Just thought I'd throw this out there - it doesn't address many of the issues mentioned here, but Exxon's profit margin is running at about 10%, whereas Microsoft is near 80%. They may be raking in the cash, but they're not keeping all of it.

I got a chili dog there once. I got gas even though I didn't intend to . . . screwed up MY damned boycott!:mad:

I don't think your first assertion is accurate. I think it is more accurate to say that corporations have many of teh rights and responsibilities of people. To the best of my knowledge, and I am willing to be proven wrong, corporations are not exempt from lawsuits.

Many corporation have been sued and they often lose, sometimes everything -- like Johns Manville, for example.

B

TMI....

Miss.: Appeals Court Backs Wetlands Suit
Associated Press 02.04.08, 12:34 PM ET

JACKSON, Miss. -

A federal appeals court has upheld the convictions of a Mississippi coastal developer and two others for mail fraud and violations of the federal Clean Water Act.

A federal jury in February 2005 convicted Robert J. Lucas Jr., of Lucedale, chief executive of Big Hill Acres Inc., and the two others of 41 charges, including conspiracy.

Lucas; his daughter, Robbie Lucas Wrigley (nyse: WWY - news - people ), an Ocean Springs real estate agent; and M.E. Thompson, a professional engineer from D'Iberville, were accused of selling lots in Vancleave in a wetlands area with unworkable septic systems.

In December 2005, U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola sentenced Lucas to nine years in prison. Lucas, Wrigley and Thompson also were ordered to pay more than $1.4 million to mitigate west Jackson County wetlands.

On Friday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the convictions, rejecting the defendants' arguments that evidence did not show a violation of the Clean Water Act.

"Defendants made misrepresentations that directly contradicted inspecting buyers' observations," the 5th Circuit said. "Wrigley misrepresented the dryness of the site, for example, when buyers noticed wetlands and wetlands vegetation and questioned her about the wetlands."

Lucas' two corporations were sentenced to five years' probation and were subject to the $1.4 million restitution and more than $5 million in fines. Thompson, who designed and certified septic systems at the Big Hill Acres subdivision in Vancleave, and Wrigley, who sold the wetlands lots, were sentenced to seven years and two months in prison.

Federal prosecutors said the defendants knowingly polluted federally protected wetlands and area waterways by installing underground septic systems that malfunctioned in saturated soil; thwarted state and federal health and environmental regulators; and defrauded residents into buying uninhabitable land.

Defendants' attorneys argued there was no proof that area waterways were polluted by the septic systems. They also said the defendants complied with regulators. They argued the mobile home park did not flood during Hurricane Katrina and said homeowners there were selling lots at a profit.

"The government presented evidence that defendants, despite warnings from agencies that they were installing septic systems in saturated soils, advertised the lots as `high and dry' and, when asked by owners if there were wetlands on the property, responded that there were none," the 5th Circuit said.

Friday's ruling was issued by a panel of three 5th Circuit judges - Patrick E. Higginbotham, Jerry E. Smith and Priscilla Richman Owen. The decision was written by Higginbotham.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

And lest we forget, EM HAS ALREADY PAID in excess of what, 3 billion dollars for their actions.

This ongoing battle is over punitive damages, which the Ninth Circuit has told the trial judge are excessive.

Seems there may be some people out there trying to become spillionaires on Exxon's dime! Can you imagine! :eek:

"Spillionaires," I like that. Good one, Jim!

I wish I could claim it as my own, but I read it somewhere out there. A good phrase never goes unrepeated.:D

No, it is not moral duty for a business to make as much money as they possibly can.
Especially if they are using immoral tactics to make that money.
Morality and moneymaking can coexist.
What I have been saying is that Exxon's morals are bad, very bad.

Exxon could make more money if they pimped out your wife and daughter !
Do you want them to ?
I don't think so.
But it follows from your argument that it would be a moral duty for Exxon to do just that, because it would make them more money.

Are you willing to pony up your wife and kids for a profit ?
Are you willing to let Exxon rape, pillage and plunder for money ?
I say no !

Have Fun !
RichC
:joker:

Absolutely not! I don't have ANY Exxon stock, so I certainly don't want the raping and pillaging. If there's a dip and I can pick up a few hundred shares . . . Well, then, maybe a little raping, pillaging, and plundering would be okay.

. . . . as long as they do it somewhere else.

Nice rhetorical flourishes.

It is every companies duty to it's stockholders to maximize profits. It is the duty of government to protect citizens from foreigners, from each other, and from unscrupulous businesses. It's right there in that ol' Constitution thingie.



B

So at whatever expense, a business should maximize its profits ?
You really do not believe that !!
No way !
Would you let a company sell your grandmother ?

I believe in holding people to ethical and moral standards.
and so do you.
You can not convince me otherwise.

Have you read the Patriot Act ?
Go read it and tell me again how the government is holding to the constitution.

We the people have the ultimate responsibility to hold government and private industry accountable.
We are supposed to be a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

Dammit, stand up and look around, get your head out of the sand.
This country has been on a fast trip to hell in a hand basket.
But no one seems to give a siht about anything but themselves.

Things are not OK, they are very not OK.

No compassion for anyone or any thing.
Just,,, lust, anger, pride, envy, greed, gluttony, and laziness.

Jees people, start giving a dam about each other.
We are all we've got !

Thanks
Have Fun !
RichC
:joker:

.

.........nah.........companies have to maximize profits. Nobody gives a $hit about the consumer.........he's on his own.

.........survival of the fittest.........get yourself a giant $hitbox and shove everybody else off the road..........literally........and figuratively.

A company has no feelings, no morals, no virtue, no vice, no desire. Man has feelings, morals, virtue, vice, desire. A company is an entity created by man, with all of his nobility and baseness, to turn a profit. That is all.

If you start a company or work for a company that is not designed to turn a profit for the investor then you will go broke or be out of a job.

B

PS The Patriot Act has been challenged in courts and is still being challenged and has mostly prevailed. THAT is how the system works.

Don't like it? Start your own.

It's an academic argument, however the conclusion that a company exists solely to turn a profit is a bit simplistic. Companies exist for many reasons and the proprietors of those companies have a full spectrum of goals for the company...........be it maximizing profit for the short term at the expense of support or quality..........or to provide the best quality product for the long term as the risk of losing some profit.

Other companies exist to maximize the perks for their employees and they accept a correspondingly lower profit at the end of the day.

Some companies exist for the good of society and they don't earn any profit whatsoever. These are called "non-profits" and there are quite a few of them.

Although profit is necessary for a business to survive, it's hardly the only reason a company exists.

It is, at least according to the documentary 'The Corporation'. No, corporations are not exempt from lawsuits (well, some are for some lawsuits). This thread was about Exxon not paying damages that were awarded, wasn't it?

Any company that exists for any motive other than profit is at risk of being swallowed-up by a more efficient company or go broke from lack of profit. Companies compromise on that all the time. And companies go broke all the time -- from Mom and Pop companies to "invulnerable" giants. Like AMC, Polaroid, etc. I read recently that about 40% of the companies first listed on the S&P 500 are no longer in existence on any stock exchange or index. (No citation but if it's important I can probably find it.) Those companies either merged or went under, I suppose. I'll bet those that are still extant focused on what they do best -- making money. I suspect that most companies that disappeared from the S&P 500 failed to make a profit -- which includes failing to invest in R&D to innovate.

B

I agree that companies exist to maximize profit. They may not all do that, and they may survive or not, but absolutely a company's purpose is to make as much money as they can. Pre anti-trust laws, that included form monopolies. Pre-child labor laws, that included extended hours for minors. Pre-antislavery laws, that included forced labor. Pre-laws, that included killing competition.

Yes.

The Valdez fines are on appeal through the court system, as is their right under the law and as is their duty to their stockholders. Should they do less than vigorously fight the punitive fines? Not if I were a stockholder (when I probably am, through 401K mutual funds).

Exxon has paid hundreds of millions in mitigation and rehab costs for the Valdez disaster quite apart from the fines.

B

While completely true..........the simplistic factor continues. Companies fail for many different reasons but it's agreed that the lack of profit seals their fate. The real question is why the company failed to produce the profits required to remain in business.

All large businesses are very complicated entities and decisions that are made today have an impact five years down the road. Poor management in terms of product mix, marketing and excessive productions costs will certainly doom a company.

Companies exist all the time with goals that are separate from maximizing profits. They remain successful despite relatively meager returns over the years. I'm quite sure such companies could maximize profits in the short term at the expense of some other goals if they chose to do so.

This is a factually incorrect statement. While it may be factual for some companies, for the majority, the statement is false.

^^^ No argument here with any of that.

My central point was that companies that don't turn a profit die. Successful companies are the ones who maximize profits most efficiently. Unsuccessful ones, don't. Sometimes failure is quick and sometimes gradual with causes as numerous as there are opportunities.

Giving huge bonuses to undeserving senior officers and/or board members, giving great wads of money to charitable or political entities, etc are all signs (to me) of a company that is sick.

B

This would be a good example of a company that is not maximizing profits. If the company was in existence solely to maximize profits for their shareholders, this behavior would be non-existent.

The fact that it's pervasive would tend to let a person conclude that there's many companies that do not maximize profits..........yet they continue to survive just fine.

I've got some examples of major Wall street firms that spend more money than you can possibly imagine on total BS...........and the bonuses that are handed out are absolutely stunning. This certainly doesn't maximize profits............but you haven't heard of Merrill or Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs going under.........have you?

I agree. We live in a capitalistic society which it to say that the essential purpose of our society is to produce a profit. The net result of that pursuit is the life we and others in this society live with slight colorations by other factors such as religion, history etc. Now one can ask whether the well being of the majority of people are optimally served by a society who's sole motivating factor is the pursuit of profit.

I would first argue that the net result of capitalism is the consolidation of political power into the hands of a subset of overall society. This simply follows from the notion that capitalism consolidates wealth and wealth equates to political power.

This leads to the next question which is whether the well being of society at large is consistant with the interests of the controlling subset.

You maybe right.

Comparing free market capitalism with every other economic system in the history of the planet, we learn that more people have acquired more wealth and a higher standard of living under this system than any other.

This doesn't prove it is the best possible system. It is simply evidence in support of the argument that no other system yet devised has lifted so many people so quickly.

B

All of this discussion of profit begs the question: Where does the profit go?

My retirement.

B

Congratulations! With my Tahoe averaging 11.5 mpg, I expect a rather fine bottle of single malt sent my way when the time comes...

When you introduce the human element, everything changes (which is why totally free markets and economic theory that relies on removing people from the evaluation are useless).
The fact that most companies do not accomplish the goal of maximizing profit doesn't mean they don't strive for it in an ideal way. The people involved in the real get in the way.
And, since you introduce the element of human beings, one could argue that it is a requirement to offer these obscenities to upper management, thus these bonuses fall under the maximizing part - maximized with the bonus constraints.

If you were to allow companies to operate outside the law, would all of them murder their competition? No. Would some of them? Absolutely.

Well... ....a more complete way to look at this is that one has to clearly establish the definition of "maximizing profits." Goldman paying the total dollar amount in year-end bonuses that they have (I am too lazy to look it up at the moment) certainly does not maximize profits in that fiscal year in question.

However, I would contend that Goldman's role is to maximize profits over a period of time, and I'd further argue that time is in perpetuity. Therefore in order to maximize profit over time, those bonus payouts further this goal by attracting and retaining talent. In other words it costs far less to reward top talent than to "churn and burn."

Goldman hardly maximizes its profits..........short or long term. They take excellent care of their employees with bonuses that are beyond extravagant.

You can conclude that this maximized their profits in the long term if you wish..........I don't. Goldman could pay 1/2 the amount of bonus and nobody would leave the company.

Gotta disagree with you there. The risk to the firm in paying half the bonus is too great. They MIGHT be able to retain top talent with smaller bonuses, but they might NOT - too big of a risk to future earnings.

Furthermore I do not believe that the bonuses are extravagant. Who is to say what is extravagant? Clearly the board and shareholders don't think so.

And THAT's all that matters when it comes to compensation. They are the owners and stakeholders. It's their money.

..........and your source for this tidbit would be..........????


The shareholders of HD were absolutely outraged at the amount paid to Nardelli upon his departure..........many shareholders are not pleased with the bonuses.

Surely you jest. It is their duty to make as much money as they can WITHIN THE LAW. Who ever said a company has any moral duty, besides you, that is.

Absolutely. As long as it is legal, play ball.

I do.

Yes way!

If it were legal what can I say?

Consumer needs to be responsible for himself/herself. Is that such a difficult concept to understand? NOBODY owes me a living and I owe NOBODY a living.

Another man said that once. I think his name was Darwin

More baseness than anything.

I think the question is whether if we got a punitive fine, would we also fight it or just roll over.

This is effectively impossible in most cases.

So those that don't go and murder their competition might just end up being the victims of the murderers?

Why so? Because the consumer is unwilling to do it or because there is some physical barrier?

--------

You would sell your granmother for a profit ??

Well, if you pass that thinking down to your grandkids you will be sold for a profit.

Good thinking !

Have Fun !
RichC

.

Is selling grandma now legal?

If I am that helpless, I deserve what I get. My parents always told me and still do tell me that they have already taken care of themselves so that they don't need me to take care of them. Therefore, I cannot sell them up or down the river.

Anything is legal till you get caught. Then you wind up slow dancing with Bubba in the showers.

Because the consumer cannot possess the required knowledge in 99% of the cases and because the consumer lacks the capability to obtain the required knowledge in 99% of the cases.

Without government oversight, you'd have the consumer dying in the streets.

----------------

Who said anyting about being helpless ?

You implied that a company could sell your grandmother to make a profit and you would go along with it.

I said your grandkids could sell you !

If you really think that is ok, maybe you should be sold.

Depends. :P