>> >WHY? Why must we conclude that (a) a corporation's actions are in the
>> >interest of the corporation, OR (b) a corporation's actions are in the
>> >interest of stakeholders "just because"? We don't; we won't; and we
>> >shouldn't.

>> We must conclude that because we're in complete ignorance of a Nobel
>> Prize in Economics and the research involving the Agency Problem.

>Economists have known about the agency problem since forever.  So has
>business.  They figured out how to tweak incentives to deal witht he
>issues decades ago.  This is exactly why stocks and stock options
>especially are such popular forms of executive compensation.

>You didn't think through the forces there.

>     No.  No.

>     If anything, you should declare your conflict of interest at any
>company meeting.

>>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
>>> wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> said:
>>>> wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>>>>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> said:

>>>>>> What's "strict constitutionality," Daddy?

>>>>> It is amusing to watch you make such a concentrated effort
>>>>> to be a jerk-ass.

>>>>> Also, see signature for your answer.
>>>>> --
>>>>> "Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt."
>>>>> - Gaius Julius Caesar

>>>> "fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt"  "men
>>>> generally believe what they want to" "People's beliefs are
>>>> shaped largely by their desires." Julius Caesar, The Gallic
>>>> War 3.18

>>>> Somehow that doesn't seem to answer the question.

>>> No matter what I say, you will believe what you are going to
>>> believe (and it will be negative) - so there is no real point
>>> in me answering your question, now is there?

>>Is that deflection?

> More like a stonewall.

>>> >WHY? Why must we conclude that (a) a corporation's actions
>>> >are in the interest of the corporation, OR (b) a
>>> >corporation's actions are in the interest of stakeholders
>>> >"just because"? We don't; we won't; and we shouldn't.

>>> We must conclude that because we're in complete ignorance of a
>>> Nobel Prize in Economics and the research involving the Agency
>>> Problem.

>>Economists have known about the agency problem since forever.
>>So has business.  They figured out how to tweak incentives to
>>deal witht he issues decades ago.  This is exactly why stocks
>>and stock options especially are such popular forms of executive
>>compensation.

> But they don't solve the agency problem.  (Consider the
> incentive to loot the company, or to make it look good for
> option-exercise time and then fizzle.)

>>> In some cases, management can be self-perpetuating.  (Consider
>>> 10 companies, each owns 6% of each of the other 9.  Management
>>> can't be kicked out, no matter what the beneficial
>>> shareholders want.)

>>You didn't think through the forces there.

> Incumbent management can't be forced out providing they continue
> to cooperate (conspire).

>I don't know.  A bunch of you keep saying that the Democrats tried to
>compromise with the Republicans, but you never show any evidence of such
>an attempt ever actually occurring.

> >>More people should snip crossposts.

> >Community standards in this newsgroup don't allow this.  When I
> >resumed reading here about three years ago, I received a lot of
> >criticism for trimming newsgroups to just the groups I read.  This
> >screwed up a lot of killfile algorithms, and I was told emphatically
> >not to do that anymore.

> And it cuts people who are following in a different group out of the
> conversation.  I think cross-posting is often rude, but cutting out NGs
> once the damage is done is even more rude.

> Just my 2¢.

>> >>More people should snip crossposts.

>> >Community standards in this newsgroup don't allow this.  When I
>> >resumed reading here about three years ago, I received a lot of
>> >criticism for trimming newsgroups to just the groups I read.  This
>> >screwed up a lot of killfile algorithms, and I was told emphatically
>> >not to do that anymore.

>> And it cuts people who are following in a different group out of the
>> conversation.  I think cross-posting is often rude, but cutting out NGs
>> once the damage is done is even more rude.

>> Just my 2¢.

>Maybe you don't want to be seen in the other newsgroup, or the people in
>the other newsgroup don't want to see you, or you're off-topic for the group.
>I don't think that cutting a group is rude: this isn't Twitter.

>>>Which side refused to compromise?

>>I don't know.  A bunch of you keep saying that the Democrats tried to
>>compromise with the Republicans, but you never show any evidence of such
>>an attempt ever actually occurring.

>Have you shown any evidence of an attempt by the Republicans?

>>  I, on the other hand, have shown
>>two shining examples of the necessity to compromise with Democratic
>>party members in order to get the legislation to pass.

>Which says that at least they're willing to compromise sometimes, even
>if it says nothing about compromising with the Republicans.

>> David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
>>> wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

>>>> Free clue: the fact that somebody talks about something other
>>>> than what _you_ want them to talk about not-equals deflection.

>>> On the other hand, if your view is "Point A that David L. made was
>>> correct, and I shouldn't have disputed it,

>> I didn't dispute it.  I dodn't care enough about it to say anything.

> But you cared enough about a minor point, not being argued in the post,
> to go off on a little rant.

>> On 26 July 2012 01:06:02, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr)
>> wrote:

>>> David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
>>>> wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

>>>>> Free clue: the fact that somebody talks about something other
>>>>> than what _you_ want them to talk about not-equals deflection.

>>>> On the other hand, if your view is "Point A that David L. made was
>>>> correct, and I shouldn't have disputed it,

>>> I didn't dispute it.  I dodn't care enough about it to say anything.

>> But you cared enough about a minor point, not being argued in the post,
>> to go off on a little rant.

>Sure; some of us LIKE tangents, and actively avoid arguing about
>anything that anyone here cares about.

>I see Usenet as an amusement, not a competition.

>--
>Now available on Amazon or B&N:  One-Eyed Jack.  
>Greg Kraft could see ghosts.  That didn't mean he could stop them...

>>>>> Free clue: the fact that somebody talks about something other
>>>>> than what _you_ want them to talk about not-equals deflection.

>>>> On the other hand, if your view is "Point A that David L. made was
>>>> correct, and I shouldn't have disputed it,

>>> I didn't dispute it.  I dodn't care enough about it to say anything.

>> But you cared enough about a minor point, not being argued in the post,
>> to go off on a little rant.

>Sure; some of us LIKE tangents, and actively avoid arguing about
>anything that anyone here cares about.

> I see Usenet as an amusement, not a competition.

>> On 2012-07-27 17:08:04, David V. Loewe, Jr said:
>>> On 26 July 2012 01:06:02, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr)
>>> wrote:
>>>> David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
>>>>> wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

>>>>>> Free clue: the fact that somebody talks about something other
>>>>>> than what _you_ want them to talk about not-equals deflection.

>>>>> On the other hand, if your view is "Point A that David L. made was
>>>>> correct, and I shouldn't have disputed it,

>>>> I didn't dispute it.  I dodn't care enough about it to say anything.

>>> But you cared enough about a minor point, not being argued in the post,
>>> to go off on a little rant.

>> Sure; some of us LIKE tangents, and actively avoid arguing about
>> anything that anyone here cares about.

> That's fine.  You (and William) can respond to whatever you want, but it
> is still deflection and I am perfectly correct to point it out (as
> William would be if I did it to him).

> It's both a floor wax and a desert topping.

> But they don't solve the agency problem.  (Consider the incentive to
> loot the company, or to make it look good for option-exercise time and
> then fizzle.)

> >You didn't think through the forces there.

> Incumbent management can't be forced out providing they continue to
> cooperate (conspire).

>> >Economists have known about the agency problem since forever.  So has
>> >business.  They figured out how to tweak incentives to deal witht he
>> >issues decades ago.  This is exactly why stocks and stock options
>> >especially are such popular forms of executive compensation.

>> But they don't solve the agency problem.  (Consider the incentive to
>> loot the company, or to make it look good for option-exercise time and
>> then fizzle.)

>Actually, they do.  well enough anyway.  Your hypothesis is based on
>the ridiculous notion that a looted company with no prospects would
>have a non-zero stock price.  The real world doesn't work like that.

>>>>>>> Free clue: the fact that somebody talks about something other
>>>>>>> than what _you_ want them to talk about not-equals deflection.

>>>>>> On the other hand, if your view is "Point A that David L. made was
>>>>>> correct, and I shouldn't have disputed it,

>>>>> I didn't dispute it.  I dodn't care enough about it to say anything.

>>>> But you cared enough about a minor point, not being argued in the post,
>>>> to go off on a little rant.

>>> Sure; some of us LIKE tangents, and actively avoid arguing about
>>> anything that anyone here cares about.

>> That's fine.  You (and William) can respond to whatever you want, but it
>> is still deflection and I am perfectly correct to point it out (as
>> William would be if I did it to him).

>How is it deflection to pick out something interesting and talk about
>that, instead of ignoring the post entirely?

>>> I see Usenet as an amusement, not a competition.

>> It's both a floor wax and a desert topping.

>We disagree.  As far as I'm concerned, using it as a competition
>constitutes damage.  It's why I rarely talk to you.

>> Sure; some of us LIKE tangents, and actively avoid arguing about
>> anything that anyone here cares about.

>> I see Usenet as an amusement, not a competition.

>Excellent description 8-)

> On Sat, 28 July 2012 12:23:45, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> >How is it deflection to pick out something interesting and talk about
> >that, instead of ignoring the post entirely?

> It veers from the subject of the topic.

> >On Jul 27, 3:10 pm, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:

> >> >Economists have known about the agency problem since forever. So has
> >> >business. They figured out how to tweak incentives to deal witht he
> >> >issues decades ago. This is exactly why stocks and stock options
> >> >especially are such popular forms of executive compensation.

> >> But they don't solve the agency problem. (Consider the incentive to
> >> loot the company, or to make it look good for option-exercise time and
> >> then fizzle.)

> >Actually, they do.  well enough anyway.  Your hypothesis is based on
> >the ridiculous notion that a looted company with no prospects would
> >have a non-zero stock price.  The real world doesn't work like that.

> And we all know what Shawn's ideas of how the world works have
> gotten him:  the use of the computers at the public library.

>> And we all know what Shawn's ideas of how the world works have
>> gotten him:  the use of the computers at the public library.

> I should have thought that taking advantage of such _socialism_ would
> be against his religion.

>I should have thought that taking advantage of such _socialism_ would
>be against his religion.

>> >How is it deflection to pick out something interesting and talk about
>> >that, instead of ignoring the post entirely?

>> It veers from the subject of the topic.

>Google groups becoming even less useful? That boat sailed already.

>>> Economists have known about the agency problem since forever.  So has
>>> business.  They figured out how to tweak incentives to deal witht he
>>> issues decades ago.  This is exactly why stocks and stock options
>>> especially are such popular forms of executive compensation.

>> But they don't solve the agency problem.  (Consider the incentive to
>> loot the company, or to make it look good for option-exercise time and
>> then fizzle.)

> Actually, they do.  well enough anyway.  Your hypothesis is based on
> the ridiculous notion that a looted company with no prospects would
> have a non-zero stock price.  The real world doesn't work like that.

>> In article
>> <ec93ae04-652a-4886-acb2-756d1d22f...@lq16g2000pbb.googlegroups.c
>> om>, Shawn Wilson  <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 17, 3:35 pm, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:

>>>>> WHY? Why must we conclude that (a) a corporation's actions
>>>>> are in the interest of the corporation, OR (b) a
>>>>> corporation's actions are in the interest of stakeholders
>>>>> "just because"? We don't; we won't; and we shouldn't.

>>>> We must conclude that because we're in complete ignorance of a
>>>> Nobel Prize in Economics and the research involving the Agency
>>>> Problem.

>>> Economists have known about the agency problem since forever.
>>> So has business.  They figured out how to tweak incentives to
>>> deal witht he issues decades ago.  This is exactly why stocks
>>> and stock options especially are such popular forms of executive
>>> compensation.

>> But they don't solve the agency problem.  (Consider the
>> incentive to loot the company, or to make it look good for
>> option-exercise time and then fizzle.)

>>>> In some cases, management can be self-perpetuating.  (Consider
>>>> 10 companies, each owns 6% of each of the other 9.  Management
>>>> can't be kicked out, no matter what the beneficial
>>>> shareholders want.)

>>> You didn't think through the forces there.

>> Incumbent management can't be forced out providing they continue
>> to cooperate (conspire).

> And no corporate exec has ever been criminally prosecuted for
> screwing over minitory shareholers?