8 posts categorized "Unbridled Greed"

November 21, 2007

Why fix the problem when we can outsource the danger?

The beauty of the free market at work:

GUIYU, China — The air smells acrid from the squat gas burners that sit outside homes, melting wires to recover copper and cooking computer motherboards to release gold. Migrant workers in filthy clothes smash picture tubes by hand to recover glass and electronic parts, releasing as much as 6.5 pounds of lead dust. ...

This ugly business is driven by pure economics. For the West, where safety rules drive up the cost of disposal, it's as much as 10 times cheaper to export the waste to developing countries. In China, poor migrants from the countryside willingly endure the health risks to earn a few yuan, exploited by profit-hungry entrepreneurs.

China not fighting off e-waste nightmare | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

The tragedy will be when some entrepreneurial plaintiff's lawyer attempts to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the peasants.

November 12, 2007

Democrats can be evil, too.

Dems have introduced a bill which will force universities to either:

  • (a) Pay money for services like Napster, Ruckus, or other CRAPPY file sharing services; or
  • (b) Give up all federal financial aid.

I only wish I was kidding.  Here's what a few scholars have to say about the bill:

"Such an extraordinarily inappropriate and punitive outcome would result in all students on that campus losing their federal financial aid--including Pell grants and student loans that are essential to their ability to attend college, advance their education, and acquire the skills necessary to compete in the 21st-century economy," a letter from university officials to Congress written on Wednesday said. "Lower-income students, those most in need of federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal."

The letter was signed by the chancellor of the University of Maryland system, the president of Stanford University, the general counsel of Yale University, and the president of Penn State.

Democrats: Colleges must police copyright, or else | CNET News.com

About the only thing John Edwards could do to lose my vote would be to endorse this bill.  If he came by my house and slashed my tires, I'd cut him more slack than I would if he said this was a good idea.

This is what I hate about politics: I either get into bed with Republicans, who believe big oil and the insurance cartel can do no wrong, or I hop into bed with Democrats, who believe the MPAA and RIAA are good, honest folks.

I guess I could also hop into bed with a third party, but sleeping alone is less frustrating.

June 17, 2007

How it was in the good old days - before greedy trial lawyers ruined America

The problem with trial lawyers is that they think they have the right to tell business owners how best to run their businesses.  With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, trial lawyers point the finger of blame whenever an unfortunate business makes a prudent, but incorrect decision.

Greedy trial lawyers meddle in virtually every industry and drive up the prices of all our products and services.  Every business decision made has to take into consideration the predatory litigation lobby, and not what's best for the business.  No wonder so many businesses are driven into bankruptcy!

The situation is only as bad as it is because activist judges and politicians in the wallet of the trial bar extended tort doctrines to dubious causes of action.  It didn't used to be this way.  There once was a time when corporations were free to run their businesses as they saw fit, and when entrepreneurs weren't held hostage by trial lawyers. 

If only we had meaningful tort reform, we could return to a time of fairness and efficiency in commerce.  A time perhaps best exemplified by the manner in which White Star Lines handled the tragic loss of the Titanic.  Thanks to a common-sense attitude towards compensating the victims, the management of White Star saved the company from ruin.  Were an identical tragedy to occur today, the company would surely be devoured by ravenous trial lawyers and greedy family members unwilling to accept reasonable compensation.

Let's take a trip back to the good old days and see how White Star Lines handled the crisis:

In 2002, new evidence surfaced, revealing that the Titanic’s owners expected, and in fact demanded fees for the return of bodies.White Star was the Enron of its day; a succession of callous acts without end. Through letters that still survive, historians have long known that Ismay’s line notified the widows of the Titanic’s bandsmen (notwithstanding the fact that their husbands did much to prevent panic on the port side by playing cheery ragtime music) that 75% of the money owed them was being withheld, based on the premise that their husbands had entertained passengers only halfway through one leg of what was to have been a two-way trip. Furthermore, White Star judged that it was only fair to warn the widows that there would be little left over from the remaining 25% because they would have to “settle a bill” for the loss of their husbands’ uniforms.

In February 2002, documentary film-maker Rip Mackenzie sent a dispatch describing a letter demonstrating once and for all time that there was probably no subterranean marsh into which White Star was unwilling to descend.

Written on White Star stationary and dated two weeks after the sinking, the letter was addressed to Sarah Gill of Somerset, England, in reply to her inquiry about the fate of second class passenger John Gill, her childhood sweetheart and husband of two months.

The owners of the Titanic demanded of Sarah a fee of 20 pounds ($1400 in year 2002 dollars), or her husband’s body would “regrettably” have to be buried in Halifax. White Star used this letter as an opportunity to stress that the sinking of the Royal Mail Steamer Titanic was no one’s responsibility . . . as if driving a ship full speed ahead into the night, toward an ice field about which the bridge had been repeatedly warned . . as if . . .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The sinking was an unfortunate accident, [for which] we cannot be held responsible. We regret that we do not see our way to bring home the bodies of those recovered free of expense, and in cases where it is desired for this to be done, it can be carried out only if the body was in a fit state to be returned, and upon receiving a deposit of 20 pounds on account of the expenses.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the precedent of how White Star treated with widows of Wallace Hartley, Jock Hume, and the other bandsmen (whose families found settlement of the “uniform account” doubly difficult after corporate lawyers declared violinists and cellists “not crew, but officially passengers, therefore not covered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act”), the Sarah Gill discovery should bring no sense of surprise. The behavior of J. Bruce Ismay and his legal team at White Star begins to look increasingly analogous to a car thief who manages to get away with billing his victims for the labor of dismantling their cars and selling the parts.

Source: Charles Pellegrino Web Site

Remember White Star Lines the next time some corporate sock puppet tells you we need tort reform.  If it weren't for "greedy trial lawyers" it's entirely possible that airlines would bill the families of dead captains for the cost of their uniforms. 

June 12, 2007

Minimum wage to hit $22.61 per hour!

Well, it would if the minimum wage was tied to CEO pay raises, anyway.

...if the minimum wage had increased at the same pace as CEO pay since 1990, the minimum wage would be $22.61/hour. 

Source: CEO Income on the Rise « Justice Begins Here

Interesting, eh?

Technorati tags: ,

June 04, 2007

Social irresponsibility must be the answer, then!

Ted Frank at the AEI will be moderating a discussion today about managing corporate image.  I wish I was close enough to D.C. to attend, as the debate might explain why being socially irresponsible - outsourcing jobs, moving factories to countries with lax environmental laws, encouraging your employees to apply for Medicaid, getting life insurance on employees with dangerous jobs instead of improving safety conditions - is the better business practice. 

Does corporate social responsibility represent a good business strategy in the long run, or has reputation management become, in effect, an apology for making money? If so, does this trend ultimately pose a threat to free enterprise?

Source: PointofLaw.com | PointOfLaw Forum: Corporate Image Advertising and the Future of Free Enterprise

To answer the question posed above, reputation management has become, in effect, an apology for making money by exploiting workers, polluting or otherwise damaging the Earth, and putting profits well ahead of safety. 

Ted notes that Steven Hantler of DaimlerChrysler (Is it going to be Chrysler again?) will be attending.  Hantler might be familiar to you for his policy of adopting scorched Earth litigation tactics for the sole purpose of discouraging trial lawyers from suing his employer, even if the underlying case is meritorious.  Hantler also gained a reputation as being a hypocrite for spending "six figures" to defend an $8,000 claim, and then arguing that the winning plaintiff wasn't entitled to $143,000 in attorney's fees.  Apparently, "loser pays" is only fair to corporations when they aren't the loser.

April 23, 2007

The "Ethical" Pharmaceutical Sector

I saw an interesting article at Pharmalot about the sales tactics pharmaceutical sales reps use to push products onto doctors.  We strictly regulate how lawyers may solicit for clients, but we allow people with no medical degree - and sometimes not even a Bachelor's degree - to recommend which medicines a doctor should prescribe.

"During training, I was told, when you’re out to dinner with a doctor, 'The physician is eating with a friend. You are eating with a client.' " - Shahram Ahari...

Reps may be genuinely friendly, but they are not genuine friends. Drug reps are selected for their presentability and outgoing natures, and are trained to be observant and personable...Personal information may be more important than prescribing prefernces... A photo on a desk presents an opportunity to inquire about family members and memorize whatever tidbits they are offering...Reps scour a doctor's office for objects - a tennis racquet, Russian novels, seventies rock music, fashion magainze, travel mementos, or cultural or religious symbols - that can be used to establish a personal connection with the doctor.

They then list eight different types of doctors: friendly and outgoing; aloof and skeptical; mercenary; high prescribers; prefers a competing drug; acquiescent; no-see, no-time, and finally, the thought leader. And they provide insights into all the methods a sales rep may use to wear down each one in hopes of getting more scrips written.

For instance, with the 'friendly and outgoing doc,' Ahari (that's him to the right) says that he would 'frame everything as a gesture of friendship. I give them free samples not because it's my job, but because I like them so much. I provide office lunches because visiting them is such a pleasant relief from all the other docs. My drugs rarely get mentioned by me during our dinners.

Just being friends with most of my docs seemed to have some natural basic effect on their prescribing habits. When the time is ripe, I lean on my 'friendship' to leverage more patients to my drugs...say, because it'll help me meet quota or it will impress my manager, or its crucial for my career. Outgoing, friendly physicians are every rep's favoriate, because cultivating friendship is a mutual aim. While this may be genuine behavior on the doctor's side, it is usually caclulated on the part of the rep." (Emphasis added.)

Source: Pharmalot: The Doctor Is Not Your Friend!

I wonder how many victims defective drugs were given their prescription just to help a sales rep "meet quota." 

Perhaps Congress should introduce legislation to prohibit pharmaceuticals from giving gifts to physicians - something similar to the crackdown on lobbyists, for example.  They could even require them to register as "medical lobbyists." 

Cross-posted to TortDeform.com

April 22, 2007

I'm sure there's a special level of Hell for RIAA and Clear Channel

It's official: The recording industry doesn't care about music, they care about money.

If you haven't listened to net-casted radio, I highly urge you to give it a try while it's still around. There are an incredible amount of "channels" for such a young technology, and they cover a wide spectrum of music. In fact, much of what can be heard on Internet radio can only be heard on Internet radio -- not everything is a multi-platinum hit single.
As a business concept, Internet radio seems like a win-win, particularly when you take a look at conventional radio....

The RIAA isn't pushing for every artist, it's pushing a few select products... This is why when the RIAA cries about piracy, it only cares about the Britneys and the Linkin Parks of the music world. The "costs" to these artists are quantifiable, because almost every sale generates an expected profit -- the fixed costs are negligible compared to the royalties when you have that many units sold...

With the new fees that the RIAA has dictated through its front-end the Copyright Royalty Board (let's be honest, there is no semblance of independence in the board after this), a large majority of the Internet radio stations will be bankrupted come May 15th. Of course, those that stick around will be the ones that played a low variety of songs and appealed to the widest audience for advertising dollars.
These low-expense, high profit stations would be perfect pickings for ClearChannel's move into the digital realm, even allowing it (and companies like it in other parts of the world) a more multi-national audience. High-profit stations that can open up an entirely new type of market, and a cost of entry that is nowhere near so painfully expensive -- and in the meantime, the music played will leave the RIAA tickled pink.


If losing a lot of variety in order to hear more pop tarts doesn't sound like music to your ears, the battle isn't quite over yet. There's a site dedicated to this latest fee-asco (and the things that we can all do about it) at SaveNetRadio.org, and it might be worth your time to check it out.

Source: bit-tech.net | Can you hear me now?

I'm so thankful we relaxed the media ownership restrictions so now ClearChannel can own every radio station in America.  Blech.

April 15, 2007

Why Does Radio Suck So Much? Two Words: Clear Channel

I read a little blog entry written by Frank Pasquale at Concurring Opinions about the proposed XM-Sirius merger, and part of it gave me a chuckle:

"... [A] better industrial policy is to promote their consolidation (especially if it means undermining the Clear Channel leviathan!).

Source: Concurring Opinions: The XM-Sirius Merger

Anything that undermines Clear Channel is always good in my opinion.  Check out the link in the quote above.  It's a link to a great article at Rolling Stone that explains why music is bland, boring, and banal these days.  Some great blurbs from the Rolling Stone article:

"No other company in recent history has had so much power over what the world hears -- and so few top executives with a background in music. Several of the Mayses' friends and business associates say that popular culture has never come up in conversation; radio-division CEO John Hogan is a career ad salesman who says that he prefers talk to rock, rap or country stations. Brian Becker, the live-entertainment CEO, cut his teeth on motor sports and theater. One former Clear Channel executive told Rolling Stone that at annual corporate meetings, sales awards are given out for more than an hour -- and programming prizes take up only ten minutes. "You're controlling all this media, and what you're saying is, 'We don't care about what's on the air,'" he says. "All they care about is moving product."

As Dixie Chicks manager Simon Renshaw puts it, "They don't care about music. They care about ad rates."

Lowry Mays, who refused to be interviewed for this article, told Fortune in 2003, "We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customers products."

Source: Rolling Stone : Inside Clear Channel

Damn.  No wonder I can never find anything good on the radio.  The last album I've enjoyed is by Angels & Airwaves.  I've listened to it at least 100 times, and considering it's founded by the former lead of Blink 182, I'm kind of embarrassed to admit I like it so much.  Since it's good, I won't expect to hear it on any Clear Channel stations.  Not as long as the Pussycat Dolls brand (not a band - bands don't replace their members every six months) keeps putting out "music."