Printable View
If someone is a Dem and doesn't like John Boehner [[or Boner as I call him), well you can dislike both Matty and John. Two for the price of one.
if you like Matty and John, and have a large bank account... You could have had a splendid evening last month.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...ouns/72077856/
What's the problem here? Don't you know this is how politics work in this country? Do you think your liberal bleeding, welfare supporting Democrats don't do the same type of palm greasing? I know you went to EMU, but I thought they at least taught the marginal student body there something.Quote:
Originally Posted by emu steve
You should clarify welfare for the poor. The other side does welfare but only for those in the three comma club.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitBoy
Show us your true colors DB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamtragedy
He's a pinko on Halloween night.
Well, first, the way politics work in this country isn't very desirable. So it's worth reminding people with specific example of how they work occasionally.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitBoy
Second, there are lots of reasons for trying to gain political influence. The most pernicious type is probably bribery by foreign agents, and we can say that isn't the problem with the Morouns. However, the next most pernicious is lobbying against the public good for personal financial advantage, which is what the Morouns are doing with respect trying to stop the new bridge. I would point out that with most things people lobby for, there is an actual public interest argument for what they want, even if the argument isn't very strong or there are stronger opposing ones.
For instance, lobbying for subsidies for stadium construction is in the personal interests of a team owner, and most likely not worth the cost to the public, but at least the public gets a stadium out of it. In the case of the bridge, at this point, with Canada financing the construction of the bridge, the only real argument against is that it is better for the Morouns if that didn't happen. They probably know they aren't going to win, and are just trying to postpone the day they have competition. Every day of delay is nothing but a 100% loss for the public, in a combination of higher fares and congestion. This isn't unique--the Sonny Bono copyright extension act was lobbied for by the entertainment industry and resulted in a very similar extension of old monopolies without any benefit to the public--but it isn't the norm either.
Well, you all could just continue to sit around chatting on DetroitYES and watch the city degrade into even more of a jungle than it is if the business people who are willing to take the risk to do these projects disappear. Maybe Kwame will come back and put up some of the millions he stole from the City to create an environment of growth. No doubt, there are some people on here who believe he was treated unfairly or framed by the police for what he did.
The rest of the people who aren't that ignorant know this is how politics operates in the U.S.
To the extent there is an argument buried in there, it would make more sense if in fact the Morouns were trying to do something that was in any way useful to the city. But they aren't, so it isn't really relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitBoy
There is a difference between being ignorant of something and disapproving of it.Quote:
The rest of the people who aren't that ignorant know this is how politics operates in the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitBoy
Whatever dude. Your assumptions are hysterical and racist. Yeah, I said racist. Since you seem so impressed with yourself, I'm done.
Next thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
There are are a lot of excellent local business leaders in S.E. Michigan who have legitimate corporate and personal interests.
Matty isn't one of them. He doesn't deserve any credit for his corporate behavior and Boehner is associating with such a figure.
Who would want to dine with Matty? Apparently many did... I sure as hell wouldn't...
Leaving the fact that everyone hates Matty out of it, is it wrong for a businessman to lobby against a government action to provide government competition for a business that he owns while the government is at the same time keeping him from expanding his business to better serve the public [[and make more money)?
I'm glad Dug-in and the City Clowncil gave him free land for cleaning up the park he screwed up in the first place, the man's a real Saint.
IMO, yes. The fact he is allowed to own something as the Ambassador Bridge [[or MCS for that matter) is beyond me [[and for most non-Michiganders who don't know about it). Not him specifically, just the fact that it should not have ever been sold to a private company. It should be owned and maintained in the same way as the GW and Golden Gate Bridges. I don't see why a private company should be allowed to build a bridge, especially over an international border. This isn't normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
This is not a correct summary of the situation. Canada is never going to let him build a second span, so he doesn't actually have the possibility of "expanding his business to better serve the public". All he is doing is making it harder for Canada to build a second bridge. It is certainly against the public interest, and generally I would say that people should not work against the public interest, but I'm not sure whether a businessman has an ethical obligation to work for the public interest when it is directly opposed to the interests of the business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
But I lean toward the idea that their behavior is, in fact, wrong. I feel the same way about Intuit [[makers of TurboTax) lobbying against making tax filing easier. I understand why they do it, but they shouldn't.
My two cents on corporations:Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
And I disagree with both Matty and Mitt [[Romney).
Corporations aren't people. As someone said here, I think, they don't have souls.
They are creations of government, i.e., laws establishing corporations have been in effect for many, many years which were enacted to allow these entities not to be treated as individuals or for individuals who incorporate to be 'shielded' personally. A family of a worker killed in an industrial accident at Fords could have sued the company but not the Ford family. If Fords was not incorporated the family could have sue Ford, e.g, Henry Ford I personally.
They provide a structure very different than say a sole proprietorship or a partnership, e.g., which retain the ownership by one or a limited number of financially responsible people.
Now re: public interest. I see a for profit corporation having three main stakeholders. ANY for profit corporation can be judged against them, IMHO.
1). Stockholders - management is responsible to them to return profits they [[the stockholders) deem acceptable, etc. etc. Management has a fiduciary responsibility to prudentially manage corporate assets for the stockholders benefits. Insider trading, 'freeze out' mergers, etc. are not cricket.
2). Employees - corporations [[and, indeed all businesses) are responsible for safe working conditions, fair wages, etc. etc. for their employees. Sweat shops, asbestos exposure, unsafe mines, etc. do not meet this criterion.
3). Customers - Are entitled to products or services which have value, are safe when used as intended, and sold at a fair price. Spoiled meats, worthless creams and lotions, defective automobiles, etc. are examples of not meeting this standard. Tobacco industry is an industry with corporations facing ethical issues. Also, trying to create a de facto monopoly to drive up prices fails to meet this standard of fair prices. The Hunt brothers tried to do this with silver a few decades ago.
I could add more, e.g., being a good corporate neighbor, etc.
I don't know much about Matty's corporation other than it doesn't seem to like competition very much. Folks can argue whether or not a for profit corporation should own something like a bridge between countries.
Leaving off whether an international bridge should be privately owned, the Ambassador Bridge was built with private funds. Joseph A. Bower arranged for the funds, and the Bower family owned the bridge until it was sold to Maroun in 1979.Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
http://www.historicdetroit.org/build...ssador-bridge/
Huh, thank you for that history lesson. I didn't realize to go to that site but was wondering the history. But I still stand firm in my belief that a private entity should not own an international crossing, bridge, tunnel, or gondola.Quote:
Originally Posted by archfan
A lot of bridges, ferries, and toll roads were built by private enterprise because the government didn't have the resources or the political will to build the infrastructure. Many of these toll facilities were subsequently purchased by the government. Railroads were private entities as well. Commodore Vanderbilt had MCS constructed and the railroad later sold the station to Matty. Detroit might have stepped up to the table and made an offer for MCS, but was too busy ladling out money to friends and family. Detroit could have purchased the bridge from the Bowers instead of having Matty buy it. All that was needed was the money and the political will.
The tale of two bridges,
One was privately funded and built by a corporation that had to bear the losses as well as the profits.It would appear that truck traffic as an issue was known as early as 1937 and was never really dealt with other then by adding more construction.
The other proposed new bridge is also privately owned as is the now delayed construction of the new expanded tunnel.
The difference is instead of this new privately owned bridge is in the financing,instead of going to wall street like the first one this one receives its funding from the taxpayer,which is a pretty good deal as a private company,if the revenues are down the taxpayers pick up the tab,if they are up the corporation receives the revenues as profit.Win or lose the corporation still gets paid.The CEOs are still going to receive their salary.
Like Hermod posted there are lots of toll roads across the country that are privately funded with the only taxpayer monies being spent is in providing law enforcement,which most likely that return is paid back by speeding tickets etc.
The sole purpose of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders,its sole design is by nature to be non emotional and is under no obligation to provide public support because the base corporation cannot make that decision.They have bylaws that are followed like the law,so it is pointless to demand a corporation have feelings or get upset when they do not.
There seems to be a big push for corporations to share the wealth with everybody as if it is their duty when it is not.
There are people in other countries that have gotten into Co-ops,get a bunch of x employees together of a closed factory and take that factory over and resume production,each employee becomes a shareholder,new hires are voted in and after a year they can become a shareholder.
That would never work here in the states though because if it makes profit,you eat,if it does not you do not eat.We like the concept of getting paid every week from the profits but do not wish to take the risk of not getting a paycheck when there are losses.
"The sole purpose of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders,its sole design is by nature to be non emotional and is under no obligation to provide public support because the base corporation cannot make that decision.They have bylaws that are followed like the law,so it is pointless to demand a corporation have feelings or get upset when they do not."
I guess you disagree with Mitt that 'Corporations are people'.
People have souls, feelings, mercy, compassion, concern for their neighbors, etc. etc.
A corporation may pollute like hell and say: "Not my problem. Fixing the pollution problem negatively affects my bottom line profits. If those in the neighborhood don't like it or can't tolerate it for health reasons, this is a free country they can move... Take that, you environmentalists." [[Does someone in Seattle care if an automobile plant in Dearborn is spewing pollutants? Not a customer service issue which MIGHT affect the bottom line.)
I assume some here remember when the Ford Rouge plant spewed pollution like the Chinese plants do today [[I assume it is much, much better these days, but I never go by there). Big time. Bad stuff!!! A lot of stuff. I can remember it from almost 50 years ago. My dad worked there. I worked there a short time while starting college.
Cars which were parked there by employees would get pitted and rust in no time.
Like if Ford didn't care if their employees' cars rusted [[and needed to be replaced prematurely) at least care for the lungs and skin which can't be traded in for new ones.
I assume Pope Francis will speak more eloquently [[than me) on this topic next week when he addresses Congress.
P.S. Isn't pollution a cost or expense which is transferred from the polluter to those who are negatively affected by it or bear the costs [[e.g., employees with asbestos related illnesses or residents in areas near polluting factories)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by emu steve
You are confusing the original topic of corporations greasing the palms for future gain verses corporations hiding behind the cooperate veil and the inability to pierce that veil to hold legally accountable the CEOs of said corporation.
There are numerous government agency's and millions of hungry lawyers that try to keep that to a minimum,but as you see in Detroit's case Mr. Moroun did go to jail so they were able to pierce that veil.
So what responsibility do the corporation actually have towards the community.
William Penn built Penn station as a grand public space,he passes,the railroad company that owned it said it is our building,it is not profitable so it gets torn down.
He made that personal decision to create public space because that is what HE believed in as an individual ,as a corporation the decision was to tear it down,nothing personal it was business.
Take for example Oreo cookie in Chicago,they are moving to Mexico and 2000 people are now out of a job,Hershey chocolate did exactly the same thing,they did not care about the employees because they only time they had them was when they paid them to work and they were compensated for their time,end of story.It was a corporate decision,no emotion bottom line was the only factor.
Do you really think they care for one second what Mitt thinks?
Do you think that those employees now wish there was somebody there greasing palms for them?
Is it right? a few more years of this and Americans are going to be sneaking across the border for jobs that pay more then $1 a day.
Of course with Trumps wall we will not be able to,so is he building a wall to keep others out or to keep us in.