They wouldn't need any representation in a non-existent system, so that doesn't make any sense. We're presuming that they created the system for this argument.to translate their position to federal or state regulatory ie; representation
They wouldn't need any representation in a non-existent system, so that doesn't make any sense. We're presuming that they created the system for this argument.to translate their position to federal or state regulatory ie; representation
regulatory "regimes"?..are you talking about government regulatory? or commissions that represent the corporation?I think you're confused. Abandonconflict's argument is that the corporations created the regulatory system to benefit themselves. Here you seem to be saying we need a regulatory system because corporations won't clean up after themselves without one.
Let me rephrase the question I was asking in the post you originally quoted: why would corporations create regulatory regimes that will cost them more money than simply resolving their potential problems on their own?
Any kind of regulatory system--a federal government agency with regulatory power (like the EPA) or a state commission with such power (like an insurance board). His premise is that they're self-created, so it doesn't matter what it is.regulatory "regimes"?..are you talking about government regulatory? or commissions that represent the corporation?
You're making my case about why the regulatory systems weren't self-created. Corporations would only commit themselves to constant compliance costs if there was an appropriate return versus the alternative. My argument was that it's far cheaper for them to voluntarily comply than to create a regulatory system that will dog them for all time at a higher cost.let me just say when it comes to corporations, it is all about the undiluted penny the company can deliver each earnings call every quarter..there is never rhyme or reason..the ONLY thing that matters is the stockholder.
why would they take you behind closed doors, beat you down..fear for your employment.. then go out to the floor and hand out ice cream?..smiles, smiles everyone..welcome to "Fantasy..." you get the picture.
that being said, no one ever said they're smart..they're righties.
it is cheaper if they would comply in the first place however, they don't.Any kind of regulatory system--a federal government agency with regulatory power (like the EPA) or a state commission with such power (like an insurance board). His premise is that they're self-created, so it doesn't matter what it is.
You're making my case about why the regulatory systems weren't self-created. Corporations would only commit themselves to constant compliance costs if there was an appropriate return versus the alternative. My argument was that it's far cheaper for them to voluntarily comply than to create a regulatory system that will dog them for all time at a higher cost.
yet you dont seem to feel the same about a really large employer...the gubberment...which is kind of incorporated military industrial complex and all that jazz.it is cheaper if they would comply in the first place however, they don't.
i've said this a hundred times.. corporations/employers left to their own devices will abuse the system short changing employees and consumers along the way..nobody said they were smart about it.
It's typically not cheaper to comply in the first place if there is some probability of not getting caught. That's how decisions actually get made. If the cleanup cost is $500 million and the cost otherwise will be $2 billion, I'm not interested in cleaning up unless there's more than a 25% chance of it being a problem. This is very smart. In the long run I save tons of money, and that's why it happens all the time.it is cheaper if they would comply in the first place however, they don't.
i've said this a hundred times.. corporations/employers left to their own devices will abuse the system short changing employees and consumers along the way..nobody said they were smart about it.
no shit..but didn't you just ask.."if it was cheaper?"..jesus christ make up your mind..It's typically not cheaper to comply in the first place if there is some probability of not getting caught. That's how decisions actually get made. If the cleanup cost is $500 million and the cost otherwise will be $2 billion, I'm not interested in cleaning up unless there's more than a 25% chance of it being a problem. This is very smart. In the long run I save tons of money, and that's why it happens all the time.
How can you possibly say "No shit"? You just said corporations weren't smart in not cleaning up after themselves in the first place, which is the opposite of what I said.no shit..but didn't you just ask.."if it was cheaper?"..
My mind is made up. Self cleanup is cheaper than complicated regulatory system. That's what I keep repeating over and over again. Got it yet?jesus christ make up your mind..
Sucks for that guy, sure, but millions of other people got away with it and they saved billions of dollars. That's why people are willing to gamble.sample conversation with client when i was with kushy fortune 500:
hello! hello! schuylaar? (not my real name)
hey successful 3 ID pizzarant guy!
i'm in trouble!
why?
well, my dishwasher is suing me.
why?
because i didn't pay him overtime.
did he work overtime?
well..y-y-y-yes..but that was supposed to be covered in the "cash" i gave him..the flat $200/week for 75 hours..then he started to complain he wasn't being paid enough..so i told him that if he didn't like it he could leave..now the state of florida unemployment division is investigating me and this guy has an attorney who has contacted all my other employees in order to form class action against me.
(schuylaar turns and looks at the audience)
epilogue: $60k for attorney's fees, back wages, taxes, penalties and interest for one minimum wage employee
Just out of interest... You taken delivery on a Comex cert yet?It's typically not cheaper to comply in the first place if there is some probability of not getting caught. That's how decisions actually get made. If the cleanup cost is $500 million and the cost otherwise will be $2 billion, I'm not interested in cleaning up unless there's more than a 25% chance of it being a problem. This is very smart. In the long run I save tons of money, and that's why it happens all the time.
Have you figured out how hedging activity in the physical market accounts for the supposed discrepancy in the silver trading numbers yet?Just out of interest... You taken delivery on a Comex cert yet?
Have you figured out if you're a top or a bottom yet?Have you figured out how hedging activity in the physical market accounts for the supposed discrepancy in the silver trading numbers yet?
I'm horny, so give me both. Lots of both.Have you figured out if you're a top or a bottom yet?
true...they call it income now.I think if you tried you could live with no wage, people do it all the time.
I thought it was called starvingtrue...they call it income now.