Cyprus-Forum.com

[Sotos]

What is the purpose of multi nationals is besides the point. Assuming there is a way to primarily benefit humanity (i.e. everybody) instead of primarily benefiting few, then I don't see how you could argue against that. You can argue that it already primarily serves humanity, in which case you you should have Agreed with the statement, or you can say that the statement is unrealistic. But you can't disagree with the statement with anything other than purely selfish reasons. Take this example: "The human rights of all Cypriots should be restored to 100%". You can't disagree using anything other than selfish reasons. At most you can say that it is unrealistic. I hope you understand the difference between disagreeing that something should happen and claiming that something can't happen because it is unrealistic.

[Paphitis]

What is the purpose of multi nationals is besides the point. Assuming there is a way to primarily benefit humanity (i.e. everybody) instead of primarily benefiting few, then I don't see how you could argue against that. You can argue that it already primarily serves humanity, in which case you you should have Agreed with the statement, or you can say that the statement is unrealistic. But you can't disagree with the statement with anything other than purely selfish reasons. Take this example: "The human rights of all Cypriots should be restored to 100%". You can't disagree using anything other than selfish reasons. At most you can say that it is unrealistic. I hope you understand the difference between disagreeing that something should happen and claiming that something can't happen because it is unrealistic.

The problem you have is that there is no way that is possible! So we come crashing back down to reality again like a lead balloon.

I don't think multi nationals have in their mind the millions of starving in Africa or the outbreak of Ebola. The individuals running them as individuals might (unless you're a sociopath), but a multi national or even a small business right down to your corner fish and chips shop has one thing in their mid - PROFIT! Otherwise there is no point. Even a Doctor these days has one thing on their mind - there pay packet or their going bulk bill rate so you can forget about the Hippocratic Oath.

essentially, these multi nationals are an EXACT microcosm of the way most individuals think and the way you and every one else runs everything in their lives right down to their household. Multi nationals are actually a number of individuals running a corporation on a global scale for profit much in the same way you try to balance you home budget. They are also prone to failure like anything else, thus placing thousands in the unemployment ques and having a very negative effect in the social aspect in that case.

What there operation provides as a spin off effect, is in actual effect to the betterment of their local community.

[Tim Drayton]

It probably means you don't own shares full stop.

Too simplistic! I own shares and have dabbled in them since I was in my 20's. I may not like this system but I have to live in it as well.

[Paphitis]

It probably means you don't own shares full stop.

Too simplistic! I own shares and have dabbled in them since I was in my 20's. I may not like this system but I have to live in it as well.

Well there we go. Even you've owned shares in Multi Nationals!

I bet you were keen on making a profit (Capital Gain) like everyone else.

[Tim Drayton]

It probably means you don't own shares full stop.

Too simplistic! I own shares and have dabbled in them since I was in my 20's. I may not like this system but I have to live in it as well.

Well there we go. Even you've owned shares in Multi Nationals!

I bet you were keen on making a profit (Capital Gain) like everyone else.

Correct. I have frequently even made intra-day profits (and losses!). I do not wish to be destitute in my old age and do not expect to see the kind of just political and economic system that I aspire to and that will leave nobody destitute installed in the world in my lifetime, so I am left with no alternative. There is no contradiction.

By the way, to the question in this survey as to whether the sole aim of companies should be to deliver profit to their shareholders, I answered a definitive 'yes', because that is their job within the capitalist paradigm.

[Tim Drayton]

Even you've owned shares in Multi Nationals!

I don't think I have actually. I am very much a small-cap punter.

[Paphitis]

It probably means you don't own shares full stop.

Too simplistic! I own shares and have dabbled in them since I was in my 20's. I may not like this system but I have to live in it as well.

Well there we go. Even you've owned shares in Multi Nationals!

I bet you were keen on making a profit (Capital Gain) like everyone else.

Correct. I have frequently even made intra-day profits (and losses!). I do not wish to be destitute in my old age and do not expect to see the kind of just political and economic system that I aspire to and that will leave nobody destitute installed in the world in my lifetime, so I am left with no alternative. There is no contradiction.

By the way, to the question in this survey as to whether the sole aim of companies should be to deliver profit to their shareholders, I answered a definitive 'yes', because that is their job within the capitalist paradigm.

You're a realist too! Obviously you and I answered some other questions slightly different.

Of course you don't want to be destitute.

[Paphitis]

Even you've owned shares in Multi Nationals!

I don't think I have actually. I am very much a small-cap punter.

The vast majority of multi nationals are made up of small time or medium share holders. Usually its the Mum and Dad investors.

And it's usually these share holders that drive the multi national forward and they do have voting rights to elect the board that is suppose to steer the company to more profits thus raising the share price.

I am sure they don't see the multi national as a charity case.

Sorry, I misread your post. Your into the small caps. Fair enough, but same principles apply to the small caps as well.

[Tim Drayton]

Actually, I don't think I have anything to apologise for as far as playing the markets goes (and I actually once earned my living from trading shares for a couple of years), given that I am as much a radical liberal as a radical leftie - and I have a strong gambling streak. Markets work well when all participants have equal standing, but become unbalanced when some participants are much bigger and more powerful, have more knowledge and can exert more influence than others. This point is made very well in the following great book, written from a radical liberal viewpoint:

When Corporations Rule the World, by David C. Korten.

If you scratch beneath the surface, what multinationals in fact do extends well beyond free-market economics. A good example of this is the way (in my opinion) Bush and Blair, as puppets of global capital, were instructed to invade Iraq so that certain multinational corporations could get their hands on the oil there. I find Korten's vision in the above book of free markets in which all participants are private individuals without great disparities of wealth and power between them inspiring, although whether it is practical in the modern world is debatable.

[Paphitis]

Actually, I don't think I have anything to apologise for as far as playing the markets goes (and I actually once earned my living from trading shares for a couple of years), given that I am as much a radical liberal as a radical leftie - and I have a strong gambling streak. Markets work well when all participants have equal standing, but become unbalanced when some participants are much bigger and more powerful, have more knowledge and can exert more influence than others. This point is made very well in the following great book, written from a radical liberal viewpoint:

When Corporations Rule the World, by David C. Korten.

If you scratch beneath the surface, what multinationals in fact do extends well beyond free-market economics. A good example of this is the way (in my opinion) Bush and Blair, as puppets of global capital, were instructed to invade Iraq so that certain multinational corporations could get their hands on the oil there. I find Korten's vision in the above book of free markets in which all participants are private individuals without great disparities of wealth and power between them inspiring, although whether it is practical in the modern world is debatable.

The system is 100% fair and it works. Bear in mind that I have the opinion that society as a whole, including the consumer and small time investors actually created the 'system' and are responsible for it 100%.

Of course no one needs to apologize. It's the way things are, and everyone is a part of the society and system so they might as well try and make the most of it.

The good thing is, you should not be emotionally attached to shares like you might be with property. The big investors provide big clues to the small investors if you read the annual financials, you can keep track of the big money and institutional investors. If you see them reducing their holdings then perhaps it's time to consider doing the same. You could also look at the PE Ratios. There are many warning signs before a Share Price tumbles, and if you read these signs, then get out just like Sotos did with the Banks. The idea is to beat the panic.

Big investors have more power because they invest more money and have more voting rights. They also have more to lose. But fundamentally they are there for the exact same reasons as the small investor. Insider training is in fact illegal. It happens though as much as other illegalities in society. If you are a part of it, then keep your mouth shut and just go along for the ride. And believe me, I would love a few insider tips. Wouldn't you? I wish I was that fortunate. It can also land you in jail or before a Court of Law at the very least.

As for big multi nationals creating the war, I believe that is a huge stretch of the truth. People will never know the reasons, and a more viable opinion is that Bush merely had a decade long grudge match with Hussein. In other words, he finished his Dad's unfinished business. Who knows?

But in any case, our differences lie elsewhere since we voted the same way. I reckon we would be the only 2 who voted this way because the others are off with the fairies!