Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    
    I think a lot of people think it's okay to cheat (whether taxes
    or welfare) because they feel that society is ripping them off,
    or that others aren't doing their fair share, so they feel they 
    are just balancing things out.
    
    I'm not justifying it, just pointing it out.
    
    For example, if someone sees huge corporations paying almost no
    taxes because of loopholes,etc.,or someone sees tobacco growers
    getting huge government subsidies, he/she may feel justified in
    cheating.
    
    Maybe a solution would be a more balanced system. Of course this
    is an ideal, but perhaps a lot of the little cheating would stop if 
    people felt that the big guys weren't getting away with their
    "legal" cheating.
                                  
    Roberta
    

    I am reminded of someone I once knew who turned in a friend to welfare
    for working under the table.  This was done for the "welfaree's"
    own good.  The same person moved without a forwarding address and
    never repaid six years worth of student loans.  I agree with Roberta
    that some people think it's okay to cheat for whatever thin reason.
    And I think it's interesting that cheating is very subjective. 
    It has a great deal to do with perspective.  My acquaintance above
    was truly convinced that turning in the welfare cheat was the right,
    legal, moral thing to do and was equally convinced that the government
    had no real right to expect to be repaid the loans.
    
    Dondi
    (I know someone will ask, I didn't get the forwarding address either)

    I agree with Roberta.  As long as there are tax loopholes that allow
    billionaires and huge corporations to get away with paying no taxes,
    then going after ordinary people who cheat a little bit to help
    themselves get by seems petty.
    
    Re .0, it would all depend on how badly my roof needed reshingling.
     If my roof were leaking and I could barely scrape together $1,000.
    to pay somebody under the table, obviously I wouldn't go into debt
    in order to pay a contractor $4,000.  
    
    I wouldn't turn any ordinary non-millionaire type person in for
    cheating a little on their taxes.  Especially, not when I hear that
    there are all kinds of ways for rich people to "hide money".  
    
    Lorna
    

    Micheal Milken (the Junk Bond King) earned 551 million in 1987.  Its
    hard to get worked up about some guy working under the table in a time
    when one percent of the population controls so much wealth.  
    
    We are (in effect) subsidizing big business when we bail out the
    Savings and Loans and Exon.  They don't lose any money by cheating
    and stealing and goofing up.  They are costing us far more than
    anyone working under the table costs us.
                                
    Mary

    
    >We are (in effect) subsidizing big business when we bail out the
    >Savings and Loans and Exon.
    
    Strictly speaking, we are only bailing out the S&L insurance fund
    which assures depositors recompense for lost monies in accounts
    of 100K or less. 
    
    It seems to me that some are justifying welfare fraud becasue 
    Michael Milliken got rich selling junk bonds. That is a hell
    of a reason to say that its ok to steal. 
    
    Isn't stealing wrong regardless of what anyone else does? 

	I think both ends of the spectrum are simply symptoms of
	the real problem. The real problem is that the goal of
	this society is no longer to work hard and achieve 
	success (however you define it), but to do so effortlessly
	(or at least, with the appearance of little effort).

	Whether it is the corporate magnate making money by
	mergers and buyouts, or the blue collar worker buying
	a lottery ticket in hopes of making it big, the goal
	is to do it without work. How often does someone complement
	us, and we say "It was really nothing..." rather than,
	"I put a lot of hard work into that, thanks for noticing.."?
	Can't let someone know we sweated. The honest craftsperson
	who gives a day's work for a day's wage is no longer respected,
	but is seen as a fool.

						Tom_K

>    Isn't stealing wrong regardless of what anyone else does? 

 Certainly not! If Joe Blow steals $100, that in and of itself justifies my
stealing of $99. As long as I steal less than someone else, it's allright.
After all, you have to go after the big fish, right? If someone drives past me
at 95 mph, that justifies my going 90- and the cop shouldn't ticket me either.
He should go after "the other guy." After all, "the other guy" is just an
elitist snot.

 The Doctah

Note 555.6                   
SX4GTO::HOLT 

>    Strictly speaking, we are only bailing out the S&L insurance fund
>    which assures depositors recompense for lost monies in accounts
>    of 100K or less. 

By not prosecuting the banking officers for fraud and theft (which were
the main causes of the S&L problem) we are in effect subsidizing their
illegal activities while allowing them to get off scott free.            
    
By paying the bulk of the EXXON Valdez cleanup costs, we are also
subsidizing Exxon by assuming their liabilities instead of making
them pay the clean up costs as a part of their cost of doing business.

>    It seems to me that some are justifying welfare fraud becasue 
>    Michael Milliken got rich selling junk bonds. That is a hell
>    of a reason to say that its ok to steal. 
>    Isn't stealing wrong regardless of what anyone else does? 

Yes, but if the laws do not apply to all of us, then none of us will respect
them.  Does it surprise you to see the poor man try to cheat when he sees the
rich man get away with it?

Note 555.7                                                   
EVER11::KRUPINSKI                                    

>	I think both ends of the spectrum are simply symptoms of
>	the real problem. The real problem is that the goal of
>	this society is no longer to work hard and achieve 
>	success (however you define it), but to do so effortlessly
>	(or at least, with the appearance of little effort).

I believe you have identified the problem Tom.  Perhaps hard work
and success are not adequate goals for a society over time.
Especially when the hard work is not met with success, and when success
in certain cases does not require hard work.

Look at how hard the Japanese work, and for what?  Their government
is riddled with corruption.  Few politicians from either
party escaped the recent stock scandal.  Their suicide rate is high,
they are stressed out, their family life is in a terrible state.

What is the point in working hard,... so that Donald Trump can buy another
yacht, or so that Michael Milken can earn another 551 million a year?
The more money we pour into the government, the less money is spent
on improving the quality of American life.  Its a losing battle and
some people are giving up on it.

Mary

>By not prosecuting the banking officers for fraud and theft (which were
>the main causes of the S&L problem) we are in effect subsidizing their
>illegal activities while allowing them to get off scott free.            
 
    Agreed.
       
>By paying the bulk of the EXXON Valdez cleanup costs, we are also
>subsidizing Exxon by assuming their liabilities instead of making
>them pay the clean up costs as a part of their cost of doing business.
    
    The simple fact is that ALL of a corporation's costs are passed on to
    the customer in the long run. That's what many people do not
    understand. A very similar situation exists when a heralded sports
    figure goes for a hefty salary. More often than not the public sides
    with the sports figure. Most then complain when management raises
    ticket prices. You can't have it both ways. Some people would (in
    effect) like to see some businesses become unprofitable. Great. But
    eventually, jobs will be lost. (And it sure as hell won't be the big
    fish).
    
    The Doctah

    >WAHOO::LEVESQUE 
    
>    The simple fact is that ALL of a corporation's costs are passed on to
>    the customer in the long run. 

I don't believe that capitalism has this sort of economic blackmail
built into it.

If a company tries to pass on the costs of doing 
business unwisely, consumers may choose to buy from a cheaper source, one
which presumably does business more wisely by avoiding oil spills. As long
as Exxon is not the only company selling oil, consumers do not have to
buy gas from Exxon.

As for the lost jobs, again that's economic blackmail: "do what we want
or we'll lay people off." 

Roberta

         I don't know about those of you back east, but out here in
    California we are already paying for the Valdez oil spill.  At least
    that's what they're blaming most of the 25% increase we've seen
    in gas prices out here.  And it's not just Exxon gas that's more
    expensive, its all gas.
    
    ASP

re .111

	What you say is true, but unfortunately, there is a bug in the
	system. If Exxon raises it's prices, say $0.20 /gallon to pay
	for the costs of cleaning up the spill, that simply establishes
	a new, higher ceiling under which the other suppliers can operate,
	and make an extra, say $0.15/gallon profit, while still undercutting
	Exxon. Rest assured that you and I will see little, if any, of that
	profit. Ideally, this new profit potential would induce a new
	player into the business, who would undercut the established players, 
	and force the price back down. But while Capitalism is the best
	economic system I know, ideal is one thing it sure isn't.

							Tom_K

        So... not only are we paying the clean-up costs, but we are also
    paying more at the pump.  This is a very inefficient way to run
    a country.  Big business profits from making errors, even errors
    that severely damage the planet and pose risk to the rest of us.
    
    Its time we stopped running life and the country for the benefit
    of big business.  This kind of thing doesn't make any sense.
    Exxon has profited from this spill in more ways than one.  The
    only losers are the American people and the people of Alaska.
    
    Why does government sanction and condone this kind of thing?    
    With this kind of mentality running our country, is it any 
    wonder that the 'little guy' gets away with whatever he can?
    
    Is our government run for the benefit of big business only?
    If this is in fact the situation, then why should the 'average
    American' care if the USA is a world financial power or not.
    It doesn't appear to be to our advantage (as a species) to keep it
    as such.
                                                           
    Mary
    

    Yes, I have seen a rise in gas prices on the East Coast as well.
    Unfortunately, it can't all be blamed on the Alaskan spill.
    Concurrently with that spill, there has been a fire (I believe)
    on the North Slope, reducing supply from that source, and OPEC has
    finally gotten their act together and reduced the amount of oil
    being pumped in the Middle East.  So crude supplies are down
    world-wide.  Reduced supply will increase prices until demand goes
    down, and US demand is still trending up.                    
                                             
    Exxon is not the only user of the crude that was being shipped in
    their tanker.  As far as I know, crude is not yet being shipped
    from Valdez by any one.  (Although it has been about a week since
    I heard that.  Anyone know more?)        
    
    Alison
                                             

>If a company tries to pass on the costs of doing 
>business unwisely, consumers may choose to buy from a cheaper source, one
>which presumably does business more wisely by avoiding oil spills. As long
>as Exxon is not the only company selling oil, consumers do not have to
>buy gas from Exxon.
    
    Aha! If Exxon tries to be unwise about it, it won't work. But the truth
    of the matter is that all of the oil companies look upon this tragedy
    as an excuse to raise the cost of gas at the pumps (alleging decreased
    supply). I agree that the profiteering that the opil companies are
    doing as a result of this tragedy is appalling and disgusting. But
    there is no way to make them stop short of a revolution (don't get
    excited yet, Les).
    
    FWIW- passing on costs is not economic blackmail. It is a fact of life.
    Where else do you think they'd get the money? 
    
    The Doctah

    They could get the money by taking it off their profit margin.

>    They could get the money by taking it off their profit margin.
    
     Perhaps some of it. But they have to be careful. they have
    stockholders that they are accountable to. How would you like it if 
    DEC screwed up, and all your stock plummetted in value? In any case,
    where do you think the money came from that comprised the profits?
    It still came from us.
    
    The Doctah

> But they have to be careful. they have stockholders that they are
> accountable to. How would you like it if DEC screwed up, and all
> your stock plummetted in value?

  That's exactly how a capitalist business is supposed to work.  If the
  corporation screws up, the stock drops, and the investors (or the *NEW*
  investors after it's bought out) fire the management, etc.

  And the local retailers have some choice, too.  It's a free market and
  the real independents can (at least over the medium-to-long term) choose
  their supplier.  (Can anyone here cite an actual gas station franchise
  contract?)

  So just think of the boycott as the corporate equivalent of capital
  punishment.

                                   Atlant

    
    A couple of nits:
    
    1) Who sez the S&L executives who committed fraud are getting away
       with it?
     
       The Justice Dept. is procecuting. Its just not on page 1.
    
    2) If boycotting Exxon make you feel good, fine. You'll hurt a
       lot of small buisnesses who had nothing to do with the spill
       or the coverup. Also, Exxon gas (and jet fuel, oil, kerosene,etc.)
       is sold by jobbers on the wholesale market. You never know exactly
       where the stuff at the corner gas station came from.
    
       A better "punishment" would be to assess penalties against the
       shareholders, who are the real owners and therefore the ones
       with the power to make policy changes. When the stock is assessed,
       the shareholders will be annoyed, the directors will be annoyed,
       and then perhaps heads will roll.  

         
    The Justice Department has prosecuted 100 out of 5000 banking
    officers.  Also, Bush's bail out plan puts very little of the
    weight on the banking industry itself.  
   
     	p.s. We don't just read page 1, how about you?
    
    The Justice Department has stated that it is almost impossible to
    prosecute now.  It appears that Jim Wright has successfully
    protected his friends from the consequences of their actions.
    They can now go live on their yachts while we, and our children,
    and our grandchildren, pay for their grandiose lifestyles.
    
    Don't you think enough is enough?  How long are we supposed to carry
    the rich slugs on our backs?
    
    Mary
    
                                                  

Note 555.19                  
WAHOO::LEVESQUE 

>    They could get the money by taking it off their profit margin.
>>     Perhaps some of it. But they have to be careful. they have
>>    stockholders that they are accountable to. How would you like it if 
>>    DEC screwed up, and all your stock plummetted in value? In any case,
>>    where do you think the money came from that comprised the profits?
>>    It still came from us.
    
Any business that screws up deserves to pay for their own mistakes, 
it is irrelevant who "owns stock" in the company and whether they "like it".

Why should we (as citizens) have to pay for a company's mistakes?  Why
should we protect a company's stockholders from investment errors?
What difference does it make who they are?  Maybe the profit margin money
came from us, but it goes to them.

Mary

    
    re -.1
    
    Thats all very nice. Lets cut their stones off.
    
    BTW - who owns the stock is relevant. Under US law
    they happen to be the owners of the corporation.
    
    I suppose you could just neglect the law... then all
    you need is a pair of rusty scissors. 

>Any business that screws up deserves to pay for their own mistakes, 
>it is irrelevant who "owns stock" in the company and whether they "like it".
    
    And if it causes the company to cut a few people off the payroll, so
    what? It's not _our_ company. So a few people go on unemployment. We
    don't pay for that. Or do we?
    
    I guess you can get all excited about the oil spill. God knows how
    upset it has me. I prefer to keep an even keel about the situation and
    recognize that in the long run, ther's absolutely no way to make the
    faceless entity called "Exxon" pay. We pay. It just doesn't get any
    plainer than that.
    
    Again it seems that it is time to invoke the theory of reality. "Things
    are the way they are, not the want they should be or the way you want
    them to be."
    
    No real need to state the corollaries.
    
    The  Doctah

     
    >And if it causes the company to cut a few people off the payroll, so
    >what? It's not _our_ company. So a few people go on unemployment. We
    >don't pay for that. Or do we?
     
    We cannot subsidize the mistakes of every big business in this country
    forever.  People lose their jobs every day.  They find other jobs.
    Did Reagan worry about the air traffic controllers losing their
    jobs?  No, he fired all of them.  The cold, hard, facts of life
    are that WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO KEEP PAYING FOR THE MISTAKES
    OF BIG BUSINESS.  And we shouldn't have to either.  Its not right. 
    Bush didn't get involved in the Eastern strike to protect the jobs
    of those workers.  He said that in a capitalist economy, labor and
    management have to work out their own problems.  Well, in a capitolist
    economy, businesses have to be responsible for their own mistakes
    as well.                                           
    
    >I guess you can get all excited about the oil spill. God knows how
    >upset it has me. I prefer to keep an even keel about the situation and
    >recognize that in the long run, ther's absolutely no way to make the
    >faceless entity called "Exxon" pay. We pay. It just doesn't get any
    >plainer than that.
     
    I don't know about you pal... but I'm sick of paying.
    
    >Again it seems that it is time to invoke the theory of reality. "Things
    >are the way they are, not the want they should be or the way you want
    >them to be."
     
    Things are now and always have been the way we make them.  We allowed
    this situation to develop and we can vote it out of existence...even
    if it means voting in Jesse Jackson.  Politicians had better develop
    some respect for the needs and opinions of the voter, and fast!
    The middle class cannot carry the wealthy on our backs forever.
    Our health, well-being, resources and patience have worn too thin.    
                                                       
    Mary

    
    I thought you wanted government off our backs. 
    
    It seems you want government to only be on certain select
    backs, excluding yourself.
    
    Reading your notes is like listening to the Paris mob in
    "A Tale of Two Cities".
    
    When do the beheadings start?

    Re: .15
    
    >So... not only are we paying the clean-up costs, but we are also
    >paying more at the pump.  This is a very inefficient way to run
    >a country.
    
    It's not caused by a system of government, it's caused by a system
    of economics.  I'm not convinced that price regulations are the
    province of the government.

    
    
    > I thought you wanted government off our backs. 
      
    I do.
    
    > It seems you want government to only be on certain select
    > backs, excluding yourself.
      
    Not at all, the government doesn't force big business to pay for
    my mistakes, the government shouldn't force me to pay for big
    business's mistakes.  Why is this government subsidizing big business
    at tax payer expense?
    
   > Reading your notes is like listening to the Paris mob in
   > "A Tale of Two Cities".
    
    I'm delighted to hear that you read.  Literacy is the mark of an
    intelligent man.
   
    > When do the beheadings start?
    
    As soon as possible I hope.  But why the guillotine when we have
    so many assault rifles available?_:-)  
    And thank you for pointing out how much better off the French peasants
    were *after* the Revolution.  Oh you liberal Republicans,... always
    coddling the aristocracy.
    
    
Note 555.28    
ACESMK::CHELSEA 
    
    
    >It's not caused by a system of government, it's caused by a system
    >of economics.  I'm not convinced that price regulations are the
    >province of the government.
     
    Of course we have not had a true democracy for a very long time,
    but regardless of whether price regulations are the province of
    government, subsidizing big business isn't the province of government
    either... at least not in a democracy.
    
    Mary

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    It's good that the snide in here has a leavening of genuine you're-okay
    humor, and I hope we can keep it that way (maybe even increase the
    humor some?). 
    
    						=maggie 

RE:.29
The United States was never designed to be a democracy. It is by Constitution
and common-law a Republic.
If you will lookup the differences and try to understand them you may
alter some of your view as to *WHY* things happen.
(This is not to start a Democracy is better/worse than republic argument,
merely this is what is and both work on different principles).

    I think the issue isn't so much *why* it happened as it is *how*
    can it be altered.  That is if you are of the belief that it should
    be altered.  I feel that it should because I don't see how the
    current system can continue on in the current direction for the
    next 50 years.
    
    Mary

    
        re .29
    
    >I'm delighted to hear that you read.  Literacy is the mark of an
    >intelligent man.
    
        Not at all. I just watch the cartoons...
    
    >Why is this government subsidizing big business at tax payer expense?
    
        You say that as if it happens all the time, and for the wrong
        reasons. Chrysler was bailed out because it was better than
        allowing thousands of Michiganders to be unemployed. There
        is usually a good reason for these events if you care
        to dig out the real story.
    
    >As soon as possible I hope.  But why the guillotine when we have
    >so many assault rifles available?_:-)
    
        There aren't so many. I don't even have one....
    
    >And thank you for pointing out how much better off the French
    >peasants were *after* the Revolution.
    
        When did I do this?
    
    >Oh you liberal Republicans,... always coddling the aristocracy.
    
        You never know when when it will be your turn to join it...

    And the Chrysler loan (lets be accurate) was paid back, ahead of
    schedule, WITH INTEREST!
    
    Eric