MHF Democrat Primary Poll

[clubgop]

There's no requirement to own stock to be a corporate board member. Most are just wealthy cronies of the CEO who get a ridiculous stipend for attending a couple of meetings a year and rubber stamping the CEO's requests. Significant stockholders can demand a seat, but that's a different story.

Show your work bitch. For a publicy traded company there is and that kind of company is really the only one you regulate like that. There is no way you are going to get that kind of control over a privately held corporation.

Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. No stockholding is required, and no one has mentioned or is discussing private corps, certainly not Warren.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark ... 54bfcb3971

Yes it fucking does, read the bylaws of most companies. And the article you posted puts a lie to you. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Their are experience and education requirements where did playing golf with the CEO mentioned? You a hack bitch.

[brewster]

Show your work bitch. For a publicy traded company there is and that kind of company is really the only one you regulate like that. There is no way you are going to get that kind of control over a privately held corporation.

Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. No stockholding is required, and no one has mentioned or is discussing private corps, certainly not Warren.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark ... 54bfcb3971

Yes it fucking does, read the bylaws of most companies. And the article you posted puts a lie to you. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Their are experience and education requirements where did playing golf with the CEO mentioned? You a hack bitch.

You're incoherent again. Experience and education =/= stockholding. What an individual company requires is not relevant to the discussion, they can require anything they want as long as it's not illegal, but that's not SEC regulation, which is what we're talking about. Boardmembers DO NOT need to own stock. I've posted a relevant reference, why don't you? Can't see your screen for all the frothy spittle on it?

[StCapps]

Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. No stockholding is required, and no one has mentioned or is discussing private corps, certainly not Warren.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark ... 54bfcb3971

Yes it fucking does, read the bylaws of most companies. And the article you posted puts a lie to you. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Their are experience and education requirements where did playing golf with the CEO mentioned? You a hack bitch.

You're incoherent again. Experience and education =/= stockholding. What an individual company requires is not relevant to the discussion, they can require anything they want as long as it's not illegal, but that's not SEC regulation, which is what we're talking about. Boardmembers DO NOT need to own stock. I've posted a relevant reference, why don't you? Can't see your screen for all the frothy spittle on it?

Without adequate skin in the game, that's a bad idea. It's a lot easier to spend other people's money frivolously, especially when it directly advantages you at the expense of those whose capital you are using, bad juju.

[Speaker to Animals]

"Heads I win; tails you lose"

Fuck right out of here with the Bob Rubin Trade bullshit.

[Speaker to Animals]

If employees made business decisions and didn't have substantial skin in the game, businesses everywhere would just be raped by the workers, sent into bankruptcy, and the workers would just move along like locusts.

I.e. progressivism and Yankeeism in general.

[StCapps]

If employees made business decisions and didn't have substantial skin in the game, businesses everywhere would just be raped by the workers, sent into bankruptcy, and the workers would just move along like locusts.

I.e. progressivism and Yankeeism in general.

[brewster]

Without adequate skin in the game, that's a bad idea. It's a lot easier to spend other people's money frivolously, especially when it directly advantages you at the expense of those whose capital you are using, bad juju.
[/quote]
That was the logic behind linking executive pay to stock performance, and look what a fiasco that has been for anybody but a short term stockholder. But current public corp boardmembers do not need to "have skin in the game, so having 40% of the board at least dependent on the company for their living if not investments is an improvement, no? It's not like this has never been tried, it works quite well in Germany, the 4th largest economy in the world. They're very economically competitive I hear. It's funny how many arguments end in "American Exceptionalism", that what works elsewhere can't work here.

[StCapps]

That was the logic behind linking executive pay to stock performance, and look what a fiasco that has been for anybody but a short term stockholder. But current public corp boardmembers do not need to "have skin in the game, so having 40% of the board at least dependent on the company for their living if not investments is an improvement, no? It's not like this has never been tried, it works quite well in Germany, the 4th largest economy in the world. They're very economically competitive I hear. It's funny how many arguments end in "American Exceptionalism", that what works elsewhere can't work here.

What fiasco? It's worked great. Executives making more money ain't a disaster, it attracts talent, which results in superior performance.

Germany ain't shit, America's economy is way better for a reason, stop looking to copy lesser nations with silly lefty economic ideas that hold back their economy. Germany lulz, they are almost in a recession right now, but ya copy them, bahaha. The grass isn't always greener in Europe brewster, pull your head out of your ass.

[Speaker to Animals]

Perfomance-based pay and skin in the game are not the same thing at all. Quite the opposite in practice. Paying an executive board member in preferred call options is disastrous for corporations because the only "skin in the game" the executive actually has is limited to a year or two when he is allowed to exercise the options and dump them them on the market for cash.

Precisely because many CEOs have no real skin in the game, they make business decisions that result in short term stock runs at the cost of long term bankruptcy.

Skin in the game means long term interest in the company. A CEOs fortunes should evaporate when the corporation tanks long after he retires. That is skin in the game.

[clubgop]

Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. No stockholding is required, and no one has mentioned or is discussing private corps, certainly not Warren.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark ... 54bfcb3971

Yes it fucking does, read the bylaws of most companies. And the article you posted puts a lie to you. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Their are experience and education requirements where did playing golf with the CEO mentioned? You a hack bitch.

You're incoherent again. Experience and education =/= stockholding. What an individual company requires is not relevant to the discussion, they can require anything they want as long as it's not illegal, but that's not SEC regulation, which is what we're talking about. Boardmembers DO NOT need to own stock. I've posted a relevant reference, why don't you? Can't see your screen for all the frothy spittle on it?

You're incoherent, always. You put up this narrative that isn't true and now want to move the goalpost to my mention to some of the problems to the stupid proposal and your false narrative. Check the qualifiers,

A CEO doesnt Appoint members of the board, usually it's the other way around. Shareholders hold elections and there are requirements in the by laws, experience, education are all high bars to reach for a prospective board member, than their are the financial requirements

My narrative is being destroyed, what do I do?
I know I'll call dirty dick!
Hello! Yes what do I do?

Oh that's easy just apply the LD5.
Yeah the Last Ditch defense of dirty dick's dignity is where you concede 3/4 of the argument in a desperate attempt to hold onto some shred of an argument to defend your false narrative. Most importantly don't be honest and say you are conceding 3/4 of the argument, act like it didn't happen and your narrative still holds up on shaky weak ground.

And what prey tell is your argument to defend your weak ground?

Well Germany does it!

From a guy that calls everyone who disagree with him Nazis, this motherfucker is praising Germany. Talk about dog whistles, a graduate from ASD in Hartford can hear that one.
Maybe wipe the cum from the other dudes you let pleasure your wife, cuck, and you can see the rest of your arguments get sunk as well.