kapkomet

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 02:11 PM) Are you really concerned about an award that equals only 3 weeks of profits? In my view, that isn't anywhere near high enough. I would quadruple it- make it an entire quarter's worth of profits.... The "X weeks of profits" isn't the point. And that's exactly what the author of that article wanted to suck you into.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 01:46 PM) It was all reactionary after they did immense damage, though. Without the threat of these large penalties, why should they be proactive? ok, that's fine. But let's just pile on MORE threats and costs... Punitive damage awards are a fine line. It's ok, but to a point.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 01:23 PM) Are you british today too? Oh! Perhaps I should have put that in the colour green. More seriously, why not punitive damages? Punitive damages are exactly what's needed to punish giant corporations who act either irresponsibly, or downright horrifically (because they'd deem the cost of paying actual damages to people they harm is lesser than the cost of doing things safely and responsibly). If there EVER were a company that was fit to get whacked with some huge punitive damages, it would be Exxon Mobil. A company like that that is making excessive profits at a time when many Americans cannot afford to pay their exorbitant prices (and I'm serious, go into any Mobile and everything costs more there) should at the very least have to pay for their gross negligence. And they have to be hit hard, otherwise, it's nothing to them- they won't change their practices. And will it be passed on to the consumer? I doubt it- they have to compete in a free market with others. And if they do try to pass it on? Guess what? Go to Shell or BP instead. They DID change their practices (for the most part... before Balta goes googling). There's more double-hulled ships now, and some things have definitely changed. I see your point... but there's a fine line there. And it CERTAINLY gets passed on.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 01:09 PM) OK. Well that's a different discussion - whether or not he's a saint versus just a capitalist with a charitable streak. In any case, he is definitely a good example of an opportunist in a capitalist society. And that I don't have a problem with... I DO have a problem with it when he claims he's just being a "good guy advancing the cause of global warming"... bulls***. If he weren't making money hand over fist, I doubt it would be as appealing to him.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 01:15 PM) OK, so if these were compensatory damages derived from that math as opposed to punitive, that would be a more accurate judgement financially. I can accept that. Right. See, though, I think a major issue of "punitive" (read: the tort area of the law) carries over and drives up costs on things greatly, and the biggest area on this is health care. Medical mistakes happen, and the financial reprocussions and damages should be accurate, but some lady getting $50 million from McDonalds because she spilled coffee on her lap is ridiculous (of course that's THE outrageous example, but it's the point and it's there). Should people be reimbursed REASONABLY? Yes. And in this case, the Exxon judgement should be reasonable for actual damages, not punitive, which is what Justice Roberts was questioning. And then, he also doesn't have the means to "prevent it from happening again" like Balta was leaning toward, IMO.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 01:05 PM) Why is it even a zing? Its right on, and I personally see no problem with it. He's made some money from it, and he's also helped create money for some solid organizations. Sounds like a great example of capitalism indeed. Because when this was brought up before, how DARE we talk about Al Gore being a greedy capitalistic (read: opportunistic) bastard for making money on something to advance what is really an agenda to make money on? I don't want to debate it again, but that's how I took it.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 12:58 PM) Choose A or B A. I support Hillary. Russert threw softballs at Obama while doing his best to bust Hillary's chops. B. I support Barack. Russert threw softballs at Clinton while doing his best to bust Barack's chops. This is pretty much what I've been reading. Then it was equal opportunity drive by media butchering, eh? So Obama and John McCain are in downtown Fort Worth today.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 12:59 PM) Guys like Al Gore for example... ZING!

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 12:59 PM) OK, then I am confused. What is the right mechanism, in your view? Well Balta provided something that changes my view - 32,000 plantiffs. But, I think that punitive damages is what mechanism I'm talking about. It's more simple then that to me, I guess. Don't make it "punitive" - make it damages that people actually lost, and are STILL losing... (and see, I can be civil in these exchanges once in a while... ... I'm on good behaviour today. )

Wow. That's crazy, if you think about that for a moment. 7% of African Americans adults behind bars? And 1% of our total adult population? It's not staggaring when you look at percentages, but the numbers are insane.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 12:53 PM) Its also not up to Justice Roberts to protect Exxon Mobil from litigation (as long as its not frivilous). The case was obviously not frivilous, this was a major incident caused by the corporation. I don't know the extent of the damage in this case, but, environmental damage is a very difficult thing to put a price tag on. a few billion dollars may not be out of the realm of reality at all, if the damage was big enough. They *should* be penalized... but in a tort case, the judgement should not be that high. That's my point. Should they pay and pay through the nose? YES! But not through this mechanism. It's what drives up costs on everything. Tort reform is needed BADLY in this country, because everyone's sue happy. NSS, you offend me, I was just hurt and mentally wounded by what you just said. I'm going to sue your ass off because... You see what I mean? Now again, Exxon needs to pay, and pay LARGE. But not through this type of mechanism...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 12:25 PM) God I love these guys. Even the intelligent ones don't realize the things that come out of their mouths sometimes. I love these guys. Exxon destroys a chunk of the country, and the only thing on the chief Justice's mind is how to protect Exxon, not how to prevent another large swath of the country from being destroyed again. It's not up to Justice Roberts to "prevent another large swatch of the country from being destroyed again". You people ever wonder why EVERYTHING costs so damn much? $2.5 BILLION awarded in a lawsuit? Yes, they can afford it, but holy s***, at some point, you have to ask yourself what punitive damages get awarded... and yes, this the consumer will pay for, just like in healthcare.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 11:34 AM) OK... a primary-caucus? WTF? I'll read the link but, that just sounds bizarre. Also, since its down to just two people, the caucus weirdness should be less of a factor anyway. Its all about ground game. The delegates get assigned by both caucus and a general primary election.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 08:33 AM) The fed keeps cutting rates, but I've been watching mortgage lines lately and 30 year FRM are up almost a point since January. Why are they moving up while the Fed is moving rates down? The 30 FRM doesn't quite function with fed rate cuts. It has more to do with the notes of that time period... and right now the market would suggest that long term rates are going to go back up due to a lot of factors, but the biggest short term factor is inflation and the fed's going to have to bounce the rates back up just as fast as they have brought them down.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 08:13 AM) Yeah, that's a problem too. But on that note, I'll throw something else out there that has been mentioned here before - the credit default swap market. On the one hand, all that high risk, unregulated risk out there is a huge time bomb. That's bad. But, I'd suggest that in the long run, if that market can get tacked down a bit, it could actually help spell a way out. Banks will be willing to take on a bit more risk if they can insure against it via the CDS markets. And they will be more than happy to let bad debt go to the insurer (swap guarantor/receiver) according to the contractual stipulations for doing so. That could be an efficient method for the release of bad debt. And I think that's what the fed is trying to move toward, if I am seeing it right. That's why they are propping up the CDS market mechanism. If that can happen, it will be the best thing that can and then hopefully a path out of this, albiet slowly. What's so dangerous is the fed keeps cutting those rights to try and force liquidity, and as CKNOLLS has pointed out, Boom Boom is just about out of bullets. If the cash doesn't start flowing more freely, and the prices keep skyrocketing, we will see a deep global recession, and maybe even a depression, although that's quite drastic. I think that you are on the right track, NSS, when you were talking in the other thread about investing in the alternative energy business... that can be the "internet sector" of the 2010's and can drive the economy for a long time, if done right.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 07:48 AM) Corn-All time high Wheat-All time high Crude Oil-All time high Heating Oil-All time high Gasoline-All time high Gold-All time high Euro Currency-All time high Yup, no inflation there... In all seriousness, this might be the worst economic crisis since 1929. I'm not being a smart ass, either. Unless something drastically changes, and quickly, we could be in a LOT of trouble. The credit markets need to get moving again, and if that doesn't happen, the Fed could lose control of the whole damn thing.

There's a lot of the "new technology" that the oil companies already own from a patent standpoint. Why do you think that nothing gets done? It's because the oil companies control it all.

can anyone say S-T-A-G-F-L-A-T-I-O-N? signed, cknolls.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 27, 2008 -> 03:37 PM) The Tennessee GOP showing a lot of class. In case they haven't noticed, attacks and smears are not working very well with the voting public this campaign season. For me, the racist overtones and such is bulls***. His "affiliation" with Louis Farrakan... now that's something I take more issue with, because of what Louis Farrakan stands for. If Obama stands for the same things (by association) then I have MAJOR issues with the man.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 27, 2008 -> 11:32 AM) ask around, I've posted pics of the two us...not those kind of pics. MRS PA is a hottie. She was stoned the day she met PA, or something.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 27, 2008 -> 09:38 AM) His hypothetical question he asked about Al Qaida taking over Iraq, which Hillary never answered, was a legit concern and possibility. That is the "attack" from the right. So, he asked it to them and basically said "what if"? What an ATTACK! OMG! How DARE anyone question ANY of these asstards about POLICY?!? And that goes for Obama as well.

Mr Potato Head? He is a "fooking loosier" in my best Canadian accent. (southsider will appreciate the reference... )

Damn guys I'm disappointed... no blow by blow account? What do you all think? I didn't get to see a minute of it.

Facebook is a pretty powerful thing, eh?

Hey guy - check your pm's, please. With that said, you're doing a good job with these interviews... when did you conduct them and how, seeing as how they're tied up in AZ a lot?