Not All Corps are Bad!

[rushmc 23]

Reprint from AP but
FOUND ON NEWSMAX (god I love posting that)

Thursday, July 6, 2006 9:28 a.m. EDT
Pepsi Tips Coca-Cola on Recipe Theft


Coca-Cola and Pepsi are usually bitter enemies, but when PepsiCo Inc. got a letter offering to sell Coke trade secrets, it went straight to its corporate rival.


Six weeks later, three people face federal charges of stealing confidential information, including a sample of a new drink, from The Coca-Cola Co. and trying to sell it to PepsiCo Inc.



"Competition can sometimes be fierce, but also must be fair and legal," Pepsi spokesman Dave DeCecco said. "We're pleased the authorities and the FBI have identified the people responsible for this."


The suspects arrested Wednesday - the day a $1.5 million transaction was to occur - include a Coke executive's administrative assistant, Joya Williams, who is accused of rifling through corporate files and stuffing documents and a new Coca-Cola product into a personal bag.


Williams, 41, of Norcross, Ga., and 30-year-old Ibrahim Dimson of New York and 43-year-old Edmund Duhaney of Decatur, Ga., were charged with wire fraud and unlawfully stealing and selling Coke trade secrets, federal prosecutors said.


They were expected to appear before a federal magistrate judge on Thursday in Atlanta, where Coca-Cola is based.


Coke thanked Pepsi for its assistance.


Chief Executive Neville Isdell said in a memo to employees Wednesday that the company is cooperating with federal authorities.


"Sadly, today's arrests include an individual within our company," Isdell wrote. "While this breach of trust is difficult for all of us to accept, it underscores the responsibility we each have to be vigilant in protecting our trade secrets. Information is the lifeblood of the company."

He said Coke will review its information protection policies, procedures and practices to make sure it safeguards intellectual property. Coke spokesman Ben Deutsch said the formula for trademark Coca-Cola was not stolen in the theft.


According to prosecutors, on May 19, Purchase, N.Y.-based PepsiCo provided Coke with a copy of a letter mailed to PepsiCo in an official Coca-Cola business envelope. The letter, postmarked from the Bronx in New York, was from an individual identifying himself as "Dirk," who claimed to be employed at a high level with Coca-Cola and offered "very detailed and confidential information." "Dirk" was later identified as Dimson, the FBI says.


Coca-Cola immediately contacted the FBI and an undercover FBI investigation began.


Prosecutors say Williams was the source of the information Dimson offered to provided Pepsi. They say that "Dirk" provided an FBI undercover agent 14 pages of Coca-Cola documents marked classified and confidential.

The company confirmed that the documents were valid and highly confidential and were considered trade secrets. Williams works for a senior Coke manager, though the company would not identify which one. The company also would not say if Williams has been fired.


Prosecutors say "Dirk" requested $10,000 for the documents.


Later "Dirk" produced other documents that Coca-Cola confirmed were valid trade secrets of Coca-Cola and highly confidential. He also agreed to be paid $75,000 for the purchase of a highly confidential product sample from a new Coca Cola project, prosecutors said.


Then on June 27, an undercover FBI agent offered to buy other trade secret items for $1.5 million from "Dirk." The same day a bank account was opened under the names of Duhaney and Dimson, and the address used on the account was that of Duhaney's residence, prosecutors said.


Video surveillance showed Williams at her desk at Coke headquarters going through multiple files looking for documents and stuffing them into bags.

She also was observed holding a liquid container with a white label, which resembled the description of a new Coca-Cola product sample, before placing it into her personal bag, prosecutors say, adding that Coca-Cola later verified the sample was genuine and is a product the company is developing.

© 2006 Associated Press

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

If they are both major corporations, then it must be something else that's crooked.

I think it's staged for advertising. Coke gets free press to a new recipe, Pepsi gets good will from those that respect that sort of thing.

Because obviously the leadership at any business with more than 2 employees isn't lead by humans as such - or so I've inferred.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[dorbie 0]

A similar thing happened with Intel and a competitor a while back.

The first thing ANY major corp will do when offered industrial secrets like this is go straight to the authorities, there's just too much to lose. You have to be seriously clueless (we're talking 9-11 conspiracy clueless) to think this is a viable criminal enterprise.

[Lucky... 0]

This doesn't establish corporations to be good. As someone wrote, this could be a reverse sting so they (Pepsi) must go to the authorities.

I thought perhaps a corp paid for an employee's child to have a million dollar surgery, or decided to give all employees a better benefits package. So nope, corps are still the exploitive, government intertwined POS that they were before this.

Not surprising a Republican would defend a cirporation tho

[mnealtx 0]

Want some cheese with that whine?

Go look and see how much of your employment taxes and insurance costs the company you work for pays, then get back to us.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Want some cheese with that whine?

Go look and see how much of your employment taxes and insurance costs the company you work for pays, then get back to us.

You want some whine with that cheese?

So the fact that employers pay some taxes for their employees while making sizeable profits, does that mitigate the exploitation? No.

And where do these taxes go? To public health programs? Very little. Currently they go to the cronies of Bush in part, thx to the advent of a fruitless war.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Want some cheese with that whine?

Go look and see how much of your employment taxes and insurance costs the company you work for pays, then get back to us.

I consider those part of my employment package and the cost to the corp. benefits THEM to get >MY< skills and talent

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[unformed 0]

Quote

Quote

Want some cheese with that whine?

Go look and see how much of your employment taxes and insurance costs the company you work for pays, then get back to us.

You want some whine with that cheese?

So the fact that employers pay some taxes for their employees while making sizeable profits, does that mitigate the exploitation? No.

And where do these taxes go? To public health programs? Very little. Currently they go to the cronies of Bush in part, thx to the advent of a fruitless war.

Why should a corporation pay you more if you're willing to work for less?

The sole purpose of a for-profit corporation is to make money for its stockholders, not to feed the world, give people free medical care, or anything else.

If you don't like that, well, you're free to leave and work for yourself.

This ad space for sale.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

This doesn't establish corporations to be good. As someone wrote, this could be a reverse sting so they (Pepsi) must go to the authorities.

I thought perhaps a corp paid for an employee's child to have a million dollar surgery, or decided to give all employees a better benefits package. So nope, corps are still the exploitive, government intertwined POS that they were before this.

Not surprising a Republican would defend a cirporation tho

Please forgive me for this but I can't help it.




BBBBBWWWWWHHHHHHHHHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Stop it,

It hurts

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,107]

> This doesn't establish corporations to be good.

Geez. Corporations are like people; some are good, some aren't so good. There is one big difference - if they don't make any money, they die. So the ones you see around are the ones that make money, and they will do whatever it takes to make money. Sometimes "whatever it takes" is a good thing. Toyota is becoming the biggest (and richest) car company on the planet by making safe, efficient, clean cars, and by building them in the US. Sometimes "whatever it takes" is a bad thing; there are coal companies that are destroying entire towns, rivers and mountain ranges to get at the cheap coal.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Want some cheese with that whine?

Go look and see how much of your employment taxes and insurance costs the company you work for pays, then get back to us.

You want some whine with that cheese?

So the fact that employers pay some taxes for their employees while making sizeable profits, does that mitigate the exploitation? No.

And where do these taxes go? To public health programs? Very little. Currently they go to the cronies of Bush in part, thx to the advent of a fruitless war.

Why should a corporation pay you more if you're willing to work for less?

The sole purpose of a for-profit corporation is to make money for its stockholders, not to feed the world, give people free medical care, or anything else.

If you don't like that, well, you're free to leave and work for yourself.

Don't forget the intent of this thread: not all corps are bad. I understand the agenda and duty of corporations, and lowering wages to increase profits is one of them.

Quote

Why should a corporation pay you more if you're willing to work for less?

They shouldn't, but we shouldn't call them less evil for trying every measure including buying Congressmen to lower wages.

Quote

The sole purpose of a for-profit corporation is to make money for its stockholders, not to feed the world, give people free medical care, or anything else.

Right, cause if they did all that good stuff, we couldn't hardly call them evil, huh? Get the point?

Quote

If you don't like that, well, you're free to leave and work for yourself.

A masterfully great idea.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

This doesn't establish corporations to be good. As someone wrote, this could be a reverse sting so they (Pepsi) must go to the authorities.

I thought perhaps a corp paid for an employee's child to have a million dollar surgery, or decided to give all employees a better benefits package. So nope, corps are still the exploitive, government intertwined POS that they were before this.

Not surprising a Republican would defend a cirporation tho

Please forgive me for this but I can't help it.




BBBBBWWWWWHHHHHHHHHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Stop it,

It hurts

A well thought out and intelectual response.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

> This doesn't establish corporations to be good.

Geez. Corporations are like people; some are good, some aren't so good. There is one big difference - if they don't make any money, they die. So the ones you see around are the ones that make money, and they will do whatever it takes to make money. Sometimes "whatever it takes" is a good thing. Toyota is becoming the biggest (and richest) car company on the planet by making safe, efficient, clean cars, and by building them in the US. Sometimes "whatever it takes" is a bad thing; there are coal companies that are destroying entire towns, rivers and mountain ranges to get at the cheap coal.

Quote

Geez. Corporations are like people; some are good, some aren't so good.

Actually, according to the US Sup Ct, corporations are people. In an 1886 decision where a clerk changed the wording, it read that a corp is a person.

Quote

There is one big difference - if they don't make any money, they die.

Really, and if a person doesn't make money they live? This isn't a Socialist nation as our Repub brothers would contend, if you don't make money you will be homeless and die.

Quote

So the ones you see around are the ones that make money, and they will do whatever it takes to make money.

My point precisely, which is why I say that as a general rule, corps are inherently evil. Most people won't do anything to make money. By that I mean things like throwing old ladies out of their houses and the sort.

Quote

Toyota is becoming the biggest (and richest) car company on the planet by making safe, efficient, clean cars, and by building them in the US. Sometimes "whatever it takes" is a bad thing; there are coal companies that are destroying entire towns, rivers and mountain ranges to get at the cheap coal.

They prefer the 1st sometimes simply becuase it is easier and they get less public scrutiny, but there is no problem if they have to resort ot teh 2nd sometimes.

_________________________________________________________

Guys, you are missing my point and disregarding the topic, which is: Not All Corps are Bad!

I think, as a rule, they are inherently bad. There are exceptions, but these (corps) are people without a conscience hwo protect their founders and take the fall if something goes awry. Then, like an android, another pops up in its place as one dies taking all liability down with it.

And to say just because Pepsi tells on Coke execs who were trying to extort money, that doesn't make Pepsi good, just reveals how bad some people with the Coca-Cola corp are bad. It's bizzare to call these products anything but fucking poison anyway, and because one decides it's more advantageous to reveal dirty people does zero for society. There are times when taking the offer to destroy their enemy might be more advantageous, so they do it. It's like those corps that pollute, have local residents get sick and die, get fined and then decide if cleanup or fine payment is cheaper. That is scum and I believe generally ALL corps go thru these decision-making processes and not a conscious process. Since a corp is a person, corps don't generally have concsciouses, they would be Sociopaths.

Please no more basic instruction on supply/demand/bottom line, I have that one figured out. Just explain how corps are not inherently evil and also explain how corp 1 rating out people from corp 2 adjusts either's evility standard.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

My point precisely, which is why I say that as a general rule, corps are inherently evil. Most people won't do anything to make money. By that I mean things like throwing old ladies out of their houses and the sort.

The only time I see the law being used to throw old ladies out of their houses without just cause is when local govts. use the law the liberals on the SCOTUS voted for when they interpeted the law to allow it through their ruling on Imminent Domain.

[billvon 3,107]

>Really, and if a person doesn't make money they live?

I didn't make any money for the first 14 years of my life. I lived. Lots of people make no money and survive. We don't generally let people starve in the US (which I think is a good thing.)

>My point precisely, which is why I say that as a general rule, corps are
>inherently evil. Most people won't do anything to make money. By
>that I mean things like throwing old ladies out of their houses and the sort.

And my point is that they are no more evil than people in general. Many of the people who "throw little old ladies out of their houses" are people who have a second property (or own a small apartment building) and who want a tenant who will pay rent.

>They prefer the 1st sometimes simply becuase it is easier and they get
>less public scrutiny, but there is no problem if they have to resort
> ot teh 2nd sometimes.

Right. Just like people. They do what they have to to survive. If the only way someone can feed their family is by stealing - a great many will.

>Please no more basic instruction on supply/demand/bottom line, I have
>that one figured out. Just explain how corps are not inherently evil . . .

You've answered your own question. Their "bottom line" is making money. That's not good or evil, they are money makers. Some make money in good ways, some in not-so-good ways.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

My point precisely, which is why I say that as a general rule, corps are inherently evil. Most people won't do anything to make money. By that I mean things like throwing old ladies out of their houses and the sort.

The only time I see the law being used to throw old ladies out of their houses without just cause is when local govts. use the law the liberals on the SCOTUS voted for when they interpeted the law to allow it through their ruling on Imminent Domain.

Although it is true and surprising that it was the liberal and the moderates (only 1 leberal on there) who passed the majority in the E.D. decison, to focus your entire reply on my post to that of throwoing out old ladies is narrow. When I say, "By that I mean things like throwing old ladies out of their houses and the sort." I was including all despicable acts on the part of corps, not just that. I'm including things like HOA's having too much power to huge corps like Northwest Airlines breaking the unions, to many more things.

So your deduction is that the liberal and the moderates on the SCOTUS are responsible for all corporate slime and the E.D. case is your proof? How do you acount for the decades of corp slime before this very recent decision? BTW, my state refused to enforce that ridiculous decision, went to the STate Sup Ct and was overriden. The parties could have taken it higher but feared with the new members it might have gone the way of the property owners, so that decision is so idiotic that might not carry shit for weight.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>Really, and if a person doesn't make money they live?

I didn't make any money for the first 14 years of my life. I lived. Lots of people make no money and survive. We don't generally let people starve in the US (which I think is a good thing.)

>My point precisely, which is why I say that as a general rule, corps are
>inherently evil. Most people won't do anything to make money. By
>that I mean things like throwing old ladies out of their houses and the sort.

And my point is that they are no more evil than people in general. Many of the people who "throw little old ladies out of their houses" are people who have a second property (or own a small apartment building) and who want a tenant who will pay rent.

>They prefer the 1st sometimes simply becuase it is easier and they get
>less public scrutiny, but there is no problem if they have to resort
> ot teh 2nd sometimes.

Right. Just like people. They do what they have to to survive. If the only way someone can feed their family is by stealing - a great many will.

>Please no more basic instruction on supply/demand/bottom line, I have
>that one figured out. Just explain how corps are not inherently evil . . .

You've answered your own question. Their "bottom line" is making money. That's not good or evil, they are money makers. Some make money in good ways, some in not-so-good ways.

>Really, and if a person doesn't make money they live?

I didn't make any money for the first 14 years of my life. I lived. Lots of people make no money and survive. We don't generally let people starve in the US (which I think is a good thing.)

OK, then you would be analogized to that of a junior corporation under the guidance of the parent corporation. Again, I don't think people are like corps, I was just debunking your contrast. So soup lines are the way we avoid people starving? Remember, you live in California.....

>My point precisely, which is why I say that as a general rule, corps are
>inherently evil. Most people won't do anything to make money. By
>that I mean things like throwing old ladies out of their houses and the sort.

And my point is that they are no more evil than people in general. Many of the people who "throw little old ladies out of their houses" are people who have a second property (or own a small apartment building) and who want a tenant who will pay rent.

I was waiting for that. I believe people have more ethics and compassion than do corporations, especially large corporations. IOW's, you wouldn't dump oil down the rain gutter in the street to save a trip to Autozone, but some corporations would weigh the cost of the disposal versus the fine.

I guess the "old lady in the street' reference was taken too litteraly, wich is why I added, "or the sort." When a local stadium was built, they threw out an 80something year old lady for the land, paid her a fair price and built the stadium. Well, that was her birthhouse and she wanted to die there, she died shortly after being displaced. Let's not get too focused the, "old lady in teh streets," instead let's talk about all the toxic waste issues or other more relevant corporate, uh, "mistakes."

>They prefer the 1st sometimes simply becuase it is easier and they get
>less public scrutiny, but there is no problem if they have to resort
> ot teh 2nd sometimes.

Right. Just like people. They do what they have to to survive. If the only way someone can feed their family is by stealing - a great many will.

Hmmmm, other than a few excentrics, most rich people won't steal just to pad the numbers; can we say that about corporations? Stealing for a meal does not equal stealing for a new mega-complex. What comes to mind the Delorean scandal where John D had to move blow to keep his dream alive. While this is slimy on its own, it is not the same as the Union Carbine misphap in Bohpal India a while back. How many thousands of Indians died? An the scumbag CEO was protected by corporate stautus at the wishes for deportation from the Indian government.

>Please no more basic instruction on supply/demand/bottom line, I have
>that one figured out. Just explain how corps are not inherently evil . . .

You've answered your own question. Their "bottom line" is making money. That's not good or evil, they are money makers. Some make money in good ways, some in not-so-good ways.

No way, making money regardless of human life or suffering IS evil. You can keep your claims of just trying to survive going, but these megacorps don't give a rat's ass about people, just money = evil.

Let's talk ciggs. OK, we can maggot ourselves out and rant, "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY" at every sticking point, but these drug makers/dealers produce something that if used as designed by them, will result in public ill-health of both the users and others lucky enough to be in proximity of the addicts who use it.

What was the recent government response? OK, you are making a dangerous product, therefore we want a cut. The gov played the dirty cop who took a cut and let the felon go and continue to make the meth in his trailer. This is the only product I know of that is knowingly dangerous and the producers are allowed to continue making it. Can you list any others? Before anyone states, "guns," think the designed application through.

As the previous guy just wrote, the eminent domain decision allows corporations to buy private property, so my pioint is this: Coprs are obviously inherently evil, but it is the duty of the government to limit them. Instead, when the Fascist pig we know as Regan took office, he relegated more and more power to them. We see where it ended (Enron, Worldcom, Tonka, etc, etc...). So just as you can't blame the dirty cop, as the courts give him unrelented power, you can't blame the corporation for running away with the power because the same branch entices them to do it.

[TheAnvil 0]

You know, it's always a chuckle reading one of your posts, but calling Reagan a fascist pig and blaming the Enron and Worldcom and other corporate debacles on him just takes the cake. That is by far and away the funniest thing you've ever writen.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You know, it's always a chuckle reading one of your posts, but calling Reagan a fascist pig and blaming the Enron and Worldcom and other corporate debacles on him just takes the cake. That is by far and away the funniest thing you've ever writen.

Oh, golly gosh and your input and deliberate and insightful analysis is why I read yours.

Reagan breaking the ATC unions wasn't Fascist, no. The fact that many airlines blew out the unions inteh 80's, pure coincidence. Mandatory insurance and seat belts, well, not a product of the government and insurance companies working together, no. Not Fascist at allllllllllllllllll.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

You know, it's always a chuckle reading one of your posts, but calling Reagan a fascist pig and blaming the Enron and Worldcom and other corporate debacles on him just takes the cake. That is by far and away the funniest thing you've ever writen.

I have to agree w/ lucky. When RR came into office the plug was pulled on my line of work for quite some time. He was generous enough to give me extended unemployment benifits for 6 mths. tho..

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[TheAnvil 0]

This is a funny post too, but not quite as funny as your last.

Firing the ATCs for refusing to do their jobs was one of Reagan's finest moments. Any airlines that were lucky enough to get rid of their unions - Eastern wasn't one of them - were smart to do so. Unions are why many of the major airlines are not profitable and also why GM is in such serious trouble today.

Mandatory seat belt usage is a state and not a federal law if memory serves, as is insurance.

Please, keep posting. Hilarious!

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

There is one big difference - if they don't make any money, they die.

Really, and if a person doesn't make money they live? This isn't a Socialist nation as our Repub brothers would contend, if you don't make money you will be homeless and die.

Your statement here is incorrect. A person that does not maintain their overall health (including, but not limited to financial health), will not survive. There is only so much that society should be obliged to do for those that will not take the right action to flourish.

Quote

Quote

So the ones you see around are the ones that make money, and they will do whatever it takes to make money.

My point precisely, which is why I say that as a general rule, corps are inherently evil. Most people won't do anything to make money. By that I mean things like throwing old ladies out of their houses and the sort.

Oh yes, those evil corporations that have foundations to help the needy, the Ford Foundation, fund sources of over $10B -- Evil I tell you, EVIL!!

The Gates Foundation, soon to amass over $30B in funding to be SPENT, not stocked.

Your perception, while I understand it, is extreme and incorrect.

Quote

I think, as a rule, they are inherently bad. There are exceptions, but these (corps) are people without a conscience hwo protect their founders and take the fall if something goes awry. Then, like an android, another pops up in its place as one dies taking all liability down with it.

I disagree. Execs from WorldCom, Enron, Tyco, Qwest have all been placed to account. While there are certainly others that people don't "like" that does not make them evil.

Who do you work for? Do they pay you a fair wage? If you work for yourself, do you employ people? Are you the evil corp in their eyes? Where are you from?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

This is a funny post too, but not quite as funny as your last.

Firing the ATCs for refusing to do their jobs was one of Reagan's finest moments. Any airlines that were lucky enough to get rid of their unions - Eastern wasn't one of them - were smart to do so. Unions are why many of the major airlines are not profitable and also why GM is in such serious trouble today.

Mandatory seat belt usage is a state and not a federal law if memory serves, as is insurance.

Please, keep posting. Hilarious!

Yours is a meaningless post too, but not quite as meaningless as your previous.

Quote

Firing the ATCs for refusing to do their jobs was one of Reagan's finest moments.

Let's qualify this correctly, they didn't refuse to do their job, they wanted to strike for better benefits. It's a concept we used to align ourselves with in order to strike a balance between corporate America and the worker. You know, balance. A concept that has gone away with the Republican machine. Now we have imbalanced budgets that come with record deficits and debt. Well, with the exception of the Clinton years anyway.

Quote

Any airlines that were lucky enough to get rid of their unions - Eastern wasn't one of them - were smart to do so.

Huh, probably the most profitable airline in the US is Southwest, which didn't take any 9/11 money either. I don't have their SEC filings here, but I believe they are very well managed and profitable, so perhaps the secret lies not in exploiting the workforce, but in a well-managed outfit.

Quote

Unions are why many of the major airlines are not profitable and also why GM is in such serious trouble today.

Next thing you know they;ll be wanting medical insurance too. It was the 80's and the start of the end of labor unions when medical coverage went to hell and 80% coverage became 80% deductable, as well as $500 per month co-pays for a family of 4.

Remember after 9/11 when the gov threw 100's of millions at the airlines, Bus gave 1 3-month unemployment extension as the airline workers were shitcanned, and then was is American Airlines VP's getting several million $ bonuses? Perhaps the answer is there too. I think Herb Keller of Southwest waived his salary during the hard times. Maybe look there instead of instictually blaming the guys with the wrenches or the pilots.

Quote

Mandatory seat belt usage is a state and not a federal law if memory serves, as is insurance.

Yep, sure is. SO is drinking age, speed limits and many other laws. The gov says it's simple: do it our way or lose ALL highway funds. So these laws come from the states not the gov, right?

Quote

Please, keep posting. Hilarious!

Please keep replying, pointless waste of bandwidth.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is one big difference - if they don't make any money, they die.

Really, and if a person doesn't make money they live? This isn't a Socialist nation as our Repub brothers would contend, if you don't make money you will be homeless and die.

Your statement here is incorrect. A person that does not maintain their overall health (including, but not limited to financial health), will not survive. There is only so much that society should be obliged to do for those that will not take the right action to flourish.

Quote

Quote

So the ones you see around are the ones that make money, and they will do whatever it takes to make money.

My point precisely, which is why I say that as a general rule, corps are inherently evil. Most people won't do anything to make money. By that I mean things like throwing old ladies out of their houses and the sort.

Oh yes, those evil corporations that have foundations to help the needy, the Ford Foundation, fund sources of over $10B -- Evil I tell you, EVIL!!

The Gates Foundation, soon to amass over $30B in funding to be SPENT, not stocked.

Your perception, while I understand it, is extreme and incorrect.

Quote

I think, as a rule, they are inherently bad. There are exceptions, but these (corps) are people without a conscience hwo protect their founders and take the fall if something goes awry. Then, like an android, another pops up in its place as one dies taking all liability down with it.

I disagree. Execs from WorldCom, Enron, Tyco, Qwest have all been placed to account. While there are certainly others that people don't "like" that does not make them evil.

Who do you work for? Do they pay you a fair wage? If you work for yourself, do you employ people? Are you the evil corp in their eyes? Where are you from?

Quote

Your statement here is incorrect. A person that does not maintain their overall health (including, but not limited to financial health), will not survive. There is only so much that society should be obliged to do for those that will not take the right action to flourish. [/quote}

You didn’t get it. I posted an obvious rhetorical question, meaning it was a statement that a person must work or die. Billvon said that was a difference between a person and a corporation. Go back and reread the thread.

***Oh yes, those evil corporations that have foundations to help the needy, the Ford Foundation, fund sources of over $10B -- Evil I tell you, EVIL!!

The Gates Foundation, soon to amass over $30B in funding to be SPENT, not stocked.

Your perception, while I understand it, is extreme and incorrect.

That’s like bikers having a toy-for-tots day, and then selling drugs to those kid’s big brothers later that day. Many times those foundations are for the corp to appear sweet when they are fined for pollution or discrimination, as well as a tidy tax wrote-off. Some good done still doesn’t offset other bad deeds.

Quote

I disagree. Execs from WorldCom, Enron, Tyco, Qwest have all been placed to account. While there are certainly others that people don't "like" that does not make them evil.

Who do you work for? Do they pay you a fair wage? If you work for yourself, do you employ people? Are you the evil corp in their eyes? Where are you from?

The corporations are directed by greedy execs, like the ones you listed. I work a lot of contract jobs in a technical trade. Don’t make this about me or you, make this about he actions of corporations as the thread illustrates.

I think the issue here is the government being run in part by corporations, which is part of the definition of Fascism. Corporatism is an element of Fascism, which is to what I refer. In the 60’s and 70’s the government wanted more contract companies out there for the lowest bidder. Now they work closely with these corporations and don’t want that kind of competition. The merger of some IT companies and especially Boeing and Rockwell and then Douglas into one corp would have been laughingly unheard of, now a reality…… Fascism.***

[SpeedRacer 1]

all a corporation is is the business's money is kept separate from the owner's money.

The little mom&pop store down the road may well be a corporation. There's nothing inherently evil about that. If a certain corporation is up to something sleazy, by all means, nail 'em.

But I disagree with the idea that corporations are in general an evil thing. Most of the material improvements that make our lives better have been the result of yes, corporations competing to provide better products or services. Unless you have some alternative besides letting people honestly make their money on their own terms? Maybe a system of government-imposed collectivism would be better? After all, it isn't stealing if the government does it. And the most extreme socialist countries have SUCH a good record of taking care of the environment & their people, right??

Look around the room you're in right now & count how many things you use every day were made by those evil corporations.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------