[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Pairadocs

The "evils" of capitalism versus the alternative economies, is an age old debate. You are absolutely correct, most incidents boil down to "ethical" conduct. In this case you identified THE important element....to put it simply, the tax changes did NOT require ONLY reinvestment which, probably, many of us, including myself, was the point !

Look of the many coal mine disasters in our country, and the unethical acts of pharmaceutical manufacturers, auto manufactures, Three Mile Island nuclear tragedy, etc. etc. Then, take a look at the alternatives to a capitalist system, outcome of the many coal mine disasters in China, a communist country, or outcomes of such disasters in dictatorships ? I don't know about you, but I contemplate this frequently. Last night we watched a history of Stalin's reign, from his rise as a philosophical believer in Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, and others, a kind of UP with the oppressed, the workers, an equal share for ALL, to his ACTUAL actions and behaviors. Collective agriculture (government control of food and grain) resulted in millions and millions of deaths from starvation. In Venezuela, one of the most oil rich countries in the world, people resorted and eating domestic and zoo animals as a result of choosing an alternative to the greedy, evil, capitalist system. So, it's a complex choice we make, and it involves qualitative characteristic which can't be predicted. Choosing capitalism, provides a high standard of living, even for the lowest level of society, but the "trade off" is non government owned entities MUST also produce profits for those who invest in them (individuals like you and I, but also unions and organizations who rely on those investments to be able to pay pensions to their members). It all boils down to the ethical (some might term it "spiritual") base of the human beings involved (CEO's, CFO's, board members, share holders, etc.) A LOT to consider in these cases ! Southern is definitely responsible... drip drip drip... with each day that passes we find out more steps they "could" have taken. If this finally results in the demise of one of our major providers of movement of goods in this country, how will it effect each of us in our daily lives ? Remember the "too big to fail" concept (banks, auto makers, and so on) ? As we slowly move to more government control, will that finally guarantee that only highly ethical people will be in control ? ? We have MAJOR decisions ahead of us all !

If the upper levels of management were held criminally responsible for negligently not keeping their companies safe for others than perhaps things would be different.

If Norfolk Southern has to fork over say 5 billion dollars to fix what they created the board of directors and major stockholders would and should force a change in management.

I understand why corporations buy back stocks. They do it to make the remaining shares more valuable when internal investments do not look more promising.

Presumably the cash that comes back to stockholders are reinvested in other companies.

Understand the too big to fail concern but when bailouts occur the former management should be shown the door with a quick kick in the ____.