In the Wednesday, Nov. 19 issue of The Sun News there is an article about the EPA finalizing new air quality rules that will make it easier to build coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, and other major polluters in close proximity to national parks and wilderness areas. Half of the EPA's regional administrators have protested this move in dissention and another four criticized it in writing. The rules that are being changed and weakened are part of the Clean Air Act.
Currently, pollution levels are measured over 3 hour and 24 hour increments in order to capture emission spikes during periods of energy demand. Under the new rules levels would be averaged over a year. Spike pollutions would no longer violate the law.
The EPA regional administrators argue that the switch would undermine critical air quality protection in such places as Virginia's Shenandoah National Park. In the 1930's, visitors to Shenandoah's Skyline Drive could see the Washington Monument 70 miles away. Today visibility on some days is barely one mile. These administrators fear that the new testing will underestimate the emissions both for existing power plants and those that are proposed.
I can understand the importance of building more coal-fired power plants in order to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. BUT, the regulations still need to be followed. They shouldn't be weakened. By weakening the rules it will encourage these power plants and oil refineries to push the limits of the rules. What happens to the responsibility these companies have toward citizens? Does it simply disappear? We've seen this pattern play itself out locally with AVX corporation. If the rules are weakened and these players are allowed to pollute more, then where is the line drawn for other polluters?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
"The Automakers Crisis"
If you pick up any newspaper or go to any news website you will find news stories concerning the crisis facing the big three American automakers. They are on the verge of going bankrupt and now are looking for the government to bail them out much like Wall Street has been bailed out. At this point, no decision has been made regarding the automakers and opinions vary as to how to aid them, if at all. Some experts believe they should be allowed to fail, re-organize and learn from their mistakes. Others are of the belief that a bailout is necessary to prevent thousands of people from losing their jobs.
The situation is like a double-edged sword. If these corporations are bailed out with taxpayers' money, they will be less inclined to change procedures and will most likely fail again. If they are allowed to fail, there is a risk that they may not recover. However, it is more than likely that a judge would allow them to file for bankruptcy, settle debts, and reorganize. There is a risk here in that they could very well return to the policies that got them into trouble. What has to happen is that there has to be major compromises and sacrifices made both with union members and management. Automakers can simply no longer afford paying union members what they demand. If union members want a job, then they are going to have to sacrifice some of their luxuries. If they refuse to do that, automakers are going to be forced to relocate to right-to-work states.
This becomes a question of loyalty. Who owes who the most loyalty in this situation?
The situation is like a double-edged sword. If these corporations are bailed out with taxpayers' money, they will be less inclined to change procedures and will most likely fail again. If they are allowed to fail, there is a risk that they may not recover. However, it is more than likely that a judge would allow them to file for bankruptcy, settle debts, and reorganize. There is a risk here in that they could very well return to the policies that got them into trouble. What has to happen is that there has to be major compromises and sacrifices made both with union members and management. Automakers can simply no longer afford paying union members what they demand. If union members want a job, then they are going to have to sacrifice some of their luxuries. If they refuse to do that, automakers are going to be forced to relocate to right-to-work states.
This becomes a question of loyalty. Who owes who the most loyalty in this situation?
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
"Further Info on AVX"
I know I am writing a lot about AVX, but this company is really making a lot of ethical blunders. According to the Nov. 2 issue of the Sun News the partners of JDS Development are suing AVX for ruining their plans to build a 60-unit condominium complex near the AVX facility.
In court papers filed in Federal Court David and Steve Nance state that they had all permits and financing for the project needed to begin construction in Sept. 2007. When the groundwater test was done it showed contamination with TCE thousands of times greater than the federal safe standard set by the EPA. At this point, the bank yanked back their financing and the project was denied because of the contamination. The Nance's were forced to return deposits on pre-sales of the condo units and in turn had no money to pay engineering bills already encountered. The engineering firms have taken the Nance's to court and the property is in foreclosure. The Nance's cannot sell the property. It is worthless. This is an example of how the contamination has frozen real estate sales in the area. Believe it or not, AVX is still not taking responsibility and is blaming the former military base.
Once again AVX is giving us another example of why companies should actually internalize their externalities. It just seems to me that if they would just assume responsibility they would save time, money, and most of all, their image. This situation should be made into a 101 course on how to make sure that one's company is not around for any length of time. Hopefully, at some point, AVX will find their ethical compass and begin heading in the right direction. Here's a hint to them: Just turn around and start walking in the exact opposite direction that you came from.
In court papers filed in Federal Court David and Steve Nance state that they had all permits and financing for the project needed to begin construction in Sept. 2007. When the groundwater test was done it showed contamination with TCE thousands of times greater than the federal safe standard set by the EPA. At this point, the bank yanked back their financing and the project was denied because of the contamination. The Nance's were forced to return deposits on pre-sales of the condo units and in turn had no money to pay engineering bills already encountered. The engineering firms have taken the Nance's to court and the property is in foreclosure. The Nance's cannot sell the property. It is worthless. This is an example of how the contamination has frozen real estate sales in the area. Believe it or not, AVX is still not taking responsibility and is blaming the former military base.
Once again AVX is giving us another example of why companies should actually internalize their externalities. It just seems to me that if they would just assume responsibility they would save time, money, and most of all, their image. This situation should be made into a 101 course on how to make sure that one's company is not around for any length of time. Hopefully, at some point, AVX will find their ethical compass and begin heading in the right direction. Here's a hint to them: Just turn around and start walking in the exact opposite direction that you came from.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
"DHEC Just As Guilty As AVX"
In the October 26 issue of The Sun News, there is a very interesting article pertaining to AVX and the pollution problem and its relationship to S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). According to the article, DHEC has never required testing of pollution control equipment at AVX. DHEC has not tracked AVX pollution and is not certain how much hazardous air toxins are being emitted into the atmosphere. DHEC allows AVX to use the "honor system" when reporting facts and figures regarding pollution. Their reasoning is that "AVX would never falsify those figures and risk negative publicity."
This is incredibly naive. Expecting a company to follow the rules is no excuse to not have a method in effect to make sure that's what they are doing. It seems as though DHEC has forgotten their responsibilities to their other publics. Perhaps AVX is providing DHEC some sort of incentive to give them as much leeway as they have been....
This is incredibly naive. Expecting a company to follow the rules is no excuse to not have a method in effect to make sure that's what they are doing. It seems as though DHEC has forgotten their responsibilities to their other publics. Perhaps AVX is providing DHEC some sort of incentive to give them as much leeway as they have been....
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
"Local Steelworkers Reach Deal"
In the Wednesday, Oct. 22 edition of the Sun News there is an article about the union negotiations and new contract reached at the local Georgetown, SC steel mill owned by ArcelorMittal in Luxembourg. A new 4 year contract was approved which will help ease the financial burden of about 100 workers who were placed on a 3 week suspension due to a "global economic slowdown" resulting in a decrease in the demand for steel. As a result of the new contract, all 14,000 members of the United Steelworkers union will get a $6,000 bonus. This will certainly help those who were temporarily laid off in Georgetown. A strike was averted through negotiation and as a result workers receive a $1 hourly increase for the first year and 4 percent per year in each of the following 3 years. Health benefits and other benefits increased. Retiree benefits were cut by 35%. The contract also requires ArcelorMittal to make capital investments in its U.S. plants. ArcelorMittal is the world's largest steel producer and employs more than 320,000 people in over 60 countries. Eighteen thousand of those employees are in 17 U.S. locations.
This is an example of how union contract negotiations should take place. It appears as though both sides left the table happy. Had a strike occurred the company and the union would have been cast in a negative light resulting in negative consequences for both. A decline in employee moral was avoided and more importantly the agreement gives both the union and the company the benefit of a positive image to society.
This is an example of how union contract negotiations should take place. It appears as though both sides left the table happy. Had a strike occurred the company and the union would have been cast in a negative light resulting in negative consequences for both. A decline in employee moral was avoided and more importantly the agreement gives both the union and the company the benefit of a positive image to society.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
"AVX Shifting Blame"
Once again AVX is in the news. In the Oct. 14 issue of the Sun News there was an article pertaining to the on going controversy about AVX's responsibility in the pollution of aquifers surrounding its Myrtle Beach location. To this day, AVX has not admitted its role in the pollution problem and is still trying to diffuse responsibility. This time they claim that the former air force base holds some share of the blame and therefore, the U.S. government should foot the bill for clean up. They make this claim even though all evidence shows that the air force base had nothing at all to do with it. Homeowners in the area feel that AVX is showing no concern for them and the pollution to their groundwater at all. They are angry and rightfully so.
It seems to me that AVX is blatantly violating the social contract between business and its environment. Perhaps a look at the broad view of social responsibility would lead them to the conclusion that they need to internalize these externalities at any cost, if for no other reason than there is a moral obligation.
It seems to me that AVX is blatantly violating the social contract between business and its environment. Perhaps a look at the broad view of social responsibility would lead them to the conclusion that they need to internalize these externalities at any cost, if for no other reason than there is a moral obligation.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
"AIG's Blunder"
In the Wednesday, October 6 edition of the Sun News in the Money Section there was an article about the AIG executives responsible for the company's collapse. It turns out that they had been hiding losses and risks stemming from mortgage defaults. Big Surprise!
I fail to understand why a company that played Russian roulette with billions if not trillions of dollars should be given $85 billion. What puzzles me even more is why the U.S. government would assume responsibility and bear the weight of this problem. Where is AIG taking any responsibility? Nowhere that I can see.
This seems like a giant handout in its purest form - one whose bill, we the taxpayers, are paying. It is ironic that we are paying to bailout a company and its executives who were part of the chain that shackled our economy.
Why didn't anyone with any authority at AIG come forward before it was too late?
I fail to understand why a company that played Russian roulette with billions if not trillions of dollars should be given $85 billion. What puzzles me even more is why the U.S. government would assume responsibility and bear the weight of this problem. Where is AIG taking any responsibility? Nowhere that I can see.
This seems like a giant handout in its purest form - one whose bill, we the taxpayers, are paying. It is ironic that we are paying to bailout a company and its executives who were part of the chain that shackled our economy.
Why didn't anyone with any authority at AIG come forward before it was too late?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
"The Wonderful Microsoft"
Early this morning I tried to download Professor Wittkower's "schedule update" from Blackboard. It was in Word 2007. I, probably like most of you, still use Word 2003. We all know that Word 2003 can't open Word 2007 documents. I don't know about you, but I can't afford over $400 for this new program. This leads me to my concern for this week.
Is this price justifiable? There seems to be a lack of concern for the consumer coupled with the primary concern of bolstering the bottom line. I foresee two things happening and possibly both can happen. First, consumers will not buy Microsoft products any more and there will be enormous numbers of people switching to another company such as Linux. Second, the government will once again have to step in and crack down on Microsoft. Either way, Microsoft may be increasing its bottom line in the short run, but in the long run I don't see how this can pay off. Not to mention the whole idea of charging someone $400+ for a software program raises many moral and ethical suspicions.
Is this price justifiable? There seems to be a lack of concern for the consumer coupled with the primary concern of bolstering the bottom line. I foresee two things happening and possibly both can happen. First, consumers will not buy Microsoft products any more and there will be enormous numbers of people switching to another company such as Linux. Second, the government will once again have to step in and crack down on Microsoft. Either way, Microsoft may be increasing its bottom line in the short run, but in the long run I don't see how this can pay off. Not to mention the whole idea of charging someone $400+ for a software program raises many moral and ethical suspicions.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
"Government Bailout Plan"
By now we are all familiar with the government's bailout plan for Wall Street. It's been headlined in newspapers, news broadcasts, and on the Internet for the last week.
Now the question has come up about whether this bailout plan is capitalistic or socialistic. We must remember in this debate that we don't have a purely capitalist economy. It is not laissez-faire. It simply can't be due to the size of the corporations we have - sizes that couldn't have possibly been foreseen by Adam Smith. But I think that this debate is pointless. There are reasonable arguments on both sides but, we need to worry about whether or not the bailout will work and not what theory it is based on. If the bailout plan were to work and we chose not to use it simply because it might perhaps be on the socialist side, then we would deserve whatever ramifications would follow. With the basics that I have learned about both capitalism and socialism, it seems that at times one must be used to correct the other's flaws. We have to get over ourselves and be able to compromise. We can label a bailout socialist, communist, or whatever else comes to mind, but a one time deal does not make us neo-Bolsheviks.
Whatever happens we must learn from the mistakes that were made this time and never allow this to happen again.
Now the question has come up about whether this bailout plan is capitalistic or socialistic. We must remember in this debate that we don't have a purely capitalist economy. It is not laissez-faire. It simply can't be due to the size of the corporations we have - sizes that couldn't have possibly been foreseen by Adam Smith. But I think that this debate is pointless. There are reasonable arguments on both sides but, we need to worry about whether or not the bailout will work and not what theory it is based on. If the bailout plan were to work and we chose not to use it simply because it might perhaps be on the socialist side, then we would deserve whatever ramifications would follow. With the basics that I have learned about both capitalism and socialism, it seems that at times one must be used to correct the other's flaws. We have to get over ourselves and be able to compromise. We can label a bailout socialist, communist, or whatever else comes to mind, but a one time deal does not make us neo-Bolsheviks.
Whatever happens we must learn from the mistakes that were made this time and never allow this to happen again.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
"A.I.G. Bailout"
By now everyone is aware of insurance giant A.I.G imploding and requiring a Federal bailout of $85 billion. Folks, this is our money!
A.I.G. secures home mortgages based on the value of the home at the time of purchase. We all know that home values had been highly over inflated and the bubble has burst. As home values started to decline A.I.G. was forced to reduce the values of securities on the books. In other words, if 3 years ago the value of the securities was listed at $125 billion, today they are probably worth only $40 billion.
What A.I.G. did was make their stock prices look good trying to attract investors in order to bail themselves out of the predicament. This plan simply backfired.
Let's be honest. A.I.G. had to have known a long time ago that this problem was going to show its face. They also had to have known the risk involved in purposefully inflating their stock prices. Perhaps they figured if they couldn't bail themselves out, "Oh, well. The Feds will just come and save us anyway." The problem is their plan did fail. Today the Dow Jones Industrial fell another 300 points well below 11,000 - the lowest it's been since 9/11. Thanks to companies like A.I.G. people involved in the stock market are losing tens of thousands of dollars every day. People who were depending on their investments to fund their retirement are now forced to go back to work.
I've always had a strong faith in the American economy to be able to pull itself out of a hole. However, if these poor decisions keep happening whether by A.I.G. or any other multi-billion dollar organizations, the worst is still yet to come. I really hope that the other executives out there are watching and start to take into consideration the futures of the hundreds of millions of Americans dependant on the economy, rather than just their bottom lines.
A.I.G. secures home mortgages based on the value of the home at the time of purchase. We all know that home values had been highly over inflated and the bubble has burst. As home values started to decline A.I.G. was forced to reduce the values of securities on the books. In other words, if 3 years ago the value of the securities was listed at $125 billion, today they are probably worth only $40 billion.
What A.I.G. did was make their stock prices look good trying to attract investors in order to bail themselves out of the predicament. This plan simply backfired.
Let's be honest. A.I.G. had to have known a long time ago that this problem was going to show its face. They also had to have known the risk involved in purposefully inflating their stock prices. Perhaps they figured if they couldn't bail themselves out, "Oh, well. The Feds will just come and save us anyway." The problem is their plan did fail. Today the Dow Jones Industrial fell another 300 points well below 11,000 - the lowest it's been since 9/11. Thanks to companies like A.I.G. people involved in the stock market are losing tens of thousands of dollars every day. People who were depending on their investments to fund their retirement are now forced to go back to work.
I've always had a strong faith in the American economy to be able to pull itself out of a hole. However, if these poor decisions keep happening whether by A.I.G. or any other multi-billion dollar organizations, the worst is still yet to come. I really hope that the other executives out there are watching and start to take into consideration the futures of the hundreds of millions of Americans dependant on the economy, rather than just their bottom lines.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
"Ethics of Inheritance"
Inheritance is a hotly debated topic as we have obviously planned to discuss tomorrow in class. I found some information regarding Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Both men feel that it would do their children more harm than good to leave them an overly generous inheritance. Both men feel their kids should have to earn what their parents have.
Bill Gates is leaving each of his children $10 million which is a tiny fraction of his multi-billion dollar worth. The rest is going to various charities. Warren Buffett intends to leave most of his worth to charity.
Let's put ourselves behind Rawls' veil of ignorance. If we place ourselves in the original position what principles can we say are truly justified regarding inheritance? Only these principals can give answers to questions such as:
Bill Gates is leaving each of his children $10 million which is a tiny fraction of his multi-billion dollar worth. The rest is going to various charities. Warren Buffett intends to leave most of his worth to charity.
Let's put ourselves behind Rawls' veil of ignorance. If we place ourselves in the original position what principles can we say are truly justified regarding inheritance? Only these principals can give answers to questions such as:
- If one child is better at managing money than another do you leave both the same amount of money?
- If one child is a waitress and another a doctor do you leave both the same amount of money?
- Should a wealthy person be required to leave a certain amount of money to charity?
How would Libertarians or Utilitarians answer any of these questions?
A key point to remember here is one thing we learned in class yesterday - fair and equal are not the same thing.
To reference this article go to www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/colyrmn/yrmn081.htm
Thanks guys! I'll see you tomorrow.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
"AVX Follow-Up"
AVX corporation has recently withdrawn its permit request to release the toxin toluene into the air. They have given no reason for this permit withdrawal. However, they have been under pressure from officials of the City of Myrtle Beach and from the residents who live near the factory regarding their release of toxins in the air and into the ground.
This permit withdrawal has not been enough for the officials of Myrtle Beach. As I write, they are considering the pros and cons of even having AVX in Myrtle Beach. They are weighing the benefit of having AVX and the job opportunities they provide along with the taxes they pay against the well-being and health of the residents near the factory and also the possible effect on tourism. They are considering enacting legislation regarding pollutants that would essentially force AVX out of Myrtle Beach.
This is a struggle between two egoist viewpoints. On AVX's side their bottom line is important and to save their public image they withdrew the request. On Myrtle Beach's side it is a stuggle between the economic benefit of having them located in the city and the protection of the citizens.
An interesting point to ponder is - has AVX used the permit withdrawal as a smokescreen to go ahead and release these toxins anyway? Unethical? Yes. Possible? Yes.
These articles can be found in the Sun News Aug. 30 and Aug. 31 editions. They can also be found at www.myrtlebeachonline.com
This permit withdrawal has not been enough for the officials of Myrtle Beach. As I write, they are considering the pros and cons of even having AVX in Myrtle Beach. They are weighing the benefit of having AVX and the job opportunities they provide along with the taxes they pay against the well-being and health of the residents near the factory and also the possible effect on tourism. They are considering enacting legislation regarding pollutants that would essentially force AVX out of Myrtle Beach.
This is a struggle between two egoist viewpoints. On AVX's side their bottom line is important and to save their public image they withdrew the request. On Myrtle Beach's side it is a stuggle between the economic benefit of having them located in the city and the protection of the citizens.
An interesting point to ponder is - has AVX used the permit withdrawal as a smokescreen to go ahead and release these toxins anyway? Unethical? Yes. Possible? Yes.
These articles can be found in the Sun News Aug. 30 and Aug. 31 editions. They can also be found at www.myrtlebeachonline.com
Monday, September 1, 2008
Senator Larry Craig and his dirty bathroom secrets!!
Do you all remember last year when Senator Larry Craig was arrested by an undercover cop in a Minneapolis airport for soliciting sex in the men’s bathroom? There are so many ethical issues that go along with this case that I don’t know where to begin. First of all, when the officer asked for Craig’s driver’s license, he flashed his business card and said “What do you think about that?” The officer responded by putting the card back on the table and repeating his request to see Craig’s driver’s license. Craig was clearly trying to use his position to get out of the situation. Secondly, he pleaded guilty (in writing) and paid the fine associated with the charge. The only reason he “supposedly” did this was because he claims he thought by pleading guilty his case would not become public and he could just move on with his life. But, if he was innocent, why would he knowingly misrepresent that fact by pleading guilty? This goes against everything that our constitution stands for! Then, after pleading guilty, he tried to withdraw his guilty plea (which was denied) and has racked up attorney fees of over $200,000, of which you guessed it, he has paid for with campaign funds (not his personal funds). Anyways….I am going to finish blogging for now, but stay tuned because I am definitely going to follow this story!
To read related articles click on the following link:
Senate panel to Sen. Craig: You discredited the chamber - CNN.com
To read related articles click on the following link:
Senate panel to Sen. Craig: You discredited the chamber - CNN.com
Friday, August 29, 2008
Hey
Hey everyone! This is my first trial at blogging, so bear with me and my comments. Hope you are all having a good weekend!
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
AVX Corporation
Hey guys, have you been following the news about AVX corporation of Myrtle Beach in the Sun News? For decades AVX has emitted toxic fumes and discharged tainted water that seeps into the ocean and nearby wells, polluting them. Now, AVX has applied to DHEC for permission to emit even more toxic fumes into the air, specifically toluene vapors. The EPA has not yet determined what amount, if any, is safe for inhalation. It is known that toluene is harmful to the brain and central nervous system.
It's a matter of how well they score on the "3 C's" in chapter 1 - compliance, contribution, and consequences. Obviously, when rating AVX in relation to the community the score will be very low. While this may relate to a better looking bottom line, how is it ethical for our very own flaghip corporation to use and abuse our environment for the sake of only their desires?
To read related articles you can go to myrtlebeachonline.com and search for AVX.
-Daniel
It's a matter of how well they score on the "3 C's" in chapter 1 - compliance, contribution, and consequences. Obviously, when rating AVX in relation to the community the score will be very low. While this may relate to a better looking bottom line, how is it ethical for our very own flaghip corporation to use and abuse our environment for the sake of only their desires?
To read related articles you can go to myrtlebeachonline.com and search for AVX.
-Daniel
Thursday, August 21, 2008
"Welcome"
Hi Team!!! I finally Gottteerrrr Done, lol!!! But seriously I look forward to working with you all this semester and with a "group effort" I'm sure everthing will go wonderful!!! See ya soon! =-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)