[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The_Rorschach

Sure. . .But we're talking about what most small investers regard with as much levity as the slot machines in Vegas. It may be a crap shoot, it may pay off, the odds are in their favour with Limited Liability. This is like requiring kids to study agriculture and lawn pattern theory before letting them use a playground, they have other concerns and for the most part, couldn't care less.

Do the kids technically own the playground? Their parents do, and if their kid hurts his or herself on a rusty jungle gym, or falls off a faulty swing, it'll be the parent's responsibility to make sure such mistakes are ammended.

I don't want to drown in analogies, but on your point, is it a good sign that investment in the American economy runs parallel with small time gambling? Don't you think a lot of the corporate crime that you are very well aware of would perhaps have been, or will be lessened were smal time investors more educated on what they were doing?

Oh I know they do. Not when they get as big as Jack Welch maybe, or Ted Turner, but when a buisness is first starting out, and I believe the tone of the article was speaking of Limited Liability in regards to venture capital, though I am working from a memory numerous hours old. When a corporation is first conceptualized, they need their investors more than their investor need them.

Right, but as you said, if the company takes off, that becomes more and more irrelevant. We're talking about averting corporate crime and being fair, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm willing to bet that companies that first start out with a little bit of venture capital probably play buy the rules more than older ones, simply because they can't afford not to. They have small investment, and can't afford to lose it. Wouldn't no limited liability perhaps create that kind of reciprocity on a broader scale?

And, btw, I think he goes beyond merely venture in the article, gets into value of negative stock, etc., I think he's arguing for a revolutionizing of the entire system.

"The truth is, corporations are really only beholden to a select few of major share holders."

And that won't change by revoking Limited Liability.

Again, wouldn't it democratize the whole process? On day-to-day procedures, if they play right, there'd be no need for John Q. Public to be involved. But if theystart breaking rules, and if stock value starts to drop, it would hit the pocket books of everyone involved. Wouldn't this lead to a more involved citizenry in the private sector perhaps?

I think it could be very interesting, because often employees own shares (tiny ones) in their own company, and have their pensions invested in it, ie. ENRON. Wouldn't this make corporations more responsive to even their own employees perhaps, unlike our friends at ENRON, who encouraged buying stock on their website up to the day before they hit bottom....?

Ultimately, I'm a commie advocating a kind of syndicalism.

hareholders are often involved with other corporations, and understand that the name of the game is making money, and if the persuit of that money means cutting a few corners, well why not?"

And you think shareholders who find themselves suddenly responsible for the company's debts and expenditures isn't going to be just as willing to cut those corners?

But like the article says, insider tradin and last minute dumping already go on, so it wouldn't be enhancing the possibilities of these things happening. It would hoqwever involve the small time investor some more, me thinks, and make the board of directors more responsive perhaps.

ve criticized the apathy of the citizen, is it that different than the apathy of the investor? Have you not advocated compulsory serve for citizenry???"

Because I honestly see this as a more civilized form of gambling. I play black jack every year at the hundred dollar table at the Bellagio. I don't count cards, I haven't read books on strategy, and I don't care to. I could, possibly, make a living in Vegas gambling if I applied all my powers of perception and intellegence at mastering their system, but I don't care to. I think most shareholders feel similar in their investments.

But this isn't a slot machine, nor is a lotto ticket, this is our economy. Jobs, the environment, and our own economic well being DO in fact rely on the services provided by these corporations.

All corporations are up to no good. They aren't in the buisness to provide a service, they are in it to make money, and money -as they say- is the root of all evil.

But their business IS a service, and it's often granted on a chartered promise to provide that service. What better way to hold them to thaty promise than to have their owners REALLY involved?

I know this is very typical of me, but I'm going to bring up Ralph Nader. Nader buys and sells stock, he is in fact heavily invested in CYSCO Systems. Some may say "oh! Hypocrite hypocrite! Mr. anti-corporations owns shares in them!!" But that's the thing, he doesn't advocate destroying incorporation, he simply advocates public responsibility over them. Chomsky actually said something similar to you once. Why do we blame the animal for being the animal that it is? Corporations are out to make money, and that's it. It isn't their job to have self-restraint and responsibility, rather, it's the public they are beholden to who must shoulder this responsibility. When Nader is displeased with a decision made by the board or the CEO, he writes letters, makes phone calls, and if he doesn't get answers, he sells off. This to me i responsible behavior, and wouldn't it be great if everyone had incentive to do the same?

And it would simultaneously alient many unknowledgable investors, which sadly or happily, make up a sizable portion of shareholders.

See above.