![]() |
|
The Duke...
Duke Energy is in hot water again over coal ash. Earlier this month,
local environmentalists noticed Duke was pumping down coal ash lagoons at a retired power plant. That triggered an investigation that ended yesterday, when the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources announced that Duke had illegally pumped 61 million gallons of coal ash-tainted wastewater into the Cape Fear River. - - - Duke Energy, I've read, is the largest power plant company in the country, and it has created a large number of serious environmental disasters, some through accident and carelessness and some, as this newest one, deliberately. The company should lose its licenses and the plants taken over by companies who will have the public's interest in mind. Fining Duke Energy isn't the answer...it just will pass those fines along to those who have to buy power from it. It's too bad shareholder liability is so limited in this country, even when a corporation knowingly does the wrong thing, as in this latest dump of pollution. Sticking shareholders with the bill for the cleanup might help, and so would jail time for the corporate execs. -- Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve crazy! |
The Duke...
|
The Duke...
On 3/22/2014 11:36 AM, 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. It's too bad that you didn't put pressure on the the owners of Krause and company to run a legitimate company and pay their taxes. Eh Krausebag? |
The Duke...
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. |
The Duke...
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. -- Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve crazy! |
The Duke...
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. The union member shareholders would never allow themselves to be put in the position you suggest, to wit: "...if the shareholders were exposed to civil and criminal liability..." I expect their applause would die rapidly when they started paying fines or going to jail for the misdeeds of mid-level managers or even high-level managers. |
The Duke...
On 3/22/14, 1:03 PM, Mucho Loco 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. The union member shareholders would never allow themselves to be put in the position you suggest, to wit: "...if the shareholders were exposed to civil and criminal liability..." I expect their applause would die rapidly when they started paying fines or going to jail for the misdeeds of mid-level managers or even high-level managers. What you are saying is in complete agreement with my point, which I have stated only indirectly: there is no way to control these misbehaving corporations in this country. -- Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve crazy! |
The Duke...
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:58:23 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:
Eventually, we should move away from coal as we develop better ways to make electricity, but it isn't going to happen within the lifetime of any of our grandchildren. === I think you may be surprised. We have enough natural gas to get off of coal right now if we had the distribution infrastructure to get the gas where it is needed, and if we gave the plants some reasonable amount of time to convert. I believe coal will be well on the way out within 10 years or so. |
The Duke...
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! |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:22 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com