Adam Carolla explains the OWS Generation

[Dozyproductions]

you're right, it's all an evil, corporate consipiracy.

or, people are just greedy, apathetic and lazy.

the conflict of interest doesn't rile you up enough or something?

[nando]

What are you talking about? That those people own multiple stocks and some of them overlap? So it's bad that they've diversified their investments? Can you tell me who most of those people are? because I haven't heard of any of them.

[nando]

Most people holding any sort of stock do not own enough stock to have a meaningful vote.

and? you only get 1 vote for president. So don't bother voting, right? that seems to be working out pretty well.

If most people truely thought that the CEO's made too much, they'd vote on pay packages. But they obviously either don't care, or don't care enough to do anything about it. even if somebody had 25% of a company all to themselves, the other 75% could vote them out. yet it doesn't happen.

and even if an institution owned a large part of a company - it's an investment. they have an interest in how that company performs, because they want their investment to increase in value, just like anyone else. So I guess that makes it a conspiracy?

[Dozyproductions]

What? What are you talking about? If congressmen want to make money in the market they can simply try to sneak in chunks of legislation (like the pipeline in the NDAA) that benefit the companies they hold shares in... a la their portfolios as well. Really simple concept of greed.

edit: If we have high regulation to try to curtail corporate corruption, wouldn't that be an obvious idea for our elected officials?

[BraveUlysses]

and? you only get 1 vote for president. So don't bother voting, right? that seems to be working out pretty well.

Terrible comparison. Who gets to vote multiple times for president? <insert Acorn joke>

If most people truely thought that the CEO's made too much, they'd vote on pay packages. But they obviously either don't care, or don't care enough to do anything about it. even if somebody had 25% of a company all to themselves, the other 75% could vote them out. yet it doesn't happen.

and even if an institution owned a large part of a company - it's an investment. they have an interest in how that company performs, because they want their investment to increase in value, just like anyone else. So I guess that makes it a conspiracy?

Shareholder votes on executive compensation are advisory and nonbinding.