Thread: Twinkie for your thoughts

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

In the cited example of GM, it logically follows that all shareholders must be held responsible. After all, they contributed $$$ via purchasing stock shares for GM to produce said product. It hasn't happened, and it never will, but that's the end result: a tautological argument.

NOPE! No - no - no... shareholders are VERY rarely held responsible... if ever.

And if you'll recall in each of the investigations of "accounting irregularities" or corporate malfeasance that have come up in the last decade, the ceos have claimed not to have had any idea what was going on in their companies.

How much economic value can that be given that they are claiming to know nothing about their companies actual operations?

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

In the cited example of GM, it logically follows that all shareholders must be held responsible. After all, they contributed $$$ via purchasing stock shares for GM to produce said product. It hasn't happened, and it never will, but that's the end result: a tautological argument.

Share holders are not directly responsible for what goes on in the company

Originally Posted by earcutter

But them... It might all be for not!

AS YIKES!! Its all been foreseen!!

Attachment 112381

Every end is a new beginning. Saddy we be in a world without twinkies. Glad to know the world is
not going to end i am to young.

You really want to reconsider that question in light of years of downsizing.
America was in a mini-depression in the 1950s. GM probably employed more workers in the 1950s than today.
And you're right, shareholders are not held responsible for negligence. Perhaps they should be?

Originally Posted by Catrentshaving

I'm curious...what was the cost of living, inflation rate etc. in the 50's as compared to today? ALso how many employees etc. was the CEO of the 50's responsible for as to today?

Inflation was higher in the 50's than it is today. PPP - or purchasing power parity can be looked up if you wish but I can almost guarantee it's not going to be that far off from today.

Originally Posted by earcutter

Weird how we keep going in circles here lol... I wonder why?

Actually if you start by googling 'robber barons' you'll see that this isn't anything 'new'. The reason we are going around in circles is because Eve said, Have a bite of this apple", and Adam said, "Don't mind if I do." Been going around in circles ever since and will until '"that day."

Originally Posted by maddafinga

And if you'll recall in each of the investigations of "accounting irregularities" or corporate malfeasance that have come up in the last decade, the ceos have claimed not to have had any idea what was going on in their companies.

How much economic value can that be given that they are claiming to know nothing about their companies actual operations?

That's changing bro - Dodd-Frank! Republicans bitch but it's doing exactly that - and it'll hold board members accountable too! Woot lol.

Originally Posted by earcutter

Inflation was higher in the 50's than it is today. PPP - or purchasing power parity can be looked up if you wish but I can almost guarantee it's not going to be that far off from today.

You might want to look into that...depending on the year, the inflation rate in the 50's was much lower than it is today.

Originally Posted by earcutter

Inflation was higher in the 50's than it is today. PPP - or purchasing power parity can be looked up if you wish but I can almost guarantee it's not going to be that far off from today.

Inflation didn't really hit bad until Lyndon Johnson tried to have 'guns and butter' by financing the Viet Nam war and the "Great Society" in the 1960s. By the late '60s it was off and running. The '50s were relatively stable ..... at least that is the way I remember it.