Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (50138)	10/8/2002 5:57:54 AM
From: Baldur Fjvlnisson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What is this "nukular" thing two by four for brain keeps yapping about? Shouldn't this moron and the mob rubber stamp congress be attending to the sinkhole economy and disappearing jobs rather than scamming wars on the world to cover their own incompetence and crimes? Where's the BUDGET? Now that it's A NEW FISCAL YEAR shouldn't those corporate properties be submitting that? Aren't they like required BY LAW to do so? 2X4 promised a balanced budget but of course that means nothing. People are getting used to his lies and broken promises.

To: Ilaine who wrote (50138)	10/8/2002 6:04:25 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I am sure that Union Carbide rethought its corporate policies after that. And so did a lot of other American Corporations. Union Carbide had their Chairman indicted by the Indian legal system for the negligence caused by the Indians. Then we just had the four Billion dollar disaster that Enron involved themselves in over there. If you want to know what can happen to you overseas, read "Atlas Shrugged." These "Peoples States" love to clean out Uncle Sammy.

To: Ilaine who wrote (50138)	10/8/2002 6:58:32 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I am sure that Union Carbide rethought its corporate policies after that. I think we agree on the essential points. How can a sub division of a company have "shocking negligent maintenance" without the parent company knowing about it?If you have nobody visiting it for a year or two, ignore all the reports and rumors (there is usually plenty of those from knowledgeable experts within any company), yep, I think that could do the trick. It's an important point of self regulation. For example I am sure I could enhance shareholder value by working slaves to death, maybe feeding them once a day. What is generally accepted working practices is the important point. Accidents are preventable. Everyone at a company is in some way "negligent" when an accident happens. You can even apply this concept in a much wider sense. Like for example, I put my hand up as being partially responsible for 9/11. I want wanted cheap airfares, and minimum interference at the airport. Thus air companies, more interested in security and safe operation from terrorists were disadvantaged. I doubt political leaders are entirely to blame for security failures either. Pre 9/11, if legislation had been passed improving airport security, I doubt if any politician would have got any extra votes in an election. All the same, this does not mean the real 9/11 culprits are in any way made less responsible for their actions. The evil they did was entirely generated by themselves. I wish GWB and the security forces good luck in their attempts to track them all down.

To: Ilaine who wrote (50138)	10/8/2002 12:12:11 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

The Indian corporation was liable because it was negligent. Absolutely... the question is why was only the majority shareholder, Union Carbide, Inc, was on the hook for those reparations when the Indian Government and it Indian shareholders ALSO bore responsibility. This is even MORE the case, no matter the "technical" responsility of the US parent company, when the Indian government is obligated to enact and enforce its own safety and regulatory regulations. I find it ALL TOO CONVENIENT to thrust the blame upon the US parent corporation when, in many circumstances, they are prevented, or not obligated, to ensure US-style policies are in effect by the host country government. The shocking thing about the Bhopal disaster was how poorly the Indian corporation maintained the plant. I am sure that Union Carbide rethought its corporate policies after that. Absolutely... Just one more factor that inhibits US companies from fairly competing in foreign countries... You can be sure that had UC, Inc been the minority stake holder, and some Indian corporation the primary shareholder, the penalties would not have been NEARLY that high, nor broadcasted on Indian TV. Yet, we buy their products, produced with equipment and processes that don't have to meet the stringent US safety guidelines... And there we enter into "fair trade" issues. Hawk