I had one instructor tell me that body armor was equipment enough for a .50 cal, though I believe there's a pretty strict US Army interpretation of it.
So, can you cite the law that you are referring to that requires positive identification? I would like to read it for myself.
I'd also like to see where the Hague convention permits body collection by unidentified people, if you have it. Does it also permit unidentified people to collect weapons as well?
Julian Assange has made many statements in the past that can easily be interpreted an anti-US stance. I'm not completely certain myself whether he's anti-US or if he's just opposed to whoever is in charge, but the effect remains. And as the head of an organization goes, so goes the organization.
Compliments generally need to be given by *other* people for them to mean anything.
Yes, I had an ambiguous statement. I don't believe his leaving the country had anything to do with him being charged.
If you aren't the AC who posted referring to Wikileaks, then how would you presume that I would know that your faceless post was different than the other guys faceless post? Try posting as a human who accepts the consequences of his words. Thanks.
Yup, rape trials can be a public hell for the accused and the accuser, regardless of the outcome. That doesn't justify changing the definition of rape.
The fact remains that any of us are liable to be charged with he-said-she-said rape charges, but we generally trust that the prosecutor, judge, and jury are smart enough to figure out when it's valid or not. That's what we pay them for.
I'd like to you to find me a DA who will prosecute based *solely* (meaning no text messages, like JA) on a victim's word with no other corroborating evidence.
Did you see the word violence anywhere in your definition of rape?
I believe you also read article 31 wrong. The context is a Spy in Army B who actually works for Army A. When he's returns to Army A, if he's captured by Army B he has to be treated as a regular POW and not a spy/traitor. Totally irrelevant in regards to Manning.
Nuremberg - No one gave him any illegal orders. He chose to collect information himself. Additionally, no clearcut crime has been exposed because of his leaks, only minor scandals that cause the REMFs of this world to suddenly think they're armchair Apache pilots.
Which brings us nicely to Article 5. If you're citing article 5 in reference to the apache crew (which, to be clear, even wikileaks grudgingly admits the targets were armed, as they state in the opening of their heavily edited version), it's really easy in warmth and safety to pretend you can tell those people were there to help the wounded. In reality, they had no red crescent, no red cross, didn't self-identify, and came storming onto a combat ground collecting up weapons and bodies - same thing the Viet Cong did to salvage weapons and hide the bodies (to prevent the US getting an accurate body count).
Or are we talking about the single translation he cited where he realized that the US Army tries to follow middle-eastern countries wishes within the context of those nations laws (including not having a free press)? Amazing crimes uncovered by a 22-year old demoted PFC awaiting a less-than-honorable discharge; no way he was just retaliating, is there?
Anyone who's ever served would know the consequences of that act and the fact that the death penalty can be applied. Anyone who's ever served knows the military does *nothing* quickly, to include processing a highly visible, highly sensitive treason case where the suspect would be held in solitary until his court-martial.
Assuming he is indeed guilty (which sounds pretty likely), he chose his fate.
Says the guy who argues based off sentence structure. Thanks for the contribution, I believe your work here is done.