EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 795
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
KwarK
United States44311 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
excerpt: Alyssa I want to ask you, Mayor Jones, about, ah, regulation, and in particular about this company. There are reports that this tank hadn't been inspected since 1991, three years ago the U.S. Chemical Safety Board recommended that West Virginia work on preventing accidents like this one. No program like that was ever started. Has West Virginia become too friendly with industry at the expense of public safety? Mayor Jones No, I don't think so, if there was laxity in what you're talking to me about. What puzzled me about this was that the 3 tanks were right along the river, and there was a wall around them. And, there were holes in the wall. The wall had been breached, and the company was just sold. And as a condition of the company being sold, there was a million dollars put away to repair the wall. And if that's true, and I believe it to be, then they knew. I believe what we have here is a small group of renegades that were operating, and ah, I'm not even sure they even cared what happened to the public. + Show Spoiler + Audie From NPR News, this is All Things Considered. I'm Audie Cornish. Alyssa And I'm Alyssa Block. Hundreds of thousands of residents of West Virginia are enduring a 6th day without tap water, and schools in four counties of the State remain closed. That's after a leak in a chemical storage tank fouled the Elk river, right above a drinking water plant. Some 35,000 residents have now been given the all-clear, and are told to flush their taps before using their water. Bars and restaurants in downtown Charleston are hoping to return to normal operation following approval from the health department, but the economic effects of the contamination could be profound. Joining me now is the Mayor of Charleston, Danny Jones. Danny, welcome to the program. Mayor Jones Good Afternoon. Alyssa Now, how does this spill affect your city's economy? What does the prognosis look like? Mayor Jones Oh you can't imagine. It's, um, literally locked our city up. It's starting to unhinge now but it was really bad, as you said, ever restaurant, every bar, anything that had to do with running water closed. The schools closed. The Marriot hotel closed. It was just paralyzing, economically, emotionally, and everything else. And, this morning was the first morning that things looked like they might be showing a return to normalcy. Alyssa Mm-hmm. Well there are a number of lawsuits that have been filed already against the company that owns the chemical tank, Freedom Industries. Is the city of Charleston going to sue the company for lost revenue? Mayor Jones You're the first person that's asked me that question, and that's an option. It's not the first option I'm thinking about but I've already talked to my city manager about it. One problem we would have here is to calculate the damage. I believe the damage to be incalculable and its going to ripple into the future because it will cost us convention business, and I believe people will be a little gun-shy about coming back here in the future if they think this could happen again. And, of course, my message to people is that it couldn't happen again. Alyssa But how do you convince people that the water supply is, infact, safe? Mayor Jones People want to drink water. People want to bathe in it, people want to use it to cook with, they're looking to take the word, and... There have been a lot of precautions we have a very capable Health director here in the county he's watching this very closely. This water is being tested by the hour, by the day. And, uh, I believe if they say the go-ahead I would take their word for it and I think the public at large will too. Alyssa I want to ask you, Mayor Jones, about, ah, regulation, and in particular about this company. There are reports that this tank hadn't been inspected since 1991, three years ago the U.S. Chemical Safety Board recommended that West Virginia work on preventing accidents like this one. No program like that was ever started. Has West Virginia become too friendly with industry at the expense of public safety? Mayor Jones No, I don't think so, if there was laxity in what you're talking to me about. What puzzled me about this was that the 3 tanks were right along the river, and there was a wall around them. And, there were holes in the wall. The wall had been breached, and the company was just sold. And as a condition of the company being sold, there was a million dollars put away to repair the wall. And if that's true, and I believe it to be, then they knew. I believe what we have here is a small group of renegades that were operating, and ah, I'm not even sure they even cared what happened to the public. Alyssa When you say a small group of renegades, are you talking about the company, Freedom Industries? Mayor Jones I am. And when you call them renegades, what do you mean by that? Mayor Jones I happen to know... a few of them. I happen to know who they are and their backgrounds, and I talked to Gary Southern... Alyssa This is the President of the company? Mayor Jones Right. And I asked him about the wall. I asked him, I said, well, how did the chemical get in the river. And he said he didn't know. And then I said, were you aware this gentleman has a picture of the wall and it's deficient? And he said, well, yes I am. And so I caught him in a, a white one, right there. And then there are some other folks that have been involved in this, and I consider them to be a little edgy. And, um, all of this will come out. We have a very capable United States Attorney, and I'm sure that if there were any environmental regulations breached from a criminal perspective, I can promise you Booth Goodwin will do his job. Alyssa That's, that's the U.S. Attorney, for West Virginia? Mayor Jones Yes. Alyssa Given what you're saying, about this company, and their concern or lack of concern about their safety, what is your message for the people of Charleston? Mayor Jones This has been a very trying time for us, and um, these folks have been brave and patient. I hope that this was something that won't be repeated. I think that that may be what's good, that comes out of this. That we will be on guard, that the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection will be on guard, and um, we need to find if this was just an aberration. Alyssa Mayor Jones, thanks for your time. Mayor Jones All right, good to talk to you. That's Mayor Danny Jones, the mayor of Charleston, West Virginia. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On January 15 2014 09:42 KwarK wrote: 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. It's really tough to have a serious discussion about this if you can't come up with a mechanism to accomplish your stated goal of increased shareholder responsibility. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44311 Posts
On January 15 2014 09:54 Mercy13 wrote: It's really tough to have a serious discussion about this if you can't come up with a mechanism to accomplish your stated goal of increased shareholder responsibility. That is, unfortunately, the tricky part. It's set up to combine the worst excesses of amoral capitalism with vast diffusal of responsibility. The current system isn't working though. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 15 2014 09:48 KwarK wrote: I already addressed that ridiculous argument when DEB suggested I wanted each and every BP shareholder to inspect each oil rig. There is no reason why they can't act collectively to have an independent body verify that their wishes are being carried out. Going "we can't hold people accountable for the crimes of the corporations, nobody would want to be involved in those criminal corporations" doesn't actually sound that much like a problem to me. Eh? That's what the board is for... they're charged with overseeing the operation and putting in place a system for monitoring the company and making sure everything is on the up and up. Doesn't mean it always works as intended, of course. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On January 15 2014 09:58 KwarK wrote: That is, unfortunately, the tricky part. It's set up to combine the worst excesses of amoral capitalism with vast diffusal of responsibility. The current system isn't working though. No argument there. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 15 2014 09:58 KwarK wrote: That is, unfortunately, the tricky part. It's set up to combine the worst excesses of amoral capitalism with vast diffusal of responsibility. The current system isn't working though. Wouldn't having millions of shareholders share in the blame diffuse responsibility more than concentrating it in the hands of corporate directors? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 15 2014 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Eh? That's what the board is for... they're charged with overseeing the operation and putting in place a system for monitoring the company and making sure everything is on the up and up. Doesn't mean it always works as intended, of course. So if you are Dick Fuld and you are chairman of Lehman Bros. in 2007 and 2008, what happens when it goes down in flames? Oh not much, you are still worth over $100M. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 15 2014 10:03 IgnE wrote: So if you are Dick Fuld and you are chairman of Lehman Bros. in 2007 and 2008, what happens when it goes down in flames? Oh not much, you are still worth over $100M. IDK IgnE, what laws did he break? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
I disagree. The current system works. It is the responsibility of the state to proscribe certain corporate conduct and prosecute violations of those laws. Fucking up the corporate form like Kwark is suggesting is pointless. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
Probably securities fraud. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
Sounds illegal. Go tell the DA to get on it. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On January 15 2014 10:08 xDaunt wrote: I disagree. The current system works. It is the responsibility of the state to proscribe certain corporate conduct and prosecute violations of those laws. Fucking up the corporate form like Kwark is suggesting is pointless. I wouldn't suggest messing with the corporate form. You mentioned earlier that the current structure facilitates the free movement of capital, and this benefit is difficult to understate. However, this doesn't mean that the current system doesn't also lead to enormous harm, in large part because of the perverse incentives acting on corporate managers. I would focus on addressing these perverse incentives rather than doing away with limited liability for shareholders. In particular, I think share value isn't a very useful metric for evaluating CEOs, and that many boards of directors have too many conflicts of interest to do their jobs properly. I think it is in the interests of corporations to correct these issues, so they may change over time. Alternatively, I could support legislation designed to address these issues. Maybe institute limits on the severance packages for CEOs who do a bad job? Maybe limitations on the number of boards individual directors can participate on at the same time? Unfortunately it's a complicated issue and any changes might do more harm than good, but I think it's important to recognize that there is a lot of room for improvement. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
 | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Tuesday that no new regulations are needed after a chemical spill in West Virginia last week left more than 300,000 people without safe tap water. He suggested the incident was not the result of less environmental and energy regulation but of the Obama administration's failure to enforce existing rules. "The issue is this: We have enough regulations on the books. And what the administration ought to be doing is actually doing their jobs," Boehner said at a press conference. "Why wasn't this plant inspected since 1991?" "I am entirely confident that there are ample regulations already on the books to protect the health and safety of the American people," he added. "Somebody ought to be held accountable here. What we try to do is look at those regulations that we think are cumbersome, are over the top, and that are costing the economy jobs. That's where our focus continues to be." Boehner's comments came in response to a question on whether the spill at a storage facility operated by Freedom Industries, which involved chemicals that are used to clean coal, was a "tradeoff" for the lax environmental and energy regulation favored among Republicans. Source | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Calling for “all hands on deck” to assist the economy, President Barack Obama is urging his Cabinet to identify ways to keep his administration relevant to people struggling in the up-and-down recovery. sourceWith two weeks left before delivering an economy-focused State of the Union address to Congress, Obama is picking up the pace of his jobs message and demonstrating how he can advance his economic agenda administratively and through his ability to coax action from important interest groups. “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” Obama said Tuesday as he convened his first Cabinet meeting of the year. Obama continued: ”And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.” Why wait for legislative action when you're in the executive with a pen and a phone? | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
On January 15 2014 09:48 KwarK wrote: I already addressed that ridiculous argument when DEB suggested I wanted each and every BP shareholder to inspect each oil rig. There is no reason why they can't act collectively to have an independent body verify that their wishes are being carried out. Going "we can't hold people accountable for the crimes of the corporations, nobody would want to be involved in those criminal corporations" doesn't actually sound that much like a problem to me. They do have independent bodies, they're called proxies or trustees... I never suggested you wanted any such thing, once again Kwarky can't help but say that someone said something they didn't say because it's easier for him to argue against. What I did was ask you are people supposed to go to such lengths to satisfy you. You have stated that no, they would not have to, and have, in your wisdom, suggested that they do something that a fair number of shareholders already do. You are still arguing that there should be some kind of compulsion for shareholders to undertake activity that may cost them time and money more valuable than their own, uh, stock of stock, because maybe this will cause corporations to behave better. You want to put a burden on people for engaging in lawful activity because this burden might help prevent unlawful activity, you need something better than "this increased oversight will work, really!" Consider this: modern government, with all its rules, regulations, oversight powers, manpower and tax money, was not able to prevent incidents like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill or the recent chemical spill in West Virginia. Now why should anyone expect that some person or persons appointed by an amalgamation of shareholders, possibly millions of shareholders, certainly very commonly if this new burden were imposed hundreds or thousands of shareholders, do any better than the governmental regulatory state? Are these new entities not even more susceptible to look the other way, their being more self-interested, at least directly, in the profits of the company, still, than government officials? Regulatory capture and sound regulations not being enforced is common enough, is a collective action of self-interested shareholders going to do better? Forgive me if I am skeptical. That is, unfortunately, the tricky part. It's set up to combine the worst excesses of amoral capitalism with vast diffusal of responsibility. The current system isn't working though. By any rational measure the current system is superior to any others attempted or proposed and is, objectively, working quite well. The current system has less fraud and other malfeasance than 150, 100, or 50 years ago, and by just about any environmental measure, the current system has better results than that of 150, 100, or 50 years ago. But I suppose when it's time for silly buzz phrases like "amoral capitalism" to be thrown around, the time for facts to have large relevance in the discussion has passed. What exactly is "amoral capitalism"? Can you give an example of "amoral capitalism" at work and successful in modern First World society? Enron? Gone. People went to jail. Lehman Brothers? Gone. BP? 11 billion in fines and a large amount in stock value, lost, reputation, tattered. How much did the Valdiz spill cost Exxon again? If you want "amoral capitalism," head off to a country like Russia or India or Pakistan or China or Mexico or Venezuela or any of those other countries that are officially more socialist or government-interventionist than the "amoral capitalis[t]" US yet are much more unequal, much less environmentally healthy, much more socially unstable, have much more and more deadly frequency of violent crime, and have a much greater frequency of robber barons running roughshod at the present time. But shareholders not keeping abreast of malfeasance, which is naturally covered up? (Or at least an attempt at cover-up is usually made.) Amoral capitalism, the system isn't working, we need to bring the pain so people will shape up. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 15 2014 16:00 DeepElemBlues wrote: They do have independent bodies, they're called proxies or trustees... I never suggested you wanted any such thing, once again Kwarky can't help but say that someone said something they didn't say because it's easier for him to argue against. What I did was ask you are people supposed to go to such lengths to satisfy you. You have stated that no, they would not have to, and have, in your wisdom, suggested that they do something that a fair number of shareholders already do. You are still arguing that there should be some kind of compulsion for shareholders to undertake activity that may cost them time and money more valuable than their own, uh, stock of stock, because maybe this will cause corporations to behave better. You want to put a burden on people for engaging in lawful activity because this burden might help prevent unlawful activity, you need something better than "this increased oversight will work, really!" Consider this: modern government, with all its rules, regulations, oversight powers, manpower and tax money, was not able to prevent incidents like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill or the recent chemical spill in West Virginia. Now why should anyone expect that some person or persons appointed by an amalgamation of shareholders, possibly millions of shareholders, certainly very commonly if this new burden were imposed hundreds or thousands of shareholders, do any better than the governmental regulatory state? Are these new entities not even more susceptible to look the other way, their being more self-interested, at least directly, in the profits of the company, still, than government officials? Regulatory capture and sound regulations not being enforced is common enough, is a collective action of self-interested shareholders going to do better? Forgive me if I am skeptical. By any rational measure the current system is superior to any others attempted or proposed and is, objectively, working quite well. The current system has less fraud and other malfeasance than 150, 100, or 50 years ago, and by just about any environmental measure, the current system has better results than that of 150, 100, or 50 years ago. But I suppose when it's time for silly buzz phrases like "amoral capitalism" to be thrown around, the time for facts to have large relevance in the discussion has passed. What exactly is "amoral capitalism"? Can you give an example of "amoral capitalism" at work and successful in modern First World society? Enron? Gone. People went to jail. Lehman Brothers? Gone. BP? 11 billion in fines and a large amount in stock value, lost, reputation, tattered. How much did the Valdiz spill cost Exxon again? If you want "amoral capitalism," head off to a country like Russia or India or Pakistan or China or Mexico or Venezuela or any of those other countries that are officially more socialist or government-interventionist than the "amoral capitalis[t]" US yet are much more unequal, much less environmentally healthy, much more socially unstable, have much more and more deadly frequency of violent crime, and have a much greater frequency of robber barons running roughshod at the present time. But shareholders not keeping abreast of malfeasance, which is naturally covered up? (Or at least an attempt at cover-up is usually made.) Amoral capitalism, the system isn't working, we need to bring the pain so people will shape up. Are you fucking serious with that? Were you asking those same questions in December 2000 right before Enron blew up? Obviously no LTCM's around then. Were you asking those same questions in June of 2008 right before Lehman blew up? Because there were obviously no Enrons around then. It's moronic to say there are no X around because, look, no X, when X is contingent upon a certain level of seclusion or obfuscation. Not to mention the complete lack of understanding about the causes and circumstances surrounding the existence of countries like Russia, Mexico, and Venezuela. Do you listen to yourself? Are you ashamed of yourself for posting such idiotic dribble? Even a little bit? | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On January 15 2014 14:44 Danglars wrote: source Why wait for legislative action when you're in the executive with a pen and a phone? This president has zero respect for the system. Swore an oath to uphold the Constitution but tramples all over it. Yet he is cheered on by his side for "taking action" and "doing the right thing" against those "terrorists, the Republicans." The same lefties that call for more rules and regulations on private citizens and private entities advocate the expansion of the "fourth branch of government," the administrative state. They wish to grant their leaders with more and more executive power to use at their own discretion, outside the confines of already existing rules. It's schizophrenic. The person who adopts these two ideas at once is either in a state of contradiction with themselves or is incredibly naive. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 15 2014 16:35 Introvert wrote: And they are the very ones turning their analysis on its tail when a Republican takes the presidency. Gotta compromise, gotta reach across the aisle, gotta reach consensus. It's okay passing Obamacare without a single Democratic vote ... Democrats are in charge, ideologically aligned with progressives. It's not okay passing the Patriot Act with large Republican majorities. (Heck can you even imagine Bush changing the effects of the Patriot Act or even TARP 1 with a stroke of his pen, as Obama has done over a dozen times with PPACA. There would have been widespread calls for his resignation. Changing laws is constitutionally in the power of the legislative branch.)This president has zero respect for the system. Swore an oath to uphold the Constitution but tramples all over it. Yet he is cheered on by his side for "taking action" and "doing the right thing" against those "terrorists, the Republicans." The same lefties that call for more rules and regulations on private citizens and private entities advocate the expansion of the "fourth branch of government," the administrative state. They wish to grant their leaders with more and more executive power to use at their own discretion, outside the confines of already existing rules. It's schizophrenic. The person who adopts these two ideas at once is either in a state of contradiction with themselves or is incredibly naive. | ||
| ||
