What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
257 Comments
- fitzfan, on 10/12/2007, -69/+340He was hired to maximize profits for the shareholders not provide for 10,000 unnecessary workers. If he were to keep all the workers it would cut into shareholders profits, and they would not want him running the company.
- dbldwn, on 10/12/2007, -72/+163Don't forget that it's capitalism that made it possible for you to post comments like that from the basement of your parents' comfortable suburban home. The internet? Capitalism built it. Digg? Capitalism made it possible. Same goes for nearly all of your cozy existence. If you want to go live in a mud and ***** hut, grow your own food, and eek out a meager existence, feel free to abandon all the ills that evil capitalism has wrought. But when you end up cold, sick and starving, don't come crawling back to us.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -57/+126It's called capitalism, you *****. Thats how it works. If you want the alternative, go move to the USSR - OH WAIT, you cant... it imploded.
- omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -37/+89@BigW: Why not just invoke the full-fledged Communism that Marx wrote about? What? It's just the logical conclusion of requiring that everybody "earn" (yeah right) a salary that the government mandates, completely discounting any skills or talents they may or may not have. A Maximum Wage is the single dumbest idea I've ever heard applied to capitalism, even worse than the Minimum Wage. If we intend to practice Capitalism, we can't whine and complain when it WORKS.
If those 10,000 employees earned an average of $30,000, then that's $300,000,000. That can easily cover the $11,000,000 he made, with enough to build new facilities and maybe even give a raise to the other employees who didn't lose their jobs. As far as the salary of the CEO, what business is it of yours how much money he makes? How is that impacting your life at all? Do you really think if he wouldn't have gotten that $11,000,000, those employees would have been spared? Anybody bitching about the firing of those employees is clearly and blatantly overly concerned with emotion and pity than with logic and the laws of economics. - krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -15/+65IBM sales policies in the 90s stated that the bottom 10% were fired every year regardless of how much they brought in. besides, if you disagree with this type of policy, why don't you become the president of your own multinational corporation and change it?
all of these "articles" cited to are completely devoid of any facts other than that in the digg headline. the rest is just conjecture, speculation, and name-calling.
you have no constitutional right to a job, food, or housing. earn it yourself. - Julolidine, on 10/12/2007, -28/+74Just think of it: If he took no salary, and then gave that money back to the 10,000 fired employees, they'd make an extra $20 a week!
- setrajonas, on 10/12/2007, -31/+74@dblday
Capitalism didn't make the internet. The government funded ARPANET, which is considered the foundation of the internet. Sorry to poke a hole in your bubble there. - dbldwn, on 10/12/2007, -16/+45BigW, businesses don't belong to "the people," so your point about politicians not representing the people is irrelevant. If you have a problem with the way CEOs are compensated, feel free to buy some stock and make your opinion heard. If you want to cap the amount that CEOs earn, go ahead and make your case to the Boards of Directors. Better yet, work your ass off and become a CEO, then request a lower salary!
- tonton2012, on 10/12/2007, -17/+46See I absolutely have no problem with the CEO firing 10000 employees for the sake of increasing shareholder value (who own a percentage of the company) but I think it's asinine that he gave himself a raise and a bonus when the reason why he was hired was to save money and increase shareholder value. That just doesn't make any sense.
- noripcord7, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30How many jobs would his roughly $3 million increase in pay actually save? 3,000,000/60,000 = 50 or so. I live in Ann Arbor right next to the enormous plant that Pfizer is closing, which I assume accounts for a large portion for the jobs. It's a big deal for the employees and the town, but it's not like even the entire CEO's salary could have prevented it.
- BigW, on 10/12/2007, -110/+133I know, maybe he should fire EVERYBODY, then he can pay himself HUNDREDS of millions and profits should shoot THROUGH THE ROOF!!
What? Its just an extrapolation of the cutback logic so many companies use today.....
Now, if our politicians really cared they'd stop whining about the MINIMUM wage and look at invoking a MAXIMUM wage for CEOs of publicly held corporations. Something like 100x the salary the lowest paid worker in the company. In order to give themselves a raise CEOs would have to raise everyone else in the company's wage as well. Oh and as for CEOs paid with stock options, ban them!! Make them buy the stock at face value, then its really in their best interest to raise the stock price, isn't it.
This of course will never happen, because both the Republicans and Democrats have sold out to business, and don't really represent the people. The minimum wage talk is all feel good crap, a maximum wage on CEOs would cause some real change, but the CEOs certainly won't be buying that from congress. - hinkleti, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27The CEO is responsible to the Board of Directors and ultimately to the shareholders. It's the Board of Directors that sets the CEO's pay. So the BoD should take a large part of the blame for overpaid, underperforming executives.
Everyone wants to blame the CEO, but it's really the board that created this monster. - oscarsonthepond, on 10/12/2007, -17/+38If you don't like the way he runs his drug company, then go start your own drug company and run it the way you want.
10,000 workers cut * $50,000 per worker = $500,000,000 cut. I'd pay somebody an extra two or three million bucks if they saved me $500,000,000 - Xinareiaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20No, you obviously come to digg for the intellectual discussions.
- sensibledriver, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20If you don't like Pfizer's fiscal policy:
A) Don't buy their products
B) Don't work there - moofer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21"yeah and they were probably crappy workers. it's always the bottom 10%."
You can't make broad sweeping statements like this with regards to a group of 10,000 people. What you can say, is that these people were seen as redundant in some capacity, or working on product lines that the company has scaled back or discontinued. That is what happens in the manufacturing business. In the drug business, all it takes is for the FDA to deny approval for a single drug in development, and people can be obsoleted overnight.
to call them "crappy workers" just sheds light on your level of ignorance. Who left your cage open? - yanks215, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Everyone knows CEOs of public companies must maximize profit for shareholders, and cutting jobs and wages is often what a CEO must do. However, there are ways for CEOs to be less cutthroat and more compassionate while still being competitive. For instance, a slow scaleback of job cuts, helping former employees find new jobs, etc. Also, corporations often donate to charity for publicity, which can be good.
One way for corporations to create better companies is to hire better employees in the first place--including competent, greed-less CEOs. Another way is for CEOs to look objectively at their pay and executive pay, and adjust their salaries for fairness and competitiveness. - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Actually, government subsidies to telecommunications companies built the backbone, by which I meant the data lines, of the internet. Then more subsidies built the routing centers.
In fact, the telecoms didn't even start making their own investments until they decided they wanted to start competing with cable by offering more services, and when cable decided it wanted to start competing with the telecoms...all of which started about 5 years ago. - graystar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18No one owes you anything.
- calbff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Hey, don't bundle the donkey rapers and ***** eaters together. We're individuals, you know.
- halfemptyfilms, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13The majority of CEOs don't make much of their money on income, they make it on stock. The guys at Google make $1/year but are both billionaires. Don't be dense.
If a CEO can cut the number of jobs (read: costs) and increase or maintain output (read: revenue) than that CEO deserves a bonus or a raise. Why should there be 10,000 jobs if they aren't needed? If you owned a small business would you hire extra people just so that they had jobs? No. So why should a big company?
Its sad when 10,000 people lose their jobs, but its usually better for society. They can go off and use their talents elsewhere and, often, in a more productive way. When was the last time you mourned the loss of elevator men or telephone operators? Both industries used to have thousands of people working for them, but now, OMG U can just dial a number! or press a button on the elevator! How is this any different, when you get over the shock and actually think about it? - BigW, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19Yeah, except most Boards of Directors are made up of ...... CEOs from other companies!!! CEO compensation in an insider's shell game.
- dbldwn, on 10/12/2007, -22/+32setrajonas: How did the internet get to your house?
I didn't say that Capitalism INVENTED the internet, I said it BUILT it. There's a substantial difference. The forces of capitalism caused a good idea to be chosen from among the many ideas possible, and then brought to the masses.
Sorry to poke a hole in YOUR bubble there. - mdyoke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8If you save/earn a company a kajillion dollars by doing something innovative, constructive, and lasting then that is worth paying someone millions of dollars. Any idiot can walk into a CEO job and fire 10,000 people to save a buck.
- bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I fully agree. It's completely useless to society for one person to be a multi-millionaire, especially when it's at the expense of food and health care for regular people. It actually costs lives in terms of health care. Any business is completely useless when it shrugs off social responsibility. At that point, profits are pointless.
Economists frequently argue that giving money to the rich is good, because they are part of an investor class. The problem is, you can make the same argument about the consumer class (the poor). Also, the poor actually NEED the wealth to feed themselves and their children. It also helps pay for health care and better education (through tax dollars).
People pretend that (or possibly believe) that gutting wages, benefits, and jobs helps some long term economic goal. However, we continue to see the US economy gradually decline and the middle class shrink. CEOs pretend that jobs must be shipped overseas to compete, but merely staying up to date with factory equipment would compensate. They enjoy the short term profit gain, and even then, overseas factories are only profitable about half the time. I wonder who they expect to buy products if we're all out of work... - Hylander, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8 @justbanter
Don't quit your day job to become an economist.
Capitalism is not a zero sum game. It's possible to have win-win situations. There will always be differentiation in standards of living, but it doesn't mean that those who do physical labor and/or manufacturing jobs will or have to be "living in a pile of ***** and starving to death". - maggiemerc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8It is deeply disturbing to see how many "eh, it's capitalism" comments there are. I thought Digg was full of bleeding heart liberals who hate Bush and the situation in Iraq and think the minimum wage should be raised and all that fun stuff?
I mean it's cool if you don't. Republicans aren't evil. Just like Democrats aren't evil for leading the charge on video game censorship.
However, "just capitalism" is a big excuse to ignore the issue. Guess what folks. Those 10,000 unemployed folks effect you. Because when they go file for unemployment (or God forbid) welfare they're living off your tax dollars. And you know how the CEO who is just doing his job can afford that big raise? Well he is enjoying all the oodles of money your family spends on hospital bills.
But it is cool. It's all just capitalism. Let's just hope on Monday you boss doesn't let you go so he can buy another car for his 16 year old. Right?
Advice: Remove head from ass and grow up. - Platypus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"He was hired to maximize profits for the shareholders"
Yeah, too bad he sucked at that too. Pfizer's stock price and market share are both down during his tenure. That such should be the case and he still gets a 36% raise says that he is not being held accountable. Any other employee would be lucky to get even a third as big a raise, even percentage-wise, even for the most stellar performance. Any other employee would be lucky to keep their job for performance as bad as his. Clearly, he doesn't hold his job on merit, or because of supply and demand. None of those things that are supposedly good about free markets seem to apply in his case, so his position is clearly not the outcome of a free market. It's the outcome of an extremely non-free market for executives and executive positions, accurately termed not capitalism but plutocracy.
As for those who make the excuse that his salary wouldn't have saved jobs: get a clue. Salaries are pocket change for CEOs. The real money is in bonuses and options, all treated as tax-free deferred compensation in another fine example of government interfering in a free market for the benefit of those already at the top. Find out *that* amount, and ask again whether paying him what he was worth (less than nothing) might have saved some other people's jobs. Even if the answer is still only a handful, then that's enough to justify outrage. Can anyone seriously argue that "just a handful" of jobs isn't as important as Kindler's bonus, that it's not worth bothering about until the numbers climb into the thousands? Nobody with a shred of decency. The only thing that can make that argument work is an inherent (but of course unadmitted) belief in the legitimacy of a class system in which only some people's concerns are deemed to matter. Maybe others don't deserve to profit at his expense, but nor does he deserve to profit at theirs. He doesn't have an automatic right to raises and bonuses any more than they do, and objecting to such ill-deserved windfalls doesn't make someone a communist. It might, indeed, make them far more of a capitalist than you are.
Take the pseudo-libertarian "free market" as code for "free ride" astroturf elsewhere. Kindler was hired to do a job, he failed, and got a raise instead of being fired. That's not the free market, and people who try to excuse it are not friends of the free market. - leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6In fact I doubt you do anything or go anywhere for 'social responsibility'.
- bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Warren Buffet has said that markets have failed in terms of poor people. I agree with him.
Aside from that, capitalism can't continue forever for environmental reasons alone. - CardinalBiggles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'll probably be dugg down for this, seeing as how anyone who speaks out for social or civil responsibility in this thread is being dug down. Here goes anyway:
The Aristocracy has a very real responsibility - no matter the form of government or economy - to both set an example and be of assistance to the lower levels of society. They are in a position of power and therefore have a responsibility to use that power for the greater good. For *****'s sake, read Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil" or perhaps take an Ethics class. It's not a matter of "they can do what they want" because they can't, for the same reason that it's wrong for someone to go out and kill 20 random people: social responsibility. - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -14/+19Actually, its bad business and it hurts the stock holders long term.
If you fire 10,000 people then you've just removed 10,000 who actually did something. Of course everyone (including the janitor to the CEO) is theoretically unnecessary, but unless your business is completely automated you need people to do things.
I think Scott Adams wrote this well in one of his books (I think it was the Dogbert principal) where companies laid off people to get "Lean and Mean" which actually resulted them in being "skinny and pissed".
Again, the work that those 10,000 people were doing didn't just go away, but rather got shifted to the people who remained who in turn have to work overtime and with little break which of course results in high employee turn over in which those employees left behind either don't pick up the ball or just go to another company where they don't expect their employees to work like slaves... Oh no... They can't leave now! It is against honor, respect, and obligations to the corporation.
Oh wait... Too bad. THAT'S CAPITALISM!!
Now the people that are left behind are either too lazy, can't be fired, or too incompetent to get hired elsewhere and now you have just increased your companies death spiral in chapter 11.
From my understanding HP was actually facing this until the board of directors wised up and gave ice queen CEO Fionna the Axe.
Simply laying off workers will not save a company, but rather could in fact speed up its demise. Short term goals may look good on paper, but if you are a long term investor you'd rather have short term losses rather than having a useless piece of a paper that once was called a stock in 5 to 10 years.
Of course the best solution would be to not over extend yourself in the first place... Make it so the company grows slowly or well enough to weather bad times. Simply attempted to expand the company to match the good times you are having now will only result in failure in the future when winter time comes.
And smart long term investors avoid companies that go through this cycle (which is why GM is doing so bad right now) and leaves them to the whim of vampiric day traders who sell short and could give a rat's ass if the company survives another year or not. - calbff, on 10/12/2007, -13/+18@dbldwn
I see your point, but not all people that think this is wrong are against capitalism (nor have we lived in our parents' basements for a decade). Capitalism is great and is the foundation of all good economies, but this is an extreme case. - ice1000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I've been on the receiving end of these types of corporate moves in the past. Although I understand the CEO pay is based on leading the company forward, I tend to think that leading by example does wonders for morale & is a good leadership style. Remember when Presidents used to lead the charge in a war?
Fine, you need to fire people to increase profitability. Start with your immediate staff. You need to implement pay cuts? Fine. Start with yourself then your staff.
Put your trickle down theory to good use... - sensia3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5To all kids bragging about capitalism, be a part of the peopel fired in a company for lame reasons and you will realize how nice is capitalism. I am nto saying its bad, but the reason they (management) tell you due firing seems ridiculous to me.
- francisidada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Just my two cents.
Do you know why Japan was growing at a far fast rate than american was in the 80's and 90's because of employee security. To the extent that amercian managers were sent there to study management practices in Japan.
I dont really know what is happening in china now but I guess there most be something keeping those millions of underpaid workers churning out cheap hypercompetitive goods and getting a faster growth rate than America is.
Present money or stock value should not be the most important thing to any shareholder, future value of the company in terms of returns should be, and a company on a such a path is definitely on a downward spiral.
With health care cost being about 6% of GDP, these big pharmas have something coming for them. - besquared, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16Do you guys read history books deeper than the ones they give you in high school? The 'fat cats' and 'barons' were in their positions due to either government grants during the infancy stages of their businesses or government protections from competition once they got there. The only thing the government did was try and fix their mistakes, and they didn't even fully do that. People in those days didn't have much money because technology had not yet produced the returns to capital that it was bound to produce in the rest of the 20th century. Here this should give you a good idea of how technology and efficiency raised the bar during the 20th century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_GDP_Capita_1-2003_A.D.png
You'll notice the industrialized countries that have the lowest GDP per capita are current and former communist and socialized nations. While they were relatively on par with the rest of the world up until the 1900s, their social experiments left their economies devastated.
You might say, oh well we just need 'some' aspects of this or that centralized planning system. But they didn't work in the past because they are bad in *principle* no matter where or how they are implemented. Price and wage controls, centralized planning, centralized regulation, total wellfare states; these are all things that wreck economies and make the people of their countries worse off.
As far as cutting back workers: exactly. The role of a business leader is to rearrange capital and labor to best suit the market for today and in the future, not for the past. If he does a good job then efficiency will rise and profits will rise. I'm not saying that it doesn't suck for the 10,000 workers to be structurally unemployed, but that's just how the system works. People become unemployed every day and people get jobs every day. The United States is very near it's maximum employment rate (natural rate of unemployment) and people are hiring at a steady clip. As the market changes so does the need for more or less labor. A CEO is not paid for his labor he's paid for his results, included expected results out into the future. - daonlyfreez, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"All I see from the people bemoaning this is envy. I suspect this is because most people are intelligent enough to know that the CEOs pay-rise is not paid for based on the reduction in staff."
Oh, he wasn't? It was because he is such a good CEO, right?
"People seem to link one person's wealth with another's poverty...as if somehow there is finite amount of money to be made in the world."
Well, yes, they are quite closely related, and yes, there is a finite amount of money to be made. If you don't understand that, or simply refuse to understand that, there is no point discussing.
"If you really want to help don't demand the rich get less, demand the poor get more."
Is this an attempt at logic?
"If 10,000 staff decided to leave for other jobs (of free wil) would we be bemoaning their lack of committment to the firm?"
Oh yes the company definitely would.
"Business has to organise itself to survive, and sometimes that means really tough decision like laying off good hardworking staff."
BS. It may sometimes be necessary, but it should only be necessary if _everything else fails_. Nowadays an employee is nothing more but a 'disposable'. Howcome you expect the employees to be loyal to their company still, even if they know they could be thrown out at the slightest hint of a decline of profit? - flying.fat.man, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There shoudnt be any shareholders, a company should have only stakeholders.
The shareholder model shields investors from the externalities created by a corporation.
A corporation has no moral barometer, its solely concerned with generating the maximum profit possible for its owners.
So it ends up producing stuff nobody wants like pollution, sweatshops, layoffs and even crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation - cwgannon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Given the attitudes expressed here, most of you better just suck it up when this ***** happens to you someday. Silly idiots.
- tonton2012, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13@dbldwn
There aren't many people who don't see the world in extreme points of views but you and me could be a good start.
I just don't see the reason to disregard the fact that capitalism creates inequality and alienates the very people who are part in building it. Without the worker bees the hive wouldn't be possible so why should we screw them over? This isn't a call for socialism or some other extreme solution but perhaps a little bit of effort to show them that they are valued and make them not feel that they are getting the short end of the stick like this situation with Pfizer. It's okay to say that you are going to cut back on staff for the interest of the shareholders who own a percentage of the company but to turn a blind eye on the board of directors (who themselves are executives in other companies ... it's incestuous really) giving the CEO a ridiculous raise and bonus is asinine and a slap on the face of many people and the shareholders.
Of course people would rather be comfortable and if the status quo works for them then they don't care about the other people who are affected by these bad management choices. It's a dog eat dog world right? - there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4
Pfizer is already a profitable company (http://finance.google.com/finance?q=Pfizer) so large job cuts seem somewhat unnecessary but I do understand that to maintain profitability and a competitive edge you sometimes need to trim. However, it makes for very poor company morale for a CEO to give himself a huge raise soon afterwards. It's like Caesar asking his troops to take it in the ass for him... while he's back at home eating grapes and having orgies.Not the acts of a particularly inspiring leader. It only encourages unions at Pfizer and acts as bad publicity for the company (as this Digg should prove).
I would argue he's a greedy bonehead that's actually HURTING shareholders over the long haul because pissing off all your employees sure doesn't encourage productivity. Furthermore, large pay raises among healthcare CEO's only eggs on the public to further regulate the pharmacutical industry. Mark my words... considering we already pay nearly twice as much for healthcare than any other jurisdiction (while still having the worse health metrics among first world nations) a few more insensitive Kindle-like cash grab scandals by the healthcare industry and it adds up eventually to socializing healthcare (like the rest of the first world) - Dogtown7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7beyond the whole capitalism vs socialism debate.. there is a significant problem with a pure capitalist model. That is the growing disparity between income levels between the "rich" and the "poor". The poor are statisticaly better off than they were 10 years ago, but the rich are getting richer at a faster rate. The concentration of capital in the hands of a few leads to abuse and a not a well structured society. The governmet should provoke a higher churn rate for owning capital. In California, the lowering of the property taxes in the early 80's created a situation where the rich buy multiple homes as investment devices and the poor /middle class cannot afford their first home. Hence, the rich got richer quicker, and the poor in contrast, comparitvely did worse - although the overall economy improved significantly. Higher taxes on owning capital... Something to think about.
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If anyone wants an example of how you responsibly run a corporation, check out Costco's CEO, Jim Senegal. He caps his salary at $450K. That might be a little extreme, but he certainly has a much better *holistic* view of what makes a company work than most CEOs. It doesn't stop there - he pays employees an hourly rate that's about twice what competitors offer. That's a company I'd *like* to work for - not just because of the salary, but because of some great leadership that can look beyond what makes other CEOs thing they're so god-like.
- oldsk00l, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Him getting his 11 mil a year is a huge part of why drugs are so expensive. These guys make the colombian drug kingpins look like bit players in the extortion that comes out of their users. Got cancer? No insurance? Then you die of cancer, the execs gotta get their salary.
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@"you have no constitutional right to a job, food, or housing. earn it yourself."
I said this to a poster below and I'll say it again...
True, but I bet King Louis said the same thing to the angry mob at the gates of Versailles.
People will work for the basics, but if you take away their bread and you appear to be benefiting from that then they'll think its OK to mugg you, steal from you, or if they are pissed off enough... Lynch you.
I'm not saying it is OK, but it is a general fact of life that you have to take care of society or society will take care of you... Say like Tsar Nicholas style or that some one else might guide society in his own vision say... Like Hitler.
And I'm sure what you said was said during the 1930s depression, but had FDR not stepped in with government jobs we were only a revolution or two away from either joining Stalin or Hitler's cause.
If we end up with another depression again, I'm fine with government intervention, because I don't want to live in Somalia. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The nominal $1 salary is so they can avoid income tax. It's completely possible to take your pay as stock options and if you exercise them correctly, never pay a cent while raking in millions. What you do is defer the taxes on the options until they are nominally worthless (i.e., stock value drops below option price), pay taxes on them (which is $0, since they are nominally worthless), wait for the stock to rise, then cash them out without paying a dime. The worst case scenario is you have to pay capital gains tax (15%) vs. income tax (closer to 40%). The Republicans want to get rid of the capital gains tax so they don't have to pay any damn taxes at all.
- dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10I support freedom, so no digg.
- bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Did his hefty raise support shareholder value?
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10[Edit because I ran out of time to add]
One thing I forgot to mention was that the companies that do the best are often the ones not beholden to stock holders... As in they have central authority figures or they have their shares setup in a way that only a few select persons own the stock (or at least the stock that counts for control)
Microsoft, Apple, and of course Google come to mind. -
Show 51 - 100 of 259 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 