Examinator, Stern and others...

so nice to be considered part of a larger group

Firstly your maladjusted version of shareholders wishes - The wishes of shareholders are always reflected in the decisions of the company because

If a shareholder disagrees, they can vote with their money by selling their shares and investing elsewhere.

We do not get similar opportunity to reflect our displeasure on government.
Although today we see the return of public executions,

with the Australian Labor party intent on cutting off its own head in public.

As for superannuation... we employ superannuation executives to make some decisions in our name, when we invest in unit trusts or any other managed fund and we can always swap funds if we wish no different to how we can choose between different real estate agents to sell houses for us.

Your comment re - so enough of the freedom of choice nonsense

You seem to project a strong sense of angst about the range of opportunities which millions of other people find perfectly suited to meet their needs.

Maybe it is an envy that they have more than you to invest or maybe you are just a small, twisted soul who likes to bolster a sense of self importance by pretending you have an alternate solution to processes which work well for other people.
Maybe you should set up your own fund and see how well you fare.... but don’t ask me to invest with you... your credentials here offer a portents of certain failure... maybe go to government, they have a perfect scorecard at backing losers – and this labor mob, well Rudd was going to and Gillard certainly will, lose the next election

Regarding your opinion to my argument... think what you will.

I am certainly sufficiently superficial to be able to ignore the whining of the absurd and whilst you may criticise my choice of political dogma, it is mine to make. You will not change it and arguing against it will likely only enhance the influence my view may carry with others.

Stern, Just for You.

Your latest rant has proved my point you are wanting to talk politics yet the topic has NOTHING to do with the that.

Well apart from the rhetoric show me WHICH CORPORATION has the majority or the share holders are 'the mums and dad' DIRECTLY.
*Please* show me which Superfund or management trust allows its rank and file (M&D contributors) to determine which SPECIFIC stocks they or the fund can invest in? In most instances these organizations have their own profit agenda not what the people want.

You know or should know my depiction of the choice is limited to a percentage of column A B C etc. The whole point of super is to be a power block.e.g. go to your super fund and say you don't want to invest in BP but the rest of the industrials are are OK. Good luck! You will be told either column A or column B end of.
Did you have any choice in the Corps in the various Column A,B etc investing in Derivatives?

In short you show me specifically where I'm maladjusted (wrong in fact)!

The structure of corporate ownership is so complex and dominated by OTHER corporations as to render choice for the M&D moot.

In short like many who share your predilection you can't prove your assertion or disprove mine. You repeatedly resort to gamesmanship via Gain saying, insult, Rote Dogma, and other manipulative answers rather than actual objective analysis.
Errt!
Wrong answer
Thank you for playing

Obviously you lack the skills to understand how it is an individual choice that determines which, among hundreds and thousands of superfunds or shareholdings an individual elects to invest in.

Until you can comprehend those few words and how an investor chooses the superfund or shareholding which is most aligned to personal expectations, such as 'green' investments or 'ethical' investment or investments in a particular industry segment or with a particular company which has experience in a particular business or product type, etc, you will never understand what myself and others (presumably like me) have been telling you.

Denying the clarity of what I have said, by applying your own muddled and foggy interpretation and caveats to what is as clear as a summers day, merely confirms what I previously stated

You ... "arguing against it will likely only enhance the influence my view may carry with others."

regarding "Thank you for playing"

and your previous comment

"You repeatedly resort to gamesmanship via Gain saying, insult, Rote Dogma, and other manipulative answers"

One is inclined to observe we could suggest either

a matter of you, a petard and being hoisted

versus

plain old hypocrisy.

your choice, of which applies most accurately to you matters not to me.