In light of record profits....

[Duchess Jack]

No, but suits against small companies very well could, and you know as well as I do how much people ask for even against small companies. In most cases insurance will pick up the tab, but then premiums go up, and the difference has to be made up somewhere right. Where do you think it will be made up? One of four things will happen. One, employee compensation / benefits get cut, two they pass the cost on to the consumer, or three they pass the cost on their investors, or they go out of business, leaving a void for a larger corporation to come in and fill.

 

Everything in fair measure.

 

There will always be folk trying the million dollar coffee spill - but how many of these type of suits passed after the first? Sadly I bet there are a lot more now than before hand - but most people realized it was way over the top.

 

If it wasn't McDonalds - there's no way it would have been for a million dollars. If somebody asked for a million - there was no way it would have gone through.

 

We're talking about 10.8 million gallons of oil. A smaller company with smaller ships would have lost less oil. Exxon chose to put a lot of oil in a single vessel for purposes of profit. The risk pays off more often then not. Exxon (not the folk suffering the spill) gets hooked up when it pays of. The risk destroyed something that wasn't theirs. They 'f'ed up.

 

I am sure smaller places get sued but I'd say the circumstances are pretty different on a whole.

[Duchess Jack]

you know... I was just thinking...

 

in light of Exxon's crazy profit... its kind of a kick in the balls to the people whose lives they destroyed. 250 million in profit this year. 2.5 million in damages. Kind of shows how insignificant all that is to Exxon. Throw em a freakin' bone. It would be a grain of sand for Exxon. It would be a one-time grain of sand - a hiccup in their mammoth profits. I think it would amount to a heck of a lot more to those people.

[Perchoutofwater]

So did the jury find your company in some way responsible? Can't see how. Seems to me you might need to get in touch with Yo, 'cos your lawyer doesn't seem to be working too good.

 

I take it insurance covered the cost (sounds like it might be around a million bucks the way you describe it) and then hammered you through the premiums, right?

 

Insurance company settled. If we had taken it to court, we would have been on the line for it, and it would have bankrupted us. While we believe we would have won based on the law, we were to scared we would get a jury with the same attitude as many here apparently have, that would just say they have deep pockets, they can afford it. In this case the risk was not work the reward. Had we taken it to court and lost 50 or so people would have been unemployed, and a good chunk of our family's net worth would have been taken from us.

[Azazello1313]

Not really. Otherwise a company could justify building unsafe products because the savings from things like lead paint could outweigh any actual damages. Punitive damages are meant to send a message and protect the public.

 

if the benefit outweighs the cost/damages, then it is probably best for "the public" for them to keep doing what they're doing. as a society we make this calculation all the time. just one example....air travel. we know that planes are going to crash, causing people to die. over the years we know it will be thousands of people. everybody knows this. but the benefit of being able to get where you want quickly ultimately outweighs the risk of thousands of deaths out of millions of passengers. companies run into negligence claims when a danger could have and should have been easily avoided, but I don't see any reason why actual damages (and even reasonable punitive damages) don't provide sufficient incentive for companies to beware of negligence. you think being hit with a $600 million tab, plus the cost of the oil, the ship, the cleanup, and all the bad publicity, isn't enough to make exxon rethink how thoroughly they check out and keep tabs on the people they put behind the wheel of their tankers?

[Perchoutofwater]

you know... I was just thinking...

 

in light of Exxon's crazy profit... its kind of a kick in the balls to the people whose lives they destroyed. 250 million in profit this year. 2.5 million in damages. Kind of shows how insignificant all that is to Exxon. Throw em a freakin' bone. It would be a grain of sand for Exxon. It would be a one-time grain of sand - a hiccup in their mammoth profits. I think it would amount to a heck of a lot more to those people.

 

The problem with throwing people a bone, is if you do it too many times before you know it, you've thrown the whole carcass. That is part of the problem with insurance these days. A while back the insurance companies said "we'll throw someone a bone", the lawyers then said "hey look they threw a bone, I wonder if we can get them to throw us another one." The insurance companies realized that businesses had to have insurance, so they just raise rates so bones can continue to be thrown, and businesses and their consumers pay for the bones, while a few individuals win the lottery, lawyers get rich, and insurance companies make a little more as well. But the little guy got a bone thrown their way a while back.

[Duchess Jack]

The problem with throwing people a bone, is if you do it too many times before you know it, you've thrown the whole carcass. That is part of the problem with insurance these days. A while back the insurance companies said "we'll throw someone a bone", the lawyers then said "hey look they threw a bone, I wonder if we can get them to throw us another one." The insurance companies realized that businesses had to have insurance, so they just raise rates so bones can continue to be thrown, and businesses and their consumers pay for the bones, while a few individuals win the lottery, lawyers get rich, and insurance companies make a little more as well. But the little guy got a bone thrown their way a while back.

 

How many times has Exxon created an exological disaster like the one created with the Valdez?

 

If this was something they did every week - they'd deserve to have their whole carcass thrown.

 

Even if they did do it every week. 52 weeks at 2.5 billion = 130 Billion. They'd still be making a 120 Billion profit.

[AtomicCEO]

Okay but since we aren't talking about household's in this thread, yer still wrong.

 

Congratulations. You and Az are semantically correct while contributing nothing to the argument.

Celebrate with a reading from the dictionary.

[Savage Beatings]

if the benefit outweighs the cost/damages, then it is probably best for "the public" for them to keep doing what they're doing. as a society we make this calculation all the time. just one example....air travel. we know that planes are going to crash, causing people to die. over the years we know it will be thousands of people. everybody knows this. but the benefit of being able to get where you want quickly ultimately outweighs the risk of thousands of deaths out of millions of passengers. companies run into negligence claims when a danger could have and should have been easily avoided, but I don't see any reason why actual damages (and even reasonable punitive damages) don't provide sufficient incentive for companies to beware of negligence. you think being hit with a $600 million tab, plus the cost of the oil, the ship, the cleanup, and all the bad publicity, isn't enough to make exxon rethink how thoroughly they check out and keep tabs on the people they put behind the wheel of their tankers?

 

A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

[muck]

Fight Club?

[muck]

On an aside, I posted something a while back that essentially said, "one of the greatest inhibitors to personal wealth creation was the threat imposed by lawsuits".

 

I know that if my business was sued for something, I'd just hand 'em the keys and wish them luck on figuring out how to do what I do.

[Clubfoothead]

if the benefit outweighs the cost/damages, then it is probably best for "the public" for them to keep doing what they're doing. as a society we make this calculation all the time. just one example....air travel. we know that planes are going to crash, causing people to die. over the years we know it will be thousands of people. everybody knows this. but the benefit of being able to get where you want quickly ultimately outweighs the risk of thousands of deaths out of millions of passengers. companies run into negligence claims when a danger could have and should have been easily avoided, but I don't see any reason why actual damages (and even reasonable punitive damages) don't provide sufficient incentive for companies to beware of negligence. you think being hit with a $600 million tab, plus the cost of the oil, the ship, the cleanup, and all the bad publicity, isn't enough to make exxon rethink how thoroughly they check out and keep tabs on the people they put behind the wheel of their tankers?

 

Well I've only asked about 100 times, how does Exxon benefit America?

 

They seem to be doing pretty well while most of the economy is doing not so well. Rising fuel costs seem to be impacting the cost of daily living on every front from the cost of transportation of almost every product to the packaging of most, to the increased cost of getting to work. Burning fossil fuels are bad for the environment. Digging for it isn't great for the planet, either. It is a finite resource that requires us to do business with, at best, bad people, at worst enemies of our state. From the perspective of both the environment and national security, seems to me the faster that money is off of our back, the better and based upon what everyone posts, Exxon's obligation under the free market is to expliot America's dependence on the the resource to the maximum benefit of Exxon only, I don't see how Exxon's profits are best for "the public".

 

And I don't want to hear about the f*cking jobs Exxon generates because everyone who seems to support Exxon in these debates supported tort reform, guest workers and said the guy making $80.00 an hour in Detroit assembling F-150s was a dinosaur who had to go no matter what the cost to him and his family so it's too late to start defending the American worker now.

 

I'm pretty stupid so it should be easy for anyone to explain to me how America benefits from Exxon's profit taking.

 

Go.

[Azazello1313]

You and Az are semantically correct while contributing nothing to the argument.

 

while you are semantically retarded and contributing even less.

[AtomicCEO]

while you are semantically retarded and contributing even less.

 

Take your time replying to CFH. Make sure you use all the technically correct words.

[Azazello1313]

Well I've only asked about 100 times, how does Exxon benefit America?

 

They seem to be doing pretty well while most of the economy is doing not so well. Rising fuel costs seem to be impacting the cost of daily living on every front from the cost of transportation of almost every product to the packaging of most, to the increased cost of getting to work. Burning fossil fuels are bad for the environment. Digging for it isn't great for the planet, either. It is a finite resource that requires us to do business with, at best, bad people, at worst enemies of our state. From the perspective of both the environment and national security, seems to me the faster that money is off of our back, the better and based upon what everyone posts, Exxon's obligation under the free market is to expliot America's dependence on the the resource to the maximum benefit of Exxon only, I don't see how Exxon's profits are best for "the public".

 

And I don't want to hear about the f*cking jobs Exxon generates because everyone who seems to support Exxon in these debates supported tort reform, guest workers and said the guy making $80.00 an hour in Detroit assembling F-150s was a dinosaur who had to go no matter what the cost to him and his family so it's too late to start defending the American worker now.

 

I'm pretty stupid so it should be easy for anyone to explain to me how America benefits from Exxon's profit taking.

 

Go.

 

america benefits from exxon the same way they benefit from any business that provides something americans need and want to purchase at a price they want to purchase it at. it is startling how many people fail to get that. they are a business that employs thousands of americans, and spends billions in capital. their profit margin is no greater than major businesses in any other industry. maybe you think the country would be better off if there were no oil. no economy, no jobs, no cars and airplanes. but hey, at least there wouldn't be any rich oil executives, and that's what really counts.

[Azazello1313]

Punitive damages must be big enough to deter the behavior sought to be deterred. Therefore, the amount of punitive damages must outweigh the economic benefit of engaging in that behavior. Viewed from that perspective, the amount of punitive damages has no relationship whatsoever to the actual economic loss suffered by the tort victim. For that reason alone I've always felt that the benefit of punitive damages should not inure to the benefit of the tort victim because it is largely change as to the identity of the tortfeasor who harmed the victim.

 

I always thought it was the purpose of criminal law to deter behavior. the purpose of tort law was restitution.

 

in any case, do you think the economic benefit of hiring a drunk ship captain is greater than the $287 million exxon payed in compensatory damages, the equal amount in punitive damages, plus all the other costs they have incurred as a result of the valdez incident?

[Clubfoothead]

america benefits from exxon the same way they benefit from any business that provides something americans need and want to purchase at a price they want to purchase it at. it is startling how many people fail to get that. they are a business that employs thousands of americans, and spends billions in capital. their profit margin is no greater than major businesses in any other industry. maybe you think the country would be better off if there were no oil. no economy, no jobs, no cars and airplanes. but hey, at least there wouldn't be any rich oil executives, and that's what really counts.

 

I see no justification for America's continued dependence on oil. I find none in your response.

 

I don't see how the cost of everything going up due to the increased cost of oil is a good thing for America no matter how many people work for Exxon, they can't emply everyone and would probably prefer to replace most Americans with gues workers anyways, at least the free market says they should.

 

I don't know why you don't believe that whatever renewable resources we replace fossil fuels with won't employ people or spend billions in capital, isn't that what the free market does? Dependence on oil stagnates the free market when it costs as much as it does, that seems rather obvious given the fact that the personal economies of every single person I know has been negatively impacted by the cost of a barrell of oil. You assume that there will be no jobs and spending generated by the environmental need to clean up the mess fossil fuels make. And the current jobs and spent revenues don't go away if you were to nationalize the industry until you phase it out if that's what you want to do.

 

Besides, your argument only revolves around the economic aspects of big oil and ignores the reliance on foreigners to feed the habit, the foreign policy decisions dictated by oil instead of ideals as well as the virtually undeniable environmental consequences of our reliance on oil.

 

I'm not sure even if you assume nothing will fill the economic vaccuum created by oil going away (which makes no sense) I still don't know if continuing the habit is "good for the public" no matter how many people lose their jobs. Lost jobs is not a factor in making decisions such as passing tort reform or busting unions or granting amnesty to millions of illegals, so I'm still confused as to what makes people employed in the oil industry so special anyways.

[AtomicCEO]

provides something americans need to purchase at a price they want to purchase it at.

 

Awesome.

[Azazello1313]

Awesome.

 

you're still buying gas, right? still driving your two cars every day? still flying around the country to see suck-ass over the hill bands consisting of 50 year old men in tights? that means they are still giving you a product you want at a price you are willing to purchase it, doesn't it?

Edited June 26, 2008 by Azazello1313

[Azazello1313]

I see no justification for America's continued dependence on oil. I find none in your response.

 

I don't see how the cost of everything going up due to the increased cost of oil is a good thing for America no matter how many people work for Exxon, they can't emply everyone and would probably prefer to replace most Americans with gues workers anyways, at least the free market says they should.

 

I don't know why you don't believe that whatever renewable resources we replace fossil fuels with won't employ people or spend billions in capital, isn't that what the free market does? Dependence on oil stagnates the free market when it costs as much as it does, that seems rather obvious given the fact that the personal economies of every single person I know has been negatively impacted by the cost of a barrell of oil. You assume that there will be no jobs and spending generated by the environmental need to clean up the mess fossil fuels make. And the current jobs and spent revenues don't go away if you were to nationalize the industry until you phase it out if that's what you want to do.

 

Besides, your argument only revolves around the economic aspects of big oil and ignores the reliance on foreigners to feed the habit, the foreign policy decisions dictated by oil instead of ideals as well as the virtually undeniable environmental consequences of our reliance on oil.

 

I'm not sure even if you assume nothing will fill the economic vaccuum created by oil going away (which makes no sense) I still don't know if continuing the habit is "good for the public" no matter how many people lose their jobs. Lost jobs is not a factor in making decisions such as passing tort reform or busting unions or granting amnesty to millions of illegals, so I'm still confused as to what makes people employed in the oil industry so special anyways.

 

there is no current viable alternative to oil for large portions of the world's energy consumption. the world, for better or worse, is oil dependent for the next couple decades minimum. wishing that fact were different doesn't change it.

[Puddy]

Congratulations. You and Az are semantically correct while contributing nothing to the argument.

Celebrate with a reading from the dictionary.

Just in case you haven't been paying attention for the last 8 years, I rarely contribute anything to an argument. My schtick is to find minute details that are factually incorrect and then point them out to otherwise outstanding Huddlers.

[Puddy]

you're still buying gas, right? still driving your two cars every day? still flying around the country to see suck-ass over the hill bands consisting of 50 year old men in tights? that means they are still giving you a product you want at a price you are willing to purchase it, doesn't it?

See, right there is the difference between Az and me. He can get semantical on your ass and still add some substance to the discussion.

[bushwacked]

The problem with throwing people a bone, is if you do it too many times before you know it, you've thrown the whole carcass. That is part of the problem with insurance these days. A while back the insurance companies said "we'll throw someone a bone", the lawyers then said "hey look they threw a bone, I wonder if we can get them to throw us another one." The insurance companies realized that businesses had to have insurance, so they just raise rates so bones can continue to be thrown, and businesses and their consumers pay for the bones, while a few individuals win the lottery, lawyers get rich, and insurance companies make a little more as well. But the little guy got a bone thrown their way a while back.

 

 

How do you work 80 hours a day, raise a family, and discuss this much stuff on a message board?

 

I work 60 hours a week, raise a family, and barely have enough time to make fun of people on a message board.

[Perchoutofwater]

I always thought it was the purpose of criminal law to deter behavior. the purpose of tort law was restitution.

 

in any case, do you think the economic benefit of hiring a drunk ship captain is greater than the $287 million exxon payed in compensatory damages, the equal amount in punitive damages, plus all the other costs they have incurred as a result of the valdez incident?

 

See, I can agree with that. I would love to see the criminally negligent sent to jail. First off, it would be a far better deterrent, particularly for the larger companies that the current system of going after them in civil courts. The current system is actually set up to benefit the larger corporations and lawyers. Larger corporations can afford to take the hits, where as small corporations can't. What ends up happening is the smaller corporations end up selling out to the larger corporations, which decreases competition and increase the cost to consumers.

 

If the deterrent was taken up in criminal court in lieu of civil court, it would have less impact on the companies, but more impact on those that cause the problem. This would be better for those working for the companies. It would also decrease the number of lawsuits, as there wouldn't be as much money in it for the lawyers. A jury is much less likely to send a guy to jail for something he may not have known anything about than they are to slap a company with a large verdict, thinking they have deep pockets. This would go a long way in punishing those actually doing the wrong, and cutting down on punishing those that didn't. It would also streamline our justice system.

[Perchoutofwater]

How do you work 80 hours a day, raise a family, and discuss this much stuff on a message board?

 

I work 60 hours a week, raise a family, and barely have enough time to make fun of people on a message board.

 

My family has been out of town all week, my girls were participating in the Dallas Cowobys Cheerleader camp. Also, this has been a light week for me, even though I've been the first one in the office 3 our of 4 days this week and the last to leave on all 4. Last week was much heavier, and if you will go back an look, you will notice I did not post much. Also, just by the nature of my job, about 70% of it is reactive, so if there is nothing to react to, then I have a lot of free time, but I still have to be here in case something comes up. All my real long hours that really pull my average up are the beginning of a project, and at the end of a project, and right now all of my projects are in the middle of construction, with the exception of one, and it was sent out to the trade contractors to bid Tuesday, with bids due July 17th, which means I probably still have about another week that will be relatively slow before my work load starts picking up again, for the bidding of that project. Then in August I will start doing inspections on a 100,400 square foot children's education building which will keep me real busy for about 6 weeks. In other words right now is the lull before the storm.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Perchoutofwater

[Kid Cid]

Well I've only asked about 100 times, how does Exxon benefit America?

 

They seem to be doing pretty well while most of the economy is doing not so well. Rising fuel costs seem to be impacting the cost of daily living on every front from the cost of transportation of almost every product to the packaging of most, to the increased cost of getting to work. Burning fossil fuels are bad for the environment. Digging for it isn't great for the planet, either. It is a finite resource that requires us to do business with, at best, bad people, at worst enemies of our state. From the perspective of both the environment and national security, seems to me the faster that money is off of our back, the better and based upon what everyone posts, Exxon's obligation under the free market is to expliot America's dependence on the the resource to the maximum benefit of Exxon only, I don't see how Exxon's profits are best for "the public".

 

And I don't want to hear about the f*cking jobs Exxon generates because everyone who seems to support Exxon in these debates supported tort reform, guest workers and said the guy making $80.00 an hour in Detroit assembling F-150s was a dinosaur who had to go no matter what the cost to him and his family so it's too late to start defending the American worker now.

 

I'm pretty stupid so it should be easy for anyone to explain to me how America benefits from Exxon's profit taking.

 

Go.

 

America benefits by Exxon profiting through the profits paid to the shareholders. In case you missed it when I said it before, that would be anyone that is invested in mutual funds that hold Exxon stock as part of their portfolio. That includes any bank or retirement investment account. Which in turn translates to a large portion of the individuals in this country even if they don't realize that they indirectly hold stock in Exxon.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Kid Cid