Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (546072)	1/25/2010 8:36:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576329

If the shareholders do not make the decisions, and a few of the top million dollar executives are making all the decsions, how is that representative democracy?? Whether or not its representative democracy is a different topic. The point was that the corporation is a group of people acting collectively. Which of those people get to determine which actions are taken, and the actions themselves, can both be very important issues, but they are different issues, arguing about them is changing the topic. I never said that corporations are run mostly as democracies (and if I had, I would have been changing the topic myself). But posting on that new topic, your argument was that the fact that "Most traders don't own that many shares" implies "so the CEO makes the decisions, not the shareholders", but it does no such thing. When that's pointed out you say "If the shareholders do not make the decisions, and a few of the top million dollar executives are making all the decisions, how is that representative democracy?", but that's changing the topic yet again. I responded that your premises doesn't imply your conclusion, you respond in turn that your conclusion as a premise implies a whole new conclusion. In simple term you state X implies Y. I say it doesn't. You respond with WTF? If Y than Z. Well maybe Y (shareholders not making the decisions) does imply Z (corporations do not primarily function as representative democracies), but that says nothing about the argument about X (most traders having small positions) implying Y (the shareholders do not make the decisions because the CEO does). And all of it has nothing to do with either the USSC decision that we've been talking about or the more general point that prohibiting political speech both violates the free speech rights of people who are acting collectively in the corporation, and violates the specific prohibition in the first amendment.