Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    26 Oct '13 10:12
    J.P. Morgan has set aside 23 billion dollars to settle legal claims realting to selling mortgage backed securities that went sour and among other charges. This is a large sum, but it represents a trend that has become a disturbing business practice. Rather than acting in a lawful manner, many large companies simply engage in unlawful and fraudlent business practices as a matter of policy, keep their ill gotten gains, then hire a legal team to defend them, knowing the legal settlement they have to pay will still leave them with a tidy profit. In other words, it's more profitable to deal with the lawsuits than it is to run their business's lawfully...and many time they can do all of this without admitting fault, and with none of their executives going to jail. I see this with banks, auto companies, oil companies, and many others.

    What does it say about the state of our business envoirnment when companies can engage in illegal practices for profit with the mindset that paying lawyers to defend them will still leave them with a sizeable profit, so they can continue to engage in this practice over and over again, and the legal fees are simply the "cost of doing business"??

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jpmorgans-5b-settlement-doesnt-end-040322968.html
  2. 30 Oct '13 09:17
    Originally posted by bill718
    J.P. Morgan has set aside 23 billion dollars to settle legal claims realting to selling mortgage backed securities that went sour and among other charges. This is a large sum, but it represents a trend that has become a disturbing business practice. Rather than acting in a lawful manner, many large companies simply engage in unlawful and fraudlent business p ...[text shortened]... business"??

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jpmorgans-5b-settlement-doesnt-end-040322968.html
    Thank the Republicans for tort reform. Thanks to the Republicans, companies can now rob, maim, and kill people with their products, but know their damages are limited due to tort reform, and thus just a cost of doing business and making a profit.
  3. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    30 Oct '13 13:29
    Originally posted by moon1969
    Thank the Republicans for tort reform. Thanks to the Republicans, companies can now rob, maim, and kill people with their products, but know their damages are limited due to tort reform, and thus just a cost of doing business and making a profit.
    Moon. You POS. You accused me of bein a racist because of things I posted. I demand an answer. Which posts of mine are racist?
  4. 30 Oct '13 14:19
    Originally posted by bill718
    J.P. Morgan has set aside 23 billion dollars to settle legal claims realting to selling mortgage backed securities that went sour and among other charges. This is a large sum, but it represents a trend that has become a disturbing business practice. Rather than acting in a lawful manner, many large companies simply engage in unlawful and fraudlent business p ...[text shortened]... business"??

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jpmorgans-5b-settlement-doesnt-end-040322968.html
    It is a fundamental aspect of business ethics. Duty to the shareholders to maximize profits by all means, etc. It's nothing new. Pollute a river and pay a fee -- called a fine -- and put that fine in the operating budget as a business expense. Net profit still acceptable? OK, it's a go. Influence the legislature to reduce the fee if you can. The fee is a measure of how important compliance is to society. And/or get too big to fail. If society only cares to the tune of 23 billion, then why should the company care more? Fiduciary duty: don't care more. Society has to increase the penalty, to include prison sentences if need be. That's all there is to it. Make it bad enough for the shareholders and you solve the problem.
  5. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    30 Oct '13 15:05
    Originally posted by JS357
    It is a fundamental aspect of business ethics. Duty to the shareholders to maximize profits by all means, etc. It's nothing new. Pollute a river and pay a fee -- called a fine -- and put that fine in the operating budget as a business expense. Net profit still acceptable? OK, it's a go. Influence the legislature to reduce the fee if you can. The fee is a measu ...[text shortened]... e. That's all there is to it. Make it bad enough for the shareholders and you solve the problem.
    Time to transform shareholder primacy into stakeholder primacy.