On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 11:36:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:56:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

The union member shareholders would never allow themselves to be put in the position you suggest, to
wit: "...if the shareholders were exposed to civil and criminal liability..."

I expect their applause would die rapidly when they started paying fines or going to jail for the
misdeeds of mid-level managers or even high-level managers.

On 3/22/14, 1:03 PM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:56:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

The union member shareholders would never allow themselves to be put in the position you suggest, to
wit: "...if the shareholders were exposed to civil and criminal liability..."

I expect their applause would die rapidly when they started paying fines or going to jail for the
misdeeds of mid-level managers or even high-level managers.



What you are saying is in complete agreement with my point, which I have
stated only indirectly: there is no way to control these misbehaving
corporations in this country.

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

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:08:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/22/14, 1:03 PM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:56:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

The union member shareholders would never allow themselves to be put in the position you suggest, to
wit: "...if the shareholders were exposed to civil and criminal liability..."

I expect their applause would die rapidly when they started paying fines or going to jail for the
misdeeds of mid-level managers or even high-level managers.



What you are saying is in complete agreement with my point, which I have
stated only indirectly: there is no way to control these misbehaving
corporations in this country.

Do away with the unions. That'd be a good start.

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 17:18:41 -0400, Mucho Loco
wrote:

What you are saying is in complete agreement with my point, which I have
stated only indirectly: there is no way to control these misbehaving
corporations in this country.

Do away with the unions. That'd be a good start.

===

Another good start would be to do away with the misbehaving
politicians who aid and abet all of the other nonsense.

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Fines for criminal acts should be borne by the shareholders.


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

On 3/22/14, 3:30 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:06:08 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


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

Fines for criminal acts should be borne by the shareholders.

Spoken by a person who doesn't think he owns any stock.

That ends up being pretty much everyone who has a 401k or a pension
plan. It would not take long to get rid of a politician who supported
raiding their nest egg.

The customer might be able to alter the actions of a corporation, the
stock holders have virtually no say at all.
Remember my Carl Ichan story and he owns over a billion dollars worth
of Ebay stock.


I understand it completely. We've put corporations on a pedestal and,
virtually, no matter what they do wrong, they have a Get of of Jail for
(almost) Free card. That needs to change.

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

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 3:34:05 PM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote:


I understand it completely. We've put corporations on a pedestal and,
virtually, no matter what they do wrong, they have a Get of of Jail for
(almost) Free card. That needs to change.

I actually agree. Once incorporated, you can get away with tax evasion and not paying your creditors by simply declaring bankruptsy. Then just flee to another state and start over again in another last name.

Those people should be jailed, and all their extended assets siezed and used to pay off the people they screwed.