Evil Corporations

from JoeUser Forums

Who's your favorite evil corporation? You know, that company that is so slimy, so insipid, you actually love to hate them? We've all got at least one.

Sit back and think about it for a minute. Is it a utility provider? How about an insurance company? (those are real easy to hate) the possibilities are varied and endless.

What kills me is there's a lot of truly nasty companies out there that are also very profitable, have great P.R and 90% of folks either don't know or have completely forgotten about their past crimes. 

Today, I'd like to focus on one evil corporation and give you fine folks here a little refresher on all the things they've done over the years. Today, we shine the spotlight on (drumroll please).......

Monsanto!

For anyone not familiar, this company is an absolute giant in the agriculture business. You know roundup? They make that. They came up with Bovine Growth Hormone, that wonderful substance that makes cows produce 20% more milk. They make lot's of stuff, as they've been around for quite some time. They also helped make Agent Orange in Vietnam. Do you know what PCB's are? Polychlorinated Bi-phenyls. They used to make that too, and for decades they knew how toxic it was and lied through their teeth about it.

Now, if you're one of those naysayers that believe that human activity can't have any adverse affect on the planet, go out and google "PCB" This stuff is extremely toxic and it sticks around a looooong time. In fact, in just the last century PCB's have been spread across the entire planet through wind and water circulation and they're here to stay. In humans PCB's can cause all kinds of nastyness from organ failure to cancer to (in the case of a pregnant woman being exposed) children born with extremely diminished mental abilities. In the case of animals and fish, well it usually just kills them outright if the dosage is large enough. Not the kind of chemicals you want in the creek your children will play in, right?

Monsanto bought the company that started making PCB's in the 1930's and shortly thereafter they knew full well just how dangerous and deadly this stuff was. Did they stop making it? Nope. Did they tell anyone about their findings? Nope. Profits were just too damned good! In fact, in Anniston, Alabama Monsanto dumped this stuff completely unfiltered into the local water tables for 40 years all the while telling people that their operations were safe and that nothing was out of sorts. They also did this in Sauget, Illinois for decades.

The results speak for themselves- residents in both communities had much higher rates of all kinds of health problems than anywhere else in the country. Included in the category of "strange health problems" also includes children, teenagers and young adults mysteriously passing away from all kinds of ailments not normally seen in people their age.

Anyways, it's a long, sad story. If you're interested, get the goods on it here: http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/anniston/1.asp

And this is just one example. What's important to remember, is that this company knew full well that what they were doing was killing people and ruining lives. And they kept on doing it, and vehemently denying it, right up until the government finally stepped in in the 70's and banned production of PCB's.

What was the catalyst for the government to do so? In 1966 a Swedish chemist sounded the alarm bell, while Monsanto publicly stated that his findings were flawed. They lied through their teeth in an attempt to continue making their profits, even though they had known for decades.

So, that's all in the past right?

-wrong!!!- Monsanto is still up to all kinds of dirty tricks today.

If you'll remember Roundup used to be marketed as "biodegradable" but now it no longer says that on the container. Why? Because they lied about that too. While they pumped out cute commercials of Rex the family dog digging up a roundup-sprayed plant to get at the bone he buried underneath (implying that the herbicide degrades to a completely benign state shortly after spraying) independent tests verified that in some cases more than 30 days after spraying over 98% of the chemical was still in it's original form. Biodegradable my ass!

Now Monstanto's healthy profits depended on Roundup because it's one of their biggest money-makers, so anytime anyone publicly question's it's effects the Monsanto spin-team screams bloody murder and pulls out all of their scientific studies (all done by scientists on their payroll, just like all the studies they produced in the 60's to show that PCB's weren't harmful) to show that Roundup is harmless.

But lot's of tests have been done over the years by scientists not on Monsanto's payroll and like much of the products out there, once you get past the smoke and mirrors of the advertisements and media-spin, there's a very simple truth.

The reason why Roundup works so well is that it's made of up some really toxic, really nasty shit. That's why it's so incredibly effective.

It also kills all kinds of insects and even earthworms in some cases, that are beneficial to the ecosystem.

It drastically interrupts nitrogen fixation of the soil by killing the bacteria responsible for doing that- this is a BAD thing. 

It's incredibly toxic to humans- drinking about 3/4 of a cup will kill an average joe in a short time. And keep in mind that this is NOT biodegradable stuff, as some tests have found it takes up to 140 days or more for 50% decomposition. Residues of the toxins responsible for the magic of roundup have been found on carrots, lettuce and barley more than a year after they were sprayed. Yummy!

Now, I don't know about you, but if there's a product out there that can easily kill a human through ingestion and we're spraying this stuff on the crops we're going to eat (Monsanto's also produced genetically tailored plants that resist roundup) isn't there something just a little fishy about that?

This ties into the next point- Monsanto has another huge moneymaker, genetically modified crops. Now they might be truly evil, but they are also truly genius. One has to give credit where it is due, and these folks are on the cutting-edge of genetic research. They mix and match genes, taking DNA from hardy bacteria and mixing it into plant cells to make them more resistant. They've succeeded in creating "terminator" seeds that allow for only one crop harvest and then the farmer has to go and buy new seeds the following year (talk about messing with nature to ensure profits)

The beauty of it is that using their genetically modified organisms requires signing an End-User agreement that legally denies you from finding out the truth about their product.

Wha?

That's right, not a typo. If you're a farmer and you buy Monsanto seed, you sign a legal document that says that you will not, under any circumstances, allow their product to be tested by any nerdy-scientist folk. What does this accomplish? It means that the only official scientific studies carried out on Monsanto's new products can only be carried out by scientists on the company payroll. Independent scientists, cannot legally obtain a sample of the product and publish the results of their testing.

Oh sure, the EPA and the FDA are also in the picture, but government has NEVER gotten in bed with industry in the past have they? Surely not!

Of course, technically speaking an independent scientist could probably obtain some seeds very easily. But as soon as he'd publish his results, Monsanto, who has VERY deep pockets, would be taking him to court since he either

a) didn't legally obtain their product or

b) violated the end user agreement if he did buy their product

Ingenius isn't it? So why would a company do such a thing? Naturally the argument has always been that they are simply protecting their competitive interests, just like Coca-Cola supposedly has a recipe that only 2 people on the whole planet know. Just like KFC has a super-secret blend of 11 herbs and spices (newsflash people- it's just black pepper and breading!) and so forth.

Always keep in mind the source. This is a company that has been caught red-handed lying through it's teeth several times over the years. The kind of lies that kill people and ruin entire ecosystems on a near-permanent basis.

Our PCB's are perfectly safe! They helped us win the war you know! (was their line for decades)

Roundup is biodegradable and perfectly harmless! Spray once in your backyard and your kids can romp around with Rex the puppy the next day! (Was the cheery message they conveyed)

Now the new lie is:

Our line of genetically modified seeds are paving the way for a greener, sustainable future! (Just don't ever seriously question how we've done it or any possible repercussions Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain)

As the old saying goes:

"Fool me once, shame on you.... fool me twice.... well... we can't get fooled again!"

-George Bush Jr.

So in closing, who's your evil corporation of the day?

blogging
19,009 views 27 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

The stuff on roundup is well, not entirely correct.  The active chemical, glycosphate, is entirely non-toxic to humans.  It blocks an enzyme in the shihomate (spelling off, sorry) biochemical pathway which leads to a subset of amino acids.  In human terms they are regared as 'essential amino acids' as it is essential that they are in our diet as we just do not have that biochemical pathway. 

The chemical blocks a pathway that we just do not have anyway, it simply can not affect us. 

There are other chemical in round-up as well but of little to no human toxicty.

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

The active chemical, glycosphate, is entirely non-toxic to humans.

...

There are other chemical in round-up as well but of little to no human toxicty.
End of quote



So, when can we expect to see the YouTube video of you drinking a cup of RoundUp?

}:)

 

Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

Basmas-

You're absolutely right about glyphosate, by itself it's not obviously harmful to humans. However, there have been tests done that indicate it can interfere with the enzymes that produce testosterone and estrogen. There have also been other tests done that indicate it could be a disruptor of the endocrine system. And yes, of course there are other chemicals in Roundup- much of the controversy comes from this-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9464316

which puts forth the position that Roundup caused genetic problems in mice and that they didn't believe that it was due to glyphosate specifically but another substance in roundup or an unanticipated side effect of the combination of various substances.

Of more alarm is that while Roundup may not have much of an immediately obvious affect on humans, it's pretty nasty to fish and aquatic species. And run off from large agricultural plots into rivers and local water tables has always been a significant issue, even more so compounded with the amount of herbicides that could be in that run-off.

What I do know is that the European Union has classified Roundup as dangerous for the environment and toxic for aquatic organisms. There are also two documented cases in which laboratories hired by Monsanto to perform tests on the effects of glyphosate were caught red-handed falsifying their results, and this was found to be a routine occurrence.

-but-...... Let's be real here. I am not a chemist, nor am I a biologist. Everything I've posted about can be found online by any joe-schmoe (that's me!) and regurgitated after 5 minutes of searching online. Admittedly, the finer details of what Roundup does or does not do on a chemical or biological basis are entirely over my head. What's important to remember here is that Monsanto has a past of compulsive lying.

They lied about Roundup being biodegradable.... they knew full well that it takes so long to degrade appreciably that the term "biodegradable" was not truthful. But it took a law suit from the New York Attorney General filed in 1996 AND Monsanto kept the case tied up in court for over 11 years. In 2007 they were convicted of false advertising.

And let's not forget the whole 40 years of pumping PCB's into water tables unfiltered thing. If it were up to me, Monsanto should have had it's charter revoked for that alone, it's board of directors going to prison, and the massive profits the company accrued over decades of criminal negligence going towards restitution of it's victims and R&D for pure science (just my two cents)

In short, Monsanto is indeed one very evil company!

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

You forgot to mention that they ruin farmers with their terminator seeds in thirdworld countries and make them entirely dependable on them.

It is a crying shame that crops and cattle have been industrialized so much that it is almost a perversion of nature. It is unethical and immoral, but good business. Greed is never a positive motivator, no matter what neolibertarian economists say. A social component has to keep that in check to make things sustainable for the benefit of everybody, not just some large companies. This is not communist, either, it's common sense. I don't get why people are paranoid about the government having too much control but don't mind at all if a business corporation with only its own interests manages to monopolize one of the most important things for our survival - argriculture.

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

I'll get to the round-up thing later but no farmer in any part of the world has ever been forced to buy terminator seeds. 

Famers the world over have bought terminator seeds because they chose to. 

If the third world farmers want to have seeds that they can collect and use next year then they can buy them; monsato has not, nor can not, stop the supply of these seeds.

Most farmers buy seeds every year as in the main they use cross-bred seeds to take advantage of a genetic phenomon called hybrid vicor.  The seeds makers cross breed two line and the first generation is stronger than both parents, due to the mix of genes, and this benfit is reduced with each generation.

On mass seeds require carefull storage if you want them to germinate the next year anyway, something that most farmers do not have.

 

Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

Power to the people!

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

It is a crying shame that crops and cattle have been industrialized so much that it is almost a perversion of nature. It is unethical and immoral, but good business. Greed is never a positive motivator, no matter what neolibertarian economists say. A social component has to keep that in check to make things sustainable for the benefit of everybody, not just some large companies. This is not communist, either, it's common sense. I don't get why people are paranoid about the government having too much control but don't mind at all if a business corporation with only its own interests manages to monopolize one of the most important things for our survival - argriculture.
End of quote

The problem here is that you have a combination of greed and bad laws. Faulty watchgroups like the FDA and EPA, ridiculous laws preventing anyone from publishing their findings about a crop because of an EULA? etc.

if people got their heads out of their asses and voted some people into office that will clean up the FDA than things will get better. Or maybe if more upstanding people went into politics.

Why are people afraid of big government? if the government was less pervasive and perverse we could have independant researchers publishing documents about those things.

The FDA needs to be dissolved, not given more power to abuse.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

if people got their heads out of their asses and voted some people into office that will clean up the FDA than things will get better. Or maybe if more upstanding people went into politics.
End of quote

 

Agreed.

 

Why are people afraid of big government? if the government was less pervasive and perverse we could have independant researchers publishing documents about those things.
End of quote

 

I can agree with the second sentence here. Seems like politics is wrapped up in science way too much.

 

The FDA needs to be dissolved, not given more power to abuse
End of quote

 

No thanks, I like my food and drugs pure. Not so keen on the whole finding heads in food or drugs that kill you. I do agree though on the point of needing an overhaul. (Oh, btw, I don't buy the idea of the market replacing it...*points at article*)

 

Be well, ~Alderic

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Social market economy (like in Germany) has the government as a component to ensure a fair competition because the economy is there fore the people and not the other way around. Uninhibited greed and bad laws are supposed to be kept in check that way and it works mostly.. unless you have too many regulations of what is considered fair like the EU does by labeling and defining everything. But it is still a better way to do things than saying that the market regulates itself. It doesn't because greed is not for nothing one of the seven deadly sins. Greed alone is never positive, no matter what sort of spin you put on it.

I am not really sure how things work in Europe parallel to the FDA. Brussel is a sort of enigma to most with its bureaucray and administration and special committees for all sorts of things. It may not be less corrupt than the FDA and its lobbyists are.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

No thanks, I like my food and drugs pure. Not so keen on the whole finding heads in food or drugs that kill you. I do agree though on the point of needing an overhaul. (Oh, btw, I don't buy the idea of the market replacing it...*points at article*)
End of quote

Sorry, I misspoke, it needs to be dissolved and reformed into a less corrupt organization... as in, fire everyone and start over. We definitely NEED oversight, but it needs to be good oversight.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

 It doesn't because greed is not for nothing one of the seven deadly sins. Greed alone is never positive, no matter what sort of spin you put on it.
End of quote

Why do you assume greed is the ONLY component of self regulating markets? in a self regulating market consumer education, morals, and intellect battle greed. In a government regulated one, government beurocracy protects the greedy from the moral people.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

in a self regulating market consumer education, morals, and intellect battle greed
End of quote
Maybe in your utopia. Tell me, who educates the consumers? The companies that want them to buy their products? Which morals - that is totally vague, and intellect?! Whose intellect did you refer to here?  Everybody wants to make money and morals seem always to be  among the first casualties. I read several posts here on JU from people that believe that greed is the only motivator and very positive. 

You need to combine both, a free selfregulated market and an oversight to make sure that it stays in the limits of what is best for the society and the country. Check out Ordoliberalism - theoretic principle underlying the social market economy.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

Sorry, I misspoke, it needs to be dissolved and reformed into a less corrupt organization... as in, fire everyone and start over. We definitely NEED oversight, but it needs to be good oversight.
End of quote

 

Ahuh, you "misspoke" just like a politician does. :P ;) Just admit it, you said what you said. ;P

 

Be well, ~Alderic.

 

 

Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top

Why do you assume greed is the ONLY component of self regulating markets? in a self regulating market consumer education, morals, and intellect battle greed. In a government regulated one, government beurocracy protects the greedy from the moral people.
End of quote

Nice argument. Please provide real-world examples. I've got a few for you-

Self-regulated markets-

ENRON- they were only able to do what they did (lie, cheat, steal, and ruin lives) because they had folks in the government that were sympathetic to their cries for deregulation. Once said deregulation occurred, they lied, cheated and stole as much as they could until a few folks in the press...and a few employees with a troubled conscience.... blew the whistle, by which point the damage was done.

Banking Meltdown- The shenanigans that occurred in the banking industry happened because several laws passed in the 30's (to prevent another great depression) were repealed in the late 90's, all in the name of self-regulated markets. Also, many of the key individuals in the SEC and Fed Reserve were either in bed with the banks or asleep at the wheel and mostly oblivious to what was going on. There was one fellow in the SEC that was on to Bernard Madoff's scam years before it was officially discovered, they passed this information up the chain internally, as they were supposed to but it was either dropped or suppressed by upper levels of management. Again leading back to the regulatory folks either in bed with the industry they were supposed to regulate or asleep at the wheel.

Tobacco Industry-

If you'll remember back in the 90's all the major tobacco producers screamed to high heaven that there was nothing wrong with their products, they were not carcinogenic and that all the tests done that proved that there is a direct link between smoking and cancer were "junk science" They used this line again and again and were forced, kicking and screaming, to finally admit that yes, smoking does cause cancer, reduce your lifespan and all other sorts of ailments. Had it not been for regulation, do you seriously thing the tobacco producers wouldn't have voluntarily gone

"hey guys, sorry, the products we make and depend on for our revenue and profits are bad for your health and can kill you, kthanx!"

A regulated market is just like any other system in life- it needs rules. Just like the traffic system, there need to be rules of the road enforced by an impartial third party (the police)

What would life be like if the roads were completely "de-regulated" and it were left up to all drivers to just kinda sort things out on their own? (No traffic lights, no stop signs, no yield signs, no cops looking for speeders or drunk drivers etc)

 

 

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't know about the tabacco industry, but enron and banking meltdowns are all because of bad regulations and laws, not because of "self regulating markets".. city bank TRIED to NOT sign people on toxic and explotative mortgages, they were sued for their trouble (by acorn, with barak obama as lead laywer) in 2002.

You want an example? Ever heard of karl marx? he said that the abuses of the industrialists will bring an inevitable revolution. Only reason he was wrong is because the industrialists were people with human morality. This is why in the united states you had the richest most powerful owners of land, farms, slaves, and industry come together and make the constitution.

This is why ford had such success, why google is having such success... people vote with their dollar and go with companies they beleive in, they boycot companies that they hate.

Speaking of for profit roads... I always use the TOLLWAYS because the regular socialized roads are shit.

635 - clogged, several accidents at once, slow and ineffective construction, bad design resulting in more accidents, roads in state of disrepair

George bush turnpike / dallas north tollway - fast, I pay money, rarely accidents due to proper design, no stupid hov lane wasting precious concrete. nice looking road and view

market regulated roads are vastly superior to the shitty government regulated ones.

Of course regulation CAN be good, it can also be BAD. it depends on the implementation. the reason why business tend to do a better job is because of competition, failed business models and management go bankrupt, good ones replace them. A bad government plan cannot be dislodged and will be subsidized by taxpayers after it should have failed.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Only reason he was wrong is because the industrialists were people with human morality.
End of quote

 

Sorry, I just don't buy the idea of a moral corporation, it's like saying there's such thing as a peaceful militant. Bottom line, corporations are out for their own interests - profit. Time and again there's been cases where companies have screwed anyone and anything to get what they want. Railroads, mail carriers, etc.  Then again, this is just my take on it. To each their own sure, but just don't screw me over. I don't take kindly to it.

 

Be well, ~Alderic

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ordoliberalism is a school of liberalism that emphasises the need for the state to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential (see allocative efficiency). The theory was developed by German economists and legal scholars such as Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, Hans Grossmann-Doerth and Leonhard Miksch from about 1930-1950. Alexander Rüstow and Wilhelm Röpke (who spent the Nazi period in exile in Turkey) and Friedrich Hayek are associated with this theory. Ordoliberal ideals (with modifications) drove the creation of the post-World War II German social market economy and its attendant Wirtschaftswunder. The term was coined 1950 by Hero Moeller referring to the academic journal ORDO. The term is used in German language as synonym for the term neoliberalism or as concretization to label the neoliberalism of the Freiburg School.

Ordoliberal theory holds that the state must create a proper legal environment for the economy and maintain a healthy level of competition through measures that adhere to market principles.[1] The concern is that, if the state does not take active measures to foster competition, firms with monopoly (or oligopoly) power will emerge, which will not only subvert the advantages offered by the market economy, but also possibly undermine good government, since strong economic power can be transformed into political power. Quoting Stephen Padgett: "A central tenet of ordo-liberalism is a clearly defined division of labor in economic management, with specific responsibilities assigned to particular institutions. Monetary policy should be the responsibility of a central bank committed to monetary stability and low inflation, and insulated from political pressure by independent status. Fiscal policy—balancing tax revenue against government expenditure—is the domain of the government, whilst macro-economic policy is the preserve of employers and trade unions." The state should form an economical order instead of directing economical processes.

End of quote

This is what a regulated economy is about, and its not being forced to follow some government plan. You got the wrong impression of what regulation is about here, or at least that's what I get out of your posts.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yep.  Capitalist corporations: the Worst Businesses in the World, aside from all the other types of businesses.  To paraphrase WC (not Fields).

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sorry, I just don't buy the idea of a moral corporation
End of quote

A corporation cannot be moral or immoral, it is just a paper entity. THE PERSONS Who own and work in it can be moral or immoral.

Reply #21 from Stardock Forums Top

but enron and banking meltdowns are all because of bad regulations and laws, not because of "self regulating markets"..
End of quote

ha ha ha ha ha aaaaahh ha ha ha ha haaa!!!!!

Poorly enforced and vaguely defined regulations -enabled- Enron and the Banks to do what they did, which was lie, cheat and steal their way to nice fat profits. If the folks behind the wheel of the SEC and congress had actually done their jobs and remained as an impartial third party (traffic cop) as opposed to a prostitute for lobbyists, the United States would definitely -not- be in the economic pickle it is now.

The problem is that the regulations were insufficient and not properly enforced, and these companies only were able to get away with what they did because they lobbied extensively on the premise of "self-regulating markets". At the end of the day, these companies are responsible for their criminal actions, not the system of regulations.

At the end of the day, allowing a market to completely regulate itself on the honour system is like allowing a fox to guard a henhouse.

Speaking of for profit roads... I always use the TOLLWAYS because the regular socialized roads are shit.
End of quote

I'm glad you bring up the subject of toll-roads. While some toll roads are brand new constructions, guess where the majority of toll roads have come from? The public purse!

Here's how it works. Majority of interstate highway system was built in the 50's under Eisenhower, all on the public dime (your tax dollars at work) Over the years, as various state and municipal governments have run into trouble, predatory companies have come calling offering to pay a big chunk of cash for a section of highway. Gov. sells this needing quick money, then private company takes over and starts charging tolls on a road that was built with public money.

Soooo, what does this mean?

Public money and resources go to build a public resource. Then, private company comes in and buys that public resource from the gov, then charges the very people who paid for it in the first place, more money just to use it.

It's the same principal as if you paid to build a house, then you run into trouble and sell it to someone and then become a renter in the house you built. It's the ultimate transfer of money and resources from public to private hands. There's a concept behind this:

Privatize the profits, publicize the losses. Under this system, you, the taxpayer performs most of the heavy lifting and pays the initial costs to create the actual asset. Then, a third party saunters in and takes ownership of that asset through a deal, then recoups the cost of their investment and much, much more through recurring "usage" fees. What work has this third party done? Very little. They perform a bit of maintenance as required but all the hard work was done on the public purse years ago, but now a private party profits from it.

Yes, there are cases in which a brand spanking new toll road is built and maintained right from the start by a private company, but even in this case there's all kinds of back-room shenanigans and wrangling with local governments for subsidies, taxation wavers, land-use rights blah blah blah.

Reply #22 from Stardock Forums Top

A corporation cannot be moral or immoral, it is just a paper entity. THE PERSONS Who own and work in it can be moral or immoral.
End of quote

And this is the problem. A corporation is technically a legal person and has all the same rights. This should NOT be the case. It's the ultimate get out of jail free card for all kinds of crimes and negligent behaviour. From a legal standpoint, I would be okay if a corporation were classed as a "provisional person" meaning that their rights and freedoms would not be the same as an actual living, breathing person. If you have a system in which accountability is lacking, it WILL be abused.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

A corporation cannot be moral or immoral, it is just a paper entity. THE PERSONS Who own and work in it can be moral or immoral.
End of quote

 

What he said:

And this is the problem. A corporation is technically a legal person and has all the same rights. This should NOT be the case. It's the ultimate get out of jail free card for all kinds of crimes and negligent behaviour. From a legal standpoint, I would be okay if a corporation were classed as a "provisional person" meaning that their rights and freedoms would not be the same as an actual living, breathing person. If you have a system in which accountability is lacking, it WILL be abused.
End of quote

 

Well said.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Not well said at all, if that was the case I could open a "coproration" to sell cocaine to highschoolers tommorow... however we DO have a problem with giving out "punative penalties" to a corp instead of putting people in prison, that is due to GOVERNMENT greed (they want the money from the fine more than they want justice). For example, japan, korea, europe and soon the USA are all putting massive punative damages fines on intel for "price fixing"... The EU fined them the highest punative fine on any single corporation ever (in history)... The crime in question was commited more than 10 years ago, by a CEO who has left with MASSIVE bonuses from the crime he committed, he is not to be persecuted. the victim was supposedly AMD, they will not see a cent from it. The Board of directors mostly changed, and the people in higher rungs have had a chance to shuffle about...

If they cared about the so called "crime" they would have fined the people who comitted it... as it stands, it just encourages CEOs to do that, they get their bonus today, and 10 years down the road when they are at a different company a government will fine the corporation. Oh, and don't forget it makes intel post a loss, which harms everyone with a 401K plan because those are the people who own stock long term.

Poorly enforced and vaguely defined regulations -enabled- Enron and the Banks to do what they did, which was lie, cheat and steal their way to nice fat profits
End of quote

Actually, a bunch of congressmen passed a law to "deregulate" (according to news media, it really MODIFIED an already artificial government controller market called the future commodities market) to allow people with no stake in such a market to trade futures of energy. And it has not been fixed to this day, after multiple administrations on both sides... The oil prices gouging we saw? that was because the worlds LARGES oil company was JP morgan. They buy in 2002 all the oil produced by a well until 2012... they make sure to buy MOST of the oil in the market, then they sell it at more than it is worth... to other "investors", who turn around and sell it for even MORE, who turn around and sell it for even more... It is a pyramid scheme, just like our social security, just like our national debt, and banking, etc. This has become NORMAL and acceptable to a government of fools who beleives that such pyramid schems actually STIMULATE the economy instead of brining RUIN to it.

You know what causes those to collapse? a dose of reality. And with less government regulation on competing with such ponzy schemes, they collapse a lot sooner... but when they have a government mandate and monopoly...

Reply #25 from Stardock Forums Top

Actually, a bunch of congressmen passed a law to "deregulate" (according to news media, it really MODIFIED an already artificial government controller market called the future commodities market) to allow people with no stake in such a market to trade futures of energy. And it has not been fixed to this day, after multiple administrations on both sides...
End of quote

Thank you, Taltamir. This clearly illustrates your ignorance on this matter. Yes, congress did pass laws to deregulate the industry, and they did a lot more changes than just the modification you mention above.

Why did they do it? Because of extensive lobbying and campaign contributions from the industry itself. In essence, the government, instead of being an impartial third party, got in bed with big bidness and GAVE THEM EXACTLY WHAT THEY ASKED FOR. Congress didn't sit back one day and say "heck, let's pass a bunch of funny ol' laws for no particular reason!" No, they were approached by the industry and told "this is what we want, please do it!" And they did.

So, yes, government is complicit in what  happened with the Enron and banking fiascos in that they were negligent in their duties as traffic cop. HOWEVER, Enron, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, were the ones behind the wheel when the car went off the road. Therefore they are ultimately responsible for their criminal actions.

You know what causes those to collapse? a dose of reality. And with less government regulation on competing with such ponzy schemes, they collapse a lot sooner... but when they have a government mandate and monopoly...
End of quote

Okay, give me a real-world example in which market deregulation (in which there's no third party traffic cop watching over things) has resulted in the "faster" collapse of ponzi schems thanks to industry self-regulation? It simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Why? because without a traffic cop around to keep an eye on things, the honor system simply doesn't cut it.

I can give you MANY, MANY examples where exactly the opposite has happened. One such example is Chille in the 70's after the democratically elected president was killed in a coup that was supported by the West (that's us!) The new dictatorship completely deregulated the market as per Milton Friedman's Chicaco School of Economics urgings. What happened? A group of investors that came to be know as "the pirhanhas" nearly bankrupted the country with all kinds of predatory and harmful financial practices that were newly allowed with all regulations lifted.

Another such example is the great depression. Many of the laws that were passed in the 30's (namely the Glass-Steagall act) were increasing regulation to ensure that the depression couldn't happen again. And then in the 90's we got rid of most of that regulation all in the name of free markets. And look where we are today because of it!