The selling off of American Energy Companies

Message boards : Politics : The selling off of American Energy Companies
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Matthew Love
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Sep 99
Posts: 7763
Credit: 879,151
RAC: 0
United States
Message 852875 - Posted: 13 Jan 2009, 3:17:48 UTC - in response to Message 851264.  


How does this endanger people's lives?


I believe the reference is to the quality of the people's lives that are about to be impacted, most likely in a negative way.

We all know that employees are the last thing considered when corporate decisions are being made, especially after the sale of a company or a merger happens.


The only problem people in washington have with this transaction is that they fear electric and natural gas rates might go up. If utilities are regulated there like there are here, any rate increase has to be approved by the reglatory comission. The employees of the company will see little or no change.


Until we take out the greed, self self centeredness as well as the me only concept then things will change.


Apparently you believe that because the new investors are foreigners, they are greedy and self centered. Because the only thing that is that is changing is the ownership. The company is being sold from American investors to foreign investors. Anyway, I'm sure the American investors are just as greedy and self centered as the foreign ones. So there will not be a noticible change.



I saying this across the board !

LETS BEGIN IN 2010
ID: 852875 · Report as offensive
jim little

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 112
Credit: 915,934
RAC: 0
United States
Message 853893 - Posted: 15 Jan 2009, 19:22:36 UTC - in response to Message 852716.  


Worse is an American power company that got a speculator CEO who drove stock from a hundred a share to twenty-five, and near bankrupt state. I have held it for decades but missed selling last year when it started on the slippery slope. WEB bought the thing at fire sale prices -- for cash. I would prefer shares in his great company, not slippery green backs.

My error in assuming that it was just the economic collapse. Buffet won that one big time and I pay.

duke
ID: 853893 · Report as offensive
Profile Matthew Love
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Sep 99
Posts: 7763
Credit: 879,151
RAC: 0
United States
Message 859968 - Posted: 31 Jan 2009, 2:24:40 UTC - in response to Message 853893.  


Worse is an American power company that got a speculator CEO who drove stock from a hundred a share to twenty-five, and near bankrupt state. I have held it for decades but missed selling last year when it started on the slippery slope. WEB bought the thing at fire sale prices -- for cash. I would prefer shares in his great company, not slippery green backs.

My error in assuming that it was just the economic collapse. Buffet won that one big time and I pay.

duke



My Opinion is to do away with the speculators!! They are like A wild animal with no self control. No Morals! No Values for other peoples livelihood.

LETS BEGIN IN 2010
ID: 859968 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 859976 - Posted: 31 Jan 2009, 2:44:28 UTC - in response to Message 859968.  

My Opinion is to do away with the speculators!! They are like A wild animal with no self control. No Morals! No Values for other peoples livelihood.

My Opinion is to do away with people that know ZERO about economics!! They are like A wild animals with no reason or self control. No Morals! No Understanding for other peoples livelihood.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 859976 · Report as offensive
Robert M. Deller
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 05
Posts: 407
Credit: 176,454,252
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 860476 - Posted: 1 Feb 2009, 1:28:25 UTC - in response to Message 859976.  

Well said!

I'm 18 years retired. I need a little extra income so I buy shares in a company (the company also obviously needed the money or they would not have issued the shares).

When I risk my money by lending it to a company, I expect a greater return on it than bank interest, ie: through dividends. Sometimes, when the company does well and the share-value increases enough that I can sell my shares to someone else (at a profit) who also want shares in that company, I do sell (at which time I pay a capital gains tax on my earnings). Sometimes I lose. That is the risk I take...

The thing is, in my retirement, I need more than paltry bank interest (which is taxed as income...and most people do not realize that they are usually losing, falling behind, if they rely solely on bank interest), so I try to put my money to work for me in better ways.

Am I a speclator? I guess I am, but actually no more a speculator than somebody who puts his money in RRSPs (which I did during my earning years), or even a bank, for that matter. The only thing I did differently was to study carefully (not dabble in...other than my RRSPs!) financial matters and the stock markets carefully between my 30s and retirement since I knew I'd not have quite enough in my retirement (and that the situation would gradually worsen as time went on) and would need to know how to better handle my money-affairs on my own during my declining years.

I have worked hard throughout my life, and I work hard in retirement to avoid the kind of situation a lot of seniors unwittingly find themselves in.

So, before this person denigrates speculators ("investors") further, he should stop to think. If nobody invested, where would this country be?






Si qui forte mearum ineptiarum
lectores critis eritis manusque uestras
non horrebitis admouere nobis...

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day
ID: 860476 · Report as offensive
Iona
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 07
Posts: 790
Credit: 22,438,118
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 863262 - Posted: 7 Feb 2009, 21:12:52 UTC - in response to Message 860476.  

Where it is, now!


Don't take life too seriously, as you'll never come out of it alive!
ID: 863262 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 863293 - Posted: 7 Feb 2009, 22:22:54 UTC - in response to Message 860476.  



So, before this person denigrates speculators ("investors") further, he should stop to think. If nobody invested, where would this country be?



Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
Abraham Lincoln








ID: 863293 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 863529 - Posted: 8 Feb 2009, 17:35:42 UTC - in response to Message 863293.  

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
--Abraham Lincoln

To Abe Lincoln maybe.

In reality, the two go hand in hand, neither "deserves" "higher" or any consideration beyond what it is. You sell your labor to make capital which you use to buy the fruits of the labors of others in order to make your life better.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 863529 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 863531 - Posted: 8 Feb 2009, 17:42:23 UTC - in response to Message 851562.  

I was mocking corporate talk.

Badly. And without any real insight, humor, or seeming point.

Let me know how that whole unfettered and unregulated capitalism thing works out for you in the states.

It isn't "unfettered and unregulated capitalism" here. It's a highly-regulated, generally socialist country, and those regulations badly skew the flow of capital into vehicles and investments that people otherwise would not have made.

That creates bubbles and eventually the bubbles pop. As always, that affects most those that can afford it the least.

Smart plan.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 863531 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 863536 - Posted: 8 Feb 2009, 18:01:16 UTC - in response to Message 851997.  

Yes, I admit that I believe in socialism.
With that comes the concern for the well being of everyone as a collective entity.

You can't have concern for "a collective entity," as such because all it is, is an aggregate statistic. Well, you can, of course, just as you are entitled to have concern for any particular rock or stone if you wish, too.

The strident capitalist has no regard for the collective, or the well being of it's members, and therefore cares nothing for your situation or circumstance.

No, there should be no regard for the "collective," because if individuals are doing well, the aggregate statistic is doing well. If taking care of the aggregate statistic means skrewing some individuals for some other individuals, well, that's just skrewing some people and that always means skrewing those that can afford it the least, the most.

The capitalist believes only in the power of his money and his ability to buy your skills to meet his needs.

I think you must sit around reading People's Weekly World or faded, yellowed, copies of The Daily Worker, make up these vast, unfounded, generalizations, and then yell them to yourself. I don't think most "capitalists" (whatever that means) do any of the above. They just live their lives as best they can, even with the never-ending roadblocks people like you seek to place in their way.

You, like it or not, are a capitalist. Your computer (and every other bit of private property you have) demonstrates that fact clearly. You sell your labor to whomever you choose and then you seek the best price on the array of goods and services placed before you. You do these things willingly because they make sense. You don't do them because the gov't forces you to do them, you do them because you want to.

As a pack animal, which is what we are, which attitude is the best example to emulate in bettering our society?
Trying to go it alone or working as a group?

The glaring flaw in this "idea" of yours is that you have to use gov't force to make people adhere to your special plan. If it's such a great idea, people would line up to do it, on their own, willingly and excitedly.

But it's not such a great idea, and (deep down) they all know it, and seek to evade and avoid it. That's why you have to stick the guns of gov't into their faces to force them them "work[] as a group."

Brilliant.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 863536 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 863735 - Posted: 9 Feb 2009, 7:13:28 UTC

OK
I'll bite even though I am quite certain as to where this will end up.

What possible connection can there be between ownership of a computer and being a capitalist?


ID: 863735 · Report as offensive
Profile Hev
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Jun 05
Posts: 1118
Credit: 598,303
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 863768 - Posted: 9 Feb 2009, 11:56:23 UTC

*watches with interest*
ID: 863768 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 863803 - Posted: 9 Feb 2009, 14:42:23 UTC - in response to Message 863735.  

OK
I'll bite even though I am quite certain as to where this will end up.

What possible connection can there be between ownership of a computer and being a capitalist?

Once again I'm amazed at how simple this is, yet I STILL have to explain it. I made that clear in the prior post.

First I said, "You, like it or not, are a capitalist. Your computer (and every other bit of private property you have) demonstrates that fact clearly."

I followed that with the explanation, "You sell your labor to whomever you choose and then you seek the best price on the array of goods and services placed before you. You do these things willingly because they make sense. You don't do them because the gov't forces you to do them, you do them because you want to."

You take advantage of the free market to sell your labor. You take advantage of the free market to buy the goods and services you wish to buy. Your computer is the epitome of capitalism and the free market. As labor has become so expensive in North America, nearly every bit of that computer, except final assembly (maybe) was created taking advantage of the free market, using cheaper labor in other parts of the world to keep prices down. You take advantage of the division of labor so that you do not have to produce ~everything~ you need by yourself. You take part in the process, and you accept and endorse the entire process by participating in it, willingly.

Your spoken opinions about the matter aren't of any worth. The market doesn't care what you think, or feel, the market is just a concept. One that you either participate in, or not. But even your non-participation is a sort of participation in the market, your unwillingness to buy helps drive prices, and therefore costs, down. Though you decry the system, you choose to live it.

That makes you a capitalist in nearly every sense of the word.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 863803 · Report as offensive
Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 864030 - Posted: 10 Feb 2009, 7:28:47 UTC

surprisingly, they do the same in communist countries also, does that make you communist?
ID: 864030 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 864258 - Posted: 11 Feb 2009, 5:54:10 UTC

What does ownership have to do with capitalism??????

For all you know I bartered for my computer or even stole it.
Whatever way it was aquired and became my property has no connection to being a capitalist.

I don't think you even know what a real capitalist is.

Let me type this very slowly so you'll understand.

Using money in a transaction does not make one a capitalist.
Working for wages does not make one a capitalist.
Ownership does not make one a capitalist.





ID: 864258 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 864383 - Posted: 11 Feb 2009, 17:22:25 UTC - in response to Message 864258.  

What does ownership have to do with capitalism??????

Wow. Laugh? Cry? Laugh? Cry?

Sheesh. I have to even explain the most basic, fundamental, simple ideas to you. I mean, have you studied these ideas AT ALL? Or, like I said, do you sit around reading People's Weekly World or old Daily Workers, make up these empty slogans to yell defiantly to yourself? I don't know how many slogans you yell, but your posts often suggest that you have no idea what you type.

The idea of ownership is at the very foundation of capitalism, because the very idea behind capitalism is that you own your labor. You can chose to work or not. You can choose to work a lot or a little. You can choose to work very hard or hardly at all. Either way, because you own your labor, you own the product of your labor: money, or a chicken, or whatever you agreed to trade for your labor.

Ownership is, fundamentally, the entire basis for capitalism: you have complete and utter ownership of your labor and therefore the right to choose to do with it as you wish. You can choose to sit around and die. You can create a commune. You can create Nike. You can churn butter and trade it for chickens. Whatever you like. Ownership is the key concept, because you own your labor, so you own the butter you churned. Since you traded something you owned (the butter) for something someone else owned (the chickens), now you own the chickens, and can do with them what you will. You can sell your labor for money, and you can use the money to buy your computer.

For all you know I bartered for my computer or even stole it.

Bartering is part of capitalism as well, because you own what you barter for.

But I can completely understand that you might have stolen it. Most of your ideas involve sticking a gov't gun into someone else's face and taking their money (which they own and you do not) and forcing them to pay for your silly ideas. You stealing that computer? Wouldn't surprise me at all. But that has nothing to do with capitalism--it's just theft.

Whatever way it was aquired and became my property has no connection to being a capitalist.

This is simply dead wrong. Hell, it doesn't even rise to the level of being wrong for the reasons noted above.

Though it's funny, it seems you can understand ownership, as you used the term "my property," in that sentence. You seem to understand "my" and "property," so apply those concepts to the world around you. If you can understand why you own your property, you can understand why others own their property, and if you don't want your property taken from you by force, you can understand why others don't want that either.

I don't think you even know what a real capitalist is.

Heh heh. This is funny. As always, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how bad it makes you look, or how erroneous it is.

Let me type this very slowly so you'll understand.

Using money in a transaction does not make one a capitalist.
Working for wages does not make one a capitalist.
Ownership does not make one a capitalist.

Ah, grand. You typed it very slowly, made no arguments whatsoever, and what, your readers are supposed to accept these conclusions you stated simply because you stated them? 'Cuz you sez so?

The point still stands: You take advantage of the free market to sell your labor. You take advantage of the free market to buy the goods and services you wish to buy. Your computer is the epitome of capitalism and the free market. As labor has become so expensive in North America, nearly every bit of that computer, except final assembly (maybe) was created taking advantage of the free market, using cheaper labor in other parts of the world to keep prices down. You take advantage of the division of labor so that you do not have to produce ~everything~ you need by yourself. You take part in the process, and you accept and endorse the entire process by participating in it, willingly.

Your spoken opinions about the matter aren't of any worth. The market doesn't care what you think, or feel, the market is just a concept. One that you either participate in, or not. But even your non-participation is a sort of participation in the market, your unwillingness to buy helps drive prices, and therefore costs, down. Though you decry the system, you choose to live it.

Again, that makes you a capitalist in nearly every sense of the word.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 864383 · Report as offensive
Profile Hev
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Jun 05
Posts: 1118
Credit: 598,303
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 864399 - Posted: 11 Feb 2009, 19:49:39 UTC - in response to Message 864383.  

That's an interesting definition of capitalism Rush. I must say it's not one I've come across before.

I can't see where you have mentioned class and the struggle between the capitalist class who own the means of production and the working class, who I believe, consist of those of us who sell our labour for wages. In between there is the petty bourgeoisie, but you know all this.

I don't think much has changed, the wealth is in the hands of the few, people struggle to make a living wage, if possible by collective bargaining. And today shopping for sweatshop goods is a perfect example of commodity fetishism.

Go back to Marx and then tell us what capitalism means..


ID: 864399 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 864440 - Posted: 11 Feb 2009, 22:33:26 UTC - in response to Message 864399.  

That's an interesting definition of capitalism Rush. I must say it's not one I've come across before.

I don't know what to tell you here, it's certainly extensively available in the economic and philosophic literature. If you disagree, you're welcome to state why.

I can't see where you have mentioned class and the struggle between the capitalist class who own the means of production and the working class, who I believe, consist of those of us who sell our labour for wages. In between there is the petty bourgeoisie, but you know all this.

I didn't mention that because it had no bearing on the point at hand. Class, class envy, class struggles, aren't a part of why ownership is at the very heart of capitalism. Robert doesn't seem to much grasp many of the concepts he raises or decries.

I don't think much has changed, the wealth is in the hands of the few, people struggle to make a living wage, if possible by collective bargaining.

Maybe. You are entitled to this belief, of course. Very very few of the people that have jobs in the U.S. are covered by collective bargaining, and most of those make far more than what they would earn cleaning a hotel, stocking shelves at a grocery, or whatnot.

And today shopping for sweatshop goods is a perfect example of commodity fetishism.

Maybe. People seek to make their lives better by buying the goods and services that are offered to them. They always will, no matter what you label it.

Go back to Marx and then tell us what capitalism means..

Ohdearjeebusno. I wouldn't go to Marx for an explanation of capitalist anymore than I would go to Darwin for an explanation of DNA.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 864440 · Report as offensive
Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 864593 - Posted: 12 Feb 2009, 8:54:21 UTC

rush, buy a dictionary, and read it. you are wrong
ID: 864593 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 864864 - Posted: 13 Feb 2009, 0:58:18 UTC

Thank you Hev and aristo

I've been working long hard hours on snow removal and really don't have the energy to argue with such an overblown ideolog.
Stick a fork in it Rush, it's done.
Time now for some sleep.
ID: 864864 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The selling off of American Energy Companies


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.