BruceVC

I agree with the general view we need more women in government and making decisions Lets be honest, men have been in charge for thousands of years. We have seen progress and we have seen decline yet the countries in the world that are the most benighted and dysfunctional also have no interests in equality or human rights and womens rights are normally absent So yes lets get more women into government and management. This doesn't mean we get ride of men but its needs to be more balanced

Why would I joke about this? Yes we have laws in this wild country in Europe. It states the responsibilities of shareholders and the board members. Those are separate positions but nothing is preventing shareholders to appoint themselves as the board and usually this is the case. In Poland at least...and Europe...and world My company is a producer of stationary and mobile stainless steel tanks. For example: Mark Zuckerberg is the CEO of Facebook and also is 28% shareholder. I apologize, yes I did assume you lived in a more rural environment because you described a massive overgrown garden and having to use scythes ....I know this sounds like a silly assumption to make but at times you do make comments that dont seem aligned to normal business practice. But of course I can recognise my mistake, I know Poland has very developed banking and corporate culture but also you have a very concerning right wing who want Poland to leave the EU. This is a choice people in a Democracy can make but I support the EU and we dont want anymore countries leaving the EU under some misplaced view of sovereignty So in other words I would be fine ignoring a right wing victory in a country like Poland and still find ways to prevent them leaving. This may seem like a dictatorship but obviously this would be done covertly. The reality is we dont want Poland leaving the EU even if the majority of citizens seem to want this, I am sure you will be grateful for this over the next 10 years or so

alternative facts. you are getting into the spirit o' the thread with gusto. HA! Good Fun! volo this is a '" safe spot " , I know it may seem like Im teasing you but lets not be impulsive and dismiss any honest assessments I would like everyone to just be mature and accept criticism in the spirit its meant to be...constructive , your post is not all alternative facts but parts of it come across questionable and irrational I will breakdown what concerns me in your post ?

A common shareholder owns the percentage of the corporation corresponding to the percentage of shares he holds. Okay, but he doesnt own the company.....but wait. What is your definition of " owning " Like you get owned every time you post. Let's say you start a company with 2 other guys. You each own 1/3 of the company. If you issue shares, you would each have 1/3 of the shares. Same with a publicly held company, except there might be millions of shareholders. If a shareholder has over 50%, or a block of shareholders get together with over 50%, they're said to have a "controlling interest". Define " controlling interest " ? Means they can make any decision about the company since they have the majority of votes. Could you start googling stuff instead of continuing to ask dumb questions? WOD I am not sure if you trolling but I will repeat this point one more time, owning shares even majority shares does not mean you own the company....you could not for example walk in andfire someone, steal something, expect even a cleaner to listen to you You only have shareholder rights This is not owning the company sorry but you are wrong, if you own majority you can appoint yourself as CEO and fire anyone you want The company would have measures to prevent this but you made me laugh with the concept My company has two shareholders (51% and 49%) and one is CEO and the other is VP. Maybe in SA it's different, but that is how majority of companies work. Okay Im unsure if you joking now? But I want to believe you being serious so I will respond in that way Do you have a corporate code of conduct around what the directors and or board members can or cannot do and do you have rules around what shareholding ? I would assume its unlikely but I would rather ask you and just to be clear what does what your company do?

A common shareholder owns the percentage of the corporation corresponding to the percentage of shares he holds. Okay, but he doesnt own the company.....but wait. What is your definition of " owning " Like you get owned every time you post. Let's say you start a company with 2 other guys. You each own 1/3 of the company. If you issue shares, you would each have 1/3 of the shares. Same with a publicly held company, except there might be millions of shareholders. If a shareholder has over 50%, or a block of shareholders get together with over 50%, they're said to have a "controlling interest". Define " controlling interest " ? Means they can make any decision about the company since they have the majority of votes. Could you start googling stuff instead of continuing to ask dumb questions? WOD I am not sure if you trolling but I will repeat this point one more time, owning shares even majority shares does not mean you own the company....you could not for example walk in andfire someone, steal something, expect even a cleaner to listen to you You only have shareholder rights This is not owning the company sorry but you are wrong, if you own majority you can appoint yourself as CEO and fire anyone you want The company would have measures to prevent this but you made me laugh with the concept

A common shareholder owns the percentage of the corporation corresponding to the percentage of shares he holds. Okay, but he doesnt own the company.....but wait. What is your definition of " owning " Like you get owned every time you post. Let's say you start a company with 2 other guys. You each own 1/3 of the company. If you issue shares, you would each have 1/3 of the shares. Same with a publicly held company, except there might be millions of shareholders. If a shareholder has over 50%, or a block of shareholders get together with over 50%, they're said to have a "controlling interest". Define " controlling interest " ? Means they can make any decision about the company since they have the majority of votes. Could you start googling stuff instead of continuing to ask dumb questions? WOD I am not sure if you trolling but I will repeat this point one more time, owning shares even majority shares does not mean you own the company....you could not for example walk in and fire someone, steal something, expect even a cleaner to listen to you You only have shareholder rights This is not owning the company

do you know details, how many employees we are talking about? what is allocation of shares? what are rules when someone left company, what happen if someone new come into the company? Sorry, I don't know the details but to answer your first question they are a private company No worries, this is actually a very interesting business model. I have heard of other similar concepts but I always questioned there financial business feasibility Firstly it does offer an excellent way to achieve financial equity, the concept is simple. All shares that get created are made available to employees only so therefore the workers really are part of the profit and success The negative I use to believe is not so negative, they potentially have limited funds for growth due to the limited number of shares but they are very profitable and it seems great I need to share this with people I know, its a very good point you made

A common shareholder owns the percentage of the corporation corresponding to the percentage of shares he holds. Okay, but he doesnt own the company.....but wait. What is your definition of " owning " Like you get owned every time you post. Let's say you start a company with 2 other guys. You each own 1/3 of the company. If you issue shares, you would each have 1/3 of the shares. Same with a publicly held company, except there might be millions of shareholders. If a shareholder has over 50%, or a block of shareholders get together with over 50%, they're said to have a "controlling interest". Define " controlling interest " ?

I have to say that example in Finland about companies sounds odd. I must be misunderstanding you, in your example you not saying these shareholders make company decisions ? The decision making process and daily running of every single company I have seen and worked in is the same, shareholders have no say in daily operations Also, and this is probably over complicating the question, but what type of securities do these companies offer.... bonds, common stocks or preferred stocks? Shareholders select board of the company in periodical meetings, board selects CEO for company, then CEO together with board runs the company. Yes but this has been my point the whole time, some shareholders may have certain rights like right to vote on corporate issues such as board elections and corporate policy, along with the right to any common dividend payments but they dont own the company in the sense they have no daily authority

A common shareholder owns the percentage of the corporation corresponding to the percentage of shares he holds. Okay, but he doesnt own the company.....but wait. What is your definition of " owning " I think you confuse owning with managing. No I am not the one confused

A common shareholder owns the percentage of the corporation corresponding to the percentage of shares he holds. Okay, but he doesnt own the company.....but wait. What is your definition of " owning "

I have to say that example in Finland about companies sounds odd. I must be misunderstanding you, in your example you not saying these shareholders make company decisions ? The decision making process and daily running of every single company I have seen and worked in is the same, shareholders have no say in daily operations Also, and this is probably over complicating the question, but what type of securities do these companies offer.... bonds, common stocks or preferred stocks?

Easily. Publicly Listed Cimpanies are collectively owned and are not owned by the government, they're also at least theoretically little d democratic. Otherwise, Co-Ops, syndicates, Apoism etc etc, they're even properly democratic. Personally, I'd get rid of 'democratic' though, and go for the straight 2-axes political compass style set up of having left (socialist) and right (capitalist) with both of those being independent of the authoritarian (statist, undemocratic)/ anarchism (libertarianism, democratic) axis. OK, so corporations are actually socialist, I got it. Collective ownership generally means owned by society, not by a group of people. For example share ownership. Yes, this and agreements like trusts, partnerships and hedge fund investment or just normal investments that buy assets for the the financial return So there are numerous ways to share ownership and the dividends and profitability I don't think this was what "collective own" means. We have that now, it just means there is more than a single person as owner. Almost all big companies have shareholders, but does that mean they belong "to the people"? No, the people who own shares dont technically own the company but rather benefit from profit in the form of dividends Wow, mister finance guy, that's Hurlshot level of ignorance. sorry WOD but educate me. What am I missing about being a shareholder. I always like learning new things

Its not a commonly used term in modern free market or corporate reality? It reminds me of some bygone Soviet Stalin " great agricultural project to prove we better than the West " .....whoops we just starved 30 million rural people to death Oh well. its okay because we are free of the " evils and corrupting influence of Capiltalism "

For example share ownership. Yes, this and agreements like trusts, partnerships and hedge fund investment or just normal investments that buy assets for the the financial return So there are numerous ways to share ownership and the dividends and profitability I don't think this was what "collective own" means. We have that now, it just means there is more than a single person as owner. Almost all big companies have shareholders, but does that mean they belong "to the people"? No, the people who own shares dont technically own the company but rather benefit from profit in the form of dividends And no the company has no responsibility to anyone outside of the shareholders, management and board of directors

For example share ownership. Yes, this and agreements like trusts, partnerships and hedge fund investment or just normal investments that buy assets for the the financial return So there are numerous ways to share ownership and the dividends and profitability

"" he REALLY likes black men " I could explain what I mean about Milo but I dont think it really matters to you and I am not being condescending just honest?

I didnt want to do my own research for a reason, I already dont like Milo and I would have guessed he would be dismissive towards the LGBT community. That would have just confirmed a few things for me and irritated me even more and I am trying to not judge him on SJ values

What does Milo think about the rights or discrimination towards the LGBT community? Does he ever comment

This made me laugh quite a lot. And I thought I over interpreted things. The author seems pissed that they in the end go into an expensive Audi and drive away. He sees this as representative of the upper class and they're tight grip on the lower class. Had this been simply a video clip, he would be right. But this is an ad, and thus I find it perfectly reasonable for Audi to show off. And I mean you have to give it to them, the car does look great. But again.... no message aside from "we make good looking cars BUY OUR STUFF PLEASE". The over interpretation of this ad also suffers from a logical error: if Audi beliefs that the upper class should always have the edge over the lower class, then why would they use that as an advertisement strategy? I'm no PR expert, but this does seem like a big middle finger towards many potential soon-to-be customers. So I don't see why they'd actually try to convey that message in an ad. The author of this article seems to be te kind of person who also would think that hard right winged billionaires who lie in bed with Wall Street would be a tremendous representative for the working class. It doesn't make all to much sense when you think about it. Bennie please summarize your view on what you think should be the most effective system of government, do you believe in Socialism or Communism? Can you give me an example of a country you think the West should emulate around ideology if at all ? Well I'd say I'm a socialist. As for what country we should emulate... well non. That's not the point... ideally, we take te best of everything. Finnish' education system, Switzerland's system of direct democracy, the US' limitations on the number of years the president can be in office, Germany's parliamentary system... The most effective government is one that is completely transparent and that can be put out of power by the people anytime. I'm a fan of close to complete release of all information on governmental action, and I'm a big fan of referendums, including such ones that can put te executive out of power. You see where I'm heading at? Do I believe in communism? As an utopian ideal, it is appealing. As with all utopias, it suffers from reality. Talking about political realities, I think the point is to take a socialist system and correct its problems with capitalist elements. So keep a free market, but regulate it heavily, give all people free education, health insurance and a guaranteed basic unconditional income, democracy at te workplace, no inherent wealth, no owners of land, shared cars inside of cities (as opposed to private ownership), governmental participation in central markets, .... I've also come to adopt many ecological standpoints. Bennie you make some points I agree with and I can see the potential. If i was the final decision maker around architectural design on your ideology I would only change one or two things but before I comment what is the unemployment rate and tax rate in your system? It is relevant to the objectives

WOD what is the appeal with Milo from a Breitbart and member perspective? What do people like about him, is it how he attacks the left or something else?

Huh. Well I know humor can be subjective, but I'm a bit surprised that wasn't worth at least a chuckle for you. I mean, they nailed the makeup, CNN is wearing a diaper, she pulls out a super soaker. Honestly I thought it was pretty spot on. I cannot believe anyone wouldn't find that funny, SNL is so accurate with the overall parody And if you watch Spicer you will see the similarities

http://www.10news.com/newsy/trump-signs-executive-orders-that-loosen-financial-regulations I have been taking a completely objective view on Trump and will post both good and bad things he does, it can be hard at times to see positive but there are several cases of very positive things the Trump presidency has done He is removing some of the restrictive aspects of Dodd-Frank, not a complete repeal but there are examples of smaller banks not being able to get financial recognition and this impacting there ability to provide loans Bernie Sanders is furious and thinks Trump is a fraud as he is now aligning and surrounding himself with very successful businessmen, he says Trump campaigned on " taking on Wall Street " but that was just populism and should not be taken seriously

This made me laugh quite a lot. And I thought I over interpreted things. The author seems pissed that they in the end go into an expensive Audi and drive away. He sees this as representative of the upper class and they're tight grip on the lower class. Had this been simply a video clip, he would be right. But this is an ad, and thus I find it perfectly reasonable for Audi to show off. And I mean you have to give it to them, the car does look great. But again.... no message aside from "we make good looking cars BUY OUR STUFF PLEASE". The over interpretation of this ad also suffers from a logical error: if Audi beliefs that the upper class should always have the edge over the lower class, then why would they use that as an advertisement strategy? I'm no PR expert, but this does seem like a big middle finger towards many potential soon-to-be customers. So I don't see why they'd actually try to convey that message in an ad. The author of this article seems to be te kind of person who also would think that hard right winged billionaires who lie in bed with Wall Street would be a tremendous representative for the working class. It doesn't make all to much sense when you think about it. Bennie please summarize your view on what you think should be the most effective system of government, do you believe in Socialism or Communism? Can you give me an example of a country you think the West should emulate around ideology if at all ?

At least most of mankind is aware of what harms the earth and we are generally committed to a sustainable lifestyle as far as the ecosystem is concerned So no need for guilt or thoughts of mass genocide of all humans...that seems very excessive and unhelpful