WSJ: Apple's Chamber departure not in shareholders' interests

1356710

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 196
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,545member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post


    You got your cable channels mixed up...



    PMSNBC is the cable channel that obsesses over Palin and Rush to the point that some, like that dork Keith "I still think Bush is in office" Olbermann, needs psychiatric counseling as in yesterday and the rest I just term as brown noses, not brown shirts, brown noses... Because they have their heads stuck up so far Obama's a$$ they couldn't report the news accurately if their life depended upon it!



    Calm it down.
  • Reply 42 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GQB View Post


    The difference between Fox and MSNBC is that the 20% of right wing dead-enders need that self-affirming echo chamber and religiously (literally) watch the likes of Bleck.

    MSNBC types think for themselves and don't need their hourly dose of talking points.



    BTW, indeed, when polls ask Americans if they consider themselves Liberal or Conservative, people tend to think of themselves as conservative (small 'c') and answer that way.

    But when you poll issue by issue, whether its gay rights, single payer, gun control, etc etc, most americans end up looking pretty Liberal.

    Funny about that, huh?



    I think many people in the U.S. do not care if some one is gay and do not want to discriminate against them but on the other hand most ballot proposals that would have legalized gay marriage have failed. I also believe that many past surveys show gun ownership is down but a majority of people have said that even though they don't own a gun they support others right to do so. So what does that make them?



    I think trying to pidgin hole people simply because they watch a news network you don't like is pretty naive and insulting as well.



    I think the bigger issue that you folks are ignoring is not Apple dropping out of the chamber, or even if CO2 should be regulated. It is the two different methods of control that are being debated which would be legislative effort versus executive order. If it is done legislatively then it will or at least should be more open to scrutiny as well as allowing we the people to have input on the process. If it is allowed to be regulated by the Epa then procedures and controls will be issued by executive order with little or no public input and scrutiny and no clear explanation of the costs that will be incurred. If this seems like a good idea because the current president shares your views remember the next one might not and could just as easily weaken or overturn said regulations.

    Remember The heart attack specials "energy task force" that was held behind closed doors? The controversy that surrounded that fiasco would be nothing compared to the special interests and

    lobbying that would happen around something as big as CO2 regulations and cap and trade.



    Just some food for thought.



    Jim
  • Reply 43 of 196
    bwikbwik Posts: 565member
    It is humorous that the Wall Street Journal knows so little about modern business.



    Apple got where it is today by breaking molds and pursuing its vision. Not by following a bunch of hoary, MBA claptrap. Those were the guys who nearly killed Apple in the mid-1990s.



    If a $191 stock price does not impress the WSJ, then nothing will. Apple does what it wants, because it has earned it. As a result, it can lead instead of follow. It's called leadership.
  • Reply 44 of 196
    The Chamber also opposes the Consumer Protect Act. Good riddance.
  • Reply 45 of 196
    Fabulous. I'm happy a main-stream publication pointed out the hypocrisy of Apple here. Spot on.
  • Reply 46 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GQB View Post


    Excellent example of right wing rebuttal. Glad you're so onboard with the easy melding of capitalism and totalitarian communism. But you're right... they do fit well together.



    No rebuttal... merely acknowledging your supreme intellect and awesome insights. I am a JFK liberal... dufus!
  • Reply 47 of 196
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,952member
    After any power shift, don't people on the other side tend to flock to the media outlets? That's a form of selection bias.



    I don't know if the audience choice of a cable news networks necessarily represent the population as a whole either. The combined viewership of all those channels is something like 5 million people or less, out of a population of 300 million.



    I can only tolerate them in very tiny doses, and I don't like political pundits, regardless of their affiliation, it seems they all spin things so tightly that it seems the only thing they can make are nooses and they set the nooses up in a way they hope their opponents just walk into, but like the slapstick comedy of ages past, they themselves seem to get caught in their nooses in the end.
  • Reply 48 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    The WSJ is a very conservative journal. Its business articles are usually good, but its editorials are often not.



    This is one of those "not" times.



    Actually, the WSJ leans left as well. You're probably just used to the publications that are extremely left.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Yosh01 View Post


    Who cares about WSJ anymore



    Uh, apparently, a lot of people.
  • Reply 49 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bwik View Post


    It is humorous that the Wall Street Journal knows so little about modern business.



    Apple got where it is today by breaking molds and pursuing its vision. Not by following a bunch of hoary, MBA claptrap. Those were the guys who nearly killed Apple in the mid-1990s.



    If a $191 stock price does not impress the WSJ, then nothing will. Apple does what it wants, because it has earned it. As a result, it can lead instead of follow. It's called leadership.



    I think it is called Apple's lucky moves at opportune times. Like getting Jobs to come back. Like selling hard into to graphics industries and chumming the educational sector and finally (hopefully successfully) commercial businesses.



    BTW EPS growth not stock price is the real driver. And Apple has plenty of that. Traders look at stock prices and trends. Investors are concerned more with the fundamentals of the company.



    MBAs... you sound like you rang the bell!
  • Reply 50 of 196
    It would be nice for a few people to actually READ the article before jumping to their pre-concieved opinions about the Journal. It quite rightly points out that Apple and Nike have in effect exported their pollution to China and that if they were in fact producing the same things in the US they would be on the hook for $100 plus million in carbon taxes. Perhaps they will generously offer to pay them anyway.



    I found the article to be fair and balanced.. anyone looked into how much energy Al uses to heat his pool lately? or jet around the world promoting hi agenda?
  • Reply 51 of 196
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by floccus View Post


    Al Gore stands to profit from investing in "green" technology if the climate bill passes... how is that a bad thing?



    It is a very bad thing if Gore is pushing the legislation to ensure his personal wealth. It is especially bad if that wealth is the result of tax payer dollars being funneled to Gore, especially my tax payer dollars.

    Quote:

    Gore is no longer a Senator and thus wouldn't be voting for the bill himself, he simply recognized that doing something about climate change is going to require large investments in an area that few established business were providing goods/services.



    I have no problem at all with somebody investing in technology with their own money to serve the public market. It is a very bad thing to have public money funneled to Gore to support technology that has no demand and in the end will be under written by the government.



    Frankly this is worst than the excessive Milk production of the 70's & 80's. The government may of had a valid issue to address( the health of the poor) but the program quickly became a wellfare program for farmers. Al Gore doesn't need his own personal wellfare program.

    Quote:

    Frankly, the WSJ should be commending him for his foresight as a businessman for that and not using it as evidence that Apple will somehow be harmed when legislation passes.



    The said it is not in the best interest of Apples share holders and frankly I agree. If Apple had played chicken over a real problem like lead posioning or water quality I'd say great it's a well define issue that needs to be addressed. Global warming however is more of a scam than anything right now.



    That is not to dismiss the possibility of global warming it just reflects the fact that the science is so bad it is basically worthless. This is really the huge problem with global warming, the research pretty much revolves around proving the concept rather than finding the truth. Sadly this so called research dismisses or ignore multiple factors with respect to conditions on the planet.







    Dave
  • Reply 52 of 196
    Going from quarter to quarter and the desperate need to make profit and perform well, sometimes no matter the long term cost for this short term monetary benefit is who the WSJ represent right?



    Of course they're going to criticize Apple for taking a stance against blinkered, destructive, short sighted, self centred mentalities of corporate capitalism!



    Rant over
  • Reply 53 of 196
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,545member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iamse7en View Post


    Fabulous. I'm happy a main-stream publication pointed out the hypocrisy of Apple here. Spot on.



    I don't think anyone undrstands what you said. Could you be more specific?
  • Reply 54 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by allotrope View Post


    ... anyone looked into how much energy Al uses to heat his pool lately? or jet around the world promoting hi agenda?



    As of the end of 2007.



    In June, 2009, Gore's spokesperson stated:
    Quote:

    The Gores' home is certified by the US Green Building Council as a Gold LEED certified home for retrofitted homes. As part of the LEED certification process, they upgraded their windows, lighting, appliances and insulation, among other items in and around the home [...] The residence is powered with a geothermal system as well as 33-solar panels. The Gores also participate in the "Green PowerSwitch" program offered by their utility [company].



    In his private life, Gore tries to reduce his emissions as much as possible. He drives a hybrid, flies commercially whenever he can, and purchases green power. In the few instances where work has demanded that he travel privately, he purchases carbon offsets for the emissions.



  • Reply 55 of 196
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,545member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iamse7en View Post


    Actually, the WSJ leans left as well. You're probably just used to the publications that are extremely left.





    Uh, apparently, a lot of people.



    No, I'm a long time subscriber to both the WSJ and the NY Times.



    While those from the right accuse the Times of being left wing, it's really pretty center.
  • Reply 56 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I don't think anyone undrstands what you said. Could you be more specific?



    Mel, the moderate moderator who augments this discussion.



    Have you read the WSJ opinion article. Pretty clear to me what poster is referring to.



    Excuse me if I am way off on your function. I have never experienced moderators who weigh in on topic discussions and take positions on one side or other. Glad to see that you folks are not letting these discussions succumb to the stature of early Yahoo discussion groups. I realize that this is really not an intellectual group, merely a fan group of Apple, but you and your fellow moderators had done fairly well in controlling the palaver. Kudos.
  • Reply 57 of 196
    daseindasein Posts: 139member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    The WSJ is a very conservative journal. Its business articles are usually good, but its editorials are often not.




    Actually they're very progressive on a number of fronts: education reform, health reform, tort reform, tax reform, etc... Granted, they take a business standpoint, just as you would expect an environmental group to take an environmental standpoint on an issue. Those are anything but status quo positions. They're not against environmental change either, just ones that don't make economic sense. They push for relaxing the nonsense holding back implementing more nuclear facilities and nuclear processing just as France does and just as the former head of Greenpeace has. You can't ignore the financials of a situation...it's the 800 pound gorilla that will never go away. Leaving an organization like the CoC was a dumb stunt, and the Journal was simply pointing out that it will, at some point, take a bite out of their butt. Smart companies don't do politics in the limelight.
  • Reply 58 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasein View Post


    Actually they're very progressive on a number of fronts: education reform, health reform, tort reform, tax reform, etc... Granted, they take a business standpoint, just as you would expect an environmental group to take an environmental standpoint on an issue. Those are anything but status quo positions. They're not against environmental change either, just ones that don't make economic sense. They push for relaxing the nonsense holding back implementing more nuclear facilities and nuclear processing just as France does and just as the former head of Greenpeace has. You can't ignore the financials of a situation...it's the 800 pound gorilla that will never go away. Leaving an organization like the CoC was a dumb stunt, and the Journal was simply pointing out that it will, at some point, take a bite out of their butt. Smart companies don't do politics in the limelight.



    Wow! Dasein, Du bist das einziger Mench. Someone here who reads and thinks! Sprechlos!

  • Reply 59 of 196
    ajmasajmas Posts: 601member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by webpoet73 View Post


    I hope not... my favorite tv shows are on FOX.



    Careful, they may be killing your shows next week
  • Reply 60 of 196
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,952member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by webpoet73 View Post


    I hope not... my favorite tv shows are on FOX.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ajmas View Post


    Careful, they may be killing your shows next week



    Yeah, really. They'll introduce something interesting one month, the next month it's replaced with vapid tripe.
Sign In or Register to comment.