BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

F*O*A*D

On 3/22/14, 3:02 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:56:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/22/14, 12:44 PM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 11:36:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/22/14, 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 07:24:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/21/14, 11:57 PM, wrote:

I am happy that you recognize that anything you do along the lines of
charging corporations more money is passed on to the customer or taken
away from the stock holder.
The corporation itself may actually end up making more money. You just
have to look at the tobacco companies to see that.

The problem with fines is that they do not punish the corporation
enough, and they're just another cost of doing business. Taking money
from the shareholders might help, as with Duke losing its licenses and
senior execs being prosecuted. Shareholders own the company. Perhaps it
is time to end their ability to distance themselves from the disasters
their investments cause.

Punishing the stock holder ends up punishing the public too. Most
stocks are held by pension plans, mutual funds and other public
entities. The individuals have very little influence even in which
stocks they are invested in and certainly no leverage on the
corporations who are behind those stocks.

If they really wanted to make an impact, they would go after the
person who made the decision in the first place and I doubt that
happened anywhere above the plant manager level.
It may have just been a junior staffer taking a shortcut that violated
company policy.
Did we ever actually hear what the level of the contamination was?

Ahh, but if the shareholders were exposed to civil and criminal
liability for the misdeeds of the company they owned, they might take
their duties as business owners seriously, and exert pressure on the
company to behave.

It's amazing the twists and turns top management takes to shield itself
from "junior staffers," but the reality is, *they* are in charge.

I've read about the volume of pollutants in this case, but not the
impact yet.

The unions, which are huge shareholders of corporate stock, would rebel. That would put the kibosh
on your stupendous idea in a heartbeat.

Au contraire. I suspect if the corporate shield were removed from
corporations, their chief execs and their boards, the companies would
act a lot more responsibly and the union trust fund shareholders would
applaud.

I read where Duke is planning to pass the cost of its fines onto its
customers, and not take it out of profits. That should be illegal, too.

But of course, this is the nation of Corporations Uber Alles.

How would the corporation exist if it did not pass expenses along to
the customer. It is just like the government passing it's expenses
along to the tax payers.

Fines for criminal acts should be borne by the shareholders.

--
Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve
crazy!