Should the producer of the product be responsible for its entire consumption journey? Where does my responsibility begin and end?
I am not quite sure what you mean by producer. If you mean the mine that brought the materials from the ground, yes they should be responsible for the damage they cause. If you mean the factory that built the product, yes they should be responsible for whatever damage they cause during the entire production process. Or if you mean the company that supplies the product, yes they should be responsible for whatever damage they casue during receiving, shipping, storing and retailing. In other words every company and person should be responsible for whatever part they play in producing any product.
Grover wrote:
Should we bankrupt BP by requiring them to return the Gulf to pristine conditions? Was it really pristine before the accident?
ABSOLUTELY ! If they did not have the werewithal to pay out of pocket to clean up the entire mess THEY MADE then we the people should bankrupt them sell the assets and recoup as much as possible as quickly as possible. What you are advocating is that its Ok to screw up the planet and hardly anything will be done because you have friends in the right places. And as for the pristine comment thats akin to me telling my 5 year old that she doesn't have to clean up the ceral she spilled because I haven't swept the floor in a couple of days. Ludicrous.
I can’t remember or find who posted on this topic but they felt that corporations should be treated as people, after all the supreme court says they are people so they should be subject to the same laws we are. If a corp commits harm put the corp into jai/receiveship and don’t let the stockholders get paid until compensation has been paid. If someone can find this post please post it here.
Whether its a corporation or a person they should always be held responsible for any and all harm they cause.
Grover wrote:
Should the producer of the product be responsible for its entire consumption journey? Where does my responsibility begin and end?
I am not quite sure what you mean by producer. If you mean the mine that brought the materials from the ground, yes they should be responsible for the damage they cause. If you mean the factory that built the product, yes they should be responsible for whatever damage they cause during the entire production process. Or if you mean the company that supplies the product, yes they should be responsible for whatever damage they casue during receiving, shipping, storing and retailing. In other words every company and person should be responsible for whatever part they play in producing any product. [/quote]
Hi Rich,
You took my comment slightly out of context. I was questioning "tjlupton" on his/her statement that resource companies should pay for the "environmental damage done by the production or use of their products." I inferred that "tjlupton" felt that the extraction companies are somehow responsible for the ultimate disposition of their raw products and that this disposition must somehow be factored into the price of their products. I was trying to give "tjlupton" an out by asking if that is what was meant. I agree that one's product becomes consumed by a subsequent manufacturer ad nauseum until the end consumer receives it. It is ludicrous to expect the miner of the ore to factor into the price, all the possible permutations and uses of their product. I agree with your last sentence in the snip above.
[quote=doorwarrior]
Grover wrote:
Should we bankrupt BP by requiring them to return the Gulf to pristine conditions? Was it really pristine before the accident?
ABSOLUTELY ! If they did not have the werewithal to pay out of pocket to clean up the entire mess THEY MADE then we the people should bankrupt them sell the assets and recoup as much as possible as quickly as possible. What you are advocating is that its Ok to screw up the planet and hardly anything will be done because you have friends in the right places. And as for the pristine comment thats akin to me telling my 5 year old that she doesn't have to clean up the ceral she spilled because I haven't swept the floor in a couple of days. Ludicrous. [/quote]
Again, you are taking one of my comments slightly out of context. "tjlupton" seemed to advocate for the costs of the oil spill being added to each gallon of gasoline. I took the context of his/her segment as a punitive tax on the end users. If it were only applied to BP gasoline products, it would price them out of the market and it would result in bankruptcy. I was questioning his/her intent. What would bankruptcy accomplish?
I was using the word pristine because "tjlupton" used it. The word, pristine, evokes an image that is unspoilt by man. Is it fair to expect your daughter to clean the cereal, mop, wax and buff the floor so it is restored to a lustrous, pristine shine when you haven't bothered to sweep it for a couple of days? The same standard should be applied to BP - nothing more, nothing less. The Gulf of Mexico has been used/abused by man for centuries. It is hardly pristine. If BP can clean up the damage and restore the environment to pre-spill conditions, shouldn't that suffice?
[quote=doorwarrior]
I can't remember or find who posted on this topic but they felt that corporations should be treated as people, after all the supreme court says they are people so they should be subject to the same laws we are. If a corp commits harm put the corp into jai/receiveship and don't let the stockholders get paid until compensation has been paid. If someone can find this post please post it here.
Whether its a corporation or a person they should always be held responsible for any and all harm they cause.
Rich [/quote]
It wasn't me who posted that statement. (As soon as Texas hangs one for murder, I'll reassess my position.) I believe that a corporation should be viewed as chattel for the stockholders. The corporation is a convenient vessel to conduct business. It has no voice; however, the people in the corporation do. Since it has no voice and cannot vote, it shouldn't be subject to taxation. Corporations have physical presence and therefore impact the communities. Fees for traffic, utilities, etc. based on usage can be assessed by the communities. The board of directors are responsible for the actions of the corporation. They make the decisions, enjoy the profits, and suffer the consequences.
In my world, the board of directors would have their necks and wallets on the line.
Grover
Doug,
I concur with your comments, in part. I find it a bit hypocritical of someone like Stockman to come out blasting this notion of deficit spending when it was under his watch during the massive explosion of (military) deficit spending that the US realized it’s Potemkin village form of "Morning in America".
A mere mia culpa would be appreciated before you start scolding the actions of others that simply reflect your own.
And while I’m at it, when is this site going to get some useful knowledge and insights from someone other than middle-aged, white men???
I went back and reread tjlupton’s post and see what you mean. Many of the statements can be taken several different ways. Your absolutely right about the pristine part, they should only be responsible for the damage they caused. Give my daughter a couple of more years and she will be responsible for the whole floor.
My mistake about the corps. being people comment, I wasn’t clear. The context was the recent Supreme Court decision. The poster wasn’t saying (neither am I) that corps are people, they were just saying that if the courts thought they were people they should be subject to the same laws and penalties we are. If the corp commits a crime put it "jail" by not allowing any of the profits flow to the shareholders for a period of time. I agree with the board having their necks and wallets on the line.
I found the post by Poet
Well, here's another thought. Perhaps corporations should begin being treated like individual entities just like humans are. There are so many who fight for the right of a corporation to be an entity, though there is nothing in the Constitution about that. If it were a real entity, then if a corporation's actions or negligence result in a person being injured or a law being broken, treat it like a person. Maybe it should be put into receivership for several years, with executive leadership fired, and all profits during that time go to the victim and government - just like a prisoner in prison. If a corporation's criminal actions results in a person's death, maybe the corporation should be liquidated, with all proceeds going to the victim's family and the government. Employees can be sued or punished. And if there are not enough assets in the corporation, then reach-through should include the financial assets of investors.
I have posted about this a couple times in the past. There are actually 2 SC decisions that have pretty much cooked our goose for ever again having any control over corporations.
1976 Buckley v. Vallejo made money equal to speech in terms of free speech protection. And the recent Citizens United case making corporations equal to people. The sum total is that corporations have a free speech right to dump as much money as they please on politicians. This, of course, completely distorts the political process in favor of the wealthy, particularly Wall St types whose mouths say free markets…;free markets…free markets, but whose eyes say gimmee more…gimmee more…gimmee more.
David Stockman was one of the authors of Voodoo Economics, also known as the infamous Trickle Down Economics during his tenure in the Reagan Administration. Which is still the basis of the Republican’s Pary econimic plan.
Now that he found Jesus, he want to criticize current politicians for their lack of courage. Where was his voice when this mess began? When the American people needed a voice of economic sanity.
Of course the end user (consumer) should be penalized for the externalities associated with bringing that product to market. How else is demand going to drop for such products if price doesn’t also go up? It’s the consumer that drives the supply / demand curves. Government scientists need to come up with estimates of how much degradation is caused by producing a gallon of gasoline and jack up the price by that much via taxes (yes, I know our governments are corrupt but no one else is going to do this – it’s about taking control of our governments back from Wall Street and co.). And a similar tax would be applied to natural gas so that every step of the way extra costs are added to bring the final price up to a more fair number truly representative of its environmental degradation.Concerns over these increased prices causing the economy to crash? Well, hellooooo, that’s the ultimate problem isn’t it? How to maintain vibrant growing economies with low prices, in a world of finite and depleting resources? Or in other words, how to violate the laws of physics? Ain’t gonna happen. It’s going to end, one way or another.
Sorry consumers, I can’t have too much sympathy for your desire to keep consuming the planet away and justify it because the mainstream media propaganda says you should. Consumption of non-renewable resources will eventually deplete them and cause prices to rise. Deal with it.
Yes, the nasty oil companies are an integral part of keeping consumers addicted to fossil fuels, which they know are in short supply so therefore the price will rocket soon once that fundamental gets priced into the market – the oil companies just need to keep everyone addicted till that point comes.
[quote=plato1965]
and they sure as hell don’t want nasty nuclear… they want safe, clean, cheap energy from unicorns… and the skittle flux…
fracking… no thanks! - we’ve seen gasland … we know it’s not PERFECT !!
[/quote]
Right. We don’t want nuclear (except fusion if someone can ever figure that out), we don’t want gas, we don’t want unicorn nose oil either. We want the remaining oil deposits to be used to produce an amount of solar panels measuring 400 km x 400 km, to be placed strategically around the world in mid latitude deserts. This would provide enough power to run the entire world. I want a Nissan Leaf electric car, which is just as good, even better, than a regular car, to be powered by this solar power. And in terms of total cost of ownership, these electric cars shall, and already do, cost less than their ICE powered competition. I want a Leaf that has solar panels impregnated into the bodywork to power it 20 km a day for free when parked in the sun.
In winter time I want a Sterling engine electricity generator attached to my wood stove to provide electricity from wood. In summer I want solar panels on the roof to provide electricity that way.
TOTALLY do-able.
Not necessary. I’d have a sterling engine electricity generator on my wood stove and solar panels on my roof to provide electricity to charge up my electric car for as long as I want, until someone steals my solar panels off my roof.
The development of the free-floating dollar was a necessary evil in order to arrive at free-floating gold currency, measured as weight. The fixed peg of BW had to be removed for gold to be set free and then remonetized at a later date … in REAL-TIME ! No free floating dollar development would have meant no free floating “gold-as-money” in REAL-TIME. Some evils are necessary in “the script” where the measure and the weight are eventually united in real-time.
The FED is the creator of the real-time measure you 20th century dinosaurs call “the dollar”. The dollar is only a currency within the fiat paradigm. Within the real-time gold-as-money paradigm, the dollar is not a currency but acts as the necessary real-time measure for gold payment that can be made with bullion for the things that are priced in a fiat currency. Something has to bridge the two paradigms in the transition from fiat to gold weight. The FED has set the stage. Give thanks , buy gold and watch the market slowly monetize it. The monetization is ongoing. It is not a top-down event, but a market driven transition, bottom-up.
I noticed the perennial argument against free markets get raised. Namely, the negative externals created when people freely contract for their personal benefit.
To me the answer lies in robust private property rights. Such rights would allow a third party harmed to pursue damages which would then be a powerful consideration for people involved in a voluntary exchange to consider. Contrast the BP oil spill and Fukushima events where the liability of the companies and company owners is limited. Indeed, governments often provide support for these companies.
Secondly, the argument against free markets presumes the virtuosity of the state. This is a dangerous illusion. Currently in Australia we have governments supporting coal seam gas exploration licences in national parks and on ‘private property’ because they stand to gain financially. This is a classic illustration of the consequences of weak property rights and the myopic perspective of governments.
A commercial market absent sound property rights is not a free market. Central banking, fractional reserve banking, state owned currency and currency laws are all founded on weak property rights and so destroy a free market. Free markets are not of themselves ‘good’ but would seem to provide the best framework for advanciing civilisation. Conversely, the results of government intervention are a breakdown of property rights and a gradual collapse into poverty for the masses while the minority linked to government wildly prosper.
I found this interview with Dave Stockman one of Chris’s best.
To me the answer lies in robust private property rights. Such rights would allow a third party harmed to pursue damages which would then be a powerful consideration for people involved in a voluntary exchange to consider.
Ah.. if only it were that simple..
Consider this…
The biosphere has no vote… cannot lobby congress… can’t even occupy wall street… and sure as hell can’t file a class action lawsuit…
Even if we assume human beings (properly accredited) are the final measure… and that our environment is sullen passive clay to be moulded as we see fit…
Your libertarian, legalist solution only applies to current human beings… neither the future, nor the past can petition, speak, lobby or vote…
No faith in government, yet faith in human defined law… feh !
"property" especially where it concerns living creatures, land, or natural resources is a fatal conceit…
libertarianism is fine applied to the natural rights of the individual creature… trying to apply it as a universal panacea is a rapid route to epic fail.
right to life ? Tell it to the dodo…
render to the individual what belongs to the individual.
render to the community what belongs to the community.
I second the recent comments by Plato. Well stated !Our free-market has run amok and the Corporatocracy has taken over the control of the government, thus subverting democracy and the will of the people. The idea that the free market is a solution to our problems is as bad the idea that big government is our solution. So far the best we have found is a blend of the two, each keeping the other somewhat in check with an involved citizenry effectively exercising its rights via political oversight. Unfortunately, corruption is now so rampant that there seems nothing left to stop the thieves and Banksters of Wall Street except an uprising by the 99% of us being left behind, The convoluted mess we find ourselves in is a result of so-called free market principles allowed to go to the extreme of controlling the political and regulatory systems designed to keep the economic forces in check along with maintaining a semblance of ethics and honesty .
The free market will always head for monopoly as is so skillfully orchestrated by the "free marketers" of today that have/are creating the governmental rules to suit their best interests - and not the best interests of the country or its citizens.
Anyone wondering what a free market should look like needs to study Adam Smith and those of his persuasion
Jim
Hey friends, always remember, your college bookstore should be the last option when you sell your textbooks, as they will undoubtedly offer you the lowest price around. So stop by our site, bookmark it and send it to your friends so that you can all compare book Buy Back Textbooks prices and receive the highest offers and best service possible!
Hey friends, always remember, your college bookstore should be the last option when you sell your textbooks, as they will undoubtedly offer you the lowest price around. So stop by our site, bookmark it and send it to your friends so that you can all compare book Buy Back Textbooks prices and receive the highest offers and best service possible!
Hey friends, always remember, your college bookstore should be the last option when you sell your textbooks, as they will undoubtedly offer you the lowest price around. So stop by our site, bookmark it and send it to your friends so that you can all compare book Buy Back Textbooks prices and receive the highest offers and best service possible!
Looking to Buy Back Textbooks for college courses? Look no further. ValoreBooks.com offers a large selection of the
course books you need - from Anthropology to Zoology - at affordable prices. We know that your wallet is likely a little thin at this stage in your life. The cost of tuition alone can nearly bankrupt a college kid.
So let's be realistic here. Who wants to spend every last penny at the college store, when you can buy books for cheap and save your cash for Spring break or that road trip you've been dreaming about?