Google's (GOOG) new share structure is a clear violation of its "don't be evil" mantra,...

This news story has 12 comments:

Register or Login to rate comments »

Neil459 Comments (2640)
 
But, people don't want to pay attention to the details. So Google can do what it wants. Its sad that people don't take the time to understand. Who would buy google when there is a dual class structure. I guess its the same people that think about who they vote for. Just do whats popular.
13 Apr 2012, 09:17 AM Reply Like

NITBound Comments (63)
 
I made a lot of money buying GOOG. Isn't that the goal or do your ideals get in the way?
13 Apr 2012, 12:16 PM Reply Like

Neil459 Comments (2640)
 
NIT, for a trader yes, for an investor no.
13 Apr 2012, 01:24 PM Reply Like

FranzZemen Comments (28)
 
Off topic comment.

My gut feel is that most of us, self-acknowledged traders and professed investors, are really just traders, especially with companies like GOOG. We just ride different waves.

GOOG stopped needing investors a long time ago.
14 Apr 2012, 06:29 AM Reply Like

Neil459 Comments (2640)
 
Nit, thought more about your comment and I have to say my ideals do get in the way. Ideals are what drives the world. So yes, I don't invest in company that I have a moral problem with. Just like I don't go see movies that go over the top with liberal indoctrination or political correctness. I don't buy products from people I don't like. If more real people did this it would rid the world of a lot the crap that exists and is poisoning our culture. Capitalism works and money is one of the best ways to vote.

With that said, I somehow find a way to make money following my ideals. Hmmm. In fact, I live off of making money following my ideals.
14 Apr 2012, 08:12 AM Reply Like

NITBound Comments (63)
 
How exactly is GOOG just a trader's stock? Aren't they up something like 600+% since their IPO? 8 years is not long term enough for you? And they make huge bets with little short term benefit (see Android) which will pay off huge in the long term.

But you're right, it's a just a popularity contest.
15 Apr 2012, 09:13 PM Reply Like

Chuck Comments (101)
 
1. Money is Power.
2. Power Corrupts.
QED: Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

The Golden Rule:
The person with the gold makes the rules.

The little guy get's screwed.
JMHO..
13 Apr 2012, 09:24 AM Reply Like

Star Weekly Comments (96)
 
Sergey single handedly pulled out of China, the largest market in the world. Reason? Censorship! He can do it again in limiting Google's growth like not going to Russia, not going to African nations, and the list continues. Censorship in China? Don't be Evil? Then why does not Microsaoft, Yahoo and other American companies operate in China?

Larry Page wants to be Steve Jobs. And yet, Jobs never had that absolute power that Page and Brin have now. Authoritarian rule is never the answer for any company. Remember Nardelli of Home Depot, and the same Nardelli for Chrysler?

What about if Larry and Sergey come to a point of having disagreement? Who suffers? Shareholders!

Look for more large holders of Google running out the door. Maybe they'll come back when the stock is at 500, the level Brin sold some of his shares.
13 Apr 2012, 09:36 AM Reply Like

Sam Liu Comments (2740)
 
Google did not pull out of cn. It's offices in TUS (Tsinghua University Science Park) Beijing are there. They sell ads on g.cn

Furthermore in other operations Google cn promotes Android, music.google.cn, google maps, etc. But definitely Android for cell phones
14 Apr 2012, 01:03 AM Reply Like

Hendershott Comments (1055)
 
GOOG management have declared themselves to be benign dictators, but you don't have to be a citizen. On the other hand, the theory of shareholder value easily morphs into management enrichment and often isn't so benign.
13 Apr 2012, 12:33 PM Reply Like

Kenneth Arnold Comments (24)
 
History shows that software companies prosper under their founders. See Jobs/Apple, MSFT/Gates, ORCL/Ellison, SAP, Facebook, GOOG for evidence. I for one am very happy to have Page and Brin calling the shots without worrying about the reaction from the street. Anyone who is uneasy with that should sell.
13 Apr 2012, 02:15 PM Reply Like

MJ Pragmatist Comments (24)
 
Something seems illegal about this. In one way, it's not a big deal. But conceptually, it's as bad as the government requiring you to pay taxes to support an immoral practice.
13 Apr 2012, 04:43 PM Reply Like