bmp152 - that was the absurd point Ted Olsen was making - shareholders can't be treated differently, it's against the law! But people really have a hard time seeing matters of law when their emotions are involved. So, in answer to your question, shareholders cannot be treated differently, except by classes of preferred, etc. These questions of fairness and right and equality are, of course, important to our market system. No one would want to go into a store for a loaf of bread and be charged a dollar more because the clerk doesn't like the brand of shirts you wear, but people are really dense about these matters once principles move outside their own narrow and selfish interests. Most people would allow others to pay more for bread based on prejudice, as long as it wasn't them being singled out. Read Shirley Jackson's short story 'The Lottery', a classic look at how selfishness always comes back to bite the selfish.
On the second question, I think most people understood and were sympathetic towards the angry man's situation, but I thought Glassman did a good job setting limits on him. It's a public forum, and the guy was upset and, whether intentionally or unintentionally, he was hijacking the meeting, being inconsiderate of other attendees, and not responding to limit-setting. Ralph felt bad for him, and I thought showed real respect for him at the end of the meeting in addressing everyone's regret. So it was pretty uncomfortable, but expected given that so many people lost their homes.
MB
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
