OT: Oil spill size

Page 4 of 5  

<stuff snipped>
<What's your evidence that "paying the ultimate price, bankruptcy" works? Remember Enron and WorldCom? Not only did they go bankrupt, but the executives received lengthy prison terms and Ken Lay died of a hear attack. Yet they were followed by more recent financial trickery at Lehman, AEG, Bernie Madoff, etc?>
Until shareholders stopped being punished for the criminal acts of corporate executives and those who commited the misdeeds are, very little will change.
<In the case of the recent corporate bankruptcies, eg Lehman, the only ones to get really punished were the shareholders who lost everything. The executives were out a job, but only after collecting years of exec bonuses amounting to hundreds of millions based on profits generated by taking huge risks that ultimately directly lead to the bankruptcies. And I wouldn't be surprised to see many of them showing up at other businesses before long.>
When execs know their company is on the rocks, they begin their slow sell-off off their stocks. Think those AIG bonuses ever got paid back? Last I remember, it was not a single one even though many promised. They know that the news and the population have a short attention span and if they wait until the spotlight moves elsewhere, they can probably escape unnoticed.
<I'm not saying that corporations shouldn't be penalized for doing wrong. Only that there isn't much evidence that it works. In fact, I would argue that it's getting much worse due to the fact that moral standards in general are in decline in the USA A few decades ago, if you filed for bankruptcy, especially personal bankruptcy, it was a disgrace and to be avoided. Now, it's being treated like just a normal course of every day life. And the bankruptcy part I can understand. When the govt hands out taxpayer money right and left to bail out any company it chooses, why shouldn't Joe six pack think that walking away from a mortgage because it's upside down at the moment is OK too?>
Actually, walking a way from a mortgage is usually more honorable than a bankruptcy because the contract usually says, quite explicitly, if you don't pay, we take the house. So underwater borrowers are saying, OK, you own it now. It's just that with so MANY houses in foreclosure, banks would rather have the cash. But that's not the deal they signed (well, in some states it is).
Bankruptcy, on the other hand, allows you to walk away from debts that had no such "return of property" provisions and the creditors figuratively speaking don't even get the house back. Or even pieces of it. They get f\/(ked.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/12/2010 8:10 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Um, wuts a "hear" attack? Is that when someone dies after being yelled at?
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Mackerel with Tar Tar sauce, splash of lemon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

they're already oiled,ready for the grill. same for the birds. ;-)
seriously,much of our seafood is farmed,or imported from other nations.
even mudbugs.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It was something above 5.5% dividend in early April. Not at all shabby in this day and age. (Currently at 9% if you are ready to roll the dice)
--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Can he do that, for an international company? The largest in the UK?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

leak crude is exppected to make it to the beaches of britian, so bp better save their money to pay for that clean up too
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:16:44 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"

Golly Gee Bob. Before they pay, do you think a forensic exam should be done and determine if this crude is the same (Texas Tea)?
Someone posted a link recently about oil spills from super tankers. Most of those seemed to be around Europe?
Crude leaks naturally from the world's ocean floors.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're beginning to sound suspiciously similar to the low-functioning organisms who say that because mercury occurs naturally, it's OK to pump more of it into our air & water.
You don't want to sound like a low-functioning organism, do you? Of course not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 21:42:30 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"

No Joe. I find that what BP has done is vial, disgusting and contemptuous. Their feet should be held to the fire. I think we agree.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

But the reality is that once the news organizations find a bigger story the issue, no matter how vile, will fade away. Exxon's still in business, and they were driving drunk!! The ultimate liability and negligence. They skated and they didn't have two other companies and a lax Federal government to even share the blame.
After 20 years of fighting that bankrupted many of the claimants, the punitive award was wittled from $5B to 500M by CJJR & Co. The big cleanup cost estimates (but not the damage) were off by 100X. Exxon got a free pass, just like Union Carbide in Bhopal.
The sad truth is that no one will hold anyone's feet to the fire, they never do. Business can count on a pliant press, a government that wants everyone to forget as fast as BP does and a politically very weak set of states that proved how little clout they had after Katrina. Congress will hold endless hearings to make people think something's being done and in the end, they'll do what they did before: gut the protections for PEOPLE and give Big Oil another bonus like the $75M cap on payouts for spills.
That's what happened before, and sadly, that's often the best predictor of what will happen again. Oh, and after their drunk captain wrecked the ship, Exxon spun off ship ownership to protect their assets. Trying doing something like that if *you're* arrested for drunk driving and you try putting your car under someone else's name to escape future liability. Off to jail you go. Face it, when Roberts said, basically "corporations have the rights of people" the US pretty much came to an end as we knew it. People don't live forever, your Honor. That's a big difference and should have invalidated that contention, ipso facto.
The only hope for a bigger reaction is when the oil washes up on tony Palm Beach or reaches the Gulf Stream and European waters. Otherwise this news story will die in the way that the endless war on terror did, the way the Exxon spill did and the way the need for tough financial reform did. This is the MTV nation. Attention span 5 minutes maximum.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course Roberts did not say that as a new thing. The corporations as person has been around since the mid-1800s or so. Heck the idea of corp as having first amendment rights isn't new, the gist of the Campaign finance law decision. It was put in place by that bastion of Conservative theory, the Warren Court. Might want to look up the case law on the Subject before jerking the knee.
--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That was sorta pissy of me. I apologize. Everybody has an off-day occassionally, I guess. I shall give myself 10 lashes.
I find it disingenuous at absolute best for suggestions of not following precedent to be brought about in a case settled in 1990 that itself overturned not one, but at least two cases from the late 70s (First Natl Bank of Boston vs. Bellotti 78) and (Buckley in 1976). Bellotti specifically addressed this in the majority opinion. Justice Lewis Powell ruled that a Massachusetts criminal statute prohibiting the expenditure of corporate funds "for the purpose of ... influencing or affecting" voters' opinions infringed on corporations' "protected speech in a manner unjustified by a compelling state interest." The Supremes have also noted, that as it involves corporations and business interests, that only specific kinds of speech can be regulated. In a 1978 case, the Court noted" We have not discarded the "common-sense" distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction, which occurs in an area traditionally subject to government regulation, and other varieties of speech. To require a parity of constitutional protection for commercial and noncommercial speech alike could invite dilution, simply by a leveling process, of the force of the Amendment's guarantee with respect to the latter kind of speech. Rather than subject the First Amendment to such a devitalization, we instead have afforded commercial speech a limited measure of protection, commensurate with its subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values, while allowing modes of regulation that might be impermissible in the realm of noncommercial expression." (Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n). Although (somewhat surprisingly to my mind) this wasn't cited in the case at hand, it does show that only certain, very specific, kinds of speech can be regulated. I was wrong in hanging this on the Warren ,it was the Burger Court. Looked at the chart wrong. Another 5 lashes.
Basically, for the most part I did not mess with your citations, because I thought they were handled by the Court in their opinion. That part basically boiled down to focussing on the guys we thought were right. Not much to debate there, other than the fact that you were breathtakingly wrong (grin). One last note, the majority decision did keep intact the prohibitions about direct funding, PAC funding and the only thing directly at point was whether money could be spent independently of a campaign or party on issue oriented campaigns in a 90-day window around a general election and a smaller one around a primary. Even if intact, the law would have had no impact whatsoever on any of the ads we were bombarded by over the Health Care Act, Cap and Trade or most of the ads thanking Congresscritters for voting the right way (or chastising them for voting wrong). The only thing that MIGHT have been stopped in recent history was the "thanking" ads and only then if was near a primary election in that state.
--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That would seem to be a very good question, wouldn't it? The immediate answer is no, he can't even do that to a US company, unless he can make a case and persuade a judge. In the case of BP, I would think it would be nearly impossible. Bottom line, no one should get their shorts in a knot, because this has a lot more to do with the usual Obama smoke and mirrors than reality. In other words, he's trying to show how tough he is and that he is doing something. In reality, whether it works or not matters little.
It's like the snap judgement to suspend all drilling in the Gulf. Not only is that going to force tens of thousands more onto the unemployment roles, it will have long lasting consequences. Rigs that can't drill here may very well wind up drilling for China any other countries that can and will drill. And if they secure a long term contract, they may not just come back to the USA so quickly.
If Obama was any kind of real CEO he would have picked up the phone and called Tony Hayward in the first few days of the disaster to establish communications directly at the top. Yet, the fact that he hasn't goes almost unreported in the mainstream media. Can you imagine how it would have been reported had it been Bush?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You're mostly correct. To smart people who view all political utterances with suspicion, it matters little. But unfortunately, there's a large segment of the population which literally craves tough talk from presidents, even though it's utterly pointless most of the time. Bar talk, in other words. Next time a nut like Kim Jong-il or Mahmud Ahmadinezhad says something stupid about bombing a neighboring country or some such crap, head over to alt.autos.toyota and watch as a few denizens become apoplectic because Obama doesn't respond with the type of adolescent locker room talk they were accustomed to with the previous administration. They conveniently forget that Laura Bush made her husband apologize publicly for talking like a cowboy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Yep, and just as conversely there are those who damn near shed their skin when a leader gets emphatic.
While some emailed the Pope urging that George Bush be canonized for saying he wanted ben Laden "Dead or Alive," very many liberals got so exercised they started stabbing each other! With arugula stalks. While their other, more in-control cousins, screamed: "Be careful with that! You'll put somebody's eye out!"
We've come a long way since: "Kill Japs. Kill Japs. Kill more Japs!"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

BP is toast after Obamas lawers get done with it. Not that I agree with that, I dont, but thats just the way things are gonna shake out. I dont think they can tell a British company what to do as far as dividends go.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RickH wrote:

There are major things that I don't understand. GM and Ford are highly successful in Europe but struggle at home. Why?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ford is *not* struggling. GM is owned by the feds and the unions. They're toast.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jun 12, 9:07�pm, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

ford was near bankrupt and ford family lost control of company in refinancing just before economic dump.....
if they hadnt been forced to refinance early they would of gotten fed funds too.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.