Bible Discussion: Moore On Moral Profits

Moore On Moral Profits
Posts: 7

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Arbusto Mosquito
2004-10-25 22:17:46 EST
Excerpt of Michael Moore's interview with the owner
of an American office supply company that outsources
to Thailand:

"How much is 'enough' ?"

"Enough what ?" he replies.

"How much is 'enough' profit ?"

He laughs and says, "There's no such thing as
'enough' !"

"So, General Motors made nearly $7 billion in profit last
year-- but they could make $7.1 billion by closing a factory
in Parma, Ohio and moving it to Mexico-- that woulc be okay ?"

"Not only okay," he responds, "it is their duty to close
that plant and make the extra $0.1 billion."

"Even if it destroys Parma, Ohio? Why can't $7 billion be
enough and spare the community ? Why ruin thousands of families
for the sake of $0.1 billion ? Do you think this is *moral* ?"

"Moral ?" he asks, as if this is the first time he's heard
that word since First Communion class. "This is not an issue
of morality. It is purely a matter of economics. A company
must be able to do whatever it wants to make a profit."
Then he leans over as if to make a revelation I've never
heard before.
"Profit you know, is supreme."

So here's what I don't understand: if profit is supreme,
why doesn't a company like General Motors sell crack ?"
Crack is a *very* profitable commodity. ...
____

Michael Moore
http://www.michael-moore.com

This is the same guy who saved a man's life by forcing an HMO
to pay for the man's pancreas transplant:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/17/60minutes/main563744.shtml


Jeffc
2004-10-26 15:02:50 EST

"Arbusto Mosquito" <BushLite@fatcat.gov> wrote in message
news:10nrcua9snhrf4c@corp.supernews.com...
> Then he leans over as if to make a revelation I've never
> heard before.
> "Profit you know, is supreme."
>
> So here's what I don't understand: if profit is supreme,
> why doesn't a company like General Motors sell crack ?"
> Crack is a *very* profitable commodity. ...

Because it's illegal.



Dore
2004-10-26 19:01:21 EST
"jeffc" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:417ea198_2@news1.prserv.net...


> Because it's illegal.

That didn't stop the CIA.

--
Dore

www.dorewilliamson.com


"jeffc" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:417ea198_2@news1.prserv.net...
>
> "Arbusto Mosquito" <BushLite@fatcat.gov> wrote in message
> news:10nrcua9snhrf4c@corp.supernews.com...
> > Then he leans over as if to make a revelation I've never
> > heard before.
> > "Profit you know, is supreme."
> >
> > So here's what I don't understand: if profit is supreme,
> > why doesn't a company like General Motors sell crack ?"
> > Crack is a *very* profitable commodity. ...
>
> Because it's illegal.
>
>



Jeffc
2004-10-27 10:58:19 EST

"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5HAfd.3399$Xq3.3322@trndny01...
> "jeffc" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:417ea198_2@news1.prserv.net...
>
>
> > Because it's illegal.
>
> That didn't stop the CIA.

The question was "Why doesn't GM do it?" The answer is that it's NOT
profitable, because it's illegal. Not because it's unethical, but because it's
illegal. The CIA is not beholden to stockholders to show a profit.



Dore
2004-10-27 19:53:43 EST
"jeffc" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:417fb9c2_2@news1.prserv.net...


>
> The question was "Why doesn't GM do it?" The answer is that it's NOT
> profitable, because it's illegal. Not because it's unethical, but because
it's
> illegal. The CIA is not beholden to stockholders to show a profit.

GM, like Halliburton don't have to worry about law, for they have buddies in
high places who are above the law. If you knew how many companies do illegal
things and do them all of the time, you would be shocked.

Fact is, when Clinton was governor of Arkansas, he helped the CIA to bring
crack and coke into the country. Large corporations that donate masses
amounts of money to politics, can do anything they please, whether illegal
or not, and do all of the time. Before 911, the amount of companies that did
insider trading to profit off of the airline stocks was appalling and no one
is investigating and bringing charges on them. Legality doesn't matter to
those with the BIG bucks.


--
Dore

www.dorewilliamson.com


"jeffc" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:417fb9c2_2@news1.prserv.net...
>
> "Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:5HAfd.3399$Xq3.3322@trndny01...
> > "jeffc" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:417ea198_2@news1.prserv.net...
> >
> >
> > > Because it's illegal.
> >
> > That didn't stop the CIA.
>
> The question was "Why doesn't GM do it?" The answer is that it's NOT
> profitable, because it's illegal. Not because it's unethical, but because
it's
> illegal. The CIA is not beholden to stockholders to show a profit.
>
>



Jeffc
2004-10-28 12:23:29 EST

"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:byWfd.1772$CX4.363@trndny06...
> "jeffc" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:417fb9c2_2@news1.prserv.net...
>
>
> >
> > The question was "Why doesn't GM do it?" The answer is that it's NOT
> > profitable, because it's illegal. Not because it's unethical, but because
> it's
> > illegal. The CIA is not beholden to stockholders to show a profit.
>
> GM, like Halliburton don't have to worry about law, for they have buddies in
> high places who are above the law. If you knew how many companies do illegal
> things and do them all of the time, you would be shocked.

Well, yes and no. Explain that to Enron. The point is, some companies might be
willing to take that risk, and some companies wouldn't. Something being illegal
is certainly a deterrent w.r.t. profits, even if some still try to get away with
it. So I agree with you that some companies get away with it, but I disagree
with you that they don't have to worry about it.



Dore
2004-10-29 19:04:18 EST
"jeffc" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:41811f3a_3@news1.prserv.net...
>

> Well, yes and no. Explain that to Enron. The point is, some companies
might be
> willing to take that risk, and some companies wouldn't. Something being
illegal
> is certainly a deterrent w.r.t. profits, even if some still try to get
away with
> it. So I agree with you that some companies get away with it, but I
disagree
> with you that they don't have to worry about it.
>
>
Enron's execs must have angered ore rebelled against the powers that be,
just as anyone who finds themselves under criminal public scrutiny. As long
as they pay and bow at the elite's feet, they can be as criminal as they
please without restraint. However, if they are not really outright criminal,
they ALL use loopholes in the law to do the IMMORAL acts for selfish gain
and profit.

--
Dore

www.dorewilliamson.com


"jeffc" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:41811f3a_3@news1.prserv.net...
>
> "Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:byWfd.1772$CX4.363@trndny06...
> > "jeffc" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:417fb9c2_2@news1.prserv.net...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The question was "Why doesn't GM do it?" The answer is that it's NOT
> > > profitable, because it's illegal. Not because it's unethical, but
because
> > it's
> > > illegal. The CIA is not beholden to stockholders to show a profit.
> >
> > GM, like Halliburton don't have to worry about law, for they have
buddies in
> > high places who are above the law. If you knew how many companies do
illegal
> > things and do them all of the time, you would be shocked.
>
> Well, yes and no. Explain that to Enron. The point is, some companies
might be
> willing to take that risk, and some companies wouldn't. Something being
illegal
> is certainly a deterrent w.r.t. profits, even if some still try to get
away with
> it. So I agree with you that some companies get away with it, but I
disagree
> with you that they don't have to worry about it.
>
>


Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron