Craytonic

Ok I'm impressed, good post. Somehow you two seem to be mixing value, wealth, and money but I don't have the schooling on the terms to explain it Will think on it through the day; this has definitely been a good discussion.

You raised enough cane that they are "willing to add you" (not "want to add you" or "you deserve it," but "willing") because you felt left out, not being in the initial cut. Poor baby. Like the two year screaming loudly in the store for her mother to give her some candy. People can read the thread at RWI and decide for themselves.

Wow I definitely felt something move below the belt when I saw that pic.

Ok this one isn't going to go any where, you are talking about money not wealth, as I addressed in the part of my post you didn't quote. I really think you are talking about money there....?

Sorry, I think when you admit you can destroy it the rest of it falls a part. That would mean, assuming any wealth has been destroyed since man walked the earth, there is less wealth now than when we lived in caves (since none could be created). I don't buy it.

Oh, poor baby, you are just in a tizzy since you didn't get listed as 5*; I'll ignore it. I did chuckle while I read your cry-baby rant @ RWI. Safe to say you were not listed for a reason. Don't get yourself too worked up over it; if you keep complaining they will probably list you just so you will shut your big fat mouth!

Ok couldn't resist one more because this is an easy one. You can't create or destroy _energy_. You set off an atomic bomb and you have not created or destroyed energy; it has just changed forms (law of thermodynamics, although I am a tad rusty there). You set of that atomic bomb in a big city (God forbid), you just destroyed a [censored] load of wealth (I don't think you can say the cars, buildings, art, etc were not wealth with a straight face and they were certainly destroyed).

This is an idiological school that came around basically to guilt rich, capitalist countries and say they were "stealing" from the third world; I really don't believe it for a minute but if we get into this one we will be _way_ of topic. I think it is sufficient to point out that you made an arument about "currency," which is no longer backed by gold and is just something people put value in - it thus changes value. We were talking about wealth, which can also be different things like planes, trains, and automobile. You can print as much monopoly money as you want and it will be worthless. You start curning out some semiconductors from sand and you are doing a very different thing (you are creating something that has value *in and of itself*, cash money just has the value we assign to it.). bottom line: you aren't talking about wealth.

I knew that when I listed them but no one had differentiated their argument between minority/majority shareholders. HP-Compaq merger is similar, but arguably it was the long-term shareholder (families that started it) that got screwed in the name of long term gains. (although I personally didn't like that merger either).

Usually star systems have different levels... @ luckyyy, I doubt he would ever be "5*" I haven't made up my mind, but I think it is a good deal and hope they keep it meaningful... there ARE differences in the dealers and if they just put the first one to whine/[censored] (which has already begun) on the list as well it becomes meaningless... I hope the have the balls and stick to what they started. I think it is a positive thing for noobs - when I travel to a new city the * ranking for hotels is helpful... same for restaurants... why not dealers?

The way you guys talk about corporations I am surprised any of them last more than ten years.... Plenty have been around much longer.... You think the guys at Google and micro$oft are not thinking "long term strategy"? No one wants to be the next Ken Lay... problems happen but they are usually market corrections, wake up calls, bad apples - we do live in a less than perfect world.

What he said... If I take something you think is worthless (say silicone) and make microchip out of it that is suddenly worth something to you, I would say that I "created" wealth. You may call it something different but it is just playing semantics. I don't think calling it wealth redistribution passes the "straight face" test.

I couldn't tell the difference in person.

Those executives created _no_ shareholder value ( nonexistent asset is not shareholder value). What they did was trying to keep their own jobs and appease their huge egos. People is any walk of life can fall victim to pressure and there will be a few bad apples. Furthermore, there are just as many examples of shareholders getting screwed out of great short-term, real, profits for the "long-term outlook" of the company. Bottom line is there will always be notable failures in anything that naysayers can point at and say "Look! Look!" but I think you would be hard pressed to tell me the corp. governance system has not created a ridiculous amount of wealth. Big picture boys, don't lose sight of the forest for the tree that fell over in it. I certainly would not want a system where there was no "pressure" to turn a profit. That is how parents raise children, not how investors spend their money.

Those are nice things, but I can't see where a duty to pursue them would be derived from. Imposing any thing else on the corp is basically telling the owners to go screw themselves; such outside ording is probably a bad idea (the late and great Milton Freedman would certainly argue against it). They do try very hard to survive (and a lot of time shareholders get screwed) because the board of directors does not want to loose its sweet job and if they can keep a merger they don't like from happening the won't let it (many ways to do this). Now this may just be the board trying to survive, but it indirectly keeps the corp alive as well. The paramount merger, or even better the time-warner merger, are classic examples. Those are nice things, but I can't see where a duty to pursue them would be derived from. Imposing any thing else on the corp is basically telling the owners to go screw themselves; such outside ording is probably a bad idea (the late and great Milton Freedman would certainly argue against it). They do try very hard to survive (and a lot of time shareholders get screwed) because the board of directors does not want to loose its sweet job and if they can keep a merger they don't like from happening the won't let it (many ways to do this). Now this may just be the board trying to survive, but it indirectly keeps the corp alive as well. The paramount merger, or even better the time-warner merger, are classic examples.

Just out of curiosity - you have twice mentioned companies having some other goal than the enrichment of their shareholders. Could you elaborate a little on what you think those goals should be and where the duty would be derived from. US Companies are allowed to give to charity to some extent and do other altruistic things. BTW I hate those ferrari pams too. (but Panerai doesn't owe me any duty, fiduciary or otherwise, so what can I say )

Pug: Sorry I am not following you (what are you saying should be the mark of success?). Here in the US the ultimate power of the corp. rests in the board of directors, who have a fiduciary duty to the investors. However the board is given a wide latitude of protection in its choices under the business judgment rule. The board's ultimate duty is to the shareholders because it is _their_ company (corps are basically fictitious people). It used to be they would want dividends but for various reasons (mainly tax) those typically are not paid out so now it is more value of the investment (share price). Things are a little different in Germany where the workers have some say, but I don't really know about any other countries. There are also a bunch of cool ways to keep control in the hands of a select few and completely out of the normal shareholder (a la google). I know exactly what you mean about shareholders caring about returns, not success off the company. This is why in a hostile takeover the new majority shareholder will sometimes chop up the whole company and liquidate it, or liquidate all but a portion of it (and make lots of $ in the process). Instant profit great for shareholders taking the profit, bad for the company itself since it is dissolved. Without writing a novel, the reason the ultimate power is in the board under incorporation statutes (who can of course be voted out), is that they tend to look out more for the company, but ultimately they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. BUT, the business judgment rule allows they a wide lattitude to basically skirt short term goals for long term profits and do all other sorts of interesting things. This is why shareholders of huge corps. do not vote democracy style on business decisions. It is really a question of perspective. It may be a stupid way from the individual business' perspective (i.e. getting chopped up and sold off and ceasing to exist). BUT, the business only exists to make money for the shareholders, so this is not a bad thing since the shareholders ultimately have more $. Not familiar w/ the rolex history and your long term argument but it has to be either they were going to chop the company up or shareholders wanted Rolex to do something stupid (make quartz or something) The way I am reading your comments is that putting shareholders first is a bad way to run a company because that could lead to the company being dissolved/sold off for the profit of the shareholders. However, since it is the shareholders company, they should be able to dissolve it and take the profit. If you are arguing shareholders are collectively stupid and should not run a company, this is the reason for the business judgment rule. It is the board of directors job to decide what is best (quartz v. mechanical or nice merge or not), not the shareholders. As long as they don't do several bad things, the board is entitled to make the decision and ignore shareholders (although they can be voted out at the next shareholder meeting). This allows some decent long-term planning to go on that is often _horrible_ for shareholders in the short term (the Paramount - Time merger is the _classic_ example of this, be sure to google it if you aren't familiar because shareholders got screwed. There are many others in merger contexts where shareholders got screwed out of a big premium on their shares and they could not punish the board for it). Sorry for the long-winded reply; I somewhat meandered since I was unclear on your point.

Yes but the confusion Welch referred to has a purpose; I never said change for a reason was bad. I do corp. law so I am familiar with your work; as you said there is a purpose for those changes, those are all situations where the purpose is relatively concrete. I think we are just quibbling over words at this point... @ Pug: Not a stupid way to run a business if you are the shareholder... and the corp. does belong to them so the duty of care is to them. Seriously though the BoD gets a good deal of lattitude legally under the business judgment rule and the board IS allowed to consider other factors to a limited extent. Could they be voted out? Yes, but that does not happen much. Obviously laws in your country may vary.

Looks good... perhaps add some prices.

I don't think I could ever stand before a board of directors and tell them I wanted to "shake things up" because i want an "unpredictable" outcome. That would get me fired and acting on it might be a violation of their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, getting them sued if the unpredictable outcome was a bad result (try telling shareholders "oops, we had no idea what the outcome would be"). If I gave them a cost/benefit and risk analysis and explained how this meant more money in their pocket, they would do it (and if it tanked it is still legally protected under the business judgment rule). But, your milage may vary.

The idea is you can eat whichever fruit you want, its just a cost/benefit analysis of the risk of dying v. benefit of finding a new food source. i.e. lets say there is a problem on tree #2 making it less attractive and you have a new need... this makes you more likely to try the other tree. Same thing happens in politics, people switch when they think it is worth their while. You would swith trees for a reason, you would not just switch for the sake of switching. You may switch because you think boredom of diet outweighs the risk of death/problems from the other tree. whatever. the point being there is a reason behind the switch. Switching just for the sake of switching would be... darwinian. I think you are missing my point and pug got it. There is really no reason to get caught up in politics, it just swings back and forth.

I wasn't talking about the recent US election, although it appears you are. I do agree with you that people are usually resistant to change, it makes evolutionary sense. For instance, why eat from tree #1 which might kill you when you know the fruit on tree #2 will not? That said, it proves only that people are resistant to change, not that change is always good. My point is that it can be good or bad. Pug: The Amish? Quick-witted but not sure it is an argument. The opposite reply isthe Nazis/Fascists/Stalin or or any other reactionary (i.e. driven by change) government... The Amish may ride in buggies but they don't kill too many people with them. I think those of us in the middle of the change/no change continum are the happiest. I am very leery of using the "Nazi" argument and feel like it is a cheap one but here it does seem appropriate. Obviously there are some "change" based governments that have turned out differently, but while we are naming examples... Funny fact: the "conservatives" use to be the "crazy liberals" way back in the day. Its just a pendulum that swings both ways gentlemen... when it gets too high on one side it swings all the way back to the other - most people get too caught up in the day to day to see that big picture.

Interesting. My eye was drawn to the cut marks quickly as well, but if you fix those it would be spot on!

Just my .02; given that you have never had a card before I doubt you will ever carry a balance from month-to-month (I don't) so ignore the APR, you will not pay interest if you pay it off each month. I have a visa cash-back card; i get 1-3% cash back on every purchase I make. I would recommend you look into something similar, I never really think about it but after a year or so it is a nice little egg (it adds up) to blow on the lady in you life.

I think the same could be said of change for the sake of change itself. There is no correlation between something changing and it getting better. Things can and do change for the worse as well. I'm not advocating one or the other in this post, but that people seem to get too hung up on the change/no change issue.