There's a great article on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal about Kodak, it's history and it's failings. There's a big picture of a box of Tmax 400 on the front page. It's pretty wild to see.
There's a great article on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal about Kodak, it's history and it's failings. There's a big picture of a box of Tmax 400 on the front page. It's pretty wild to see.
I haven't been updating status every day, and started that thread because Kodak announced discontinuations, not as a direct result of the reportedly imminent bankruptcy. Even if Kodak survives and 8x10 320TXP special orders happen, the price, like the price of 8x10 TMX and TMY, will be substantially higher than what final "regular stock" inventory is going for. Also, don't look for Keith Canham to offer free shipping.
I'd wager that there are more than 250 people buying saddles in Arizona every year and far, far fewer buying 8x10 320TXP.
There are undoubtedly people shooting Kodak 8x10 LF film who don't frequent this forum, but probably not many.
Whether dead or not, 8x10 320TXP is special-order only when the last regular stock is emptied from the distribution pipeline. That's the point of the thread and updates. So anyone interested in stockpiling it is made aware. I've already got as much as I feel comfortable freezing and hope others do the same while there's still some left.
Sal, Your updates are much appreciated.
I have not bought as much of the TXP as i did the TMY just before that became special order but i agree that the price will go up considerably when what is left in the pipeline is gone. The price increased in the neighborhood of 50% if we take Badger Graphics prices as a reference.
The point of corporations is not to shield individuals from liability. That may be the reason why individuals choose to incorporate, but they soon find that maintaining that corporate veil requires quite as much effort as avoiding actions likely to put them at liability risk in the first place. (Edit: Ask Kenneth Lay.) The point of corporations is to create a legal entity apart from the individuals. That entity can benefit from its actions (by making profits and owning things), but it can also face the consequences of its mistakes (by being held liable). Corporations are just as likely to be held liable for its negligence as individuals are, and in many ways more likely because they are a deep pocket.
You are right that under the law, corporations and individuals alike are only held responsible for following the law. That's why it's the law. It is a logical fallacy, however, to claim that corporations are amoral because they have no moral obligation under the law, when the law is not the source of moral obligation. Corporations are subject to the same moral expectations as individuals. In fact, corporations that are large and visible are routinely held to higher expectations than individuals. That is not the same as saying legal action could enforce those expectations.
Corporations which have a brand to protect are often more vulnerable to the effects of negative public opinion than individuals are. The reason corporations engage in PR activities is to build a good-will account's positive balance. (Yes, there is a tax benefit, but in monetary terms, the tax benefit is less than the cost.) Is that selfish? Of course it is--I never said it wasn't. But most people who individually give money to charities also do it for the same selfish reasons: To bolster their image among their neighbors or peers, and to do so in a way that provides some tax benefit. Some people are genuinely charitable, but then so are many corporations. Many corporations exist for no other reason, yet they are still corporations.
I'm reacting to this because it's too easy to make the claim that corporations are inherently evil just because they exist, and we hear a lot of that these days. You did not say that, but it would be easy to draw that conclusion from what you did say. I disagree with that conclusion based on my experience as an officer of several corporations, private, public, profit-making, non-profit, and charitable. Corporations are constructs of humans and reflect human morals, both positive and negative.
Rick "not attributing Kodak's current troubles to moral lapses" Denney
Alas poor Kodak, I knew ye well
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
It's not liability due to negligence that corporations exist to shield individuals from. Corporations are a legal construct established so that they can take financial risks which, if losses occur as a result, shield the owners from financial responsibility for those losses. I've never mentioned negligence; it's a consideration you introduced. The point of corporations, stock or non-stock, privately or publicly held, is to shield their owners from financial liability in the absence of illegal behavior.
Which is why I noted earlier that non-profits are an outlier special case. This discussion began in response to Dominik's description of Cerberus Capital Management as amoral. I don't think Cerberus is a non-profit.
You're correct, I did not post that corporations are inherently evil. I don't think it's easy to draw the conclusion that they are from what I did write. My post was intended to ensure Dominik and other readers understand that amoral behavior is required of for-profit corporations like Cerberus.
Corporations are constructs of the law, which requires only compliance with the law.
You keep repeating that as if doing so will make it true. It is a benefit, but it is not THE point of corporations. The legal purpose of corporations is not specifically to shield individuals, but rather to create entities under the law. Even without shielding, if an individual wants to carry business cash and certain other business assets over from one year to the next, they need to be corporate entity. As a sole proprietor, leftover cash will be considered profit and they'll have to pay income tax on it.
But, as I said, maintaining the corporate veil is quite a lot of work. Many who form corporations owned by themselves and maybe their spouses as a dodge against liability end up still being held personally liable for simple losses (if creditors are stiffed and sue) because they did not act like a corporation and fulfill the responsibilities imposed on a corporation. That is separate from illegal actions, for which corporate officers will be held liable no matter what they do to maintain the corporate veil. Everything I've been taught about corporations suggests that, as a matter of principle, corporations cannot engage in criminal activities, only people can, and those individuals can never dispense that liability. Corporate liability is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. That's what Ken Lay found out. You are right that Perez will not have to write a personal check for Kodak's losses, though he can still be sued individually by shareholders if they believe he did not exercise due diligence in running the corporation (yes, I realize it's difficult). But that was not George Eastman's reason for forming the corporation in the first place. He formed the corporation because he wanted to build something bigger than what he, as one person, could build or maintain.
When you say that the only reason corporations exist is to shield their owners from liability, it sounds as though you are making the owners out to be scammers. That is, of course, occasionally true. But individual business owners can be scammers, too, and they are often somewhat harder to catch because they didn't have to register themselves with their state's corporate commission or secretary of state, and they didn't have to file corporate records with those offices with some evidence of their actual identity.
I know you were responding to someone else's comment, but your response was that corporations are amoral by nature, and that is just not so. Corporations are held to the same moral standards as individuals are, often greater standards because of their visibility. Just because courts don't enforce those standards doesn't mean they are not vulnerable when they don't attain them, or even that their officers get a free pass from that vulnerability when they get ousted and have to find another job.
Rick "who was never paid a nickel for the act of serving as a corporate officer even in a for-profit corporation" Denney
In that case, I'll stop there, I'm sure to everyone's relief. But with all the hyperbolic comments in this and the other Kodak threads describing corporate leaders as de facto crooks, it was worth responding to even if Sal didn't mean it that way.
Rick "who has raised purely moral issues in corporate board rooms on many occasions" Denney
Yes. It's frustrating that the Kodak we grew up with hasn't survived, but remodeling it to thrive in a changed world was never going to be easy. Honest failure to meet a very difficult - perhaps impossible - management challenge seems to me a much more likely explanation of Kodak's predicament than willful malfeasance.
Bookmarks