Posted on 09/01/2017 2:36:54 AM PDT by Boomer
Of course it’s your choice, but there is a lot of wisdom in the old saying, “Don’t deal with the devil.”
Time for a RICO lawsuit.
“You are arguing that the government should force Google to give money to a non-profit political entity whose views you happen to agree with.”
No. The opposite. The government should prevent them from giving other people’s money to entities that are not directly correlated to the company mission. CEOs and corporate board members should not be able to treat company equity as their personal property. They should not be able to dip into company revenues to extract money to give to their political allies or other buddies.
“What is the difference between a ‘public’ company and a private company?”
A public company has owner shares that are publicly traded on the stock market. A private company is owned by individuals through private agreements. The purpose for forming a corporation or LLC that is privately held is to shield personal assets from liability. This means a person or group of people can start a business for profit, and if that business ends up having liabilities (say for example a person is injured by an employee of the company) then only the company is liable. The injured parties can not recover damages from the owners of the company beyond what assets the company has. There are exceptions when an owner can become personally liable. In a legal scenario, this is called “piercing the veil.”
However, when such a privately held company “goes public” they issue shares in an IPO (initial public offering) and the company begins to be traded on a stock exchange. Any member of the public can buy shares and become a part-owner of a publicly traded company. If you own more than 50%, you have controlling interest. Sometimes public companies are “taken private,” meaning the company is converted to private ownership and stops being traded on a stock exchange.
Such exchanges are a cornerstone of free enterprise “markets.” They are places to buy and sell companies in small pieces called “shares.” This allows companies to have access to capital needed to run a large business. It allows investors (average folk) to save for retirement or otherwise store wealth in a profitable, capitalistic manner without having to become business experts in competitive and lucrative industries. Everyone has the opportunity to gain in this system. But there is also plenty of opportunity for corruption, fraud, and theft.
The CEO and President and board members of Google do own company stock. So they are owners. They do not own 100% though. The shares are owned by anyone who buys them on the stock market. This includes a lot of your average citizens who have a retirement account that includes shares of stock in Google.
A for-profit company that is publicly traded exists to provide a product or service that generates a profit for its investors. When a CEO or other key leaders in a company take actions that financially damage the owners, it can be criminal because they have a “fiduciary responsibility” to act in the best interest of the share holders.
Therefore, giving away money that does not belong to them should be treated as illegal and even criminal. Any such disbursement of funds should require a vote by the share holders who actually own the company.
Charitable and political giving by publicly held corporations should be regulated. Would you be ok if your bank randomly extracted a few dollars every once in a while from your bank account to give to a charity, political action committee, or politician? Why should corporate executives be able to do so? They make plenty of money. They should give their own money rather than the public’s.
What are you talking about? This entire thread is about Google demonetizing certain videos because of what is in their view objectionable content.
You seem to have lost the point of this post entirely.
I used them in dial-up days. I did not know they were still around.
Absolutely correct.
Just wow.
You utter blather showing your ignorance on the basics of what legal entity Google is, and then when I patiently educate you to correct your ignorance you insult me.
A simple “thank you” would be nice. But fine. Stay ignorant if you choose.
Our conversation began when I corrected the error you made in post #8 where you asserted, wrongly, that Google is a private company. But you admitted you do not know the difference between a public and private company in post #59, where you also asserted that “Nobody, N-O-B-O-D-Y is entitled to receive Google’s money.”
Really? How about the share holders who own Google? Don’t you think they are entitled to “Google’s money.”
What? Do you think Google drives a car home from work every day, eats dinner, watches some T.V. and goes to bed?
Google is a corporation. It is owned by Alphabet. Alphabet is publicly traded. It’s shares are in the portfolio of many people. There are almost a quarter of a billion shares divided among a little over 2000 “owners.” But among these owners are mutual funds that may include retirement funds of many individuals:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/holders?p=GOOG
“What are you talking about? This entire thread is about Google demonetizing certain videos because of what is in their view objectionable content.”
Ownership of companies such as Google is ENTIRELY the point. The job of the government is to protect the rights of citizens. When a group of rich people, through multi-national corporations, are able to trample those rights, it is time for the government to act.
Google is publicly traded. That means it already IS regulated. Such regulations should go further to protect the free speech rights of all citizens.
Also, Google, like many mega corporations, exceeds the letter and intent of the intellectual property rights provisions in the Constitution. Under these powers Congress has the right to grant persons (including corporations) LIMITED monopolies. Monopolies infringe on rights, except by the voluntary consent of the citizens.
All of these things are very critical to the issue of free speech. But again, if you wish to remain ignorant then do so. But it would be a good idea to be aware of the limitations of your knowledge. See my tagline for further details.
When companies like Google censure content because it is advocating violence or criminal activity, that is not a violation of free speech. When managers decide to play politics or pick which religions they support or do not, and censure those who do not share their views, the company should have no access to capital from the free markets, nor governmental protection of their monopolies.
The left has been using OUR money, in the form of tax dollars and in the form of publicly traded retirement funds, to wage war against us. If you really want to put a stop to it, this is how.
Thank you.
You’re welcome.
Free Republic is a great place to learn. I’ve done so for many years and continue to do so most days.
Google has become an evil oppressor, it must be broken up and held accountable to anti-trust laws.
They should also be sued for discrimination against conservatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.