DuPont fined 16.5 million dollars.

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: zendari
Either or. When Bill Gates gets a speeding ticket he shouldn't pay more than I have to.

They already fined Duport more than what has been typical in the pats. I thought liberals would be happy about that.

Once again, your logic is about about third grade level. :roll:

This is a civl fine, not criminal. Such fines are intended to reflect the size and nature of the damage, and if possible, to pay for at least some of the required restoration. It can be even larger if the offense was determined to be intentional, and, to be effective, it has to be determined in terms of the guilty party's financial situation.

A relatively small fine would be meaningless to a very large, very wealthy monolith like DuPont, and it would hardly provide any incentive to refrain from similar action in the future if the fine was less than what was gained by their wrongful behavior.

OTOH, if you want to pollute on the level of this offense, I'd be very satisfied if the courts want to fine you $16 million, too. 😎

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Hurricane Andrew

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: zendari
$16 million is a huge penalty.

And the company gets to write it straight-off in their corporate tax structure.

Fines, penalties, and court judgements are not deductable for Federal Income Tax purposes.

No worries--Unca Georgie and Unca Dick can just make that nonsense "disappear" (like MAGIC!) 😉

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari
$16 million is a huge penalty.

Hahahaha, I'm sure DuPont's execs are already planning on giving themselves massive bonuses and laying off a few thousand in celebration of such a small fine.

If a poor black man dumped toxic chemicals into a river should he also be punished for $16 million?

I doubt a poor man could do nearly as much damage as DuPont or another big corporation.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

I doubt a poor man could do nearly as much damage as DuPont or another big corporation.

But a poor colered man could - ask any racist biggot.

 

[little elvis]

You know what's even more distrubing....

3M Corporation in 2000 voluntarily exited all of it's PFOS/PFOA business after annual testing of it's workers showed elevated levels of these chemicals in there bodies. 3M shared all of this information with the EPA and then overnight kissed about $300 million dollars worth of yearly sales good bye.

Armed with this information the EPA requested from Dupont all information regarding PFOA. I guess Dupont decided to play hid the weiny (sp??) with the EPA for over 5 years and only got fined $16 million.... The Dupont Execs look like geniuses, not only did they continue to sell products that MAY be harmful (pocketing hundreds of million dollars in sales along the way), and only got a slapped on the wrist for it!

Just sad

 

[alchemize]

Typical liberal teeth gnashing about "not enough of a fine!". What do you want to do, bankrupt them? Would that satisfy you - having 1,000's of white collar US workers out of work? They are gonna make your trial lawyer buddies rich from the lawsuits - isn't that enough? This fine will pale in comparison to those costs.

Personally, I suggest each of you start more worrying about teflon coated products and the impact on health. Pick up one of these to cook with. They cook much nicer anyhow...and keep your iron levels up!

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari
$16 million is a huge penalty.

With anual revenues of $28 billion, I doubt they'll feel it.

Why does that matter? I thought the law was supposed to protect people equally.

We aren't talking about people, we're taking about a major multi-billion dollar corporation doing something that can affect millions of people. There is a reason why environmental issues should be taken seriously: they can affect vast amounts of people when they do things like DuPont did.

My guess is you didn't read the article, so here's one bit:

The EPA alleged that DuPont withheld information for more than 20 years about the health effects of PFOA, also known as C-8, and about the pollution of water supplies near the company's Washington Works plant near Parkersburg, W.Va.

Among other things, the EPA said that DuPont withheld test results indicating that the chemical had been found in at least one pregnant worker from the Washington Works plant and had been passed on to her fetus.

I put one part I think you'll find particularly interesting.

If an individual pollutes, they get fined and, if it's bad enough, they can get arrested, so why not hold a company that can do several times worse more accountable? What if all of their pollution contaminated all of the ground water in the region?

 

[TheSlamma]

Here is why it's also BS, if this was an individual PERSON they would go to jail for over a decade, since it's a corporation that has more rights then a person it doesn't go to jail.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari
$16 million is a huge penalty.

Hahahaha, I'm sure DuPont's execs are already planning on giving themselves massive bonuses and laying off a few thousand in celebration of such a small fine.

If a poor black man dumped toxic chemicals into a river should he also be punished for $16 million?

Prison time is worse then fines 87 IQ.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari
$16 million is a huge penalty.

Hahahaha, I'm sure DuPont's execs are already planning on giving themselves massive bonuses and laying off a few thousand in celebration of such a small fine.

If a poor black man dumped toxic chemicals into a river should he also be punished for $16 million?

If a poor black man dumped as much toxic chemicals as Dupont did over the years, yeah, he should be.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: zendari
$16 million is a huge penalty.

Not a large company like DuPont it isn't.

Originally posted by: zendari
If a poor black man dumped toxic chemicals into a river should he also be punished for $16 million?

Would you prefer the EPA fined DuPont for $50 instead?

Either or. When Bill Gates gets a speeding ticket he shouldn't pay more than I have to.

They already fined Duport more than what has been typical in the pats. I thought liberals would be happy about that.

I have an idea master of idiocy, how about the entire board of DuPont goes to jail for the next 15 years and in that time the company has to shut down. Then it would be just like the black man.

Sorry Troll boy, but prison time is FAR FAR FAR worse then any fine and corporations don't EVER have to do time. You talk like equality is the issue, well where is it? You think a Bill Gates speeding ticket is a good analogy? LOL you really are just that dumb.

Zendari loses AGAIN.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Strk
I put one part I think you'll find particularly interesting.

If an individual pollutes, they get fined and, if it's bad enough, they can get arrested, so why not hold a company that can do several times worse more accountable? What if all of their pollution contaminated all of the ground water in the region?

They are. Look up the fine for an individual who pollutes, I'd wager its not in the neighborhood of 16 million, but much much lower.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Strk
I put one part I think you'll find particularly interesting.

If an individual pollutes, they get fined and, if it's bad enough, they can get arrested, so why not hold a company that can do several times worse more accountable? What if all of their pollution contaminated all of the ground water in the region?

They are. Look up the fine for an individual who pollutes, I'd wager its not in the neighborhood of 16 million, but much much lower.

Except you can't treat them in the same way. A corporation is a corporation and a person is a person; they are two seperate entities and they are treated as such. And if a person polluted as much as DuPont and hid the fact, they'd be in jail, not fined.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari
$16 million is a huge penalty.

With anual revenues of $28 billion, I doubt they'll feel it.

Why does that matter? I thought the law was supposed to protect people equally.

legal entity != person

If one person did this, they would face criminal charges....

$16M is nothing at all, the banks in the industry i work in get slapped with multi-million FTC fines left and right 🙂
It's part of the business.

Not to mention if you don't fine them enough, it follows from game theory that they will always pollute. If probably of getting caught * cost saved by polluting > EPA fine, then the optimal strategy is always to pullute

(yay for game theory economics, Dr. Nash would be proud of me)

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Strk
I put one part I think you'll find particularly interesting.

If an individual pollutes, they get fined and, if it's bad enough, they can get arrested, so why not hold a company that can do several times worse more accountable? What if all of their pollution contaminated all of the ground water in the region?

They are. Look up the fine for an individual who pollutes, I'd wager its not in the neighborhood of 16 million, but much much lower.

You are right, a person gets much worse, it's called Prison time.

I know you wish to ignore that fact because it is impossible for you to dispute it, but I'll still shove your brown nose into it.

 

[Vic]

Who died?

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Typical liberal teeth gnashing about "not enough of a fine!". What do you want to do, bankrupt them? Would that satisfy you - having 1,000's of white collar US workers out of work? They are gonna make your trial lawyer buddies rich from the lawsuits - isn't that enough? This fine will pale in comparison to those costs.

Personally, I suggest each of you start more worrying about teflon coated products and the impact on health. Pick up one of these to cook with. They cook much nicer anyhow...and keep your iron levels up!

Civil fines like this operate only one way - that they are large enough so that the potential cost of them, multiplied by the risk of being caught, is LARGER than the anticipated profits. That's basic MBA risk strategy calculation. And in this case, with 5 years of $300M sales, let's take a nice round number for the profit of 30% = $500M in profit. And the risk of getting caught? Let's say it was 50/50 (actually it was probably far LESS)...

So we can work out that the fine that would have detered such behavior would have been ~$1Billion. That presents management with a choice - gain $500M, but have a 50/50 risk of losing $1B (a net loss of $500M after the gain of the profit is factored in). Which, from a risk adjustment point of view, works out to be a zero sum game...meaning that if you REALLY think that the stuff is safe, you do it. If you don't think it's safe, you DON'T make it anymore.

So, in that context, $16M is peanuts, and will infact encourage other executives to take similar risks with the health of thier employees, the public, and the environment. BTW - that IS capitalism in action, not a liberal thing...it's called paying for your externalities, which is a job of good government in the capitalist system.

Future Shock

 

[Vic]

A corporation negotiating a fine with a government bureaucracy is capitalism? Crony capitalism perhaps... :roll:


And yeah, I read all the shock, the outrage, the comparisons to a convicted murderer, the NIMBYism, etc... now, who died?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: alchemize
Typical liberal teeth gnashing about "not enough of a fine!". What do you want to do, bankrupt them? Would that satisfy you - having 1,000's of white collar US workers out of work? They are gonna make your trial lawyer buddies rich from the lawsuits - isn't that enough? This fine will pale in comparison to those costs.

Personally, I suggest each of you start more worrying about teflon coated products and the impact on health. Pick up one of these to cook with. They cook much nicer anyhow...and keep your iron levels up!

Civil fines like this operate only one way - that they are large enough so that the potential cost of them, multiplied by the risk of being caught, is LARGER than the anticipated profits. That's basic MBA risk strategy calculation. And in this case, with 5 years of $300M sales, let's take a nice round number for the profit of 30% = $500M in profit. And the risk of getting caught? Let's say it was 50/50 (actually it was probably far LESS)...

So we can work out that the fine that would have detered such behavior would have been ~$1Billion. That presents management with a choice - gain $500M, but have a 50/50 risk of losing $1B (a net loss of $500M after the gain of the profit is factored in). Which, from a risk adjustment point of view, works out to be a zero sum game...meaning that if you REALLY think that the stuff is safe, you do it. If you don't think it's safe, you DON'T make it anymore.

So, in that context, $16M is peanuts, and will infact encourage other executives to take similar risks with the health of thier employees, the public, and the environment. BTW - that IS capitalism in action, not a liberal thing...it's called paying for your externalities, which is a job of good government in the capitalist system.

Future Shock

haha beat you to it (check my post above) 🙂
I'm glad there are some BAs on the forum

 

[kage69]

Another liberal-hater gets the red-headed step-child treament...thanks for explaining that Future Shock.


Alchemize is right on one thing though, cast iron does rawk. Its iron-imparting qualities, however, are only activated by the cooking of acidic foods. Just don't wash them with dish detergent!