Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Institutional owners should not be taking "stands" on behalf of their shareholders. Their shareholders are not of one mind. By taking "stands" on issues they will invariably be taking stands AGAINST the wishes of approximately half their shareholders.
The collectivist ideology of the "free press" is indeed a threat to the Republic.
Wow! Since we seem to be operating in data free space, I do hope that anyone voting on my behalf is considering the US citizens, which includes the consumers buying cheap Chinese made products and the workers whose incomes are reduced by the pressures of the "flat world." Personally, I'm willing to pay a few dollars more for American-made goods by American workers (curse you, Wal-Mart!, but I may buy groceries there, since I am fairly sure they didn't come from China.) While I have no idea where Edmond gets his data that half of the "shareholders" are against supporting American workers, I want to see the survey that shows that 51% wants companies to place their interests above that of their fellow citizens.
So far as "the collectivist ideology of the 'free press' " comment [it's really hard to get the punctuation correct here], , I doubt that Jefferson, Adams, or Hamilton would have a clue what this means. BU.T, I doubt they would have regarded it as a threat to the republic
Translation: If the story doesn't exactly parrot the desired Trumpian story line then it's obviously commie propaganda. Factuality is not a redeeming consideration.
And I quote:
"We certainly don't want to stifle free speech, but... I don't think that the mainstream media is free speech... because it's so crooked." (1)
I do realize that the information referenced above is meaningless, fake, and total propaganda, inasmuch as The Economist is certainly part of the free press and main-stream media.
Since even in 2019 the Economist never uses author bylines, I am forced to take their commentaries with a grain of salt, interesting (and sometimes accurate) as they are... and is also part of why I cancelled my subscription years ago. Journalistic accountability and all that.
I do realize that the information referenced above is meaningless, fake, and total propaganda, inasmuch as The Economist is certainly part of the free press and main-stream media.
Comments
The collectivist ideology of the "free press" is indeed a threat to the Republic.
Since we seem to be operating in data free space, I do hope that anyone voting on my behalf is considering the US citizens, which includes the consumers buying cheap Chinese made products and the workers whose incomes are reduced by the pressures of the "flat world."
Personally, I'm willing to pay a few dollars more for American-made goods by American workers (curse you, Wal-Mart!, but I may buy groceries there, since I am fairly sure they didn't come from China.)
While I have no idea where Edmond gets his data that half of the "shareholders" are against supporting American workers, I want to see the survey that shows that 51% wants companies to place their interests above that of their fellow citizens.
So far as "the collectivist ideology of the 'free press' " comment [it's really hard to get the punctuation correct here], , I doubt that Jefferson, Adams, or Hamilton would have a clue what this means. BU.T, I doubt they would have regarded it as a threat to the republic
Translation: If the story doesn't exactly parrot the desired Trumpian story line then it's obviously commie propaganda. Factuality is not a redeeming consideration.
And I quote:
"We certainly don't want to stifle free speech, but... I don't think that the mainstream media is free speech... because it's so crooked." (1)
(1) The Economist, August 17th-23rd, 2019, pg 44.
I do realize that the information referenced above is meaningless, fake, and total propaganda, inasmuch as The Economist is certainly part of the free press and main-stream media.
Since even in 2019 the Economist never uses author bylines, I am forced to take their commentaries with a grain of salt, interesting (and sometimes accurate) as they are... and is also part of why I cancelled my subscription years ago. Journalistic accountability and all that.