Interesting read:

HowStuffWorks "10 Great Moments in Corporate Malfeasance" (http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-great-moments-corporate-malfeasance.htm)

Interesting read:



Indeed, it is what so endears capitalism as the system of choice.

So how hard would it be to come up with examples of socialism's "malfeasance" ?

Let's start with mass murder conservatively estimated near 100million people or more .

Why do you feel the need to defend these people?

Did I defend them ? Answer no . I was responding to clete's observation that this was a result of 'capitalism '... an absolutely unfounded linkage.

Nope it isn't capitalism, it's unchecked greed. Basically a large corporation is not out for your well-being... not at all.

That is why I favor the use of bankruptsy instead of bailouts . That is why I favor the limitted use of regulations which has an unintended consequence of industry consolidation . That is why I oppose this use of corporate /government cooperatives that are being set up by the current group of leaders which more resembles merchantilism than capitalism.

that is why I favor the use of bankruptsy instead of bailouts . How would that have solved any of the examples in the link? None of those companies were bailed out. They ran roughshod over investors, consumers and the local populace.

So did the companies that were bailed out... and we rewarded them.

Well the US did, that's correct.

I'll go case by case then :

1. Enron... an example of gvt business cooperative . They were intimately involved in the ground floor of the carbon trading scam. Many of their scam trades were related to it.
The Briefing Room: Investigate Oct 05, The Kyoto Conspiracy (http://www.investigatemagazine.com/archives/2006/03/investigate_oct_5.html)

2. Roche .It took years of development and an upfront investment of $600 million for Roche to develop Fuzeon . Did the South Korean government do it ? No . It's very nice that they can place a price on a product they desire but had nothing to do with producing .it's also very easy for the people who are not putting up the money and risk to determine what a reasonable return on their investment should be.

3. The Haliburton case appears to be a breach of contract and should be treated as such

4.The United Fruits case is an example of the merchantile system I already came out against.

5.The WellPoint case is in contention . No comment yet.

6.The Ford case is ancient and irrelevant to today's world .

7. anyone who reads my comments here knows that I am not a fan of Goldman Sachs .Again,an example of merchatilism or what is generally mistakenly called today "crony capitalism" .

8. Can't comment too much on Yaguarete Pora S.A. . Best guess is that their actions were approved by some government .

9.The Walmart case is an example of the exploitation that happens when we encourge illegal immigration.

10. Union Carbide should be forced to address their responsibilities regarding Bhopal .

11. IBM ? Yes there was lots of cooperation with the National Socialists.

But there are also more recent examples like the UN Oil for Food Scandal where sanctions were violated by corporation and government alike .The sanctions would've brought down the Hussein regime if they had been faithfully applied .

Instead ;the violations strengthed the Saddam regime and guaranteed an end to a peaceful resolution of Saddam's violatons .

Hello again, my brothers...

You're both right, and wrong too... This is a teachable moment. We can ALL walk away from this question, linked arm in arm, singing cooom bi you...

Socialism didn't kill anybody. That's an economic system... You're a socialist now. We ALL are. Tyranny kills people. Don't think capitalism kills people?? China is now VERY capitalistic and VERY tyrannical...

Corporations aren't inherently bad. They actually do GOOD. I know. I own one. They just need some ground rules. Every game needs rules.

Certainly, way back in the beginning, the playing field WAS inherently fair. Libertarianism reigned. There were NO rules.. That was good. NOBODY had an advantage. That's the way capitalism is designed to work, and it DID work that way. If somebody produced a shoddy product or service, he'd go DOWN...

But then, somewhere along the way, some businessman went to his local politician, and asked him to make a law that BENEFITED him. And, because the politician needed some bread to win re-election, he did the bidding of the deep pocketed businessman, and gave him an ADVANTAGE in the marketplace.

That happened, and is STILL happening. As a natural consequence, shoddy products and shoddy companies are being protected. So SOMEBODY needs to make laws that return the playing field to where it was. Somebody needs to stand up for the consumer. But, businessmen LIKE their advantage, and they're not going to give it up. THAT isn't good for us...

Now, a-one, and a-two, and a-three - cooooom byyyyyyy you...

excon

If the first lady is right, an evil Canadian company is a threat to our national security (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1338277/Michelle-Obama-highlights-new-national-security-threat-Obesity-prevents-25-Americans-serving-armed-forces.html?ito=feeds-newsxml) as the world's largest producer of french fries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain_Foods). That is corporate malfeasance of the highest degree, making the world fat.

China is now VERY capitalistic and VERY tyrannical...


Certainly, way back in the beginning, the playing field WAS inherently fair. Libertarianism reigned. There were NO rules.. That was good. NOBODY had an advantage. That's the way capitalism is designed to work, and it DID work that way. If somebody produced a shoddy product or service, he'd go DOWN...
If 'he'd go down' means that occasionally the people would take the law in their own hands and punish him ,you are correct. Tar and feathers worked well.

China is far from a model capitalist country . Every single business has a relationship with some level of government and operates at the whim of that government. They are also protectionist which makes them an example of the merchatilism I was speaking of. They are however a good example of those good old days you speak of .

Back in the no rules days there were travelling sales people peddling poison. Rules were necessary and proper to prevent that travelling sales person from harming people... otherwise the poison was peddled as a miracle cure.When the peddler was caught he was either subject to vigilate justice ;or moved his business to the next town over the horizon.

Back in the bad old days corporations were able to corner the market by taking advantage of their strength and vertically and horizontally controlling the market stifling competition. Anti-trust laws were needed to level the field .

The problem is not regulations .It is that regulations often have unintended consequences that are worse than what they are designed to prevent.

If the first lady is right, an evil Canadian company is a threat to our national security (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1338277/Michelle-Obama-highlights-new-national-security-threat-Obesity-prevents-25-Americans-serving-armed-forces.html?ito=feeds-newsxml) as the world's largest producer of french fries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain_Foods). That is corporate malfeasance of the highest degree, making the world fat.You're saying that making french fries is worse than the Bhopal disaster. That's the most ignorant thing I have ever read on this website... ever.

You're saying that making french fries is worse than the Bhopal disaster. That's the most ignorant thing I have ever read on this website....ever.

So you were deprived of the sarcasm gene?

So you were deprived of the sarcasm gene?
That's your standard response whenever you get called on an inane posting, it's getting old and tired and frankly I don't believe it anymore.

We need to get the link color changed to bold purple .

we need to get the link color changed to bold purple .

I'll try and make it a point to note whenever sarcasm is employed for those deprived of the gene.

i'll try and make it a point to note whenever sarcasm is employed for those deprived of the gene.Maybe that's the way Jesus made us.
This is cool, we can say any stupid thing we want and afterward say it was sarcasm - how liberating.

And the men of the city said to him on the seventh day before the sun went down, “What is sweeter than honey? What is stronger than a lion?” And he said to them, “If you had not plowed with my heifer, you would not have found out my riddle.”

How about those Cowboys!

NK, only you wouldn't get taking digs at a Canadian firm in response to your thread about mostly US corporate malfeasance by mocking the first lady's recent quote on obesity, which said firm contributes to as the world's largest producer of french fries - by the guy that began the thread on the nanny state banning happy meals which contain, french fries. :rolleyes:

How about those Cowboys!

http://students.ou.edu/G/Anthony.G.Greco-1/trophies.jpg

It must make you feel like a real man!

It must make you feel like a real man!

I didn't realize it was about feeling like a man, real or otherwise. Good luck with that.

Haha, good sarcasm!

Well Tom another one who wants to defend the indefensable, both capitalism and socialism are at the heart of many of the world's problems. There are two notions we must get rid of, one is the idea that the few can be exploited by the many (socialism) and the other is that the few can exploit the many (capitalism). There are a couple of others of recent origin, user pays (a form of capitalistic thinking) and the other is the universal provider syndrome (what's yours is mine). We have already got rid of the worst idea of all, one person can own another (slavery)

Capitalism is the most defensible form of human economic activity.As I already stated ,the examples cited in 'how it works' are not examples of capitalism at all.
The big problem is that corporations are treated as something different than individuals . A corporation is nothing more than a group of individuals ,and should be treated as such. If it is illegal for an individual through neglect or malfeasance to harm other individuals than it is illegal for the corporation. Corporations likewise should not be granted through the legal structure special favors. The individual farmer should play on the same level field as ADM .

At the same time a corporation is formed by individuals for the benefit of those individuals. It is not designed as some common good works project. The role of government is to protect individual rights ,and a corporation ,being nothing more than individuals has the same rights and responsibilities as individuals have.

Capitalism is the most defensible form of human economic activity.As I already stated ,the examples cited in 'how it works' are not examples of capitalism at all.
The big problem is that corporations are treated as something different than individuals . A corporation is nothing more than a group of individuals ,and should be treated as such. If it is illegal for an individual through neglect or malfeasance to harm other individuals than it is illegal for the corporation. Corporations likewise should not be granted through the legal structure special favors. The individual farmer should play on the same level field as ADM .

At the same time a corporation is formed by individuals for the benefit of those individuals. It is not designed as some common good works project. The role of government is to protect individual rights ,and a corporation ,being nothing more than individuals has the same rights and responsibilities as individuals have.

You are obviously confused by the difference between legality and ethics. For some pecular reason individuals who work for corporations show similar confusion and that confusion brings us the worst expressions of capitalism. I'm not suggesting this confusion lies only with capitalism since it seems to arise wherever humans group together.

The problem with capitalism lies in the idea that in a corporation the first loyality is to the stockholder and that everything should be subservient to their interests

Hello again, clete:

He's also wrong about how many votes shareholders get... He thinks they should have ONE as a citizen and ONE as a shareholder. Somehow don't seem fair to me... Do they do that over there?

excon

Hello again, clete:

He's also wrong about how many votes shareholders get... He thinks they should have ONE as a citizen and ONE as a shareholder. Somehow don't seem fair to me.... Do they do that over there?

excon

You have lost me, Ex, corporations have no vote.

I think the problem exists when a society puts wealth (or the appearance of wealth) as the ultimate goal in life. When this exists an individual or group of individuals will stop at nothing to attain their goal, this includes fleecing anyone by any means.

Note: Sarcasm font IS NOT engaged.

I don't believe our society makes wealth its ultimate goal. My job and goal as a husband and parent is to take care of my family and I can do that better if I'm successful, and that is a more accurate picture of our society. Capitalism gives me the best chance at doing that, and the more successful I am the better off my family is and the better I am able to help others as well. That attitude is reflected in America's private generosity.

A more dangerous goal is the elites consolidating power and sucking us dry on the false premise of wealth redistribution and social justice.

A more dangerous goal is the elites consolidating power and sucking us dry on the false premise of wealth redistribution and social justice.Hello again, Steve:

I can get behind your rant against wealth redistribution, but social justice?? Dude!

I think Glenn Beck stole that phrase to mean something ugly...

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Never mind... I just watched Fox for 5 minutes... The dastardy "social justice agenda" of Obama is a buzzword over there. I still don't know what it means... Can you splain it?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Never mind... I just watched Fox for 5 minutes.... The dastardy "social justice agenda" of Obama is a buzzword over there. I still don't know what it means... Can you splain it?

It's that “redistributive change" he so famously spoke of in 2001. It's his plan to “spread the wealth around," "economic justice,” "what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

And what "must government do on your behalf?"

Andrew McCarthy explains (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226132/obamas-redistributive-change-and-death-freedom/andrew-c-mccarthy), "provide housing, clothing, education, health care, employment, a living wage that accounts for comparative worth (meaning the government, under the guise of preventing discrimination, determines what you are paid), limited labor hours, paid vacation and holidays, paid parental leave, nearly unrestricted trade unionization, social security (including “social insurance”), “equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need,” and so on."

That's what it means.

And what "must government do on your behalf?"

Andrew McCarthy explains (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226132/obamas-redistributive-change-and-death-freedom/andrew-c-mccarthy), "provide housing, clothing, education, health care, employment, a living wage that accounts for comparative worth (meaning the government, under the guise of preventing discrimination, determines what you are paid), limited labor hours, paid vacation and holidays, paid parental leave, nearly unrestricted trade unionization, social security (including “social insurance”), “equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need,” and so on."

That's what it means.Hello again, Steve:

As opposed to what YOU believe government must do on our behalf;

Make pre-emptive and unlimited war on Muslims... Read every American's email, and listen to their phone calls, send drones after American citizens we don't like, increase the size of government to make sure that every woman DOES what you want her to do, increase police enforcement that makes SURE that people behave in a "moral" manner in their own homes, making SURE that gay people remain second class citizens, repealing health care reforms including the GOOD stuff, repealing Wall Street reform, even though it was Wall Street that brought us to our knees, making sure future presidents can torture, render and open secret prisons...

There's MORE for sure... But given a choice between the two philosophies, it's not even close.

excon

Gee, I don't recall saying any of that. Could you link to where I did?

Hello again, Steve:

Do they have a euphemism font?

excon

I don't think so, but you can certainly exaggerate.

Speaking of corporate malfeasance, Fox is considering adding sound tracks to NFL games.

Worst Programming Idea Ever? (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GuyBenson/2010/12/17/worst_programming_idea_ever__fox_mulls_adding_in-game_soundtrack_to_nfl_telecasts)

Say it ain't so.

Sometimes when watching the Gnats play I imagine this sound track in the backround.
YouTube - Merrie Melodies & Looney Tunes - Opening themes. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jTHNBKjMBU)

sometimes when watching the Gnats play I imagine this sound track in the backround.
YouTube - Merrie Melodies & Looney Tunes - Opening themes. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jTHNBKjMBU)

I like it, need that for my Bears occasionally too especially when the Giants and Pats played us... :o

sometimes when watching the Gnats play I imagine this sound track in the backround.
YouTube - Merrie Melodies & Looney Tunes - Opening themes. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jTHNBKjMBU)

Granted, that could be appropriate for both our teams lately.

Oy!! Sometimes I wonder if it's worth it . Today would be one of those days.

oy !!!!! Sometimes I wonder if it's worth it . Today would be one of those days.

What was the lead the Gnats blew?

Eagles scored 28 unanswered points after from 7:28 of the 4th Qt.

Gnats had a 31-10 lead prior.

Then Vick hits seam route to TE who runs through the middle untouched 65 yards... On side kick not defended... Gnats forget to guard gaps and let Vick run through their D... another TD... Gnats forced to punt... then Vick scrambles and dinks finally connecting with the TE again after the safety went for a pick... another TD...

Gnats needed to get in field goal range starting from their own 30 with almost 2 minutes left. Instead they went 3 and out...

Then when the punter should've put it 15 yards out of bounds to put the game in OT ,he instead kicks a line drive to Desean Jackson WHO MUFFS THE PUNT... picks it up and returns it untouched .