DON'T YOU DARE MISS IT-the tribute to MILTON FRIEDMAN on PBS!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Unbelievably fair and glorious tribute to Mr. Free Market Economics of the later 20th century. It's on PBS, hopefully now playing in your area. It's called Free To Choose or Freedom of Choice, I believe, and lasts an hour and a half. A great show!

[Okla-homey]

I have a little problem with Milt Freidman in one area. He wrote that a corporation's only obligation is to pay max dividends to its shareholders -- social consequences bedamned.

While I believe in free-market capitalism, I'm suspect of the Friedmanian notion that owners should be able incorporate, then release their creature like Frankenstein to wander around the countryside to create all manner of havoc, while the shareholders (a/k/a "owners") sit safely insulated from liability and rake in profits.

Nevertheless, that's pretty much the law in the USA.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I have a little problem with Milt Freidman in one area. He wrote that a corporation's only obligation is to pay max dividends to its shareholders -- social consequences bedamned.

While I believe in free-market capitalism, I'm suspect of the Friedmanian notion that owners should be able incorporate, then release their creature like Frankenstein to wander around the countryside to create all manner of havoc, while the shareholders (a/k/a "owners") sit safely insulated from liability and rake in profits.

Nevertheless, that's pretty much the law in the USA.Perhaps you have taken an attorney's twist to his ideas. Anyway, you ought to see the program. It's excellent.

[Okla-homey]

Perhaps you have taken an attorney's twist to his ideas. Anyway, you ought to see the program. It's excellent.

No, with all due respect, I've taken a human being's "twist" to the guy's notions. I'm pretty danged conservative, but I feel that just sometimes, shareholders ought be share liability when corporations run amok.

Frankly, it's that "corporate veil" which has for centuries now, allowed investors to pour capital into an enterprise and not have to worry themselves whether that corporation is a good citizen or otherwise engaged in the most heinous of acts, skullduggery or other monkeyshines.

Friedman was the most bottomline of bottomliners. IOW, according to Freidman, as long as the corporation is paying dividends and the shareholders are happy with their investment, the corporations' board of directors is doing as good a job as should be expected.

In fact, Friedman would argue, and did, if a board concerned itself or expended capital on anything else, they were acting outside their authority.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Friedman is best known for his advice and proof of success of free market capitalism, and insistence on democratically elected govts. to maximize economic success and human freedom. He was personally very influential in the economic successes of Chile and Lithuania, and paved the way for the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
As a conservative, I'm surprised you have a distaste for corporations. Did you see the Friedman special I'm referring to?

[GottaHavePride]

I dare to miss it.

[BeetDigger]

I dare to miss it.


I haven't seen it, but I am glad to have the heads up so that I can DVR it hopefully.

While business and economics may not be interesting to all people, one can look at it from a political and social perspective.

I am not that interested in music and have studied it very little, however if there were a special on a great composer that a musician finds very well done, then I would probably try to see it just to learn more about music and that composers influence on music.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I haven't seen it, but I am glad to have the heads up so that I can DVR it hopefully.

While business and economics may not be interesting to all people, one can look at it from a political and social perspective.

I am not that interested in music and have studied it very little, however if there were a special on a great composer that a musician finds very well done, then I would probably try to see it just to learn more about music and that composers influence on music.While/After watching the show you will have a very positive, uplifting feeling. It is seriously like watching and hearing one of Reagan's speeches.
I remember when Friedman was on tv a lot, back in the '80's, and really enjoying his commonsense advice. ( and wondering when PBS was gonna pull the plug)

[SicEmBaylor]

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone more conservative than I am, and I have a natural distrust of corporations. A good conservative distrusts big government; conservatives should also distrust big business. That's not to say I support a governmental role in keeping business in line (I don't), but the free market works best with informed and vigilant consumers who need to hold a business accountable via their pocketbook in order to bring about any kind of change.

It does nobody any good to say that big business/corporations are always good. My biggest complaint is that big business is partly responsible for the destruction of states rights by demanding single Federal guidelines and regulations that overrule existing state laws in order to lower the cost of having to comply with 50 separate set of regulatory laws/agencies.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Look, corporations have their upside and downside.
What enamors me about Friedman is his strong belief in the FREEDOM that is necessary for economic prosperity, including freely elected government, and existence of capitalistic endeavor, of course.

[frankensooner]

When will the gov't stop sponsoring this so called "public television." I think continued support is an economic folly. ;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

When will the gov't stop sponsoring this so called "public television." I think continued support is an economic folly. ;)If you're thinking I disagree with that simply because they occasionally run something that's not leftist, you're wrong. Good post!

[GottaHavePride]

I haven't seen it, but I am glad to have the heads up so that I can DVR it hopefully.

While business and economics may not be interesting to all people, one can look at it from a political and social perspective.

I am not that interested in music and have studied it very little, however if there were a special on a great composer that a musician finds very well done, then I would probably try to see it just to learn more about music and that composers influence on music.

I'm not saying I don't care about the stuff, or that it wouldn't be interesting. I just rarely have an hour and a half to sit and watch tv that isn't an OU game. :D

Plus I was making fun of the way the thread was titled.

[Frozen Sooner]

When will the gov't stop sponsoring this so called "public television." I think continued support is an economic folly. ;)

Glad I'm not the only one who caught the irony of a Friedman special being run on PBS.

[King Crimson]

Glad I'm not the only one who caught the irony of a Friedman special being run on PBS.

as I recall, it's textbook Adam Smith that free markets create social goods and commonwealth....beyond merely the profit margin. Homey is right in a way in the original post. it wouldn't be a hard sell that some token model of public broadcasting would resemble that.

besides if you look at how PBS or even NPR funds itself these days.....it's hardly the withering away of the state or the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Frozen Sooner]

as I recall, it's textbook Adam Smith that free markets create social goods and commonwealth....beyond merely the profit margin. Homey is right in a way in the original post. it wouldn't be a hard sell that some token model of public broadcasting would resemble that.

besides if you look at how PBS or even NPR funds itself these days.....it's hardly the withering away of the state or the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Wasn't it Friedman who said something about government funding for the arts is nothing more than prostitution under another name?

[Vaevictis]

As a conservative, I'm surprised you have a distaste for corporations. Did you see the Friedman special I'm referring to?

Based on what he wrote, I'm guessing it has less to do with a distaste for corporations than a system that allows the owners of a corporation to profit from a corporation's immoral and/or unethical acts without any consequence other than the loss of their initial investment.

My grandfather is rather conservative, and he regularly opines about "Harvard MBAs" who've brought a culture of maximizing shareholder value at any cost to corporate America. This is a guy who was a VP at a major US mineral company; it's not that he's anti-corp, he just doesn't like the guys running them these days.

Incidentally, he was a lawyer too :D

[Frozen Sooner]

Well, I don't know how much liability should attach to a small investor who has little to no say in the business practices of a billion-dollar market cap corporation.

I do, however, like the recent moves by Congress to attach more liability to board members and officers-particularly in the area of financial tomfoolery.

[Okla-homey]

Well, I don't know how much liability should attach to a small investor who has little to no say in the business practices of a billion-dollar market cap corporation.



But if even small investors learned they just might be liable in some way for corporate skullduggery, chicanery or other crimes against humanity, it would make corporate boards sit up in bed at night and think about it. That would be good enough for me. As it is, they needn't even give it a passing thought.

[Ike]

by the by...I stumbled onto a very interesting read on Friedman, his ideas, and their strengths and weaknesses that some of you might enjoy reading.



Some of you, no doubt, will also become incensed that anyone dares call any of his ideas wrong (as this author does).


Regardless, it's a pretty interesting read. Oh, and it's long too, so book some time for it..
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19857

[bri]

I'm not saying I don't care about the stuff, or that it wouldn't be interesting. I just rarely have an hour and a half to sit and watch tv that isn't an OU game. :D

****, I have an hour and a half to spare and I'm still not gonna watch it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

by the by...I stumbled onto a very interesting read on Friedman, his ideas, and their strengths and weaknesses that some of you might enjoy reading.



Some of you, no doubt, will also become incensed that anyone dares call any of his ideas wrong (as this author does).


Regardless, it's a pretty interesting read. Oh, and it's long too, so book some time for it..
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19857Apologists for Keynes and Samuelson consistently dare to call Friedman's ideas wrong.

[royalfan5]

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone more conservative than I am, and I have a natural distrust of corporations. A good conservative distrusts big government; conservatives should also distrust big business. That's not to say I support a governmental role in keeping business in line (I don't), but the free market works best with informed and vigilant consumers who need to hold a business accountable via their pocketbook in order to bring about any kind of change.

It does nobody any good to say that big business/corporations are always good. My biggest complaint is that big business is partly responsible for the destruction of states rights by demanding single Federal guidelines and regulations that overrule existing state laws in order to lower the cost of having to comply with 50 separate set of regulatory laws/agencies.
You know 50 sets of agencies would make it hard to do business. That would retard growth. There's a place like that, it's called France. I don't want America to be like France. But apparently Sic'em secretly wishes we were a bunch of baguette eaters.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Has this show been on PBS in OKC yet?

[Frozen Sooner]

But if even small investors learned they just might be liable in some way for corporate skullduggery, chicanery or other crimes against humanity, it would make corporate boards sit up in bed at night and think about it. That would be good enough for me. As it is, they needn't even give it a passing thought.

Meh. The largest owners of corporate stock are mutual funds. Are you proposing that the brokerages managing the funds be held liable, or the people who have vicarious ownership in companies through the funds although they may have no idea what's inside the fund?

Have you considered the massively deleterious effect this would have on retirement accounts in this country, no matter which option you took?

[Okla-homey]

Meh. The largest owners of corporate stock are mutual funds. Are you proposing that the brokerages managing the funds be held liable, or the people who have vicarious ownership in companies through the funds although they may have no idea what's inside the fund?

Have you considered the massively deleterious effect this would have on retirement accounts in this country, no matter which option you took?

The legal owners, not the street name or owners of record.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Has this show been on PBS in OKC yet?Well, folks, anybody know?

[Frozen Sooner]

The legal owners, not the street name or owners of record.

Clarify, please. So far as I know, these are one and the same in the case of a mutual fund.

[Chuck Bao]

In Thailand, you can buy shares and not bother to register them. But, that's mainly if you are just trading. Longer term investors are always advised to register so they can get dividends and such.

I thought registered owners are the legal owners. Just shows you what I know.

[Okla-homey]

In Thailand, you can buy shares and not bother to register them. But, that's mainly if you are just trading. Longer term investors are always advised to register so they can get dividends and such.

I thought registered owners are the legal owners. Just shows you what I know.

Registered owners are usually the company that "registers" the shares. In the case of large publicly traded comapnies, there's a company in the US called Cede Co.(I think) that keeps track of who owns shares by "street name"(Schwab, Merrill, etc.)

When Joe Bagadonuts calls Merrill and says "buy me 100 shares of Penthouse," Merrill calls Cede and Cede moves that number of shares to Merrill's account (the "street name") and Merrill becomes the "record owner" of those shares. The "legal" (or "beneficial owner" ) is the guy (here, Joe Bagadonuts) at the bottom of the food chain who paid for the shares thru his broker -- in this case Merrill.

The "record owner" (in our example, Merrill) is sposed to transfer the proxy statements and such to the "legal owner" (Joe) when its time for Shareholder voting. It doesn't always happen, and most of the time Joe blows it off even if it does. Ergo, corporate giant does precisely what it wants to whether the shareholders (you know, the OWNERS) would care or not.

Clear?

[Frozen Sooner]

Right, but I was talking about a mutual fund, not a self-directed stock account.

Say I own 200 shares of Principal Gonna Lose Your Money IV account. Principal is the legal owner and owner of record of every share of stock that is in the GLYM IV account, while I am the legal owner of only a share of GLYM IV. Does the individual investor take the legal liability or does the brokerage house? When does the brokerage's house ethical duty to maximize fund value conflict with the duty to keep the brokerage from getting sued due to actions of the companies that are partially owned?

[Okla-homey]

Right, but I was talking about a mutual fund, not a self-directed stock account.

Say I own 200 shares of Principal Gonna Lose Your Money IV account. Principal is the legal owner and owner of record of every share of stock that is in the GLYM IV account, while I am the legal owner of only a share of GLYM IV. Does the individual investor take the legal liability or does the brokerage house? When does the brokerage's house ethical duty to maximize fund value conflict with the duty to keep the brokerage from getting sued due to actions of the companies that are partially owned?

I would vote for the hammer to fall on the brokerage house -- particulalrly since most mutual fund investors prolly don't really know WTF their fund owns. Ditto pension funds. Make those guys share liability for the skullduggery of the corporations in which they invest and they'll become more careful to choose to invest in comapnies who have a demonstrated record of good returns on investment and good corporate citizenship. Just my opinion mind you.

Bottomline is I just feel limited liability can be bought too cheaply under our system. Any doofus with a form and the fee can incorporate and zang!, he's got limited liability, whether his enterprise is adequately capitalized to pay out damages for breaches of contract and/or tort claims or not. That's kinda scary if you ask me.

[Chuck Bao]

Registered owners are usually the company that "registers" the shares. In the case of large publicly traded comapnies, there's a company in the US called Cede Co.(I think) that keeps track of who owns shares by "street name"(Schwab, Merrill, etc.)

When Joe Bagadonuts calls Merrill and says "buy me 100 shares of Penthouse," Merrill calls Cede and Cede moves that number of shares to Merrill's account (the "street name") and Merrill becomes the "record owner" of those shares. The "legal" (or "beneficial owner" ) is the guy (here, Joe Bagadonuts) at the bottom of the food chain who paid for the shares thru his broker -- in this case Merrill.

The "record owner" (in our example, Merrill) is sposed to transfer the proxy statements and such to the "legal owner" (Joe) when its time for Shareholder voting. It doesn't always happen, and most of the time Joe blows it off even if it does. Ergo, corporate giant does precisely what it wants to whether the shareholders (you know, the OWNERS) would care or not.

Clear?

Heh! What a funny, antiquated system the US markets have.

The point is and will remain that minority shareholders DO NOT BEAR RESPONSIBILITY! The management, the board of directors (representing the shareholders) do. The worst that minority shareholders can suffer is complete loss of their investment.

[royalfan5]

I would vote for the hammer to fall on the brokerage house -- particulalrly since most mutual fund investors prolly don't really know WTF their fund owns. Ditto pension funds. Make those guys share liability for the skullduggery of the corporations in which they invest and they'll become more careful to choose to invest in comapnies who have a demonstrated record of good returns on investment and good corporate citizenship. Just my opinion mind you.

Bottomline is I just feel limited liability can be bought too cheaply under our system. Any doofus with a form and the fee can incorporate and zang!, he's got limited liability, whether his enterprise is adequately capitalized to pay out damages for breaches of contract and/or tort claims or not. That's kinda scary if you ask me.
The availability of limited liability is absolutely essential to keeping America's entreprenurial spirit strong. By reducing that protection, you will make it much less attractive to start a business and attract investors. If people aren't starting businesses and taking risks where is the next generation of wealth going to come from, and what about all the great ideas that will be stunted because people are afraid of liability. Ease of business formation is one of things that made America great, not the ability to collect on torts. People just need to learn that a certain amount of risk has to be tolerated in order for society to succeed.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The availability of limited liability is absolutely essential to keeping America's entreprenurial spirit strong. By reducing that protection, you will make it much less attractive to start a business and attract investors. If people aren't starting businesses and taking risks where is the next generation of wealth going to come from, and what about all the great ideas that will be stunted because people are afraid of liability. Ease of business formation is one of things that made America great, not the ability to collect on torts. People just need to learn that a certain amount of risk has to be tolerated in order for society to succeed. FABULOUS POST!

[bri]

Dude, you made him have a capslockgasm.

[Scott D]

The availability of limited liability is absolutely essential to keeping America's entreprenurial spirit strong. By reducing that protection, you will make it much less attractive to start a business and attract investors. If people aren't starting businesses and taking risks where is the next generation of wealth going to come from, and what about all the great ideas that will be stunted because people are afraid of liability. Ease of business formation is one of things that made America great, not the ability to collect on torts. People just need to learn that a certain amount of risk has to be tolerated in order for society to succeed.

one could argue that the simplicity of which one can sue for virtually anything, along with how easily the government can have their interest in businesses purchased by lobbyists. And you end up with a decline in risk taking over the last 30 years.

[Okla-homey]

The availability of limited liability is absolutely essential to keeping America's entreprenurial spirit strong. By reducing that protection, you will make it much less attractive to start a business and attract investors. If people aren't starting businesses and taking risks where is the next generation of wealth going to come from, and what about all the great ideas that will be stunted because people are afraid of liability. Ease of business formation is one of things that made America great, not the ability to collect on torts. People just need to learn that a certain amount of risk has to be tolerated in order for society to succeed.

I got you bub, and I agree almost 98%. But consider this. In Germany, you can't incorporate unless you have a certain level of capital to "stake". That way, "Johnny Flybynight" can't incorporate, then avoid liability for all practical purposes because there is no cash in the corporation.

Otherwise, as in our system, if he carefully sucks out the cash at regular intervals and then gets sued, the corporation is "judgment proof" because, as you know, creditors get paid first. IOW, you wanna incorp? Fine, but you better put some of your OWN money into the enterprise or we aren't letting you. This should especially be the case if he's seriously undercapitalized and is engaged in some risky bidness (like a dynamite factory or something.)

That seems reasonable to me, but I'm a Deutsche-Amerikanischer.;)

To conclude, there's a famous old NYC case where a guy owned about ten taxicab companies. Two cabs in each cab corporation. He carried the minimum liability coverage the law allowed. Other than that, he leased space, operated all twenty cabs out of there, and used one dispatcher to control them all. He carefully sucked out the cash at discrete intervals too.

Therefore, the only thing in the way of assets each of his ten corporations owned was two beater cabs each, and a miniscule insurance policy. Now, everytime he got sued when one of his cabbies killed a pedestrian or creamed someone (and it happens often in the taxicab bidness,) the insurance company gave up the piddly pay-out and he then forked over the two beater cabs in the corporation that hit the plaintiff. Thru the magic of limited laibility, the owner of those corporations was clear. Even if one of his cabbies took out a busload of kindergartners killing them all, he was clear and could'nt lose a dime of his own money!

He then waltzed down and bought two new cabs, incorporated anew, and he was back up to his 20 cab operation with a big crap-eatin' grin on his face by the end of the week.

That is still the law in this country.

Now I ask ya, WTF would have been wrong with statutorily requiring that guy to put up a reasonable cash stake deposited into an interest-bearing account for the privilige of operating those ten cabs and avoiding any and all personal liability for the tortious acts of his ten companies? Nuttin' I say.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Someone please for Chrissake, kindly mention whether the Friedman tribute has come on tv in either T-town or OKC? Thanky

[bri]

We could look, but that would require giving a damn.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

We could look, but that would require giving a damn.I know YOU don't. But, others have said they do. So, somebody MIGHT say.

[bri]

I'm just playin' the odds here.

[royalfan5]

I got you bub, and I agree almost 98%. But consider this. In Germany, you can't incorporate unless you have a certain level of capital to "stake". That way, "Johnny Flybynight" can't incorporate, then avoid liability for all practical purposes because there is no cash in the corporation.

Otherwise, as in our system, if he carefully sucks out the cash at regular intervals and then gets sued, the corporation is "judgment proof" because, as you know, creditors get paid first. IOW, you wanna incorp? Fine, but you better put some of your OWN money into the enterprise or we aren't letting you. This should especially be the case if he's seriously undercapitalized and is engaged in some risky bidness (like a dynamite factory or something.)

That seems reasonable to me, but I'm a Deutsche-Amerikanischer.;)

To conclude, there's a famous old NYC case where a guy owned about ten taxicab companies. Two cabs in each cab corporation. He carried the minimum liability coverage the law allowed. Other than that, he leased space, operated all twenty cabs out of there, and used one dispatcher to control them all. He carefully sucked out the cash at discrete intervals too.

Therefore, the only thing in the way of assets each of his ten corporations owned was two beater cabs each, and a miniscule insurance policy. Now, everytime he got sued when one of his cabbies killed a pedestrian or creamed someone (and it happens often in the taxicab bidness,) the insurance company gave up the piddly pay-out and he then forked over the two beater cabs in the corporation that hit the plaintiff. Thru the magic of limited laibility, the owner of those corporations was clear. Even if one of his cabbies took out a busload of kindergartners killing them all, he was clear and could'nt lose a dime of his own money!

He then waltzed down and bought two new cabs, incorporated anew, and he was back up to his 20 cab operation with a big crap-eatin' grin on his face by the end of the week.

That is still the law in this country.

Now I ask ya, WTF would have been wrong with statutorily requiring that guy to put up a reasonable cash stake deposited into an interest-bearing account for the privilige of operating those ten cabs and avoiding any and all personal liability for the tortious acts of his ten companies? Nuttin' I say.
Germany started to suck when they let they quit letting the Prussians run the entire show.(I say that as a full-blooded Prussian-American) In your scenario, isn't the problem the regulation of taxicabs and not the limited liability laws. Since cabs have to be licensed by the gov't anyway, why not increase the amount of liability insurance a cab company must provide, rather than trying to fix the exception by changing the rule for everybody. The way I read the case the problem was the amount of liability insurance required, not the limited liability laws protecting the investor.

[BeetDigger]

We could look, but that would require giving a damn.



Your presence in this thread belies your indifference. Just sayin....:texan:

[bri]

You'd think that, but you'd be that special kind of wrong that normal wrong points and laughs at. Your wrong rides the short bus to wrong school.

My presence in this thread means that someone started yet another sproadically all-capped thread where he rants and raves about some media outlet that we SIMPLY MUST CHECK OUT because IT'S PRIMO. I only started reading this thread so I could watch Homey do his thing, then the usual gang of idiot got annoying with his "HAS THIS AIRED YET?!?" insistance.

So, to sum up, your attempt to "nail" me has failed miserably. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[sooneron]

Bri, you are so full of it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Bri, you are so full of it.And he acts like he and Milton Friedman haven't been sharing the same planet.

[bri]

No, I act like you're annoying as ****.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No, I act like you're annoying as ****.Apparently, with you that will always be the case. How old are you, Bri?

[BeetDigger]

You'd think that, but you'd be that special kind of wrong that normal wrong points and laughs at. Your wrong rides the short bus to wrong school.

My presence in this thread means that someone started yet another sproadically all-capped thread where he rants and raves about some media outlet that we SIMPLY MUST CHECK OUT because IT'S PRIMO. I only started reading this thread so I could watch Homey do his thing, then the usual gang of idiot got annoying with his "HAS THIS AIRED YET?!?" insistance.

So, to sum up, your attempt to "nail" me has failed miserably. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


Wow. My attitude is that if I don't care about the subject matter in a thread, I don't feel the need to post that fact in said thread. I guess irony, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. And fwiw, I was not trying to nail anyone. I enjoy your posts, for the most part, and am fairly surprised at your tenor in this thread.

And just to let you know, SOME people actually are interested in Friedman. Anyone who studied at any business or economics school of even minor worth will have been taught the prinicpals of Friedman's work. He was one of the most influential economists of the past 30-40 years. The fact that his work had influence on political decisions only reinforces the importance of his work. That said, I am sure that his work is not nearly as important as posting what your are listening to now, but its close. :D

[bri]

Wow, really? People are interested in Friedman? I had no ****ing idea. I mean, sure, there's a robust debate taking place in this very ****ing thread, but I hadn't noticed that.

And oooh, WAYLT smack. Color me pwnt. :rolleyes:

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

Don't make me come out the vase.