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

#74555 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock

In article <mhua1s$urc$1@news.albasani.net>,
 AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:

> 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.

You really think so? You don't think it has anything to do with the 
political agenda of the organization, which is to deny climate change 
and oppose activities (both commercial and government) based on it?

-- 
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

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

#74592 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock

On 4/30/15, 22:10, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article<mhua1s$urc$1@news.albasani.net>,
>   AV3<arvimide@earthlink.net>  wrote:
>
>> On 4/30/15, 13:13, Barry Margolin wrote:
>>> In article<mhtl9i$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.
>
> You really think so? You don't think it has anything to do with the
> political agenda of the organization, which is to deny climate change
> and oppose activities (both commercial and government) based on it?
>


That may be their ultimate intention, but the question as asked brought 
up the general issue of whether corporations should make charitable 
contributions with money that might otherwise go to dividends. 
Questioning the general issue of charitable contributions is an indirect 
attack on the contributions of Apple to environmental causes. But they 
were called out on that issue in spite of their generalization, so there 
must have been some preparation for the organization's questioning.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||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]

#74547 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock

"Barry Margolin" <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message 
news:barmar-558403.13131130042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
> 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.

They clearly got a lot more exposure in the media than
they would have if they had done it any other way.

> Getting flogged by the CEO of a well-respected
> company just makes them look like fools.

Sure, but so does what they espouse.

> But I also don't understand what motivates the looters in Baltimore.

Its basically us versus them.

> I understand that they're angry, and rightly so, but anger
> usually results in violence, not ordinary criminal behavior.

There have been plenty of examples of looting in situations like that.

Not just in the US either.

> How will stealing from local businesses help
> bring about change in police behavior?

That isn't why they loot. 

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

#74549 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock

On 15-04-30 20:04, Rod Speed wrote:
>
> They clearly got a lot more exposure in the media than
> they would have if they had done it any other way.

That is true.

Step back a number of years, and the investors in AAPL were those folks
who would eventually become  tree hugging hipsters who spend their days
at Starbucks flaunting all their Apple grear with the lighted Apple
logo.  Those investors see value in AAPL's social/environmental
endeavours and understand the need for large corporations to portray
themselves as good participants in society.

To those investors, the NCPRR statememnt is stupid and they applaud how
Tim Cook treated them.

However, today, AAPL more blue chip than IBM. and is extremely widely
held.  So you have to expect shareholders from the right wing to
question Apple's social endeavours which they feel has no place for
corporations whose only purpose in life is to issue dividends.


When you are a company the scale of APPL with a scale larger than the
electric utility that feeds your campus, you can afford to invest in
your own electric grid that may end up costing you less than paying that
utility in long term. And if you end up burning less polluting natural
gas compared to the coal fuel electric utility, you are also better for
the environment.

The right wing may see the spending as reckless because they are out to
stop "environmental" investments, but perhap if they looked more
closely, that power plant Apple is building in its flying saucer campus
may not be such a bad investment.

Similarly, the Chinese solar plants Apple is investing in may not appear
to be a profitable endeavour, but may be the cost of doing business in
China in order to get the government's good will which allows iPhones to
be promoted by the chinese wireless carriers.

I think that very often, you can find business cases behind those
environment endeavour which *almost* justiofy the investment. This means
that the goodwill/image improvements from appearing "environmental" is
only needed to justify the last part of the investment instead of the
whole thing.

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

#74557 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock

In article <5542d025$0$54568$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 15-04-30 20:04, Rod Speed wrote:
> >
> > They clearly got a lot more exposure in the media than
> > they would have if they had done it any other way.
> 
> That is true.
> 
> Step back a number of years, and the investors in AAPL were those folks
> who would eventually become  tree hugging hipsters who spend their days
> at Starbucks flaunting all their Apple grear with the lighted Apple
> logo.  Those investors see value in AAPL's social/environmental
> endeavours and understand the need for large corporations to portray
> themselves as good participants in society.
> 
> To those investors, the NCPRR statememnt is stupid and they applaud how
> Tim Cook treated them.
> 
> However, today, AAPL more blue chip than IBM. and is extremely widely
> held.  So you have to expect shareholders from the right wing to
> question Apple's social endeavours which they feel has no place for
> corporations whose only purpose in life is to issue dividends.

If the proposal had come from "real" shareholders, that would be a 
reasonable way to look at it. But NCPRR is not real shareholders, they 
only purchased shares so that they could promote their political agenda 
at the meeting. They're not really interested in the monetary return on 
their investment, but they're using that pretense to make what seems 
like a valid shareholder proposal.

-- 
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

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

#74594 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock

On 4/30/15, 22:14, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article<5542d025$0$54568$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com>,
>   JF Mezei<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>  wrote:
>
>> On 15-04-30 20:04, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>> They clearly got a lot more exposure in the media than
>>> they would have if they had done it any other way.
>>
>> That is true.
>>
>> Step back a number of years, and the investors in AAPL were those folks
>> who would eventually become  tree hugging hipsters who spend their days
>> at Starbucks flaunting all their Apple grear with the lighted Apple
>> logo.  Those investors see value in AAPL's social/environmental
>> endeavours and understand the need for large corporations to portray
>> themselves as good participants in society.
>>
>> To those investors, the NCPRR statememnt is stupid and they applaud how
>> Tim Cook treated them.
>>
>> However, today, AAPL more blue chip than IBM. and is extremely widely
>> held.  So you have to expect shareholders from the right wing to
>> question Apple's social endeavours which they feel has no place for
>> corporations whose only purpose in life is to issue dividends.
>
> If the proposal had come from "real" shareholders, that would be a
> reasonable way to look at it. But NCPRR is not real shareholders, they
> only purchased shares so that they could promote their political agenda
> at the meeting. They're not really interested in the monetary return on
> their investment, but they're using that pretense to make what seems
> like a valid shareholder proposal.
>


In fact, the majority of shareholder proposals come from left wing stock 
holders. As long as they own the minimal number of shares to participate 
in a meeting and make proposals, there is no distinction between "real" 
and "special interest" share holders. I normally vote for shareholder 
proposals to fully reveal the extent of corporate political 
contributions and I would cheerfully vote to cut them off entirely for 
all political persuasions. Charitable contributions are usually bland 
and sometimes promote the personal interests of executives and board 
members. Apple supports my own political and charitable interests, so I 
feel no urgency to ask them to be the first to stop making contributions.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||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]

#74620 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock

On 15-05-01 11:11, AV3 wrote:

> members. Apple supports my own political and charitable interests, so I 
> feel no urgency to ask them to be the first to stop making contributions.

This works well when the company attracts investors because they agree
with Apple's non profit endeavours.

But when Apple starts attracting investors out to make as much money as
possible, those investors start to want to maximise profits by asking
the company to stop those non profit endeavours.

Note: Apple starting to issue dividends and later starting to spend
billions to buy back stock was due to shareholder "suggestion". (and I
*think* Ichan was a main driver of this, but not sure)

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

#74640 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock

"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote in message 
news:5543c800$0$44255$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com...
> On 15-05-01 11:11, AV3 wrote:
>
>> members. Apple supports my own political and charitable interests, so I
>> feel no urgency to ask them to be the first to stop making contributions.
>
> This works well when the company attracts investors because they agree
> with Apple's non profit endeavours.
>
> But when Apple starts attracting investors out to make as much money as
> possible, those investors start to want to maximise profits by asking
> the company to stop those non profit endeavours.
>
> Note: Apple starting to issue dividends and later starting to spend
> billions to buy back stock was due to shareholder "suggestion".

No it was not with dividends.

> (and I *think* Ichan was a main driver of this, but not sure)

No he was not. 

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

#74558 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> They clearly got a lot more exposure in the media than
>> they would have if they had done it any other way.

> That is true.

> Step back a number of years, and the investors in AAPL were those folks
> who would eventually become  tree hugging hipsters who spend their days
> at Starbucks flaunting all their Apple grear with the lighted Apple logo.

You don’t know that.

> Those investors see value in AAPL's social/environmental
> endeavours and understand the need for large corporations
> to portray themselves as good participants in society.

Or that either.

> To those investors, the NCPRR statememnt is stupid
> and they applaud how Tim Cook treated them.

Or that either.

> However, today, AAPL more blue chip
> than IBM. and is extremely widely held.

Or that either.

> So you have to expect shareholders from the right wing to
> question Apple's social endeavours which they feel has no place
> for corporations whose only purpose in life is to issue dividends.

It has nothing whatever to do with Apple shareholders.

Those NCPPR fools only got any Apple shares so
they could grandstand like that at the Apple meeting.

> When you are a company the scale of APPL with a scale larger
> than the electric utility that feeds your campus, you can afford
> to invest in your own electric grid that may end up costing you
> less than paying that utility in long term.

Its very far from clear that that is the reason Apple did that.

> And if you end up burning less polluting natural gas compared to
> the coal fuel electric utility, you are also better for the environment.

Not necessarily if that gas is wasted on power generation and the
coal is much less useful than gas for other stuff like being used in cars.

> The right wing may see the spending as reckless because they
> are out to stop "environmental" investments, but perhap if they
> looked more closely, that power plant Apple is building in its
> flying saucer campus may not be such a bad investment.

That isn't what the NCPPR is about.

> Similarly, the Chinese solar plants Apple is investing in may not
> appear to be a profitable endeavour, but may be the cost of
> doing business in China in order to get the government's good will
> which allows iPhones to be promoted by the chinese wireless carriers.

That isn't the reason Apple is doing that.

> I think that very often, you can find business cases behind those
> environment endeavour which *almost* justiofy the investment.

You can't actually with solar on the grid.

> This means that the goodwill/image improvements from
> appearing "environmental" is only needed to justify the
> last part of the investment instead of the whole thing.

Fraid not. 

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

#74561 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock

On 15-04-30 23:30, Rod Speed wrote:

> Those NCPPR fools only got any Apple shares so
> they could grandstand like that at the Apple meeting.

But Apple. as a large company with certain social behaviour has to
expect attacks from those who do not believe in Apple's non-profit
endeavours.

You may disparage those right wing groups as having sole purpose of
getting a chance to poo-poo Apple environmental behaviour. And it is true.

However, you need to realise that those right wing groups may have few
actual members, but their thoughs are shared by millions of americans.
Consider how many voted to re-elect a president in 2004 knowing his
postion on environment, sending americans to their deaths in Iraq etc.

HOwever, that group having just a few shares is just entertainment. We
should be far more worried about Carl Ichan, known to have broken up and
killed off so many companies. He does get involved in company management
as a very active shareholder. And he is trying to do that to Apple.

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

#74565 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> Those NCPPR fools only got any Apple shares so
>> they could grandstand like that at the Apple meeting.

> But Apple. as a large company with certain social
> behaviour has to expect attacks from those who
> do not believe in Apple's non-profit endeavours.

That isn't what the NCPPR is about.

> You may disparage those right wing groups as having sole purpose
> of getting a chance to poo-poo Apple environmental behaviour.

They aren't even doing that, JUST grandstanding at
an event like that to get maximum media exposure.

> And it is true.

> However, you need to realise that those right wing groups may have few
> actual members, but their thoughs are shared by millions of americans.

They aren't on that question of corporates doing what they don’t like to 
see.

> Consider how many voted to re-elect a president in 2004 knowing his
> postion on environment, sending americans to their deaths in Iraq etc.

Separate matter entirely to what a corporate like Apple does.

> HOwever, that group having just a few shares is just entertainment.

It isn't that either.

> We should be far more worried about Carl Ichan, known
> to have broken up and killed off so many companies.

Only operations that had passed their useby date.

> He does get involved in company management as a very
> active shareholder. And he is trying to do that to Apple.

Like hell he is. And he wont succeed, just like he didn’t with Motorola. 

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

#74576 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock

On 2015-05-01, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 15-04-30 23:30, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Those NCPPR fools only got any Apple shares so
>> they could grandstand like that at the Apple meeting.
>
> But Apple. as a large company with certain social behaviour has to
> expect attacks from those who do not believe in Apple's non-profit
> endeavours.
>
> You may disparage those right wing groups as having sole purpose of
> getting a chance to poo-poo Apple environmental behaviour. And it is true.
>
> However, you need to realise that those right wing groups may have few
> actual members, but their thoughs are shared by millions of americans.
> Consider how many voted to re-elect a president in 2004 knowing his
> postion on environment, sending americans to their deaths in Iraq etc.
>
> HOwever, that group having just a few shares is just entertainment. We
> should be far more worried about Carl Ichan, known to have broken up and
> killed off so many companies. He does get involved in company management
> as a very active shareholder. And he is trying to do that to Apple.

Given that he was very much in favour of activities which ended up nearly
destroying many banks, does anyone pay any attention to Carl Icahn any
more, other than to point and laugh?



-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 48th day of Discord in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

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

#74556 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics ofthe NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock

In article <cqfu85Fh8nrU1@mid.individual.net>,
 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Barry Margolin" <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message 
> news:barmar-558403.13131130042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
> > 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.
> 
> They clearly got a lot more exposure in the media than
> they would have if they had done it any other way.

Yeah, after I posted that I realized that it may just be a case of "no 
publicity is bad publicity".

-- 
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

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

#74496

On 4/29/15   PDT 7:00 PM, bill van wrote:
> 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.
>
Shades of Gilbert? Evelyn Y Davis?

Anyway, grandstanding kooks. The above, at least, often had valid 
points, which didn't overcome their being p.i.a's.

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

#74516

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

> On 2015-04-30 01:09:35 +0000, bill van said:
> >  Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:
> >> 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?

Because one of its funding sources is a foundation that gets Koch money.

It also gets funding from not one but two Scaife foundations.

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

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

#74499 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple�s Stock

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 9:09:38 PM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
> 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.

Global warming is inevitable.  Enjoy your time here now, and fuck the future generations.

FYI:  nothing is forever.  And neither are humans.

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

#74532 — Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock

On 2015-04-30 12:22:44 +0000, awoolmeyer@gmail.com said:

>>> 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.
> 
> Global warming is inevitable.  Enjoy your time here now, and fuck the 
> future generations.
> 
> FYI:  nothing is forever.  And neither are humans.

And now he's a climatologist!

LOL

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

#74536 — Re: Re: Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple?s Stock

In article <mhtrhb$jng$4@news.datemas.de>, Alan Baker
<email@domain.com> wrote:

>On 2015-04-30 12:22:44 +0000, awoolmeyer@gmail.com said:
>
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> Global warming is inevitable.  Enjoy your time here now, and fuck the 
>> future generations.
>> 
>> FYI:  nothing is forever.  And neither are humans.
>
>And now he's a climatologist!

We're in an interglacial at the moment. The return of the ice is more
likely.

-- 
HAL 9000:    Dave.  Put down those Windows disks.  Dave.  DAVE!

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

#74491

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.

Basically, they're an anti-environment right wing advocacy group.

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

#74817

On Apr 29, 2015, Michelle Steiner wrote
(in article<290420151949143141%michelle@michelle.org>):

> 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.
> 
> Basically, they're an anti-environment right wing advocacy group.

While I see no specific reference to them being ‘anti environment’, and 
they’re right.. Apple should not rely on taxpayer subsidies for tax breaks 
for these programs - there is no long-term guarantee they’ll exist.But that 
aside I see nothing in the technology they’re implementing that says they 
are money pits or investment sinkholes.I do not understand their stance with 
a company that is vastly profitable looking into ways to put less strain on 
the power grid in the US as they build centers for support and create jobs 
here.

Y’know.. I thought conservative groups were supposed to be ‘pro big 
business’..Here’s a company bringing jobs BACK into the US.. we should 
applauding that - not attacking it.

--
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they 
are genuine."
- Abraham Lincoln

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

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

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

csiph-web