Texas Faces New Power Crisis: Prices Soar 10,000%

How fitting it is that a Russian is posting Russian disinformation (Zero Hedge).

 

And the EVASION continues. The primary, legally-defined, focus of a corporation, is anything but, "minutia." It has a TREMENDOUS IMPACT on our entire economic system. Your ludicrous attempt to relegate this to non-importance, would be the equivalent of you confessing to me that you have always lived your life putting YOUR OWN, PERSONAL WANTS & INTERESTS, AHEAD OF ALL ELSE, but now you were thinking about prioritizing, or at least being open to sometimes deferring to the needs & wants of your wife, or your kids, or your grandkids, or your community, and I answered that, you are "literally talking about," inconsequential things, small potatoes, so how 'bout you think about the reality of how much fun we're gonna have at the strip club, & to hell with your daughter's wedding, (or whatever unselfish commitment you were considering, instead of your own, base drives).

First of all, your meaning is so poorly disguised, it is laughable: let public responsibility be a personal choice. You don't like labor laws, no problem, ignore 'em. That's commie-stuff, anyway. Your scales tilt a little bit in your own favor-- ah, whose gonna know? Your product includes banned ingredients; hey this is freakin' America, & I use my God-given right of choice, to run my business without worrying about the minutia of ingredient labels. You want to save on sanitation costs: let those who choose to be environmentally responsible go that route, if they want, but this stream runs through my land, so if I want to throw my trash in it, it ain't nobody else's business.

Your, "system," is a race to the bottom, in which anyone who acts responsibly, who wants to pay his employees a living wage, can't compete with the businesses who are doing things their way. It is also NOT, by the way, our current system, so you are just as much a heretic as you accuse me of being. The only difference is that you want to push laws back to the way they were in the past (before many of them existed), whereas I look to the future. That does not mean just more regulation & more red tape. It does mean, however, our entire society not measuring the value of life solely in terms of money. But if you want to, that's fine with me-- it's your choice. All I was recommending was not mandating that our entire, corporate structure be forced to abide by that regulation, by your choice-- look at that, YOU are defending corporate regulation! Ain't that a hoot?

You MUST put profit above all else-- "oh yeah, great regulation!" You are no longer legally responsible to only consider investor value, but can consider the effect your business has on the community, or the workers-- "Anti-democratic, anti-Capitalist, Marxist propaganda!"

You have a pretty fair grasp of, "capitalism," but your understanding of the meaning of, "democracy," could use a good bit of work.

 

This is 100% WRONG. What I am talking about is a fiduciary responsibility, defined in law, for CORPORATIONS. One cannot arbitrarily write something else, "on the contract," to negate it. To be honest, I am familiar with this through corporations which have issued STOCK, whether or not they are publicly-traded. So in the case of a wholly-owned corporation, that would be an exception, in practice, if not necessarily in law, because, as I've stated a couple of times, already, the law relates to an obligation to SHARE-HOLDERS. Obviously, if one has no share-holders, there would be no one for that Chairman of the Board, to whom to be held accountable.

It is apparent to me, now, that you have been arguing against my position without even understanding the issue (not due to any lack of explaining, on my part). So, if you want to pick this up, later, check into it a bit. There is a book, called, The Corporation, you could give a look-over. But, for now, I have too many alerts, that I've been too-long neglecting, during our discourse, so I will now take my leave, & bid you good night.

You are a specious talker. I never accused you of saying I, "hated," Capitalist democracy, I'd quoted exactly what you said (even capitalized the "D" just like you. And instead of owning up to your own words, you take the scoundrel's path.

Well, I withdraw my invitation of later discussion, with one of your unseemly methods. And I retract my good wishes for your night.

 

The Art of Speaking out of both sides of the mouth, seemingly at once, by journeyman CRANK

Because YOU RESPONDED to my suggestions, which were in line with some Northern European-style democracies, like this:

Now, recall the top post, about all Europe, the UK, Canada-- all with their social policies, restraining unfettered Capitalism-- still regarded, by Crank, as Capitalist.

His assertions are ephemeral--
vanished before his next, contradicting statement.

 

Lenin said - "The state is the dictatorship of the ruling class in the interests of the ruling class." In the United States, the ruling class is the exploiter class. Therefore, no commissions will interfere with the interests of the ruling class.

 

Astonishing. You have not figured out this question, but are ready to call ZeroHedge liars .... Your comment says a lot about you.
Don't confuse mainstream American media, such as CNN, what even the US president has called "fake news," with publications such as ZeroHedge.

 

That is called LIBERTARIANISM and it has been an ABJECT FAILURE every time it has been attempted.

Unregulated capitalism is nothing more than GREED and AVARICE without restraint.

What WORKS for We the People is well REGULATED capitalism because the GOVERNMENT of We the People is the ONLY thing we have to PREVENT the GREED obsessed capitalists from EXPLOITING both the ENVIRONMENT and We the People.

 

Let's first define the concept - "democracy". What it is?
"Democracy" is historically the rule of the slave owners.
Remember where this term came from. The ancient Greeks in the era of slavery gathered meetings at which they decided certain issues. This was called "democracy". But one thing you are missing is the right to vote. In a democracy, decision-making can be influenced only and exclusively by the voice of the slave owner.
Indeed, in a democracy, slaves, women, commoners and others like them did not have the right to vote in decision-making.
Slaves, commoners and women of course could reason about something, but their opinion did not matter.
This is real democracy
Now about your saying that you can "always say no".
It's interesting to see how you say no for example to new taxes imposed by the state.
Do you understand all the absurdity that you write? In fact, it is not always possible to refuse.

 

From the exploiter's point of view, it is. From the point of view of an ordinary person, rationing is preferable

 

Even the American president has repeatedly said about American news programs - "fake news". So it’s not surprising that the news programs don’t talk about it. The media are better off telling tales about Russian hackers.

 

Ahahaha .... Zero Hedge Russian? .... Tell us more about Russian hackers who elect American presidents.

 

I am an ordinary person, it doesn't seem preferable to me.

 

You have such an opinion, the other person has a different opinion from yours. It's a matter of preference.

 

Fair enough. Good point.

 

No I would not confuse them. ZeroHedge is a known conspiracy / propaganda rag with a long history of spreading fake news.

Media bias check: Zero Hedge

• Overall, we rate ZeroHedge an extreme right-biased conspiracy website based on the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely denigrates the left.

Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: Bulgaria

ZeroHedge’s content has been classified as “alt-right” and has been criticized for presenting conspiracy theories.

In review, ZeroHedge publishes pro-right wing/Trump articles such as Pat Buchanan: “Trump Calls Off Cold War II.” As well as fake news stories regarding liberals: Anti-Trump Protesters Bused Into Austin, Chicago.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/

You mean the president who lied 30 000 times? He couldn't stop crying and whining about the media because they didn't praise him enough.

 

Nothing in the news and yet a Russian knows about it? Who are you trying bamboozle?

 

The President of the United States, this is the President of the United States. ... Did he lie a lot? What surprises you about this? But maybe other US presidents are not lying at all?.... They all The President of the United States lie.

But if you read other news outlets, then by comparison, ZeroHedge can be called a model of honesty.
Some tales about Russian hackers who elect US presidents are worth something.
And the lies of the mainstream American media are always happening. Just remember the "chemical weapons of Saddam Hussein."
Your accusations of lying to ZeroHedge are ridiculous.

 

Ahahaha .... Ostriches, for example, hide their heads in the sand.
Just hide as much as you like, but the bottom still sticks out on the surface.

 

Yes. Practically non-stop

The volume of lies was surprising. Politicians lie, but this one lied all the time, even when there was seemingly nothing to gain by it. The other thing that was surprising was the fact that people believed him no matter how many lies he told.

 

Ostriches do not hide their heads in the sand - ever. Sorry to destroy your illusion.

 

Well, it's slightly more complicated than Zero Hedge simply being Russian, of course. It's actually an indictment against capitalism, so you might want to take heed. The site was started by a Bulgarian journalist who discovered that there was more money in appealing & catering to right-wing extremists with fake news than he was making on Wall Street (plus, he'd gotten busted for insider trading). The Russian disinformation comes in by less obvious means. It is ultimately a question of who writes for the site and where their claims and information come from. Zero Hedge, like so many other fake news websites, has no journalistic standards. It doesn't need them to exist as it does, and it makes tons of money precisely because it doesn't bother with them.

You can read about it here:
https://newrepublic.com/article/156788/zero-hedge-russian-trojan-horse

 

Once again, YOU (just like all of us) are free to run a corporation in accordance with your moral position. No one is prevented from pursuing that path to a better world.

I have no idea why you argue with that reality - other than perhaps you're just pissed off about being challenged.

 

1) No idea what that brainfart was about, sorry. Minutia is details of executive employment contracts. You were saying excutives can't choose 'to be nice' or whatever, because their contracts limit them. I suggested you start a company and write contracts that suit your moral position. Anything you're adding to that is from the vault of your mind.

2) The 'public' IS people. We get the level of responsibility that the people want. That's what happens in a democracy. If you don't like that much democracy, then work towards authoritarianism or whatever you think is better. The further bumph in your para reads like a box of symbols bouncing down the stairs, but at a guess I'd say you've decided I'm some kind of arch Rightist, horrified by anything even slightly Left/union/Commie. If so ... congrats at getting it as wrong as it's possible to get it.

3) Thinking society ought not be governed by money is a position of privilege, when uttered into the void without works to back it up - and as obnoxious as claiming religious salvation in the absence of personal sacrifice. How much adjustment have you done to chip away at the capitalist model you don't care for? Have you emancipated yourself from utility companies, and corporatism, and rent slavery, and wilfull dependence upon the bastards who own all the food and water? If none of the above, why not? Is it because you LIKE that stuff, and don't want to give it up? If you LIKE that stuff, why haven't you made the connection between it and the capitalist model you don't care for?

4) How do you think you'll keep accessing all that stuff you won't give up, if profits are 'controlled'?

 

Okay, well that was a bunch of nuttynuts.

Meantime Imma help you out. I live in one of those 'northern european style democracies', and we have EXACTLY the same problems America has. Increasing abrogation of social responsibility, increasing 'poverty and homelessness', and increasing social decay generally. We have a very high minimum wage ($25ph), excellent free public healthcare, and extensive employee protections. None of it has helped, at all.

 

Because you repeatedly say something that is false, does not make it, "reality." Countries do have codes of corporate governance & stewardship. There has actually been a ton of litigation in this area. But it does no good for me to merely make this a case of my word against yours because, as you prove, here, once again, you are either obstinately ignorant, or willing to lie through your teeth. Therefore, I will begin providing references. The terms to keep in mind here are shareholder primacy, which is the status quo, and stakeholder primacy, which considers the impacts of corporations' activities on all of society.

While, if I ran a corporation, as you continue to insist, I could make the rules, I would not be exempt from the laws regarding the rights of stockholders (shareholders) in my company. Hopefully these references will begin to make this concept clear to you. If not, that is no need for concern, since there are plenty more references for me to cite. Feel free to post the references that validate your assertions, if they, in reality, exist.

Wikipedia entry: Shareholder primacy

James Kee writes, "If private property were truly respected, shareholder interest would be the primary, or even better, the sole purpose, of the corporation."[3]

The doctrine of shareholder's primacy is criticized for being at odds with corporate social responsibility and other legal obligations because it focuses solely on maximizing shareholder profits.[4]


Background
In their 1932 publication on foundations of United States corporate law and governance—The Modern Corporation and Private Property[5]—Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means's first introduced the idea that "shareholders are the corporation's 'true owners'."[6]

In his landmark book, Capitalism and Freedom, the economist Milton Friedman, advanced the theory of shareholder primacy which says that "corporations have no higher purpose than maximizing profits for their shareholders." Friedman said that if corporations were to accept anything but making money for their stockholders as their primary purpose, it would "thoroughly undermine the very foundation of our free society."[6] His article, "A Friedman Doctrine: The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits", was published September 13, 1970 in The New York Times.[6][7]
<END SNIP>

Your posts show that you are very much in accord with that way of seeing things. It is the predominant, legal perspective; though, as the next article notes, it has long been argued that it does not best serve society, which argument has risen in volume since the 2008 financial collapse.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/what-is-shareholder-primacy/


What is Shareholder Primacy?

Shareholder primacy is a shareholder-centric form of corporate governance that focuses on maximizing the value of shareholders before considering the interests of other corporate stakeholders, such as society, the community, consumers, and employees.


The debate between a shareholder approach and a stakeholder approach has been going on for a long time. Advocates of the shareholder approach stress that corporations should focus on shareholder wealth maximization, while proponents of the stakeholder approach highlight the importance of corporations as employment resources, sources of higher-quality products for consumers, and for social responsibility improvements within the general community.

Who Owns Corporations
One of the primary issues in the shareholder primacy debate revolves around the idea of who actually owns these corporations and whether corporations are capable of actually being “owned.” The generally accepted view is that corporations are owned by their shareholders, who ultimately have the ability to control the company. Therefore, employees, directors, and executives are part of the corporation that must produce work in order to maximize shareholder wealth.

On the contrary, others believe that shareholders do not actually own the company and that companies are considered legal entities in and of themselves. Since the global financial crisis in 2008, the doctrine of shareholder primacy has been under intense scrutiny. However, shareholder primacy is still argued heavily in favor of because shareholder-centric corporations have a clear litmus test to measure overall performance. Because shareholder wealth is one convincing way to assess performance, the idea of shareholder primacy provides a coherent and compelling rule of thumb for companies to follow.


Criticisms of Shareholder Primacy
Although shareholder primacy may be favored by most, there are many limitations and disadvantages to a shareholder-centric approach of corporations. Some key problems include the following:

• 
  
  • Corporate decisions and strategy may transition into reaching short-term goals, which may result in hasty decision-making and decisions characterized by short-term incentives and bonuses to meet certain targets.
  • Lack of willingness to take on risks and invest in new technologies may limit the growth of corporations and the potential to improve overall well-being with better products.
  • More dividends paid out by corporations to provide income to shareholders instead of using the generated cash to make more and better strategic investment decisions, e.g., research and development.

<END SNIP>



I will repeat the arguments which you fallaciously suggest are due to my being, "pissed off at being challenged"-- (methinks the lady speaks of herself). The person who, "runs a corporation," is by no means, "free to run (it) in accordance with (their) moral position." There are legal obligations to the corporation's shareholders. If you do not realize this, your understanding of corporate structure & law are at a truly remedial level. As a CEO or COO, pursuing my, "path to a better world," I don't know how you justify saying I could not be prevented from it, but I could certainly be personally sued because of it, and fired (discharged, by the board of directors) for bringing on the liability of stockholder suits, as well, against all executive management, including themselves.

Point #2, is even if allowances are made to be more responsible to consumers or workers, these will likely be unsustainable, that is, will create a disadvantage, undermining the corporation's viability, if competitors are not held also to having some social & environmental duties, as opposed to only exist for the profit of shareholders. It is within the purview of the members of a society to define by what rules anything within that society, including corporations, operates. And it only makes sense for those rules for the entire society, to serve the best interests of the society, as a whole. This is important because most of us, including myself, will probably never BE the Chairman Of the Board of a large corporation, or hold any other role which gives one so much power to affect society. It is obvious, also, from your posts, that you do not even think about this level of effect & influence; in your statements about, "the boss," you are clearly conceiving of business on a much, much smaller scale, which is an entirely different conversation.