It's very hard for a bunch of "little" shareholders to force changes at a corporation, because there are usually larger numbers of shares held by a FEW shareholders who vote against "upstart" initiatives.

Thankfully, democracy in government is otherwise. Every citizen is a "shareholder" of America, and every one of the "shareholders" owns only one share and one vote.

For this reason, we have hope that turning America (first) may be a more practical route to turning ExxonMobil (and other corporations).

Did I read recently, that many large oil companies like Exxon/Mobil are spending huge chunks of their massive profits to buy back their own stock?

Is this why they do this, so they can have fewer shareholders with inconvenient social and environmental consciences?

Daniel David May 23rd, 2008 1:18 pm -- 'Thankfully, democracy in government is otherwise. Every citizen is a "shareholder" of America, and every one of the "shareholders" owns only one share and one vote.'

Oh, puhlease! Do you never tire of such assinine platitudes and naïveté?

The Soviet Union also had one share and one vote for "electable" candidates screened and pre-selected by their ruling apparatus. Their citizens were smart enough, however, to understand that it did not equate to "democracy in government".

"Is this why they do this, so they can have fewer shareholders with inconvenient social and environmental consciences?"

If a stockholder wants to sell into the buyback effort, that's what they give up. No one forces them to sell.

Actually, since the shares bought back no longer vote, the proportion of shareholders who own shares for the purpose of having an environmemtal and social influence may actually increase, as long as none of those shareholders sell back.

No, Arvy, I never tire, in part I guess, because I'm told we are not the Soviet Union. Naive to a fault, I am, and so is every optimism about anything.

Here in BC activists buy shares in big logging companies, not to vote, but to infiltrate their AGM's, frequently to instigate activist theatrics. You dress formally, join the throng of shareholders and then trigger the loudspeaker briefcase cuffed to your wrist, with it's prerecorded voice messages on a blaring loop proclaiming the company's crimes. It's pretty much the most fun you can have with your pants on.

exxon/mobile IS The Texas Petroleum Mafia. For all practical purposes, exxon controls the drilling, refining, distribution and pricing of most of the petroleum feeding the USA's petro addiction today. And this is NOT by chance. It is also not by chance that exxon had a paid shill on the White House payroll to water down and rewrite scientific papers detailing global warming and the influence of fossil fuels. If the names of the attendees of cheney*'s energy task force are ever released, executives of exxon will surely be heavily represented. The invasion of Iraq was truly about oil, but not as most of us think. The purpose of the illegal and immoral rape of Iraq is to keep Iraqi oil OFF OF THE MARKET. That action has allowed the Texas Petroleum Mafia to engage in the most atrocious form of war profiteering. If the truth were know, exxon should be paying the tab for the Iraq debacle, not the citizens of the United States. If the truth were completely knows, we would see cheney*/bush* for what they really are: employees of the Texas Petroleum Mafia.

We need our equal shares of public lands, public utilities, public buildings, public airwaves and on and on, in non transferable, non-negotiable stock certificates. Incorporate We the People and take back our money-power from the killers and polluters that are stealing it.

Daniel David just wrote something I more or less agree with I think heck just froze over. Now DD do you think Dims who act as sock puppets for the people who bribe them errrr I mean campaign contributors are the vehicle to bring that change? And yes I will vote for Obama but only because I think there is maybe 10% lesser chance he'd get us into global thermonuclear war than McSame not in the hopes that he will bring true justice to working people, African Americans and other people in ghettos, the rural poor or the environment. I'll vote for Greens locally and ALSO advocate for keeping your powder dry. I do hope I am wrong about Obama BTW and he brings substantive change but I am not holding my breath.

Shareholder democracy rarely works IMO I know when I was doing forest defense in Humboldt county California some people went to the Maxxam shareholder meeting in Houston and begged Maxxam to save one grove of ten trees that was less than a 1000 feet from where an activist was deliberately killed by a logger feeling a tree on him and got exactly nowhere. The trees were cut and not only that they risked the lives of the three activist locked down at 200 feet in the largest 700 year old tree and two activist locked down 10 feet beneath the logging road by running heavy equipment near their tunnel. If you think shareholder voting and waving a few signs will stop the sociopathic persons in charge of the multinational corporations you are very naive indeed.

Awesome Maplefudge that is a new and interesting technique, good to hear you are brainstorming there in BC! I miss the pacific Northwest sometimes...

Interesting theory Raster "The purpose of the illegal and immoral rape of Iraq is to keep Iraqi oil OFF OF THE MARKET." Is this solely your own theory or do you have any articles we could read as background?

Owning the oil isn't the point. Controlling it is.

NeoLiberal in business. NeoConservative in politics. Both are anti-Democracy.

Waking up America IS the Revolution.

Time to complete the American Revolution.

The odds are long that it will happen.

But I'll take the long odds.

Born on the Fourth...

Controlling the oil, trading in Euros, stopping oil coming out of Iraq, influence of Israel's Likud faction via the neo-cons, I have heard many theories I wish it were all more concrete, sigh. One thing I think we can know is neither the criminal corporations nor the criminal government are listening at this point. :(

"For all practical purposes, exxon controls the drilling, refining, distribution and pricing of most of the petroleum feeding the USA's petro addiction today."

Please explain.

A financial writer named Jubak believes ExxonMobil has begun a long term plan to cash out of the energy business. It sees peak oil passing soon, and has no confidence in alternate energy technologies.

First of all. If there really were an oil shortage, why would shareholders have to force Exxon to do what any Energy giant would do, especially one with profits coming out of their rear end.

As for Exxon being afraid of their shareholders? What coolaid are people drinking? Most shareholders don't bother voting, first of all. But if there is an important vote, the major shareholders have the Big Money Makers short the stock, which means they simply borrow the shares, and if the actual shareholder does not vote, they get to vote in their place since the broker sends the borrower the same paperwork the owner gets . If both vote, the owners vote counts, but like I said, most owners don't vote.

Plus, most of the profits of Big Oil are in the tax havens. And even that 40 billion in profit for Exxon does little for the shareholder if the company decides to reinvest it and not pay out as a dividend. Owning shares in the company does not entitle you to a share of it's profits if the company does not want to give it to you. The company executives determine how much the shareholders can receive.

The shareholders are more focused on the price of the stock. The company does not care what the stock price is unless they are making available more shares to sell. They do care about hitting their numbers, but if the stock price still goes down and thye hit their profit numbers, it's not a big deal. The stock market is a secondary market, the companies get the money when the stock gets sold to the shareholders in an IPO or a new offering, once the shareholders own the stock, it does not matter to the company what price one shareholder sells to another shareholder.

To show you how wacked the market is, with oil going up from 60 to 140 dollars a barrel over the last 52 weeks, and talk of oil at 200 dollars a barrel looming, Exxons stock price has went up from 83 to 91, or less than 10%.

"A financial writer named Jubak believes ExxonMobil has begun a long term plan to cash out of the energy business. It sees peak oil passing soon, and has no confidence in alternate energy technologies."

Jubak has lost touch with his brain. This is sheer lunancy. After peak oil is reached, what happens to the price of the remaining oil, as supplies diminish from the peak? All kinds of profits. Exxon is into everything and anything related to energy including nuclear which is set to make a rebound (Big Oil controls 80% of uranium supplies so it won't be cheap, they already are prpearing the world for the uranium shortage hoax).

In case you don't know it, let me let you in on a little secret. Without energy, this world can sustain a population of 300 million people max. In that case, maybe Exxon will get out of the energy business, what business will they get into without energy. That could be the plan to solve overpopulation and global warming hoaxes. Starve the critters, and most of the shareholders.

Many Americans own stock? No, they don't. Please check:

http://www.inequality.org/

Click on "By the Numbers" and page down to the pie charts. As of 2004, the wealthiest 10% of Americans owned nearly 80% of stock. The other 21% of stocks was spread over 90% of people. Unless the 10% decide to take action, nothing will be done.

RuthK, the numbers you take from the link don't support your anser to the question "Many Americans own stock?". You are simply showing that the wealthy own a lot more of it which is no surprise.

"You are simply showing that the wealthy own a lot more of it which is no surprise."

And not the same thing.

If you are trying to claim the big shareholders who sit on the board of large companies don't control the day to day policies and BIG decisions those companies make you are just plain lying jakenewton. Thus RuthK's point that small stockholders have no real say in company policy is 100% correct. Sociopath much?

"Thus RuthK's point that small stockholders have no real say in company policy is 100% correct."

If she ever said that I would have agreed with her but she didn't. She said that it's not true that many people own stock.

Comprehend what you read much?

She implied it you sociopathic PIG! Those who parse words to avoid responsibility for their thoughts whether their name is Bill or Hillary Clinton, or "Jake Newton," suck. Please tell me what the meaning of is, is?

"She implied it"

How does "not many people own stocks" imply "small shareholders have only a small say"?

"you sociopathic PIG! "

Classy.

"PIG!"

*Now* do you see why I thought you were younger? Most people eventually grow out of resorting to name calling when they get mad that they lose an argument. You should just concede when it is shown that you are wrong, people will have much more respect for you.

I concede. I was wrong. I though CD was above this type of shit...

I call them as I see them the greedy sociopathic empathy lacking corporate supporting neo-con most closely resembles the pig of all animals I can think of. See Animal Farm by George Orwell if you are still confused jake.