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!

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

__________________
" We have nothing to fear but the main stream media itself . . . ."- Adapted from Franklin D Roosevelt for the 21st century

OBK #55

1998 Lincoln Continental - Sold
Max 1984 300TD 285,000 miles - Sold
The Dee8gonator 1987 560SEC 196,000 miles - Sold
Orgasmatron - 2006 CLS500 90,000 miles
2002 C320 Wagon 122,000 miles
2016 AMG GTS 12,000 miles

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

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

__________________

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
Jimi Hendrix

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.

__________________
" We have nothing to fear but the main stream media itself . . . ."- Adapted from Franklin D Roosevelt for the 21st century

OBK #55

1998 Lincoln Continental - Sold
Max 1984 300TD 285,000 miles - Sold
The Dee8gonator 1987 560SEC 196,000 miles - Sold
Orgasmatron - 2006 CLS500 90,000 miles
2002 C320 Wagon 122,000 miles
2016 AMG GTS 12,000 miles

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


.

__________________

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
Jimi Hendrix

.........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?

__________________
1984 300TD

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.

__________________
1984 300TD

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