[010]
BritBllt
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It\'s true in the sense that the officers can\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \'\'theory\'\' - it sure looks like that\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\'s misquoting some arcane rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\'t apply the way the article says. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can also do so with some financial justification. If things were really as simple as that line suggests, that no \
to:
It\\\'s true in the sense that the officers can\\\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \\\'\\\'theory\\\'\\\' - it sure looks like that\\\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\\\'s misquoting some arcane rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\\\'t apply the way the article says. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can also do so with some financial justification. If things were really as simple as that line suggests, that no \\\"action that would decrease projected profits for any reason\\\" is allowed, then there would be no retirement plans, health coverage, wages above minimum wage, or any other expense beyond the bare minimum required by law. Honest, decent business practices can be justified as more profitable than being ForTheEvulz, which means wasting extra money to ensure the public never finds out. Not that there aren\\\'t plenty of corporations fitting this trope (sure, BP, you \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' care about the environment), but it\\\'s not legally required that they be LawfulEvil.
One could argue, though, that it\\\'s \\\'\\\'economically\\\'\\\' required for a successful company, since cheating corporations have the advantage on Wall Street because they\\\'re cheating, but that\\\'s a whole sad topic of its own. It\\\'d be nice if everyone learned their lesson after the last two years of chaos, but I doubt it... :(
One could argue, though, that it\\\'s \\\'\\\'economically\\\'\\\' required for a successful company, since cheating corporations have the advantage on Wall Street because they\\\'re cheating, but that\\\'s a whole sad topic of its own. It\\\'d be nice if everyone learned their lesson after the last two years of chaos, but I doubt it... :(
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It\'s true in the sense that the officers can\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \'\'theory\'\' - it sure looks like that\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\'s misquoting some arcane rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\'t apply the way the article says. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can also do so with some financial justification. If things were really as simple as that line suggests, that no \
to:
It\\\'s true in the sense that the officers can\\\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \\\'\\\'theory\\\'\\\' - it sure looks like that\\\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\\\'s misquoting some arcane rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\\\'t apply the way the article says. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can also do so with some financial justification. If things were really as simple as that line suggests, that no \\\"action that would decrease projected profits for any reason\\\" is allowed, then there would be no retirement plans, health coverage, wages above minimum wage, or any other expense beyond the bare minimum required by law. Honest, decent business practices can be justified as more profitable than being ForTheEvulz, which means wasting extra money to ensure the public never finds out. Not that there aren\\\'t plenty of corporations fitting this trope (sure, BP, you \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' care about the environment), but it\\\'s not legally required that they be LawfulEvil.
Though one could argue that it\\\'s \\\'\\\'economically\\\'\\\' required, since cheating corporations have the advantage on Wall Street because they\\\'re cheating, which is a whole sad topic of its own. It\\\'d be nice if everyone learned their lesson after the last two years of chaos, but yeah, right... :(
Though one could argue that it\\\'s \\\'\\\'economically\\\'\\\' required, since cheating corporations have the advantage on Wall Street because they\\\'re cheating, which is a whole sad topic of its own. It\\\'d be nice if everyone learned their lesson after the last two years of chaos, but yeah, right... :(
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It\'s true in the sense that the officers can\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \'\'theory\'\' - it sure looks like that\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\'s misquoting some arcane rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\'t apply the way the article says. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can also do so with some financial justification. If things were really as simple as that line suggests, that no \
to:
It\\\'s true in the sense that the officers can\\\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \\\'\\\'theory\\\'\\\' - it sure looks like that\\\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\\\'s misquoting some arcane rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\\\'t apply the way the article says. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can also do so with some financial justification. If things were really as simple as that line suggests, that no \\\"action that would decrease projected profits for any reason\\\" is allowed, then there would be no retirement plans, health coverage, wages above minimum wage, or any other expense beyond the bare minimum required by law. Honest, decent business practices can be justified as more profitable than being ForTheEvulz, which means wasting extra money to ensure the public never finds out. Not that there aren\\\'t plenty of corporations fitting this trope (sure, BP, you \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' care about the environment), but it\\\'s not legally required that they be LawfulEvil.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It\'s true in the sense that the officers can\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \'\'theory\'\' - it sure looks like that\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\'s misquoting some arcane rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\'t apply the way the article says. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can also do so with some financial justification. If things were really as simple as that line suggests, that no \
to:
It\\\'s true in the sense that the officers can\\\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \\\'\\\'theory\\\'\\\' - it sure looks like that\\\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\\\'s misquoting some arcane rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\\\'t apply the way the article says. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can also do so with some financial justification. If things were really as simple as that line suggests, that no \\\"action that would decrease projected profits for any reason\\\" is allowed, then there would be no retirement plans, health coverage, wages above minimum wage, or any other expense beyond the bare minimum required by law. Honest, decent business practices can be justified as more profitable than being ForTheEvulz, which means wasting extra money to ensure the public never finds out. Not that there aren\\\'t plenty of corporations fitting this trope (sure, Exxon, you \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' care about the poor baby seals), but it\\\'s not legally required that they be LawfulEvil.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It\'s true in the sense that the officers can\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \'\'theory\'\' - it sure looks like that\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\'s misquoting some arcane rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\'t apply the way the article says. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can also do so with some financial justification. If things were really as simple as that line suggests, that no \
to:
It\\\'s true in the sense that the officers can\\\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \\\'\\\'theory\\\'\\\' - it sure looks like that\\\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\\\'s misquoting some arcane rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\\\'t apply the way the article says. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can also do so with some financial justification. If things were really as simple as that line suggests, that no \\\"action that would decrease projected profits for any reason\\\" is allowed, then there would be no retirement plans, health coverage, wages above minimum wage, or any other corporate expense beyond the bare minimum required by law. Honest, decent business practices can be justified as more profitable than being ForTheEvulz, which means wasting extra money to ensure the public never finds out. Not that there aren\\\'t plenty of corporations fitting this trope (sure, Exxon, you \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' care about the poor baby seals), but it\\\'s not legally required that they be LawfulEvil.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It\'s true in the sense that the officers can\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \'\'theory\'\' - it sure looks like that\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\'s misquoting some arcane rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\'t apply the way the article says. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can also do so with some financial justification. If things were really as simple as that line suggests, that no \
to:
It\\\'s true in the sense that the officers can\\\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \\\'\\\'theory\\\'\\\' - it sure looks like that\\\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\\\'s misquoting some arcane rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\\\'t apply the way the article says. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can also do so with some financial justification. If things were really as simple as that line suggests, that no \\\"action that would decrease projected profits for any reason\\\" is allowed, then there would be no retirement plans, health coverage, wages above minimum wage, or any other corporate expense beyond the bare minimum required by law. Honest, decent business practices can be justified as more profitable than being ForTheEvulz, which requires wasting extra money making sure the public never finds out. Not that there aren\\\'t plenty of corporations fitting this trope (sure Exxon, you \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' care about the poor baby seals), but it\\\'s not legally required that they be LawfulEvil.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It\'s true in the sense that the officers can\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \'\'theory\'\' - it sure looks like that\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\'s misquoting some arcane rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\'t apply the way the article says. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can also do so with some financial justification. If things were really as simple as that line suggests, that no \
to:
It\\\'s true in the sense that the officers can\\\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \\\'\\\'theory\\\'\\\' - it sure looks like that\\\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\\\'s misquoting some arcane rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\\\'t apply the way the article says. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can also do so with some financial justification. If things were really as simple as that line suggests, that no \\\"action that would decrease projected profits for any reason\\\" is allowed, then there would be no retirement plans, health coverage, wages above minimum wage, or any other corporate expense beyond the bare minimum required by law. Honest, decent business practices can be financially justified as much more profitable than being ForTheEvulz, which requires wasting extra money making sure the public never finds out. Not that there aren\\\'t plenty of corporations fitting this trope (yeah, sure Exxon, you \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' care about the poor baby seals), but it\\\'s not legally required that they be LawfulEvil.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It\'s true in the sense that the officers can\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \'\'theory\'\' - it sure looks like that\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\'s misquoting some arcane rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\'t apply the way the article says it does. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can do so with reasonable justification. If the rule was really as simple as that line suggests, that no \
to:
It\\\'s true in the sense that the officers can\\\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \\\'\\\'theory\\\'\\\' - it sure looks like that\\\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\\\'s misquoting some arcane rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\\\'t apply the way the article says. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can also do so with some financial justification. If things were really as simple as that line suggests, that no \\\"action that would decrease projected profits for any reason\\\" is allowed, then there would be no retirement plans, health coverage, wages above minimum wage, or any other corporate expense beyond the bare minimum required by law. Honest, decent business practices can be financially justified as much more profitable than being ForTheEvulz, which requires wasting extra money making sure the public never finds out.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It\'s true in the sense that the officers can\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \'\'theory\'\' - it sure looks like that\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\'s misquoting rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\'t apply the way the article says it does. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can do so with reasonable justification. If the rule was really as simple as that line suggests, that no \
to:
It\\\'s true in the sense that the officers can\\\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \\\'\\\'theory\\\'\\\' - it sure looks like that\\\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\\\'s misquoting some arcane rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\\\'t apply the way the article says it does. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can do so with reasonable justification. If the rule was really as simple as that line suggests, that no \\\"action that would decrease projected profits for any reason\\\" is allowed, then there would be no retirement plans, health coverage, wages above minimum wage, or any other corporate expense beyond the bare minimum required by law. Honest, decent business practices can be financially justified as much more profitable than being ForTheEvulz, which requires wasting extra money making sure the public never finds out.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It\'s true in the sense that the officers can\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \'\'theory\'\' - it sure looks like that\'s what they did during the subprime crisis. But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\'s misquoting rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\'t apply the way the article says it does. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can do so with reasonable justification. If the rule was really as simple as that line suggests, that no \
to:
It\\\'s true in the sense that the officers can\\\'t sabotage the company and run away laughing with their bonuses while the shareholders are left penniless. Well, in \\\'\\\'theory\\\'\\\' - it sure looks like that\\\'s what a lot of them did during the subprime crisis. <_< But anyway, I can see the objection to that quote, because it\\\'s misquoting rules concerning stock manipulation that really don\\\'t apply the way the article says it does. As TheOtherWiki says, closely held corporations can and do forego profits all the time, and public corporations can do so with reasonable justification. If the rule was really as simple as that line suggests, that no \\\"action that would decrease projected profits for any reason\\\" is allowed, then there would be no retirement plans, health coverage, wages above minimum wage, or any other corporate expense beyond the bare minimum required by law. Honest, decent business practices can be financially justified as much more profitable than being ForTheEvulz, which requires wasting extra money making sure the public never finds out.
