Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #57283 > unrolled thread

Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-01 09:15 -0700
    Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-01 11:56 -0500
    Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-01 17:10 +0000
      Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-01 10:27 -0700
        Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-01 19:23 -0500
          Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 01:47 +0000
            Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-01 21:41 -0500
              Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 03:07 +0000
                Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-02 01:50 -0500
                  Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 08:08 -0700
                  Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 16:21 +0000
                  Re: Tim Cook chooses social responsibility George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-02 10:23 -0600
                    Re: Tim Cook chooses social responsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 10:36 -0700
                      Re: Tim Cook chooses social responsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 12:48 -0500
                        Re: Tim Cook chooses social responsibility Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 18:09 +0000
                        Re: Tim Cook chooses social responsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 11:14 -0700
                      Re: Tim Cook chooses social responsibility Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 18:09 +0000
                        Re: Tim Cook chooses social responsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 11:17 -0700
              Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-03-02 17:06 +1300
                Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 16:25 +0000
                  Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 10:32 -0700
                    Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 12:47 -0500
                      Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 11:10 -0700
                        Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 13:12 -0500
                          Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 13:18 -0500
                            Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 11:54 -0700
                    Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-02 13:57 -0600
                      Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-02 20:21 -0500
                        Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 17:25 -0800
                    Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 21:47 +0000
                      Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 17:56 -0700
                        Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-03 01:17 +0000
                        Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 21:30 -0500
                Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 18:07 +0000
                  Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 21:48 +0000
                  Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-02 18:19 -0500
                    Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-02 20:25 -0500
                Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2014-03-07 20:38 -0500
              Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-01 21:37 -0700
                Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-02 10:13 -0600
                  Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 16:23 +0000
                    Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 12:02 -0500
                      Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 10:30 -0700
                        Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 12:46 -0500
                          Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 11:09 -0700
                            Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-02 14:03 -0600
                            Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 21:45 +0000
                            Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-02 20:15 -0500
                              Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-03 01:18 +0000
                              Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 19:57 -0700
                                Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-03 07:51 -0500
                                  Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-03 15:05 +0000
                        Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 21:44 +0000
                          Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 17:55 -0700
                      Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-02 13:56 -0600
                        Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 15:49 -0500
                        Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 17:44 -0700
                  Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 10:29 -0700
              Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 05:19 +0000
          Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-01 21:37 -0700
          Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-03-01 23:55 -0600
            Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 16:24 +0000
    Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-01 21:37 -0800
      Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-03-02 10:28 -0500
        Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 11:04 -0500
        Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 16:25 +0000
        Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 18:02 +0000
          Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 11:10 -0700
            Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 11:26 -0800
            Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 22:19 +0000
              Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 17:57 -0700
                Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 17:04 -0800
              Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2014-03-07 20:25 -0500
                Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-07 18:52 -0700
                Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-08 06:50 +0000
                  Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-08 09:23 -0600
        Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 11:20 -0800
          Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-02 20:19 -0500
      Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-02 10:14 -0600
      Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-03-03 09:00 +1300
        Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-02 14:25 -0600
          Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-03-03 13:40 +1300
        Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 13:04 -0800
          Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-03-03 13:44 +1300
            Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 17:02 -0800
              Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-03-03 16:21 +1300

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#57343

On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 19:23:26 -0500, JF Mezei 
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> I am neutral on Cook. he seems to be a good manager for the company. 
> But he doesn't have the vision and leadership of Jobs.

Jobs didn't always have the vision of Jobs.  Jobs was very good at 
harnessing the vision of others, even of unifying disparate visions of 
others.

And I am not sure that "leadership" is quite the right description for 
him for how he ran Apple.  He had strong sociopathic tendencies in his 
relationships with others.  In his first tenure with Apple he made a 
number of bad decisions and blunders as CEO; in his second tenure he 
appeared to have earned a lot and the company was much more successful 
under him.  While he was effective, I am not sure that "leader" is quite 
the right word.  "Bully" was sometimes the right word.  "Manipulator" 
was sometimes the right word.  "Brilliant" was sometimes the right word.  
"Visionary" was sometimes the right word.  "Selfish bastard" was also 
sometimes the right word(s).  Jobs was complex and his style of running 
the company reflected that.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57365

On 2014-03-02, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 19:23:26 -0500, JF Mezei 
><jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I am neutral on Cook. he seems to be a good manager for the company. 
>> But he doesn't have the vision and leadership of Jobs.
>
> Jobs didn't always have the vision of Jobs.  Jobs was very good at 
> harnessing the vision of others, even of unifying disparate visions of 
> others.
>
> And I am not sure that "leadership" is quite the right description for 
> him for how he ran Apple.  He had strong sociopathic tendencies in his 
> relationships with others.  In his first tenure with Apple he made a 
> number of bad decisions and blunders as CEO; in his second tenure he 
> appeared to have earned a lot and the company was much more successful 
> under him.  While he was effective, I am not sure that "leader" is quite 
> the right word.  "Bully" was sometimes the right word.  "Manipulator" 
> was sometimes the right word.  "Brilliant" was sometimes the right word.  
> "Visionary" was sometimes the right word.  "Selfish bastard" was also 
> sometimes the right word(s).  Jobs was complex and his style of running 
> the company reflected that.  

Spot on. I miss him dearly.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57342

In article <010320140915170326%michelle@michelle.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> This should get the "The only obligation of a corporation is to make a
> profit for its investors; there is no other obligation" crowd very much
> upset.

The obligation of the managers is to run the business as the majority of the 
owners (the shareholders) want it run.

    That shareholder proposal was rejected by Apple's shareholders,
    receiving just 2.95 percent of the vote.

-- 
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57357

Siri Cruz:
> The obligation of the managers is to run the business as the majority of the 
> owners (the shareholders) want it run.

Bzzzzt! The first obligation of corporate management is to operate in a
moral, honest, and just manner.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57358

In article <020320141028597047%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> Siri Cruz:
> > The obligation of the managers is to run the business as the majority of 
> > the 
> > owners (the shareholders) want it run.
> 
> Bzzzzt! The first obligation of corporate management is to operate in a
> moral, honest, and just manner.

Not under US law. They have a fidicuary responsibility to the 
shareholders as their first responsibility. They have an obligation to 
operate in a LEGAL manner (which I will rather arbitrarily suggest is 
the "honest" part) but the others not so much, especially since there is 
really no objective way to measure the others.
-- 
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
     but what they conceal is vital.²
                       ‹ Aaron Levenstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57367

On 2014-03-02, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
> Siri Cruz:
>> The obligation of the managers is to run the business as the majority of the 
>> owners (the shareholders) want it run.
>
> Bzzzzt! The first obligation of corporate management is to operate in a
> moral, honest, and just manner.

HAHAHAHA!!! Good one!

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57390

In message <020320141028597047%star@sky.net> 
  Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
> Siri Cruz:
>> The obligation of the managers is to run the business as the majority of the 
>> owners (the shareholders) want it run.

> Bzzzzt! The first obligation of corporate management is to operate in a
> moral, honest, and just manner.

Oh, well. Then just about every American corporation fails at their
first obligation.

-- 
SUSURRATION: It's a hushed noise. But it hints of plots and secrets and
people turning to one another in surprise. It's the noise, in fact, made
just after the sword is withdrawn from the stone and just before the
cheering starts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57397

In article <slrnlh6si3.1uj.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <020320141028597047%star@sky.net> 
>   Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
> > Siri Cruz:
> >> The obligation of the managers is to run the business as the majority of
> >> the 
> >> owners (the shareholders) want it run.
> 
> > Bzzzzt! The first obligation of corporate management is to operate in a
> > moral, honest, and just manner.
> 
> Oh, well. Then just about every American corporation fails at their
> first obligation.

"Just about"?  Can you name any that do not fail in this regard?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57410

In article <020320141110547172%michelle@michelle.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <slrnlh6si3.1uj.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> > In message <020320141028597047%star@sky.net> 
> >   Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
> > > Siri Cruz:
> > >> The obligation of the managers is to run the business as the majority of
> > >> the 
> > >> owners (the shareholders) want it run.
> > 
> > > Bzzzzt! The first obligation of corporate management is to operate in a
> > > moral, honest, and just manner.
> > 
> > Oh, well. Then just about every American corporation fails at their
> > first obligation.
> 
> "Just about"?  Can you name any that do not fail in this regard?

Do you mean that busineses being run by fallible humans sometimes make errors, 
or they all intend to be mean?

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/efkk45mmlm/the-10-companies-with-the-best-csr-repu
tations/

-- 
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57428

In message <020320141110547172%michelle@michelle.org> 
  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnlh6si3.1uj.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> In message <020320141028597047%star@sky.net> 
>>   Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
>> > Siri Cruz:
>> >> The obligation of the managers is to run the business as the majority of
>> >> the 
>> >> owners (the shareholders) want it run.
>> 
>> > Bzzzzt! The first obligation of corporate management is to operate in a
>> > moral, honest, and just manner.
>> 
>> Oh, well. Then just about every American corporation fails at their
>> first obligation.

> "Just about"?  Can you name any that do not fail in this regard?

Sure. Celestial Seasonings for one. VW USA. Apple. Trader Joes. Hell, I
would say that MOST corporations are moral, honest, and just. It's only
the larger ones that have a very hard time of it, but most corporations
are quite small (1-3 people in the corporation and less than 50
employees).

-- 
"Humor is a rubber sword - it allows you to make a point without drawing
blood." - Mary Hirsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57451

In article <slrnlh7bjc.2ru.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> Oh, well. Then just about every American corporation fails at their
> >> first obligation.
> 
> > "Just about"?  Can you name any that do not fail in this regard?
> 
> Sure. Celestial Seasonings for one. VW USA. Apple. Trader Joes. Hell, I
> would say that MOST corporations are moral, honest, and just.

Are you saying that they've never failed in any regard in this
obligation?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57455

In article <020320141757341215%michelle@michelle.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <slrnlh7bjc.2ru.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> > >> Oh, well. Then just about every American corporation fails at their
> > >> first obligation.
> > 
> > > "Just about"?  Can you name any that do not fail in this regard?
> > 
> > Sure. Celestial Seasonings for one. VW USA. Apple. Trader Joes. Hell, I
> > would say that MOST corporations are moral, honest, and just.
> 
> Are you saying that they've never failed in any regard in this
> obligation?

Everybody fails sometimes.

-- 
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57727

In article <slrnlh7bjc.2ru.g.kreme@amelia.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Bzzzzt! The first obligation of corporate management is to operate in a
> >> > moral, honest, and just manner.
> >> 
> >> Oh, well. Then just about every American corporation fails at their
> >> first obligation.
> 
> > "Just about"?  Can you name any that do not fail in this regard?
> 
> Sure. Celestial Seasonings for one.

Owned at one point by Kraft, whose plan to sell the company to Lipton 
violated anti-trust law.

> VW USA.

Accepted $6 million in bribes from the state of Virginia to move its 
headquarters. Four hundred people lost their jobs.

Took more bribes to locate a plant in Tennessee.

> Apple.

Criticized by Greenpeace and others on environmental grounds. Is very 
litigious.

And Jobs, for all his talent, was a real piece of work. For example, 
there's the way he promised Wozniak a 50/50 split of the payment for 
helping him write code for Atari's Breakout, then gave him $350 out of 
the $5,000 Jobs was paid for the project. 

> Trader Joes.

Eliminated health coverage for part-time workers. Makes exaggerated or 
plain false environmental claims in its marketing. Is secretive about 
sources of its organic products. Attempted to drive a guy out of 
business for reselling its products in Canada (where it has no stores).

> Hell, I would say that MOST corporations are moral, honest, and just.

You'd be the only one.

> It's only
> the larger ones that have a very hard time of it, but most corporations
> are quite small (1-3 people in the corporation and less than 50
> employees).

If anything, the smaller ones are worse than the large ones, because the 
small ones don't have as many eyes on their practices.

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
GOP delenda est!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57730

In article <dfmanno-4D14A2.20253907032014@news.albasani.net>, D.F.
Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> > Sure. Celestial Seasonings for one.
> 
> Owned at one point by Kraft, whose plan to sell the company to Lipton 
> violated anti-trust law.

Which has nothing to do with the company itself.

> Criticized by Greenpeace and others on environmental grounds. 

And more recently, praised by them.  Oh, and much of that criticism was
misplaced.

> Is very litigious.

In many, if not most, cases, as the defendant in cases by patent and
other trolls.

I won't comment on the others because I lack the knowledge, and am not
interested enough to research.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57736

In message <dfmanno-4D14A2.20253907032014@news.albasani.net> 
  D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnlh7bjc.2ru.g.kreme@amelia.local>,
>  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>> > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> >> Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > Bzzzzt! The first obligation of corporate management is to operate in a
>> >> > moral, honest, and just manner.
>> >> 
>> >> Oh, well. Then just about every American corporation fails at their
>> >> first obligation.
>> 
>> > "Just about"?  Can you name any that do not fail in this regard?
>> 
>> Sure. Celestial Seasonings for one.

> Owned at one point by Kraft, whose plan to sell the company to Lipton 
> violated anti-trust law.

And bought back by the founders.

>> VW USA.

> Accepted $6 million in bribes from the state of Virginia to move its 
> headquarters. Four hundred people lost their jobs.

Really? Was the net job difference a gain or a loss?

>> Apple.

> Criticized by Greenpeace and others on environmental grounds. Is very 
> litigious.

Greenpeace is a sack of shit only a very small step up from the
terrorist envirothugs like ELF and PETA. I'd trust Greenpeace about as
much as the Koch Brothers. Greenpeace is motivated by one thing, and one
thing only, generating money. They will lie, cheat, steal, and lie some
more as long as it generates donations.

Specifically, everything they have ever done in relationship wto APple
was either a flat out lie, or a 95% lie designed to grab headlines by
making Apple look bad.

Fuck Greenpeace, they are the RNC of the leftwing.

> And Jobs, for all his talent, was a real piece of work. For example, 
> there's the way he promised Wozniak a 50/50 split of the payment for 
> helping him write code for Atari's Breakout, then gave him $350 out of 
> the $5,000 Jobs was paid for the project. 

>> Trader Joes.

> Eliminated health coverage for part-time workers.

Yes, which was an overall benefit to the vast majority of their part
time workers, which is why they did it.

> Makes exaggerated or plain false environmental claims in its
> marketing.

According to whom? Whole Foods?

> Is secretive about sources of its organic products.

According to whom? Whole Foods?

> Attempted to drive a guy out of business for reselling its products in
> Canada (where it has no stores).

Umm.. yeah? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I'm surprised at the use
of "Attempted". No company would willingly let someone not associated
with the company resell their products.

>> Hell, I would say that MOST corporations are moral, honest, and just.

> You'd be the only one.

That's simply not true.

>> It's only the larger ones that have a very hard time of it, but most
>> corporations are quite small (1-3 people in the corporation and less
>> than 50 employees).

> If anything, the smaller ones are worse than the large ones, because the 
> small ones don't have as many eyes on their practices.

Sounds like you've never been in a position to deal directly with
companies. Having actually run a couple of companies in my time and
having had to deal with many companies, I feel quite confident in my
assessment.

-- 
'I knew the two of you would get along like a house on fire.' Screams,
flames, people running for safety...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57738

On 3/8/14 12:50 AM, in article slrnlhlfe6.12ee.g.kreme@amelia.local, "Lewis"
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <dfmanno-4D14A2.20253907032014@news.albasani.net>
>   D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
>> In article <slrnlh7bjc.2ru.g.kreme@amelia.local>,
>>  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
>>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>>>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>>> Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Bzzzzt! The first obligation of corporate management is to operate in a
>>>>>> moral, honest, and just manner.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Oh, well. Then just about every American corporation fails at their
>>>>> first obligation.
>>> 
>>>> "Just about"?  Can you name any that do not fail in this regard?
>>> 
>>> Sure. Celestial Seasonings for one.
> 
>> Owned at one point by Kraft, whose plan to sell the company to Lipton
>> violated anti-trust law.
> 
> And bought back by the founders.
> 
>>> VW USA.
> 
>> Accepted $6 million in bribes from the state of Virginia to move its
>> headquarters. Four hundred people lost their jobs.
> 
> Really? Was the net job difference a gain or a loss?
> 
>>> Apple.
> 
>> Criticized by Greenpeace and others on environmental grounds. Is very
>> litigious.
> 
> Greenpeace is a sack of shit only a very small step up from the
> terrorist envirothugs like ELF and PETA. I'd trust Greenpeace about as
> much as the Koch Brothers. Greenpeace is motivated by one thing, and one
> thing only, generating money. They will lie, cheat, steal, and lie some
> more as long as it generates donations.
> 
> Specifically, everything they have ever done in relationship wto APple
> was either a flat out lie, or a 95% lie designed to grab headlines by
> making Apple look bad.
> 
> Fuck Greenpeace, they are the RNC of the leftwing.
> 

Hey, don't insult the Republican Party!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57408

In article <020320141028597047%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:

> Siri Cruz:
> > The obligation of the managers is to run the business as the majority of 
> > the 
> > owners (the shareholders) want it run.
> 
> Bzzzzt! The first obligation of corporate management is to operate in a
> moral, honest, and just manner.

That depends on whether the shareholders vote to give them a bonus or a pink 
slip. Apple shareholders have collectively decided they are willing to have 
lower profits for a more responsible company, and they hired a CEO to do so. 
Shareholders of other companies have decided to maximise dividends or capital 
gains or being green or being humanitarian, and select a board of directors to 
hire managers to do their bidding.

-- 
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57462

On 14-03-02 14:20, Siri Cruz wrote:

> That depends on whether the shareholders vote to give them a bonus or a pink 
> slip. Apple shareholders have collectively decided they are willing to have 
> lower profits for a more responsible company, 


Being a responsible company does not require lower profits in long term
and would help preserve profitability in long term.

In the 1990s, Canaadian banks started to evaluate environmental aspects
of corporations before loaning them money because they realised this was
now a risk to the health of the company if there is an environmental
accident that happens, or if new stricter environmental laws are enacted
which make the company no longer finanlially viable. (our current
Bush-lookalike government has gutted environmental regulations to help
dirty oil, so this is not much of an issue for now).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57361

On 3/1/14 11:37 PM, in article
chine.bleu-F85F7F.21375501032014@news.eternal-september.org, "Siri Cruz"
<chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <010320140915170326%michelle@michelle.org>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>> This should get the "The only obligation of a corporation is to make a
>> profit for its investors; there is no other obligation" crowd very much
>> upset.
> 
> The obligation of the managers is to run the business as the majority of the
> owners (the shareholders) want it run.
> 
>     That shareholder proposal was rejected by Apple's shareholders,
>     receiving just 2.95 percent of the vote.

I damn sure was against it!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57413

In article
<chine.bleu-F85F7F.21375501032014@news.eternal-september.org>, Siri
Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <010320140915170326%michelle@michelle.org>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > This should get the "The only obligation of a corporation is to make a
> > profit for its investors; there is no other obligation" crowd very much
> > upset.
> 
> The obligation of the managers is to run the business as the majority of the 
> owners (the shareholders) want it run.
> 
>     That shareholder proposal was rejected by Apple's shareholders,
>     receiving just 2.95 percent of the vote.

Nope. The obligation of GOOD managers (of which there are extremely
few) is to run the business SUCCESSFULY, not bow down to every whim and
idiocy of the greedy shareholders.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web