Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Should GM renounce some of its bailout immunity?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    I think you misunderstood Epo's post, he's saying GM should be stripped of its legal protection.


    I'll look at it again when I have time.

    Leave a comment:


  • lilpixieofterror
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    The internal documents that have come to light this week that reveal that GM knew about its faulty ignition switches for years but chose not to disclose them (and even pushed back against some accident victim's families) are troublesome. However, due to terms agreed to during the bailout, GM has no liability for anything prior to June 1, 2009. Obviously, we cannot force the company to renege on the terms of its agreement, but public pressure can always be leveraged at the least.


    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gm-recal...lout-immunity/
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/bu...thal-flaw.html

    Well, looks like I'll never buy a new GM, ever, until they do something about their criminal actives.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Er, a bit over the top, Epo, but essentially correct.

    We are a nation of laws, not mob rule. GM has no legal obligation - and arguably no moral one - to renounce its contractual protections. If the agreement wasn't violated it's the government's fault for not including a pretty obvious clause about negligence/criminal behavior.
    I think you misunderstood Epo's post, he's saying GM should be stripped of its legal protection.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    If enough consumers stay away, then clearly the company is no longer acting in its own best interests anyway.
    True - but that's a separate issue from trying to rewrite contract law with mob rule.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    But on the government to pursue the matter in court. If your right and the evidence proves it, let the courts take GM to task. If you're wrong, you have public pressure forcing a company to act against its own interests despite its rights - bad precedent to be setting.
    If enough consumers stay away, then clearly the company is no longer acting in its own best interests anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    I'm certain GM has no interest in moral obligations after years of using lawyers to bully victim's families for what they knew was their fault all along. Thus the need for public pressure.
    But on the government to pursue the matter in court. If your right and the evidence proves it, let the courts take GM to task. If you're wrong, you have public pressure forcing a company to act against its own interests despite its rights - bad precedent to be setting.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Er, a bit over the top, Epo, but essentially correct.

    We are a nation of laws, not mob rule. GM has no legal obligation - and arguably no moral one - to renounce its contractual protections. If the agreement wasn't violated it's the government's fault for not including a pretty obvious clause about negligence/criminal behavior.
    I'm certain GM has no interest in moral obligations after years of using lawyers to bully victim's families for what they knew was their fault all along. Thus the need for public pressure.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
    Oh hell no. That line is a reprehensible condensation of the mindset of 'doing ineffectual good to make myself feel better,' rather than doing the right thing, and will empower a thousand future corporate and government spinmeisters, who are in fact experts at dealing with public reputation through doubletalk.

    A supposedly public agreement conducted under false pretenses and perverse incentives is null and void. "We can't enforce laws against fraud, but we can whine vaguely about them publicly" is the very worst way to do this.

    If you're not aiming for bodies to rot in cells or blood to run in the streets, stop talking now. Democracy is a sham, and appealing to the mob is a policy that no sane and honest man takes, especially today.
    Er, a bit over the top, Epo, but essentially correct.

    We are a nation of laws, not mob rule. GM has no legal obligation - and arguably no moral one - to renounce its contractual protections. If the agreement wasn't violated it's the government's fault for not including a pretty obvious clause about negligence/criminal behavior.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Not that I agree at all points with Chinese law, but stuff like this
    SHIJIAZHUANG, China — A Chinese court on Thursday sentenced two men to death for their role in the production and sale of melamine-tainted milk that killed at least six children and made nearly 300,000 ill.
    is probably more than just.

    Leave a comment:


  • Epoetker
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit
    Obviously, we cannot force the company to renege on the terms of its agreement, but public pressure can always be leveraged at the least.
    Oh hell no. That line is a reprehensible condensation of the mindset of 'doing ineffectual good to make myself feel better,' rather than doing the right thing, and will empower a thousand future corporate and government spinmeisters, who are in fact experts at dealing with public reputation through doubletalk.

    A supposedly public agreement conducted under false pretenses and perverse incentives is null and void. "We can't enforce laws against fraud, but we can whine vaguely about them publicly" is the very worst way to do this.

    If you're not aiming for bodies to rot in cells or blood to run in the streets, stop talking now. Democracy is a sham, and appealing to the mob is a policy that no sane and honest man takes, especially today.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    The law should be changed such that the relevant people in the companies can be criminally prosecuted for deaths, injuries etc. caused by knowingly witholding such information.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    started a topic Should GM renounce some of its bailout immunity?

    Should GM renounce some of its bailout immunity?

    The internal documents that have come to light this week that reveal that GM knew about its faulty ignition switches for years but chose not to disclose them (and even pushed back against some accident victim's families) are troublesome. However, due to terms agreed to during the bailout, GM has no liability for anything prior to June 1, 2009. Obviously, we cannot force the company to renege on the terms of its agreement, but public pressure can always be leveraged at the least.


    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gm-recal...lout-immunity/
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/bu...thal-flaw.html

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
16 responses
96 views
0 likes
Last Post One Bad Pig  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
53 responses
282 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
109 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
195 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
84 responses
356 views
0 likes
Last Post JimL
by JimL
 
Working...
X