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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #74473 > unrolled thread

Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock

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

Contents

  Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-29 14:39 -0700
    Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-29 19:40 -0400
      Re: Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-29 17:05 -0700
    Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2015-04-30 00:47 +0000
      Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2015-04-29 18:09 -0700
        Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-29 18:17 -0700
          Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2015-04-29 19:00 -0700
            Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-29 22:49 -0400
              Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 13:40 +1000
              Re: Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-04-30 11:01 -0400
                Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple©–s Stock Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-30 11:26 -0400
                  Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple©–s Stock Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-04-30 15:45 +0000
                    Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple©ñs Stock Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-30 11:51 -0400
                      Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple©ñs Stock Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-04-30 16:02 +0000
                        Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple©ñs Stock Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-30 16:29 -0400
            Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-29 19:49 -0700
              Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-30 10:46 -0400
                Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple�s Stock AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2015-04-30 12:29 -0400
                  Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-30 13:13 -0400
                    Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2015-04-30 18:23 -0400
                      Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-30 22:10 -0400
                        Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2015-05-01 10:51 -0400
                    Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-05-01 10:04 +1000
                      Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-30 21:00 -0400
                        Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-30 22:14 -0400
                          Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2015-05-01 11:11 -0400
                            Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-05-01 14:37 -0400
                              Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 09:37 +1000
                        Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-05-01 13:30 +1000
                          Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-05-01 00:11 -0400
                            Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-05-01 14:24 +1000
                            Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-05-01 07:41 +0000
                      Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-30 22:10 -0400
            Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-29 22:16 -0700
          Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-04-30 13:04 -0400
        Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple�s Stock awoolmeyer@gmail.com - 2015-04-30 05:22 -0700
          Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock Alan Baker <email@domain.com> - 2015-04-30 11:16 -0700
            Re: Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-30 19:52 +0100
      Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-29 19:49 -0700
        Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-05-04 08:01 -0700
          Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-05-04 08:15 -0700
            Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-05-04 12:00 -0700
          Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple�s Stock "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-05-05 07:09 +1000
            Re: Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple�s Stock Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2015-05-04 21:43 +0000
              Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple�s Stock Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-05-05 04:03 +0000
    Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2015-04-29 22:57 -0400
    Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-04-30 12:44 -0400

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#74473 — Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple¹s Stock

<http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-rejects-politic
s-of-the-ncppr-suggests-group-sell-apples-s>

...the NCPPR representative asked Mr. Cook to commit right then and
there to doing only those things that were profitable.

What ensued was the only time I can recall seeing Tim Cook angry, and
he categorically rejected the worldview behind the NCPPR's advocacy. He
said that there are many things Apple does because they are right and
just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary
consideration on such issues.

"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said,
"I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing about
environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a
leader.

As evidenced by the use of "bloody" in his response‹the closest thing
to public profanity I've ever seen from Mr. Cook­it was clear that he
was quite angry. His body language changed, his face contracted, and he
spoke in rapid fire sentences compared to the usual metered and
controlled way he speaks.

He didn't stop there, however, as he looked directly at the NCPPR
representative and said, "If you want me to do things only for ROI
reasons, you should get out of this stock."

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#74478

On 15-04-29 17:39, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-rejects-politic
> s-of-the-ncppr-suggests-group-sell-apples-s


Is the Video of Mr Cook's response online somewhere ?

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

#74480

In article <55416bf5$0$63974$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 15-04-29 17:39, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > <http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-rejects-politics-of-the-ncppr-suggests-group-sell-apples-s>
> 
> 
> Is the Video of Mr Cook's response online somewhere ?

I believe that stockholder's meetings are not recorded on video.  I may
be wrong about that, though.

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

#74483

In article <290420151439177292%michelle@michelle.org>,
Michelle Steiner  <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
><http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-rejects-politic
>s-of-the-ncppr-suggests-group-sell-apples-s>
>
>...the NCPPR representative asked Mr. Cook to commit right then and
>there to doing only those things that were profitable.
>
>What ensued was the only time I can recall seeing Tim Cook angry, and
>he categorically rejected the worldview behind the NCPPR's advocacy. He
>said that there are many things Apple does because they are right and
>just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary
>consideration on such issues.

I didn't know who these people were or why they were upset at Apple,
so I followed the link in that article to their website and found out
that they're the "National Center for Public Policy Research" and at
this shareholders' meeting (which was in March), they introduced a 
shareholder resolution "asking the tech giant for more transparency 
about the risks associated with its alternative energy investments."

Their press release about the meeting goes on to say, "Apple has
invested hundreds of millions in alternative energy programs. These
programs presently often enjoy significant taxpayer backing, but there
is no guarantee that taxpayer subsidies will be permanent. We believe
the board of directors should be forthright with shareholders about
the extent of Apple's exposure to risk, should the popularity of causes
like global warming wane, and voters and politicians lose interest in
subsidizing green energy."

So that's who they are and what they're on about.


Patty

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

#74484

In article <55417b86$0$36553$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:

> In article <290420151439177292%michelle@michelle.org>,
> Michelle Steiner  <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> ><http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-rejects-politic
> >s-of-the-ncppr-suggests-group-sell-apples-s>
> >
> >...the NCPPR representative asked Mr. Cook to commit right then and
> >there to doing only those things that were profitable.
> >
> >What ensued was the only time I can recall seeing Tim Cook angry, and
> >he categorically rejected the worldview behind the NCPPR's advocacy. He
> >said that there are many things Apple does because they are right and
> >just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary
> >consideration on such issues.
> 
> I didn't know who these people were or why they were upset at Apple,
> so I followed the link in that article to their website and found out
> that they're the "National Center for Public Policy Research" and at
> this shareholders' meeting (which was in March), they introduced a 
> shareholder resolution "asking the tech giant for more transparency 
> about the risks associated with its alternative energy investments."
> 
> Their press release about the meeting goes on to say, "Apple has
> invested hundreds of millions in alternative energy programs. These
> programs presently often enjoy significant taxpayer backing, but there
> is no guarantee that taxpayer subsidies will be permanent. We believe
> the board of directors should be forthright with shareholders about
> the extent of Apple's exposure to risk, should the popularity of causes
> like global warming wane, and voters and politicians lose interest in
> subsidizing green energy."
> 
> So that's who they are and what they're on about.
> 
And according to the Wikipedia piece about the Center, they believe 
global warming is a myth, which is why they frown on alternative energy 
investments.
-- 
bill

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

#74486

On 2015-04-30 01:09:35 +0000, bill van said:

> In article <55417b86$0$36553$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>  Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <290420151439177292%michelle@michelle.org>,
>> Michelle Steiner  <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>>> <http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-rejects-politic
>>> s-of-the-ncppr-suggests-group-sell-apples-s>
>>> 
>>> ...the NCPPR representative asked Mr. Cook to commit right then and
>>> there to doing only those things that were profitable.
>>> 
>>> What ensued was the only time I can recall seeing Tim Cook angry, and
>>> he categorically rejected the worldview behind the NCPPR's advocacy. He
>>> said that there are many things Apple does because they are right and
>>> just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary
>>> consideration on such issues.
>> 
>> I didn't know who these people were or why they were upset at Apple,
>> so I followed the link in that article to their website and found out
>> that they're the "National Center for Public Policy Research" and at
>> this shareholders' meeting (which was in March), they introduced a
>> shareholder resolution "asking the tech giant for more transparency
>> about the risks associated with its alternative energy investments."
>> 
>> Their press release about the meeting goes on to say, "Apple has
>> invested hundreds of millions in alternative energy programs. These
>> programs presently often enjoy significant taxpayer backing, but there
>> is no guarantee that taxpayer subsidies will be permanent. We believe
>> the board of directors should be forthright with shareholders about
>> the extent of Apple's exposure to risk, should the popularity of causes
>> like global warming wane, and voters and politicians lose interest in
>> subsidizing green energy."
>> 
>> So that's who they are and what they're on about.
>> 
> And according to the Wikipedia piece about the Center, they believe
> global warming is a myth, which is why they frown on alternative energy
> investments.

I see that it is best described as a "conservative thinktank". Why does 
this reek of the Koch brothers?

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

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

#74489

In article <2015042918175778786-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMme.com>,
 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2015-04-30 01:09:35 +0000, bill van said:
> 
> > In article <55417b86$0$36553$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> >  Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <290420151439177292%michelle@michelle.org>,
> >> Michelle Steiner  <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> >>> <http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-rejects-politic
> >>> s-of-the-ncppr-suggests-group-sell-apples-s>
> >>> 
> >>> ...the NCPPR representative asked Mr. Cook to commit right then and
> >>> there to doing only those things that were profitable.
> >>> 
> >>> What ensued was the only time I can recall seeing Tim Cook angry, and
> >>> he categorically rejected the worldview behind the NCPPR's advocacy. He
> >>> said that there are many things Apple does because they are right and
> >>> just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary
> >>> consideration on such issues.
> >> 
> >> I didn't know who these people were or why they were upset at Apple,
> >> so I followed the link in that article to their website and found out
> >> that they're the "National Center for Public Policy Research" and at
> >> this shareholders' meeting (which was in March), they introduced a
> >> shareholder resolution "asking the tech giant for more transparency
> >> about the risks associated with its alternative energy investments."
> >> 
> >> Their press release about the meeting goes on to say, "Apple has
> >> invested hundreds of millions in alternative energy programs. These
> >> programs presently often enjoy significant taxpayer backing, but there
> >> is no guarantee that taxpayer subsidies will be permanent. We believe
> >> the board of directors should be forthright with shareholders about
> >> the extent of Apple's exposure to risk, should the popularity of causes
> >> like global warming wane, and voters and politicians lose interest in
> >> subsidizing green energy."
> >> 
> >> So that's who they are and what they're on about.
> >> 
> > And according to the Wikipedia piece about the Center, they believe
> > global warming is a myth, which is why they frown on alternative energy
> > investments.
> 
> I see that it is best described as a "conservative thinktank". Why does 
> this reek of the Koch brothers?

They weren't mentioned in the Wikipedia piece, but the Center's backers 
are likely soulmates of the Koch bros.

Since the Center is not an investment fund operator, I'm guessing they 
bought Apple shares for the purpose of doing a little grandstanding at 
the AGM.
-- 
bill

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

#74492

On 15-04-29 22:00, bill van wrote:

> Since the Center is not an investment fund operator, I'm guessing they 
> bought Apple shares for the purpose of doing a little grandstanding at 
> the AGM.


devil's advocate for half a second:

Shareholders have a right to ask for explanation on how non-profit
spending by their company will benefit them. And the company's
management owe shareholders an explanation on how that spending will
benefit the company and shareholders in the long term.

Shareholders have a duty to get management to explain spending,
especially spending that could be seen as waste.

half a second is over.



These guys were not there to give Cook an opportunity to explain the
benefits of this long term spending which also helps Apple's image and
thus makes customers feel more cosy to doing business with Apple,
especially since Apple was under fire due to treatment of employees by
its chinese contractors.



But because of the way these guys asked their question, they got the
answer they deserved.

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

#74495

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
> bill van wrote

>> Since the Center is not an investment fund operator,
>> I'm guessing they bought Apple shares for the
>> purpose of doing a little grandstanding at the AGM.

> devil's advocate for half a second:

For a lot more than half a second...

> Shareholders have a right to ask for explanation on how
> non-profit spending by their company will benefit them.

Not when they buy the shares just so they can grandstand.

> And the company's management owe shareholders
> an explanation on how that spending will benefit
> the company and shareholders in the long term.

The real world is MUCH more complicated than that.

> Shareholders have a duty to get management to explain spending,

No they don’t, management should be doing that.

> especially spending that could be seen as waste.

Nope.

> half a second is over.

Your clock is broken.

> These guys were not there to give Cook an opportunity to explain
> the benefits of this long term spending which also helps Apple's image
> and thus makes customers feel more cosy to doing business with Apple,

Yes, they were clearly there to grandstand.

> especially since Apple was under fire due to
> treatment of employees by its chinese contractors.

Nothing to do with that grandstanding.

> But because of the way these guys asked their
> question, they got the answer they deserved.

It was the question itself, not the way it was asked. 

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

#74501

JF Mezel:
> devil's advocate for half a second:
> 
> Shareholders have a right to ask for explanation on how non-profit
> spending by their company will benefit them. And the company's
> management owe shareholders an explanation on how that spending will
> benefit the company and shareholders in the long term.
> 
> Shareholders have a duty to get management to explain spending,
> especially spending that could be seen as waste.
> 
> half a second is over.

There is a point of view, though it's not a popular one, that moral
obligations outweigh all other obligations. It explains such things as
why, when Apple has such vast resources in China, it isn't boosting its
profits through heroin smuggling. The shareholders could benefit
enormously from such an activity.

-- 
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]

#74502 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple©–s Stock

In article <300420151101590131%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> There is a point of view, though it's not a popular one, that moral
> obligations outweigh all other obligations. It explains such things as
> why, when Apple has such vast resources in China, it isn't boosting its
> profits through heroin smuggling. The shareholders could benefit
> enormously from such an activity.

That has noting to do with moral and everything to do with legal. 
Although it would be really interesting to see what would happen if the 
DoJ persued civil forfeiture or RICO charges against Apple.
-- 
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
     but what they conceal is vital.²
                       ‹ Aaron Levenstein

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

#74504 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple©–s Stock

On 2015-04-30, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <300420151101590131%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> wrote:
>
>> There is a point of view, though it's not a popular one, that moral
>> obligations outweigh all other obligations. It explains such things as
>> why, when Apple has such vast resources in China, it isn't boosting its
>> profits through heroin smuggling. The shareholders could benefit
>> enormously from such an activity.
>
> That has noting to do with moral and everything to do with legal. 

It can absolutely be about *both* morality and legality. And the idea
that shareholders can benefit from morally correct behavior is a sound
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]

#74505 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple©ñs Stock

In article <cqf10tF9p3pU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-04-30, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <300420151101590131%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> There is a point of view, though it's not a popular one, that moral
> >> obligations outweigh all other obligations. It explains such things as
> >> why, when Apple has such vast resources in China, it isn't boosting its
> >> profits through heroin smuggling. The shareholders could benefit
> >> enormously from such an activity.
> >
> > That has noting to do with moral and everything to do with legal. 
> 
> It can absolutely be about *both* morality and legality. And the idea
> that shareholders can benefit from morally correct behavior is a sound
> one.

I was discussing the heroin smuggling as profit booster.
-- 
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
     but what they conceal is vital.²
                       ‹ Aaron Levenstein

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

#74506 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple©ñs Stock

On 2015-04-30, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <cqf10tF9p3pU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-04-30, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > In article <300420151101590131%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> There is a point of view, though it's not a popular one, that moral
>> >> obligations outweigh all other obligations. It explains such things as
>> >> why, when Apple has such vast resources in China, it isn't boosting its
>> >> profits through heroin smuggling. The shareholders could benefit
>> >> enormously from such an activity.
>> >
>> > That has noting to do with moral and everything to do with legal. 
>> 
>> It can absolutely be about *both* morality and legality. And the idea
>> that shareholders can benefit from morally correct behavior is a sound
>> one.
>
> I was discussing the heroin smuggling as profit booster.

You were also ignoring that it was one example of many potential
examples of the point he was making. That's a little disingenuous of you
ask me.

-- 
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]

#74538 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple©ñs Stock

In article <cqf20aF9p3pU3@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-04-30, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <cqf10tF9p3pU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-04-30, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > In article <300420151101590131%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> There is a point of view, though it's not a popular one, that moral
> >> >> obligations outweigh all other obligations. It explains such things as
> >> >> why, when Apple has such vast resources in China, it isn't boosting its
> >> >> profits through heroin smuggling. The shareholders could benefit
> >> >> enormously from such an activity.
> >> >
> >> > That has noting to do with moral and everything to do with legal. 
> >> 
> >> It can absolutely be about *both* morality and legality. And the idea
> >> that shareholders can benefit from morally correct behavior is a sound
> >> one.
> >
> > I was discussing the heroin smuggling as profit booster.
> 
> You were also ignoring that it was one example of many potential
> examples of the point he was making. That's a little disingenuous of you
> ask me.

Actually I was pointing out the legal consequences. I had assumed that 
Davoud had used that to be an outrageous example, and was replying in 
the same vein.
-- 
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
     but what they conceal is vital.²
                       ‹ Aaron Levenstein

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

#74493

In article <billvan-482817.19000129042015@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:

> Since the Center is not an investment fund operator, I'm guessing they 
> bought Apple shares for the purpose of doing a little grandstanding at 
> the AGM.

Ya think?

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

#74500

In article <290420151949575744%michelle@michelle.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <billvan-482817.19000129042015@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
> > Since the Center is not an investment fund operator, I'm guessing they 
> > bought Apple shares for the purpose of doing a little grandstanding at 
> > the AGM.
> 
> Ya think?

It's a very cheap strategy. Buy a token number of shares of each company 
you want to make noise at, so you can go to their annual meetings and 
submit investor proposals.

-- 
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

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

#74509 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple�s Stock

On 4/30/15, 10:46, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article<290420151949575744%michelle@michelle.org>,
>   Michelle Steiner<michelle@michelle.org>  wrote:
>
>> In article<billvan-482817.19000129042015@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
>> bill van<billvan@delete.shaw.ca>  wrote:
>>
>>> Since the Center is not an investment fund operator, I'm guessing they
>>> bought Apple shares for the purpose of doing a little grandstanding at
>>> the AGM.
>>
>> Ya think?
>
> It's a very cheap strategy. Buy a token number of shares of each company
> you want to make noise at, so you can go to their annual meetings and
> submit investor proposals.
>


That is exactly how it is intended to work. Shareholders are the owners 
and have a right to choose and guide management. In fact, management and 
boards of directors are extremely seldom overridden by shareholders.


An issue regularly raised at shareholders' meetings may gain some 
traction, but in this case Cook's unusually strong reaction probably 
gained him sympathy from a very large majority of shareholders satisfied 
with his stewardship of their interests in the area in question. That is 
exactly how it is intended to work.


For those unfriendly to the organization's founding principles, it would 
be satisfying to see them repeatedly rejected and discouraged by many 
other management spokespersons at many other such meetings. Democracy at 
work. There is no need to increase the number of shares required to make 
a proposal just to suppress an unpopular proposal. Managements are too 
firmly entrenched to need protection from criticism, as this case 
demonstrates how a genuinely popular management can and should appeal to 
its shareholder base.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

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

#74518 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock

In article <mhtl9i$plv$1@news.albasani.net>,
 AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:

> For those unfriendly to the organization's founding principles, it would 
> be satisfying to see them repeatedly rejected and discouraged by many 
> other management spokespersons at many other such meetings.

Yeah, I wonder what makes them think their appearance at the meeting is 
at all productive. Getting flogged by the CEO of a well-respected 
company just makes them look like fools.

But I also don't understand what motivates the looters in Baltimore. I 
understand that they're angry, and rightly so, but anger usually results 
in violence, not ordinary criminal behavior. How will stealing from 
local businesses help bring about change in police behavior?

-- 
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

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

#74542 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock

On 4/30/15, 13:13, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article<mhtl9i$plv$1@news.albasani.net>,
>   AV3<arvimide@earthlink.net>  wrote:
>
>> For those unfriendly to the organization's founding principles, it would
>> be satisfying to see them repeatedly rejected and discouraged by many
>> other management spokespersons at many other such meetings.
>
> Yeah, I wonder what makes them think their appearance at the meeting is
> at all productive. Getting flogged by the CEO of a well-respected
> company just makes them look like fools.


I doubt that they expected the reaction they got. They just wanted to go 
on record in favor of maximizing return on investment, an issue that 
many shareholders might take note of, if they have reservations about 
corporations making charitable contributions.


>
> But I also don't understand what motivates the looters in Baltimore. I
> understand that they're angry, and rightly so, but anger usually results
> in violence, not ordinary criminal behavior. How will stealing from
> local businesses help bring about change in police behavior?
>


I think it is an act of defiance against law and order as enforced by 
the disputed tactics of the police. There is certainly an element of 
immaturity in such a reaction to policing, and the rioters tend to be young.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web