yes!! do you know what would happen to mc donalds profits if a batch of their beef was infected with a disease? even if just a thousand people got it, their stocks would drop like a rock.

Also if companies were amoral, they wouldn't care so much about PR. They wouldn't spend milliions trying to tell Americans how much they care about them. Believe me, to them it is all about the money.[/quote]i agree. and they wouldnt care if they way they made money was moral or immoral. thats why they are amoral. they dont have a moral or immoral goal. that makes them amoral.

Republicans had given half of delegates for these two states to the Republican candidates so the Democratic party will follow suit as punishment. According to Michigan vote count, Clinton has 55% of them .55 of 157 aprox= 86 delegates, and Obama will get the uncommitted total of 237,762 + 21,708 ku+2,363 grav.=261833 which includes every endorsement or what is left. or 44% of the 157=69. Half of these amounts yields Clinton 43 delegates and Obama 35 delegates. Florida has 211 delegates so Clinton gets 1/4 of 211 which is 53 delegates and so Obama gets his delegates plus Edwards which is 47% of 211 equals 99 delegates divided by 2 =49.5 or 50 delegates.

Clinton gets a total of 43 + 53=96 Obama gets 35 +50=85

A difference of 11 or at most delegates that will not help her.

Do it the regular way yields=

.55*211=116. and .33 of 211=70 diff of 47 delegates
.50 of 157= 79 and .40*157=63 diff of 16 del.
Clinton is screwed! 63 delegates
Florida, and Michigan can not help you!

The goal post is not 2209 what Clinton states, but it should be half the distance of 183 =92 or 2025 or 2026+92 =2118

It is not popular vote, but delegates.

If it does not play out close to the above way, the democratic party is screwed big time. Black will probably vote independent or Republican. After listening to so many white voters say that they will not vote for Obama because he is black, or because he is inexperience or whatever, a lot of blacks are hearing you loud and clear, and we are wishing that we could get our votes of 83% that put Clinton in the white house. The person, who gets the nomination, should be the person with the most delegates, period.

i agree. and they wouldnt care if they way they made money was moral or immoral. thats why they are amoral. they dont have a moral or immoral goal. that makes them amoral.[/quote]

Corporations have HUGE incentives to keep their products safe. People want safe products, and in today's world, any hint of an unsafe product would go around the world in an instant, and the company would suffer from loss of sales.

-

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

i agree. and they wouldnt care if they way they made money was moral or immoral. thats why they are amoral. they dont have a moral or immoral goal. that makes them amoral.[/quote]
Well since money is the root of all evil and all corporations care about is the money, I would say that makes them evil - immoral, morally wrong, bad or however you want to put it. So the fact they lack morality would make them immoral by default.

money is not the root of all evil. we dont know what the root of all evil is but i would guess tht its greed. however, that doesnt make a company any more evil than you. you work for your money so you can survive, just like a company works for its money so it can survive. the difference is that you may have a moral goal or an immoral goal. a company doesnt.

Corporations have HUGE incentives to keep their products safe. People want safe products, and in today's world, any hint of an unsafe product would go around the world in an instant, and the company would suffer from loss of sales.

-[/quote]
I agree fundamentaly, but in reality that does not happen in the long run. My point is that people should not be in the position to do their own research as to what products are safe for them. They shouldn't have to worry whether this company is looking to fraud them (see Bear Sterns and their ingenious sub prime mess). They shouldn't worry that a corporation is fixing the books to post false profits and hurt Americans financially (see Enron). The government should protect people from corporate predators. Both physically and financially. We are not in the position to oversee every American corporation. That's the government's job.

Now THAT, is a problem the government has to deal with.

Research on safe products would not be an issue in today's world as we have consumer organizations such as consumer reports and we have lightning fast informational exchange. There would be no companies with unsafe products because they would be immediately identified and everyone would know.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

I think that must be heard, if not, they will vote in the general election and get their revenge.