there's a difference between "concern _for_ corporate profit" (the poor dears! they aren't making any profits!) and "concern _about_ the role of corporate profit (the competitive lust for profits drives business to push wages down and break union contracts, etc.) Only the latter has been expressed by the pen-l masses.
BTW, David earlier made the legally correct point that there's a difference between personal and corporate bankruptcy law. But remember that corporations are legally representatives of their owners (people). That means that corporate bankruptcy is indirectly a form of personal bankruptcy. Specifically, just as personal bankruptcy law gives partial protection to debtors from their creditors, corporate bankruptcy law (which gives partical protection to corporate debtors) protects the value of the stock and thus the corporate owners. On 9/21/05, David B. Shemano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James Devine writes: > > >> I am continually amazed how some people on this list are so apt to > >> attribute opinions to others without any evidence. I'd like to see > >> quotes from pen-l indicating concern for corporate profit. As far as I > >> can remember, the only concern has been for workers and customers, > >> i.e., for people, not corpos. > > This is bizarre. I thought the topic of discussion was why so many airlines > are in bankruptcy and are having so much difficulty making a profit, which in > turn was exercising a downward pressure on wages and benefits. I sensed a > concern that this was a bad thing, a critique of capitalism, etc. Was I > wrong? If I was wrong, what was the point of the discussion? > > David Shemano > -- Jim Devine "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
