|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 15 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 15 2014 07:48 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:47 Mercy13 wrote:On January 15 2014 07:07 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:05 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 07:03 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 06:59 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 06:53 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 06:41 Nacl(Draq) wrote:
[quote]
So money has no business in owning things. So owning things is owning things. Ok, I see the point.
So if you owned .000001% of that slave and then someone else, who owned more than 50% of him, told him to drive drunk. Would you be responsible?
Again, attacking the person instead of the topic is considered ad hominem and is generally considered rude. That's fine. I can deal with it.
(and oddly enough, if you own a bar and that bar gives alcohol to someone and that person later drives drunk, then the owner of the bar is held responsible. So in actuality even though you don't own the person you are responsible. This is how US law works anyway.) The bar example is completely irrelevant, bars aren't judged responsible because they own their customers, they're judged responsible because they are given a legal responsibility to ensure their product is not abused. You keep explaining how if a free person freely chooses to do something then you wouldn't hold another unrelated individual responsible and therefore that somehow means that if an institution you own that is legally controlled by you and has no individual rights but rather rights derived from you does something then you shouldn't be held accountable either. It doesn't make any kind of sense. I put the bar scenario in () to signify it wasn't truly apart of the discussion. Just as a side note/footnote if you will. So you are saying that if your, non-existent, slave which you own .0000001% of drove drunk after being told by more than 50% of the other owners then you are responsible, as a group. Which means that the person who owns .00000001% of but decided that they didn't want to part ways from the group is responsible. Ok. I think I understand what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong. If someone chooses to be apart of a group and that group makes a decision then the people who are apart of that group are all responsible. If the group makes a decision and a person leaves because of the decision they are not responsible? Is that correct? I'm saying that if you believe your business is acting unethically or criminally and you cannot force it to act otherwise because you are a minority shareholder then you should sell your stake in it so it is not doing it in your name. Reaping the rewards of the actions while disowning the responsibility is not an acceptable stance. Is the nightmare scenario in which shareholders desert negligent businesses such a problem here? Ok. I understand now. That is a very acceptable stance. Do you think shareholders should share evenly in responsibility or should the punishment be shared equal to the amount of the company they own. So that .000001% gets only .000001% of the punishment. Shared out by ownership. I'm a little confused then, because aren't losses already shared out by ownership? If a firm goes bankrupt, it is likely that shareholders will lose (almost?) their entire investment. If a firm gets fined, the money that it must pay belongs to shareholders. I agree that it would be great if firms were more responsible for the harm they often cause, but shareholders already stand to lose their investment if the firm if it is penalized, and this doesn't prevent bad behavior by firms. And in cases where the wrongdoing merits a fine then the system already works. But as I mentioned earlier, corporations literally murder when they calculate that they can get away with it and it'll increase share price. There has to be accountability. Murder is illegal... Only if you get caught. Royal Dutch Shell were caught paying corrupt Nigerian military officials for the brutal violent crackdown on peaceful tribesmen protesting the destruction and pollution of their lands by Shell. The operation resulted in 2000 deaths and 100,000 refugees, along with the public execution of 9 of the leaders of the peaceful protest against Shell's pollution. In 2009 Shell paid out 15.5 million in a settlement to the families of those 9. Current logic says that 15.5 million paid out means that the assets of Shell are lowered by 15.5 million which will be reflected by a tiny change in share price and therefore the shareholders have been punished for what Shell did in their name and thus the system works. Except of course that the reason this happened was that Shell calculated the cost of not polluting the area as being more than the cost of bribing the government to crush opposition and, on the urging of their absentee shareholders, acted to maximise profit. There is no justice.
Their shareholders wanted them to do that? Proof? Did they take a vote?
Secondly, had there be no corporate form, what would the difference be under Nigerian law?
|
United States44449 Posts
On January 15 2014 08:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 15 2014 07:48 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:47 Mercy13 wrote:On January 15 2014 07:07 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:05 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 07:03 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 06:59 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 06:53 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The bar example is completely irrelevant, bars aren't judged responsible because they own their customers, they're judged responsible because they are given a legal responsibility to ensure their product is not abused.
You keep explaining how if a free person freely chooses to do something then you wouldn't hold another unrelated individual responsible and therefore that somehow means that if an institution you own that is legally controlled by you and has no individual rights but rather rights derived from you does something then you shouldn't be held accountable either. It doesn't make any kind of sense. I put the bar scenario in () to signify it wasn't truly apart of the discussion. Just as a side note/footnote if you will. So you are saying that if your, non-existent, slave which you own .0000001% of drove drunk after being told by more than 50% of the other owners then you are responsible, as a group. Which means that the person who owns .00000001% of but decided that they didn't want to part ways from the group is responsible. Ok. I think I understand what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong. If someone chooses to be apart of a group and that group makes a decision then the people who are apart of that group are all responsible. If the group makes a decision and a person leaves because of the decision they are not responsible? Is that correct? I'm saying that if you believe your business is acting unethically or criminally and you cannot force it to act otherwise because you are a minority shareholder then you should sell your stake in it so it is not doing it in your name. Reaping the rewards of the actions while disowning the responsibility is not an acceptable stance. Is the nightmare scenario in which shareholders desert negligent businesses such a problem here? Ok. I understand now. That is a very acceptable stance. Do you think shareholders should share evenly in responsibility or should the punishment be shared equal to the amount of the company they own. So that .000001% gets only .000001% of the punishment. Shared out by ownership. I'm a little confused then, because aren't losses already shared out by ownership? If a firm goes bankrupt, it is likely that shareholders will lose (almost?) their entire investment. If a firm gets fined, the money that it must pay belongs to shareholders. I agree that it would be great if firms were more responsible for the harm they often cause, but shareholders already stand to lose their investment if the firm if it is penalized, and this doesn't prevent bad behavior by firms. And in cases where the wrongdoing merits a fine then the system already works. But as I mentioned earlier, corporations literally murder when they calculate that they can get away with it and it'll increase share price. There has to be accountability. Murder is illegal... Only if you get caught. Royal Dutch Shell were caught paying corrupt Nigerian military officials for the brutal violent crackdown on peaceful tribesmen protesting the destruction and pollution of their lands by Shell. The operation resulted in 2000 deaths and 100,000 refugees, along with the public execution of 9 of the leaders of the peaceful protest against Shell's pollution. In 2009 Shell paid out 15.5 million in a settlement to the families of those 9. Current logic says that 15.5 million paid out means that the assets of Shell are lowered by 15.5 million which will be reflected by a tiny change in share price and therefore the shareholders have been punished for what Shell did in their name and thus the system works. Except of course that the reason this happened was that Shell calculated the cost of not polluting the area as being more than the cost of bribing the government to crush opposition and, on the urging of their absentee shareholders, acted to maximise profit. There is no justice. Their shareholders wanted them to do that? Proof? Did they take a vote? Secondly, had there be no corporate form, what would the difference be under Nigerian law?
No, they didn't take a vote because they don't vote on what Shell actually does because they don't care because they don't need to care because they're not accountable. What they did do is vote for higher share prices and greater dividends when they could have voted for ethical business practices and social responsibility. And why wouldn't they when the system allows them to reap the rewards while denying responsibility.
Shell own Nigerian law, that's not the question here.
|
On January 15 2014 08:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 08:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 15 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 15 2014 07:48 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:47 Mercy13 wrote:On January 15 2014 07:07 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:05 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 07:03 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 06:59 Nacl(Draq) wrote:
[quote]
I put the bar scenario in () to signify it wasn't truly apart of the discussion. Just as a side note/footnote if you will.
So you are saying that if your, non-existent, slave which you own .0000001% of drove drunk after being told by more than 50% of the other owners then you are responsible, as a group. Which means that the person who owns .00000001% of but decided that they didn't want to part ways from the group is responsible.
Ok. I think I understand what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If someone chooses to be apart of a group and that group makes a decision then the people who are apart of that group are all responsible.
If the group makes a decision and a person leaves because of the decision they are not responsible?
Is that correct? I'm saying that if you believe your business is acting unethically or criminally and you cannot force it to act otherwise because you are a minority shareholder then you should sell your stake in it so it is not doing it in your name. Reaping the rewards of the actions while disowning the responsibility is not an acceptable stance. Is the nightmare scenario in which shareholders desert negligent businesses such a problem here? Ok. I understand now. That is a very acceptable stance. Do you think shareholders should share evenly in responsibility or should the punishment be shared equal to the amount of the company they own. So that .000001% gets only .000001% of the punishment. Shared out by ownership. I'm a little confused then, because aren't losses already shared out by ownership? If a firm goes bankrupt, it is likely that shareholders will lose (almost?) their entire investment. If a firm gets fined, the money that it must pay belongs to shareholders. I agree that it would be great if firms were more responsible for the harm they often cause, but shareholders already stand to lose their investment if the firm if it is penalized, and this doesn't prevent bad behavior by firms. And in cases where the wrongdoing merits a fine then the system already works. But as I mentioned earlier, corporations literally murder when they calculate that they can get away with it and it'll increase share price. There has to be accountability. Murder is illegal... Only if you get caught. Royal Dutch Shell were caught paying corrupt Nigerian military officials for the brutal violent crackdown on peaceful tribesmen protesting the destruction and pollution of their lands by Shell. The operation resulted in 2000 deaths and 100,000 refugees, along with the public execution of 9 of the leaders of the peaceful protest against Shell's pollution. In 2009 Shell paid out 15.5 million in a settlement to the families of those 9. Current logic says that 15.5 million paid out means that the assets of Shell are lowered by 15.5 million which will be reflected by a tiny change in share price and therefore the shareholders have been punished for what Shell did in their name and thus the system works. Except of course that the reason this happened was that Shell calculated the cost of not polluting the area as being more than the cost of bribing the government to crush opposition and, on the urging of their absentee shareholders, acted to maximise profit. There is no justice. Their shareholders wanted them to do that? Proof? Did they take a vote? Secondly, had there be no corporate form, what would the difference be under Nigerian law? No, they didn't take a vote because they don't vote on what Shell actually does because they don't care because they don't need to care because they're not accountable. What they did do is vote for higher share prices and greater dividends when they could have voted for ethical business practices and social responsibility. And why wouldn't they when the system allows them to reap the rewards while denying responsibility. Shell own Nigerian law, that's not the question here.
I really don't think that you fully understand what you're railing against and why shareholders enjoy the immunity that they do. The fact that you're dodging my question regarding why some new form of shareholder liability is necessary as opposed to direct regulation of corporate conduct is particularly telling.
|
On January 15 2014 08:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 08:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 15 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 15 2014 07:48 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:47 Mercy13 wrote:On January 15 2014 07:07 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:05 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 07:03 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 06:59 Nacl(Draq) wrote:
[quote]
I put the bar scenario in () to signify it wasn't truly apart of the discussion. Just as a side note/footnote if you will.
So you are saying that if your, non-existent, slave which you own .0000001% of drove drunk after being told by more than 50% of the other owners then you are responsible, as a group. Which means that the person who owns .00000001% of but decided that they didn't want to part ways from the group is responsible.
Ok. I think I understand what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If someone chooses to be apart of a group and that group makes a decision then the people who are apart of that group are all responsible.
If the group makes a decision and a person leaves because of the decision they are not responsible?
Is that correct? I'm saying that if you believe your business is acting unethically or criminally and you cannot force it to act otherwise because you are a minority shareholder then you should sell your stake in it so it is not doing it in your name. Reaping the rewards of the actions while disowning the responsibility is not an acceptable stance. Is the nightmare scenario in which shareholders desert negligent businesses such a problem here? Ok. I understand now. That is a very acceptable stance. Do you think shareholders should share evenly in responsibility or should the punishment be shared equal to the amount of the company they own. So that .000001% gets only .000001% of the punishment. Shared out by ownership. I'm a little confused then, because aren't losses already shared out by ownership? If a firm goes bankrupt, it is likely that shareholders will lose (almost?) their entire investment. If a firm gets fined, the money that it must pay belongs to shareholders. I agree that it would be great if firms were more responsible for the harm they often cause, but shareholders already stand to lose their investment if the firm if it is penalized, and this doesn't prevent bad behavior by firms. And in cases where the wrongdoing merits a fine then the system already works. But as I mentioned earlier, corporations literally murder when they calculate that they can get away with it and it'll increase share price. There has to be accountability. Murder is illegal... Only if you get caught. Royal Dutch Shell were caught paying corrupt Nigerian military officials for the brutal violent crackdown on peaceful tribesmen protesting the destruction and pollution of their lands by Shell. The operation resulted in 2000 deaths and 100,000 refugees, along with the public execution of 9 of the leaders of the peaceful protest against Shell's pollution. In 2009 Shell paid out 15.5 million in a settlement to the families of those 9. Current logic says that 15.5 million paid out means that the assets of Shell are lowered by 15.5 million which will be reflected by a tiny change in share price and therefore the shareholders have been punished for what Shell did in their name and thus the system works. Except of course that the reason this happened was that Shell calculated the cost of not polluting the area as being more than the cost of bribing the government to crush opposition and, on the urging of their absentee shareholders, acted to maximise profit. There is no justice. Their shareholders wanted them to do that? Proof? Did they take a vote? Secondly, had there be no corporate form, what would the difference be under Nigerian law? No, they didn't take a vote because they don't vote on what Shell actually does because they don't care because they don't need to care because they're not accountable. What they did do is vote for higher share prices and greater dividends when they could have voted for ethical business practices and social responsibility. And why wouldn't they when the system allows them to reap the rewards while denying responsibility. Shell own Nigerian law, that's not the question here.
What do you mean "vote for higher share prices and greater dividends"? When did they do that?
If Shell owns Nigerian law no business form will make a damn difference - they'll still get away with it.
Edit: and still - what about the workers, bondholders and tax collectors who also benefited?
|
On January 15 2014 08:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 08:09 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 08:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 15 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 15 2014 07:48 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:47 Mercy13 wrote:On January 15 2014 07:07 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:05 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 07:03 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I'm saying that if you believe your business is acting unethically or criminally and you cannot force it to act otherwise because you are a minority shareholder then you should sell your stake in it so it is not doing it in your name. Reaping the rewards of the actions while disowning the responsibility is not an acceptable stance.
Is the nightmare scenario in which shareholders desert negligent businesses such a problem here? Ok. I understand now. That is a very acceptable stance. Do you think shareholders should share evenly in responsibility or should the punishment be shared equal to the amount of the company they own. So that .000001% gets only .000001% of the punishment. Shared out by ownership. I'm a little confused then, because aren't losses already shared out by ownership? If a firm goes bankrupt, it is likely that shareholders will lose (almost?) their entire investment. If a firm gets fined, the money that it must pay belongs to shareholders. I agree that it would be great if firms were more responsible for the harm they often cause, but shareholders already stand to lose their investment if the firm if it is penalized, and this doesn't prevent bad behavior by firms. And in cases where the wrongdoing merits a fine then the system already works. But as I mentioned earlier, corporations literally murder when they calculate that they can get away with it and it'll increase share price. There has to be accountability. Murder is illegal... Only if you get caught. Royal Dutch Shell were caught paying corrupt Nigerian military officials for the brutal violent crackdown on peaceful tribesmen protesting the destruction and pollution of their lands by Shell. The operation resulted in 2000 deaths and 100,000 refugees, along with the public execution of 9 of the leaders of the peaceful protest against Shell's pollution. In 2009 Shell paid out 15.5 million in a settlement to the families of those 9. Current logic says that 15.5 million paid out means that the assets of Shell are lowered by 15.5 million which will be reflected by a tiny change in share price and therefore the shareholders have been punished for what Shell did in their name and thus the system works. Except of course that the reason this happened was that Shell calculated the cost of not polluting the area as being more than the cost of bribing the government to crush opposition and, on the urging of their absentee shareholders, acted to maximise profit. There is no justice. Their shareholders wanted them to do that? Proof? Did they take a vote? Secondly, had there be no corporate form, what would the difference be under Nigerian law? No, they didn't take a vote because they don't vote on what Shell actually does because they don't care because they don't need to care because they're not accountable. What they did do is vote for higher share prices and greater dividends when they could have voted for ethical business practices and social responsibility. And why wouldn't they when the system allows them to reap the rewards while denying responsibility. Shell own Nigerian law, that's not the question here. I really don't think that you fully understand what you're railing against and why shareholders enjoy the immunity that they do. The fact that you're dodging my question regarding why some new form of shareholder liability is necessary as opposed to direct regulation of corporate conduct is particularly telling.
Can you elaborate on the idea of shareholder liability? I apparently don't really know much about this sort of thing, so your law background makes me think you would have a good idea as to how something like that could help make people more accountable. Shareholders share the lawsuits or something?
|
On January 15 2014 08:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 08:12 xDaunt wrote:On January 15 2014 08:09 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 08:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 15 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 15 2014 07:48 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:47 Mercy13 wrote:On January 15 2014 07:07 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:05 Nacl(Draq) wrote:
[quote]
Ok. I understand now. That is a very acceptable stance.
Do you think shareholders should share evenly in responsibility or should the punishment be shared equal to the amount of the company they own. So that .000001% gets only .000001% of the punishment. Shared out by ownership. I'm a little confused then, because aren't losses already shared out by ownership? If a firm goes bankrupt, it is likely that shareholders will lose (almost?) their entire investment. If a firm gets fined, the money that it must pay belongs to shareholders. I agree that it would be great if firms were more responsible for the harm they often cause, but shareholders already stand to lose their investment if the firm if it is penalized, and this doesn't prevent bad behavior by firms. And in cases where the wrongdoing merits a fine then the system already works. But as I mentioned earlier, corporations literally murder when they calculate that they can get away with it and it'll increase share price. There has to be accountability. Murder is illegal... Only if you get caught. Royal Dutch Shell were caught paying corrupt Nigerian military officials for the brutal violent crackdown on peaceful tribesmen protesting the destruction and pollution of their lands by Shell. The operation resulted in 2000 deaths and 100,000 refugees, along with the public execution of 9 of the leaders of the peaceful protest against Shell's pollution. In 2009 Shell paid out 15.5 million in a settlement to the families of those 9. Current logic says that 15.5 million paid out means that the assets of Shell are lowered by 15.5 million which will be reflected by a tiny change in share price and therefore the shareholders have been punished for what Shell did in their name and thus the system works. Except of course that the reason this happened was that Shell calculated the cost of not polluting the area as being more than the cost of bribing the government to crush opposition and, on the urging of their absentee shareholders, acted to maximise profit. There is no justice. Their shareholders wanted them to do that? Proof? Did they take a vote? Secondly, had there be no corporate form, what would the difference be under Nigerian law? No, they didn't take a vote because they don't vote on what Shell actually does because they don't care because they don't need to care because they're not accountable. What they did do is vote for higher share prices and greater dividends when they could have voted for ethical business practices and social responsibility. And why wouldn't they when the system allows them to reap the rewards while denying responsibility. Shell own Nigerian law, that's not the question here. I really don't think that you fully understand what you're railing against and why shareholders enjoy the immunity that they do. The fact that you're dodging my question regarding why some new form of shareholder liability is necessary as opposed to direct regulation of corporate conduct is particularly telling. Can you elaborate on the idea of shareholder liability? I apparently don't really know much about this sort of thing, so your law background makes me think you would have a good idea as to how something like that could help make people more accountable. Shareholders share the lawsuits or something?
The norm under the law is that shareholders are not directly liable for the acts of the corporation. This means that shareholders generally cannot be sued or be criminally charged over the acts of the corporation. Instead, the corporation itself and the corporation's agents (ie executives, employees, and contractors) are liable for corporate bad acts (depending upon the law; corporate veil protection extends to employees/officers of the corporation to an extent).
The creation of the corporate form and the preservation of shareholder immunity for corporate acts developed under the law with very important policy considerations in mind. It definitely wasn't a haphazard idea. One of the most important policy considerations is the creation of a legal environment that encourages investment and the free flow of capital. If you start making shareholders liable for the acts of the corporation as a default rule, then who the hell is going to want to invest when they can be liable for something that they had nothing to do with (in addition to any loss of value to the company itself)? And insisting upon shareholder liability is functionally bizarre anyway. The shareholders do not have control over the acts of the corporation as a matter of law. The board controls the corporation. All that the shareholders can do is select who is on the board -- and the vast majority shareholders don't even really get to participate in that decision because their holdings are so small. Are we really going to expose everyone owns a piece of a company -- no matter how small -- to liability for corporate acts? If not everyone, where do we draw the line? It doesn't make sense.
So my point is this: why screw with shareholder liability when you can simply enact laws preventing corporations from doing whatever you don't want the corporations to do in the first place? Keep the officers and employees accountable. To the extent that shareholders need to be responsible, financially penalizing the company is enough incentive to keep corporations in line. Going beyond that is unnecessary and has terrible unintended consequences.
|
Shareholder's Liability is a section of the Balance Sheet. Shareholders have no legal liability. Corporations are also not the only legal entity that allows investors to limit their legal liability.
Corporation. N. An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility.
The mayor of Charleston, W.Va., says the company behind the chemical spill that essentially shut down his city for days, was run by "a small of group of renegades," who in his opinion knew there were problems with the tanks that leaked dangerous chemicals into the city's water supply.
"I'm not even sure they cared what happened to the public," Danny Jones told Melissa Block on Tuesday's edition of All Things Considered.Jones said he knows some of the people in charge of Freedom Industries and he considers them "to be a little edgy."
The mayor of Charleston came just short of suggesting that there was intentional foul play involved in the WV water situation.
Source
|
On January 15 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 15 2014 07:48 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:47 Mercy13 wrote:On January 15 2014 07:07 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:05 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 07:03 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 06:59 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 06:53 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 06:41 Nacl(Draq) wrote:
[quote]
So money has no business in owning things. So owning things is owning things. Ok, I see the point.
So if you owned .000001% of that slave and then someone else, who owned more than 50% of him, told him to drive drunk. Would you be responsible?
Again, attacking the person instead of the topic is considered ad hominem and is generally considered rude. That's fine. I can deal with it.
(and oddly enough, if you own a bar and that bar gives alcohol to someone and that person later drives drunk, then the owner of the bar is held responsible. So in actuality even though you don't own the person you are responsible. This is how US law works anyway.) The bar example is completely irrelevant, bars aren't judged responsible because they own their customers, they're judged responsible because they are given a legal responsibility to ensure their product is not abused. You keep explaining how if a free person freely chooses to do something then you wouldn't hold another unrelated individual responsible and therefore that somehow means that if an institution you own that is legally controlled by you and has no individual rights but rather rights derived from you does something then you shouldn't be held accountable either. It doesn't make any kind of sense. I put the bar scenario in () to signify it wasn't truly apart of the discussion. Just as a side note/footnote if you will. So you are saying that if your, non-existent, slave which you own .0000001% of drove drunk after being told by more than 50% of the other owners then you are responsible, as a group. Which means that the person who owns .00000001% of but decided that they didn't want to part ways from the group is responsible. Ok. I think I understand what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong. If someone chooses to be apart of a group and that group makes a decision then the people who are apart of that group are all responsible. If the group makes a decision and a person leaves because of the decision they are not responsible? Is that correct? I'm saying that if you believe your business is acting unethically or criminally and you cannot force it to act otherwise because you are a minority shareholder then you should sell your stake in it so it is not doing it in your name. Reaping the rewards of the actions while disowning the responsibility is not an acceptable stance. Is the nightmare scenario in which shareholders desert negligent businesses such a problem here? Ok. I understand now. That is a very acceptable stance. Do you think shareholders should share evenly in responsibility or should the punishment be shared equal to the amount of the company they own. So that .000001% gets only .000001% of the punishment. Shared out by ownership. I'm a little confused then, because aren't losses already shared out by ownership? If a firm goes bankrupt, it is likely that shareholders will lose (almost?) their entire investment. If a firm gets fined, the money that it must pay belongs to shareholders. I agree that it would be great if firms were more responsible for the harm they often cause, but shareholders already stand to lose their investment if the firm if it is penalized, and this doesn't prevent bad behavior by firms. And in cases where the wrongdoing merits a fine then the system already works. But as I mentioned earlier, corporations literally murder when they calculate that they can get away with it and it'll increase share price. There has to be accountability. Murder is illegal... Only if you get caught. Royal Dutch Shell were caught paying corrupt Nigerian military officials for the brutal violent crackdown on peaceful tribesmen protesting the destruction and pollution of their lands by Shell. The operation resulted in 2000 deaths and 100,000 refugees, along with the public execution of 9 of the leaders of the peaceful protest against Shell's pollution. In 2009 Shell paid out 15.5 million in a settlement to the families of those 9. Current logic says that 15.5 million paid out means that the assets of Shell are lowered by 15.5 million which will be reflected by a tiny change in share price and therefore the shareholders have been punished for what Shell did in their name and thus the system works. Except of course that the reason this happened was that Shell calculated the cost of not polluting the area as being more than the cost of bribing the government to crush opposition and, on the urging of their absentee shareholders, acted to maximise profit. There is no justice.
So lets see... 15.5/9 = 1.72222222222 million dollars to kill someone without any legal issues. Lets round it up to 2 million.
Are individuals allowed to kill whoever they want for 2 million dollars? Or wait, there was 2000 deaths... but that is only 1 sig fig so it could be 1700 ish deaths only. So lets just say 1500 deaths. 15.5 million/ 1500 = 10,333.33 lets say 11,000.
So. It costs a corporation 11,000 USD to kill someone without any jail time. Now working overtime as a linecook in a restaurant can get you about 50,000 USD a year in the midwest of the US so if you have a roommate you can probably get about 15-25k a year profit. That means a line cook that works overtime can kill two people a year without any legal action against them other than the fine if they follow the same laws as the Shell corporation.
|
Norway28927 Posts
On January 15 2014 06:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 06:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
maybe there's something wrong with the very premise that the sole purpose of a corporation is to make money for the shareholders Eh? Is that how it works in Norway or something?
You know, I actually don't think it's that black or white in USA either, and I think this premise to some degree holds true in Norway as well. (although less.)
I think most people want to do good, even greedy capitalists, and I think the archetypal villainous board member/ shareholder who cares but nothing but short term profit is more popular in movies than in real life. But I still think that corporations care too much about profit as opposed to greater good, I don't think greater economic output and "trickle down" wealth is a viable long term solution because it depends on infinite growth for society to work considering how a primarily profit-motivated economic system inevitably leads to top heavy wealth allocation - which admittedly isn't necessarily problematic if wealth increases altogether. And infinite growth I believe is impossible in a world of finite resources. Following that, I do believe there are actually enough resources for everyone currently on the planet and projected to be here in the future if they are distributed in a more even and sensible manner. Adding to this, I think in USA, my point of view has much less support, and thus people care more about profit, not because they are more evil, but because Americans to a greater degree buy the idea of economic growth being a societal good by default. In particular I believe that strange people far away and the environment are both likely to be exploited by a system that highly values profit and doesn't primarily operate based on morality because these evils are likely not to be felt by anyone directly involved in the company - including shareholders.
Note that I do by no means think that Norway is a saint here. Our Statoil has a shady track record - I find their involvement in Canadian oil-sand missions displacing indigenous people abhorrent, and our pension fund (the world's largest single investor last I checked), while actually having an ethical council, has also been slow to follow through on their excluded companies. Still though, there's quite some effort made to invest morally, and I certainly think it's better than average. And even then, while not enough to make a political impact, many Norwegians are vocally opposed to Statoil's engagement in Canada even knowing that they make us even richer.
I really do think there's a considerable difference in attitudes regarding this between our countries' populations. And from my perspective, it would be great if say, there could be like, just increased taxation altogether or whatever on companies involved in unethical endeavors, although I can see how it's hard to define and enforce, but there just has to be made some changes both political and within people's mindsets to make corporations operate more morally, and I think the heavy focus on profit and the idea that increased economic output justifies amoral behavior is making this change impossible.
|
United States41117 Posts
Chalk another one for proponents of marriage equality.
Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern ruled Tuesday, according to Tulsa World. The ruling is stayed pending an appeal.
A similar decision struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage last year, but the Supreme Court granted the state's request to halt marriages pending an appeal.
“Judge Kern has come to the conclusion that so many have before him – that the fundamental equality of lesbian and gay couples is guaranteed by the United States Constitution," said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin in a statement.
Source
|
On January 15 2014 09:06 Nacl(Draq) wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 15 2014 07:48 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:47 Mercy13 wrote:On January 15 2014 07:07 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:05 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 07:03 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 06:59 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 06:53 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The bar example is completely irrelevant, bars aren't judged responsible because they own their customers, they're judged responsible because they are given a legal responsibility to ensure their product is not abused.
You keep explaining how if a free person freely chooses to do something then you wouldn't hold another unrelated individual responsible and therefore that somehow means that if an institution you own that is legally controlled by you and has no individual rights but rather rights derived from you does something then you shouldn't be held accountable either. It doesn't make any kind of sense. I put the bar scenario in () to signify it wasn't truly apart of the discussion. Just as a side note/footnote if you will. So you are saying that if your, non-existent, slave which you own .0000001% of drove drunk after being told by more than 50% of the other owners then you are responsible, as a group. Which means that the person who owns .00000001% of but decided that they didn't want to part ways from the group is responsible. Ok. I think I understand what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong. If someone chooses to be apart of a group and that group makes a decision then the people who are apart of that group are all responsible. If the group makes a decision and a person leaves because of the decision they are not responsible? Is that correct? I'm saying that if you believe your business is acting unethically or criminally and you cannot force it to act otherwise because you are a minority shareholder then you should sell your stake in it so it is not doing it in your name. Reaping the rewards of the actions while disowning the responsibility is not an acceptable stance. Is the nightmare scenario in which shareholders desert negligent businesses such a problem here? Ok. I understand now. That is a very acceptable stance. Do you think shareholders should share evenly in responsibility or should the punishment be shared equal to the amount of the company they own. So that .000001% gets only .000001% of the punishment. Shared out by ownership. I'm a little confused then, because aren't losses already shared out by ownership? If a firm goes bankrupt, it is likely that shareholders will lose (almost?) their entire investment. If a firm gets fined, the money that it must pay belongs to shareholders. I agree that it would be great if firms were more responsible for the harm they often cause, but shareholders already stand to lose their investment if the firm if it is penalized, and this doesn't prevent bad behavior by firms. And in cases where the wrongdoing merits a fine then the system already works. But as I mentioned earlier, corporations literally murder when they calculate that they can get away with it and it'll increase share price. There has to be accountability. Murder is illegal... Only if you get caught. Royal Dutch Shell were caught paying corrupt Nigerian military officials for the brutal violent crackdown on peaceful tribesmen protesting the destruction and pollution of their lands by Shell. The operation resulted in 2000 deaths and 100,000 refugees, along with the public execution of 9 of the leaders of the peaceful protest against Shell's pollution. In 2009 Shell paid out 15.5 million in a settlement to the families of those 9. Current logic says that 15.5 million paid out means that the assets of Shell are lowered by 15.5 million which will be reflected by a tiny change in share price and therefore the shareholders have been punished for what Shell did in their name and thus the system works. Except of course that the reason this happened was that Shell calculated the cost of not polluting the area as being more than the cost of bribing the government to crush opposition and, on the urging of their absentee shareholders, acted to maximise profit. There is no justice. So lets see... 15.5/9 = 1.72222222222 million dollars to kill someone without any legal issues. Lets round it up to 2 million. Are individuals allowed to kill whoever they want for 2 million dollars? Or wait, there was 2000 deaths... but that is only 1 sig fig so it could be 1700 ish deaths only. So lets just say 1500 deaths. 15.5 million/ 1500 = 10,333.33 lets say 11,000. So. It costs a corporation 11,000 USD to kill someone without any jail time. Now working overtime as a linecook in a restaurant can get you about 50,000 USD a year in the midwest of the US so if you have a roommate you can probably get about 15-25k a year profit. That means a line cook that works overtime can kill two people a year without any legal action against them other than the fine if they follow the same laws as the Shell corporation.
I'm sure in a place like nigeria you can do that. Now if shell had done this in america, we would be talking much larger money values.
|
On January 15 2014 09:19 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 09:06 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 15 2014 07:48 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:47 Mercy13 wrote:On January 15 2014 07:07 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:05 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 07:03 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 06:59 Nacl(Draq) wrote:
[quote]
I put the bar scenario in () to signify it wasn't truly apart of the discussion. Just as a side note/footnote if you will.
So you are saying that if your, non-existent, slave which you own .0000001% of drove drunk after being told by more than 50% of the other owners then you are responsible, as a group. Which means that the person who owns .00000001% of but decided that they didn't want to part ways from the group is responsible.
Ok. I think I understand what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If someone chooses to be apart of a group and that group makes a decision then the people who are apart of that group are all responsible.
If the group makes a decision and a person leaves because of the decision they are not responsible?
Is that correct? I'm saying that if you believe your business is acting unethically or criminally and you cannot force it to act otherwise because you are a minority shareholder then you should sell your stake in it so it is not doing it in your name. Reaping the rewards of the actions while disowning the responsibility is not an acceptable stance. Is the nightmare scenario in which shareholders desert negligent businesses such a problem here? Ok. I understand now. That is a very acceptable stance. Do you think shareholders should share evenly in responsibility or should the punishment be shared equal to the amount of the company they own. So that .000001% gets only .000001% of the punishment. Shared out by ownership. I'm a little confused then, because aren't losses already shared out by ownership? If a firm goes bankrupt, it is likely that shareholders will lose (almost?) their entire investment. If a firm gets fined, the money that it must pay belongs to shareholders. I agree that it would be great if firms were more responsible for the harm they often cause, but shareholders already stand to lose their investment if the firm if it is penalized, and this doesn't prevent bad behavior by firms. And in cases where the wrongdoing merits a fine then the system already works. But as I mentioned earlier, corporations literally murder when they calculate that they can get away with it and it'll increase share price. There has to be accountability. Murder is illegal... Only if you get caught. Royal Dutch Shell were caught paying corrupt Nigerian military officials for the brutal violent crackdown on peaceful tribesmen protesting the destruction and pollution of their lands by Shell. The operation resulted in 2000 deaths and 100,000 refugees, along with the public execution of 9 of the leaders of the peaceful protest against Shell's pollution. In 2009 Shell paid out 15.5 million in a settlement to the families of those 9. Current logic says that 15.5 million paid out means that the assets of Shell are lowered by 15.5 million which will be reflected by a tiny change in share price and therefore the shareholders have been punished for what Shell did in their name and thus the system works. Except of course that the reason this happened was that Shell calculated the cost of not polluting the area as being more than the cost of bribing the government to crush opposition and, on the urging of their absentee shareholders, acted to maximise profit. There is no justice. So lets see... 15.5/9 = 1.72222222222 million dollars to kill someone without any legal issues. Lets round it up to 2 million. Are individuals allowed to kill whoever they want for 2 million dollars? Or wait, there was 2000 deaths... but that is only 1 sig fig so it could be 1700 ish deaths only. So lets just say 1500 deaths. 15.5 million/ 1500 = 10,333.33 lets say 11,000. So. It costs a corporation 11,000 USD to kill someone without any jail time. Now working overtime as a linecook in a restaurant can get you about 50,000 USD a year in the midwest of the US so if you have a roommate you can probably get about 15-25k a year profit. That means a line cook that works overtime can kill two people a year without any legal action against them other than the fine if they follow the same laws as the Shell corporation. I'm sure in a place like nigeria you can do that. Now if shell had done this in america, we would be talking much larger money values.
And the people responsible would be thrown in jail/executed on murder/conspiracy charges.
|
On January 15 2014 07:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Do you feel any shame at all when you pull this crap? When you say with a straight face that people have said and believe in things that anyone looking at the conversation could easily tell they have not and do not? Any shame at all?
It's funny that you ask this since you have a proven track record of posting and believing bullshit that anyone looking at the conversation would know is untrue, disingeuous, and willfully ignorant. Kwark didn't say anything about a corporate malfeasance punisher-in-chief, nor does he say the issue is black and white, but your response seems to assume that that is the main thrust of his argument.
On September 13 2013 11:23 DeepElemBlues wrote:Secondly, the Bakken play is now producing at 5.6 million instead of the previous 5.3 with about half the number of wells as previously were operational. I suggest you learn the difference between a larger number and a smaller number and how this relates to proper usage of the word "decline." Or maybe you should just stop lying. Total resource extraction amounts do in fact matter when that number keeps rising, not the conclusion you're pushing, now is it? Oh that's right we have to wait 5-10 years for you to be proven right or wrong but hell it is inevitable that you're right because... well because nothing really. 7 billion recoverable barrels is a bullshit number and it's not really surprising given your prior inaccuracy that you would use such a number. The actual number is 45-58 billion according to the EIA and your argument is shitstink anyway. Is shale oil supposed to meet 100% of US demand, now or in the future? No. So what relevance does your statement about US yearly oil usage have? Zippidee doodah. Is everyone in the field saying the US will be able to become a major exporter of oil in the next 5=10 years either fools or knaves? I find that hard to believe, but hey, you've got the Post-Carbon Institute (real subtle name there, wonder what their attitude is towards fossil fuels hmmm), the Energy Policy Forum (a quick glance at their website tells you where they're coming from) on your side! Might as well ask RJ Reynolds Tobacco about whether they think smoking is really dangerous or not. I do not care one whit about your lecturing regarding "puff pieces" and "total resource numbers," you think there are only 7 billion recoverable barrels of shale oil which is laughably inaccurate. The rest is just you compounding on your errors with a lot of verbiage that doesn't mean anything. The reason shale oil wasn't tapped before now is it was too expensive to be profitable. Now it is not too expensive to be profitable. It has nothing to do with "desperation." It has to do with advances in drilling technology bringing the price of frack drilling and the fracking itself down more than it does desperation about supply capacity. You remind me of a peak oilist circa 2005 saying the same thing about oil production in general, complete with implications about cooked books, disbelieving references to technological progress, and boring dogma about production. It's all the same bullshit and it's pretty sad. I understand you're touchy about "media puff pieces" (as opposed to think tank or academic puff pieces, but whatever), but: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2013/09/02/shale-gas-production-and-high-decline-rates/And here is a *gasp* even-handed article on the whole issue: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059985001tldr you're another chicken little with a bad grasp of the numbers or of how any of it actually works. in 5 years when you're wrong you'll stretch it out another 5, and when that comes you'll stretch it another 5 because hey if you keep pushing it back you'll be right eventually. if you extend the timeframe long enough every economic activity will go through a "bubble" period eventually.
On September 13 2013 12:21 IgnE wrote:7 billion recoverable comes from the Harvard report. Obviously it's all recoverable if you spend enough time and energy recovering it. The key issue is cost to recover, and with current technology at current prices, 7 billion is the latest independent number. And keep in mind that any dip in oil prices or rise in cost of shale oil production affects the shale oil industry more severely because so much capital is constantly being invested in building new wells. You make up some shit about EIA estimates 45-48 billion with no citation. http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/Estimated technically recoverable shale oil in the US: 58. This is not the same as economically recoverable. Show nested quote +When considering the market implications of abundant shale resources, it is important to distinguish between a technically recoverable resource, which is the focus of this report, and an economically recoverable resource. Technically recoverable resources represent the volumes of oil and natural gas that could be produced with current technology, regardless of oil and natural gas prices and production costs. Economically recoverable resources are resources that can be profitably produced under current market conditions. The economic recoverability of oil and gas resources depends on three factors: the costs of drilling and completing wells, the amount of oil or natural gas produced from an average well over its lifetime, and the prices received for oil and gas production. Harvard report, the most recent report that I know of, claims 7 billion for recoverable. You can sling mud about "peak oil" and stuff if you want. The fact is that the boom going on right now is pulling up the economically recoverable oil, and it's going to cost more money to pull up much beyond that. You don't cite anything for your claim that its now 5.6 million per day in the Bakken with half the wells. That's completely wrong. I assume you mean the Barnett of northern Texas (from that fluff Forbes article you linked) and its talking about gas so it's 5.6 million cubic feet of gas, not barrels of oil. The statistics I was discussing were for shale oil. Light oils. So you bring up an anecdote from a Forbes article about some small time gas producer in Texas and say that I don't know what I'm talking about. You apparently don't even understand what shale oil and shale gas are.
I should also mention that just because there are half as many rigs working (you incorrectly said wells) this has no bearing on the number of operating wells or even the number of new wells, as rigs are being operated with steerable drills for faster and more accurate drilling, allowing them to complete new wells in faster times. So thanks for being completely wrong about everything there and then pointing the finger at me as a liar. You are hysterically off-base and are pulling numbers from different classes of objects out of your ass.
You are known as being misinformed, lacking erudition, and generally talking out of your ass. You vacillate between trivially obvious remarks and histrionic polemic. Is it any surprise that Kwark dismisses your arguments that so very obviously miss the mark?
|
On January 15 2014 09:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 09:19 hunts wrote:On January 15 2014 09:06 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 15 2014 07:48 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:47 Mercy13 wrote:On January 15 2014 07:07 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:05 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 07:03 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I'm saying that if you believe your business is acting unethically or criminally and you cannot force it to act otherwise because you are a minority shareholder then you should sell your stake in it so it is not doing it in your name. Reaping the rewards of the actions while disowning the responsibility is not an acceptable stance.
Is the nightmare scenario in which shareholders desert negligent businesses such a problem here? Ok. I understand now. That is a very acceptable stance. Do you think shareholders should share evenly in responsibility or should the punishment be shared equal to the amount of the company they own. So that .000001% gets only .000001% of the punishment. Shared out by ownership. I'm a little confused then, because aren't losses already shared out by ownership? If a firm goes bankrupt, it is likely that shareholders will lose (almost?) their entire investment. If a firm gets fined, the money that it must pay belongs to shareholders. I agree that it would be great if firms were more responsible for the harm they often cause, but shareholders already stand to lose their investment if the firm if it is penalized, and this doesn't prevent bad behavior by firms. And in cases where the wrongdoing merits a fine then the system already works. But as I mentioned earlier, corporations literally murder when they calculate that they can get away with it and it'll increase share price. There has to be accountability. Murder is illegal... Only if you get caught. Royal Dutch Shell were caught paying corrupt Nigerian military officials for the brutal violent crackdown on peaceful tribesmen protesting the destruction and pollution of their lands by Shell. The operation resulted in 2000 deaths and 100,000 refugees, along with the public execution of 9 of the leaders of the peaceful protest against Shell's pollution. In 2009 Shell paid out 15.5 million in a settlement to the families of those 9. Current logic says that 15.5 million paid out means that the assets of Shell are lowered by 15.5 million which will be reflected by a tiny change in share price and therefore the shareholders have been punished for what Shell did in their name and thus the system works. Except of course that the reason this happened was that Shell calculated the cost of not polluting the area as being more than the cost of bribing the government to crush opposition and, on the urging of their absentee shareholders, acted to maximise profit. There is no justice. So lets see... 15.5/9 = 1.72222222222 million dollars to kill someone without any legal issues. Lets round it up to 2 million. Are individuals allowed to kill whoever they want for 2 million dollars? Or wait, there was 2000 deaths... but that is only 1 sig fig so it could be 1700 ish deaths only. So lets just say 1500 deaths. 15.5 million/ 1500 = 10,333.33 lets say 11,000. So. It costs a corporation 11,000 USD to kill someone without any jail time. Now working overtime as a linecook in a restaurant can get you about 50,000 USD a year in the midwest of the US so if you have a roommate you can probably get about 15-25k a year profit. That means a line cook that works overtime can kill two people a year without any legal action against them other than the fine if they follow the same laws as the Shell corporation. I'm sure in a place like nigeria you can do that. Now if shell had done this in america, we would be talking much larger money values. And the people responsible would be thrown in jail/executed on murder/conspiracy charges.
You mean the Trail of Tears? God our history sucks... Can I move to Antartica? Only continent that hasn't had a genocide occur.
|
|
|
On January 15 2014 09:25 Nacl(Draq) wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 09:20 xDaunt wrote:On January 15 2014 09:19 hunts wrote:On January 15 2014 09:06 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 15 2014 07:48 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:47 Mercy13 wrote:On January 15 2014 07:07 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:05 Nacl(Draq) wrote:
[quote]
Ok. I understand now. That is a very acceptable stance.
Do you think shareholders should share evenly in responsibility or should the punishment be shared equal to the amount of the company they own. So that .000001% gets only .000001% of the punishment. Shared out by ownership. I'm a little confused then, because aren't losses already shared out by ownership? If a firm goes bankrupt, it is likely that shareholders will lose (almost?) their entire investment. If a firm gets fined, the money that it must pay belongs to shareholders. I agree that it would be great if firms were more responsible for the harm they often cause, but shareholders already stand to lose their investment if the firm if it is penalized, and this doesn't prevent bad behavior by firms. And in cases where the wrongdoing merits a fine then the system already works. But as I mentioned earlier, corporations literally murder when they calculate that they can get away with it and it'll increase share price. There has to be accountability. Murder is illegal... Only if you get caught. Royal Dutch Shell were caught paying corrupt Nigerian military officials for the brutal violent crackdown on peaceful tribesmen protesting the destruction and pollution of their lands by Shell. The operation resulted in 2000 deaths and 100,000 refugees, along with the public execution of 9 of the leaders of the peaceful protest against Shell's pollution. In 2009 Shell paid out 15.5 million in a settlement to the families of those 9. Current logic says that 15.5 million paid out means that the assets of Shell are lowered by 15.5 million which will be reflected by a tiny change in share price and therefore the shareholders have been punished for what Shell did in their name and thus the system works. Except of course that the reason this happened was that Shell calculated the cost of not polluting the area as being more than the cost of bribing the government to crush opposition and, on the urging of their absentee shareholders, acted to maximise profit. There is no justice. So lets see... 15.5/9 = 1.72222222222 million dollars to kill someone without any legal issues. Lets round it up to 2 million. Are individuals allowed to kill whoever they want for 2 million dollars? Or wait, there was 2000 deaths... but that is only 1 sig fig so it could be 1700 ish deaths only. So lets just say 1500 deaths. 15.5 million/ 1500 = 10,333.33 lets say 11,000. So. It costs a corporation 11,000 USD to kill someone without any jail time. Now working overtime as a linecook in a restaurant can get you about 50,000 USD a year in the midwest of the US so if you have a roommate you can probably get about 15-25k a year profit. That means a line cook that works overtime can kill two people a year without any legal action against them other than the fine if they follow the same laws as the Shell corporation. I'm sure in a place like nigeria you can do that. Now if shell had done this in america, we would be talking much larger money values. And the people responsible would be thrown in jail/executed on murder/conspiracy charges. You mean the Trail of Tears? God our history sucks... Can I move to Antartica? Only continent that hasn't had a genocide occur.
Hey, if you want to feel responsible for shit that happened generations before you were born, go right on ahead. I'm not gonna lose a wink of sleep over it.
Anyway, continue on with your trolling. See how long it lasts you around here.
|
A lot of the bank issues with terrorists are because they don't find out they're helping terrorists until after they are. They have a series of lawyers/accountants looking over transactions trying to find out if they're breaking any laws and several months into things like this they find out. They're hated within the company because they're not there to make money but to actually catch what their own company is doing wrong and end up costing the company more money.
This is generally why the fines are so low. Because they turn themselves in.
Now there is something to be said about the fact that they don't check things before hand.
|
On January 15 2014 09:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 09:25 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 09:20 xDaunt wrote:On January 15 2014 09:19 hunts wrote:On January 15 2014 09:06 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On January 15 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 15 2014 07:48 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2014 07:47 Mercy13 wrote:On January 15 2014 07:07 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Shared out by ownership. I'm a little confused then, because aren't losses already shared out by ownership? If a firm goes bankrupt, it is likely that shareholders will lose (almost?) their entire investment. If a firm gets fined, the money that it must pay belongs to shareholders. I agree that it would be great if firms were more responsible for the harm they often cause, but shareholders already stand to lose their investment if the firm if it is penalized, and this doesn't prevent bad behavior by firms. And in cases where the wrongdoing merits a fine then the system already works. But as I mentioned earlier, corporations literally murder when they calculate that they can get away with it and it'll increase share price. There has to be accountability. Murder is illegal... Only if you get caught. Royal Dutch Shell were caught paying corrupt Nigerian military officials for the brutal violent crackdown on peaceful tribesmen protesting the destruction and pollution of their lands by Shell. The operation resulted in 2000 deaths and 100,000 refugees, along with the public execution of 9 of the leaders of the peaceful protest against Shell's pollution. In 2009 Shell paid out 15.5 million in a settlement to the families of those 9. Current logic says that 15.5 million paid out means that the assets of Shell are lowered by 15.5 million which will be reflected by a tiny change in share price and therefore the shareholders have been punished for what Shell did in their name and thus the system works. Except of course that the reason this happened was that Shell calculated the cost of not polluting the area as being more than the cost of bribing the government to crush opposition and, on the urging of their absentee shareholders, acted to maximise profit. There is no justice. So lets see... 15.5/9 = 1.72222222222 million dollars to kill someone without any legal issues. Lets round it up to 2 million. Are individuals allowed to kill whoever they want for 2 million dollars? Or wait, there was 2000 deaths... but that is only 1 sig fig so it could be 1700 ish deaths only. So lets just say 1500 deaths. 15.5 million/ 1500 = 10,333.33 lets say 11,000. So. It costs a corporation 11,000 USD to kill someone without any jail time. Now working overtime as a linecook in a restaurant can get you about 50,000 USD a year in the midwest of the US so if you have a roommate you can probably get about 15-25k a year profit. That means a line cook that works overtime can kill two people a year without any legal action against them other than the fine if they follow the same laws as the Shell corporation. I'm sure in a place like nigeria you can do that. Now if shell had done this in america, we would be talking much larger money values. And the people responsible would be thrown in jail/executed on murder/conspiracy charges. You mean the Trail of Tears? God our history sucks... Can I move to Antartica? Only continent that hasn't had a genocide occur. Hey, if you want to feel responsible for shit that happened generations before you were born, go right on ahead. I'm not gonna lose a wink of sleep over it. Anyway, continue on with your trolling. See how long it lasts you around here.
I'm sorry. It was a bad joke. I don't feel bad about things that happened generations ago. I didn't mean to troll. I apologize for being rude and not sticking to relevant topics.
|
United States44449 Posts
What it comes down to in my opinion is a very basic principle
Shareholders collectively appoint the board to act on their behalf and achieve the goals that the shareholders deem important.That which is wrong when an individual does it is no less wrong when a group of individuals appoint someone to do it on their behalf. If the shareholders use the power the corporate structure gives them to act unethically and irresponsibly for personal financial gain then the system is broken and requires reform, corporations should not simply be a layer of legal protection between what you pay people to do to make money for you and yourself.
It is not unreasonable to ask that shareholders vote responsibly and require their appointees conduct themselves ethically.
It is also not unreasonable to ask that shareholders collectively act to verify that their wishes are being carried out in this regard and fire the board if they fail to adhere to their shareholders standards.
It is also not unreasonable to ask someone that feels unable to accept the responsibility of owning a company to not buy a part of that company.
|
I don't think you actually understand just how many shares of public companies are out there, and how small shares can be. You're saying you want someone who has one share of stock out of a public company that has millions of public shares to be held accountable for murder if the company does something wrong? No thank you, I would rather not collapse the stock market with this idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
