Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The crimes of Volkswagen The crimes of Volkswagen

09-24-2015 , 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inso0
It's time to end the ridiculous practice of emissions testing. Either that, or apply the rules equally across all vehicles.

My gut reaction to this whole VW scandal is that I honestly don't care. I do not fault the company for bypassing the ludicrous standards in order to deliver a product their customers want.

Meanwhile, all across the internet today you'll have Hybrid drivers spouting off with their imagined moral superiority when in reality, the net carbon footprint of these turbodiesels is probably exactly the same once materials/manufacturing is taken into account.

There's a reason that Caterpillar got out of the engine manufacturing business.

The EPA needs a new hobby.
Cat basically outsourced one segment of their engine building but still make quite a few. I mean, they still own Perkins AFAIK.
09-24-2015 , 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tien
This is what disturbs me the most.

Nobody died with these emissions, meanwhile GM made decisions that led to people losing their lives, and will be punished less.

Not taking VW off the hook here, I'm wondering why GM isn't punished more.
I'm hoping the recent Salmonella trial is a signal that we're up for prosecuting company officials that make decisions they know will harm people. I'm not too hopeful but just a bit.
09-24-2015 , 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
Cat basically outsourced one segment of their engine building but still make quite a few. I mean, they still own Perkins AFAIK.
As always, there's little in that post that is actually based in reality.
09-24-2015 , 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
I was thinking of Arthur Anderson where partners lost their jobs and had to pay back 100,000 of thousands of dollars in pay after the collapse. Isn't "corporate personhood" the best case scenario for business associations facing these type problems?
Well, if your're an arthur andersen partner who wasn't cheating, presumably you'd want the actions imputed to individuals, not the company as a whole. For things like civil torts you obviously want the company responsible, but things start to get weird when corporations can be criminals and have quasi free speech rights. I'm not anti-corporate personhood. Some documentary I saw on it a few years ago and most lefty critics of corporate personhood are pretty lame. But its not clear how much further it needs to go than owning property (land, cars, trademarks), the ability to enter contracts, and to be responsible for the torts of its agents. It's a complex issue that isn't normally discussed in a complex way.

This history of corporations is pretty interesting. They're largely a 20th century invention. Before that business entities were set up via complex trusts and such, often with unintended consequences, to allow for limited liability.
09-24-2015 , 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
I'm hoping the recent Salmonella trial is a signal that we're up for prosecuting company officials that make decisions they know will harm people. I'm not too hopeful but just a bit.
The "All My Sons" law.
09-24-2015 , 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
Well, if your're an arthur andersen partner who wasn't cheating, presumably you'd want the actions imputed to individuals, not the company as a whole. For things like civil torts you obviously want the company responsible, but things start to get weird when corporations can be criminals and have quasi free speech rights. I'm not anti-corporate personhood. Some documentary I saw on it a few years ago and most lefty critics of corporate personhood are pretty lame. But its not clear how much further it needs to go than owning property (land, cars, trademarks), the ability to enter contracts, and to be responsible for the torts of its agents. It's a complex issue that isn't normally discussed in a complex way.

This history of corporations is pretty interesting. They're largely a 20th century invention. Before that business entities were set up via complex trusts and such, often with unintended consequences, to allow for limited liability.
The Corporation, probably.
09-24-2015 , 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tien
Nobody died with these emissions
This is basically false from an epidemiological perspective.
09-24-2015 , 03:40 PM
Transport trucks are homicidal maniacs in that case. Like that movie Duel.
09-24-2015 , 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
Well, if your're an arthur andersen partner who wasn't cheating, presumably you'd want the actions imputed to individuals, not the company as a whole. For things like civil torts you obviously want the company responsible, but things start to get weird when corporations can be criminals and have quasi free speech rights. I'm not anti-corporate personhood. Some documentary I saw on it a few years ago and most lefty critics of corporate personhood are pretty lame. But its not clear how much further it needs to go than owning property (land, cars, trademarks), the ability to enter contracts, and to be responsible for the torts of its agents. It's a complex issue that isn't normally discussed in a complex way.



This history of corporations is pretty interesting. They're largely a 20th century invention. Before that business entities were set up via complex trusts and such, often with unintended consequences, to allow for limited liability.

Junior partners at Anderson were required to invest in the partnership but often had to borrow from the company with their equity as collateral. The equity went to zero so they lost both their jobs and left with a payment plan. Better than being personally liable which was in question.
As a righty MBA is see the LLC as one of the great inventions of the Industrial Age right up there with the steam engine (not my original thought don't remember who this should be attributed too.) The ability to raise capital easily and to let the littler guy be part of the ownership class has made led towards less inequality rather than more. You don't have to be a Rockefeller or Mellon to get a piece of the pie.
09-24-2015 , 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenewsavman
A better question is how was this missed by the EPA for 7 years? I mean I understand how VW gamed the system, but the evidence was there that the performance wasn't the same on the road vs. lab tests which is what promoted the researchers/WVU to do the on the road test. Someone dropped the ball.

However, that pales in comparison the stupidity on VW's part. I mean seriously, who thought this was a good idea? The liability is HUGE and what is the real upside? Sure you sell marginally more cars b/c of better mileage/performance etc., but whoa....the downside is massive.

Supposedly the repairs will cost ~7 b, which I take to mean at least 10. Factor in lost sales, fines, etc. And this thing is going to get expensive. Quick. It seems that the EPA allows for fines of 37500 per instance, so like 18 billion in possible fines in the US alone.

Of course max fines will never happen because reasons; but you know don't rob a 7/11 b/c you are getting ****ed then. Sure the EPA, and by extension US govt dropped the ball on uncovering it, but an 18 billion dollar fine would be a sizable deterrent for future potential violators.
No it won't. Remember the exploding gas tanks with the early 1970's era Ford Pinto sub-compact cars? The appropriate thing to do with those cars would have been to recall them and install the $5.00 repair to each vehicle. What did Ford's management actually do? They had bean counters "run the numbers" and come up with a figure as to how much it would cost the company to repair the cars. Then they had their lawyers come up with an estimate/guesstimate as to how many product liability and wrongful death lawsuits were likely to be filed against them. Mr. Ford and Lee Iacocca decided that since the cost of the former outweighed the cost of the latter, they would not recall the Pintos and settle the [inevitable] lawsuits for as little as possible. In other words, based on nothing more than pure corporate greed, executives of the Ford Motor Company decided that some of their customers would die horrifying deaths - but that was OK with them.

Until top executives start going to jail for their knowing and willful crimes, these scandals and corporate malfeasance will continue.
09-24-2015 , 04:01 PM
3 million Ford Pintos built and a grand total of 27 fires caused by the fuel tank rupturing in an accident. A fuel tank design and placement just like my 65 Bonneville and many other cars of the era by all the big 3.

Not sure where the crime is in the case of the Pinto.
09-24-2015 , 04:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan C. Lawhon
Until top executives start going to jail for their knowing and willful crimes, these scandals and corporate malfeasance will continue.
Apparently, you didn't get the memo: http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsr...dividuals.aspx

"The Memo is termed "guidance" by the Department, but nevertheless appears to set out clear directives to federal prosecutors and, as a practical matter, adds several weapons to the arsenal DOJ can use to flush out and prosecute individual wrongdoers implicated in corporate misconduct. The Memo follows criticism the DOJ has received following the recent economic crisis that it was insufficiently aggressive in prosecuting malfeasance at financial institutions."

http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/769036/download
09-24-2015 , 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LASJayhawk
3 million Ford Pintos built and a grand total of 27 fires caused by the fuel tank rupturing in an accident. A fuel tank design and placement just like my 65 Bonneville and many other cars of the era by all the big 3.

Not sure where the crime is in the case of the Pinto.
I see your point Jayhawk. (Foolish me ...) It's a good thing you (or your wife or your child) weren't in one of the 27 Pintos that exploded. I suppose the experience of burning to death might have an impact on your thinking, but since you would be dead, who really cares?
09-24-2015 , 04:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan C. Lawhon
I see your point Jayhawk. (Foolish me ...) It's a good thing you (or your wife or your child) weren't in one of the 27 Pintos that exploded. I suppose the experience of burning to death might have an impact on your thinking, but since you would be dead, who really cares?
The proble lies in a 5500 lbs full size American car rear ending a 2700 lbs Pinto.

And they didn't "explode" the filler neck would break off and they would spill fuel and start a fire.
09-24-2015 , 04:25 PM
Alan's just glad you're alive.
09-24-2015 , 05:07 PM
The propane/ LNG vehicles have a worse track record than the Pinto, but the risk is apparently acceptable...
09-24-2015 , 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inso0
My gut reaction to this whole VW scandal is that I honestly don't care. I do not fault the company for bypassing the ludicrous standards in order to deliver a product their customers want.
Dumbest post ever. Even if you don't care about emission standards, you should care that the company was dumb enough to put the livelihood, wealth, etc. of so many stakeholders at grave risk.
09-24-2015 , 07:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
Cat basically outsourced one segment of their engine building but still make quite a few. I mean, they still own Perkins AFAIK.
They got out of a particular market segment when regulations became overly ridiculous. Competing wasn't worth the effort.

Outsourcing it is an excellent way to pass the buck and just say "welp, this is now your problem. Figure it out and we'll buy your finished product for our vehicles."
09-24-2015 , 07:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
so many stakeholders at grave risk.
I still blame the government for this.

VW makes an excellent product.
09-24-2015 , 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenewsavman
A better question is how was this missed by the EPA for 7 years? I mean I understand how VW gamed the system, but the evidence was there that the performance wasn't the same on the road vs. lab tests which is what promoted the researchers/WVU to do the on the road test. Someone dropped the ball.
This seems like a misunderstanding of what prompted the WVU study. They were hired by a European non-profit who expected the vehicles tested to be proof that US emissions standards worked and should be copied by Europe.
09-24-2015 , 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inso0
I still blame the government for this.

VW makes an excellent product.
A product whose performance they lied about when marketing and selling. Corporate fraud: "I blame the government."
09-24-2015 , 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sholar
A product whose performance they lied about when marketing and selling. Corporate fraud: "I blame the government."
Massive fail by a bloated government organization: "I blame capitalism."

Also your post is a little funny because you chose to use the word corporate.
09-24-2015 , 09:15 PM
I grew up in Los Angeles during a time when some days it literally hurt your lungs if you took a deep breath. Things are now orders of magnitude better. God bless the EPA and you should thank God you don't live in Bejing or Mexico City.
09-24-2015 , 10:00 PM
Germanys revenge for monsanto obv.
09-24-2015 , 10:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheel Gunner
I grew up in Los Angeles during a time when some days it literally hurt your lungs if you took a deep breath. Things are now orders of magnitude better. God bless the EPA and you should thank God you don't live in Bejing or Mexico City.
I remember driving around Van Nuys and lighting a cigarette thinking the air would be better if I burned it first...

      
m