Ur banks are belong to us

[evilbau]

I follow what you are saying, but I don't think thats a very good example. The market has already created a solution for you. There are portfolio managers for every investment strategy you can think of, you don't have to hire any that engage in riskier behavior. And there are lots of fee based managers you can choose over percentage based ones. But I hear what you are saying.

I still would like to hear how you would want to remedy the situation. Remove liability protection for execs? Your gripe seems to be with big corporations but most are the same financial structure as many other small businesses. So again what would you change?

right right, aside from what you said, this also wouldn't really apply to older companies, since most of them have a trust. Yeah, and the problem actually is more dominant in smaller investment companies who just start a corp, run it down, and repeat. You know, but it's the same people. Anyway, solution?


"That irresponsibility could be oh so easily solved if corporations were not considered separate entity, but hold each individual involved, financially responsible.

It doesn't make any sense to view an aggregate of businessmen as a single fictional entity with rights, with said businessmen not entirely personally and financially responsible for said entity."

What about all the small businesses? Lets say you open a small shop and incorporate it. Any slip and fall or something similar would result in not only the failure of your business but personal bankruptcy too? Financially wiped out because you helped develop a new drug that resulted in lawsuits? You seem to want to differentiate between businessmen and other workers in a corp but you haven't.

[Beckwin]

I don't quite think it's that simple though. How do you protect the "good guys" who end up working for bad companies, or companies that are more the victim of unfortunate circumstances rather than greed-driven high risk taking?

On the one hand there probably needs to be some kind of greater accountability measures, but on the other I think you should be afforded some kind of separation between your personal life and the company you work for.

[guartz]

What about all the small businesses? Lets say you open a small shop and incorporate it. Any slip and fall or something similar would result in not only the failure of your business but personal bankruptcy too? Financially wiped out because you helped develop a new drug that resulted in lawsuits? You seem to want to differentiate between businessmen and other workers in a corp but you haven't.

you know, pure risks are insurable. Quite cheaply too.

[evilbau]

What about all the small businesses? Lets say you open a small shop and incorporate it. Any slip and fall or something similar would result in not only the failure of your business but personal bankruptcy too? Financially wiped out because you helped develop a new drug that resulted in lawsuits? You seem to want to differentiate between businessmen and other workers in a corp but you haven't.

you know, pure risks are insurable. Quite cheaply too.

I don't think you can insure a new drug or a car (model, not individual) or a cellphone technology. The liability could be in the billions.

[guartz]

What about all the small businesses? Lets say you open a small shop and incorporate it. Any slip and fall or something similar would result in not only the failure of your business but personal bankruptcy too? Financially wiped out because you helped develop a new drug that resulted in lawsuits? You seem to want to differentiate between businessmen and other workers in a corp but you haven't.

you know, pure risks are insurable. Quite cheaply too.

I don't think you can insure a new drug or a car (model, not individual) or a cellphone technology. The liability could be in the billions.

hmm. Well if a drug or a car, or a cellphone technology harms that many people, it really shouldn't be on the market? And that chemist or engineer should be doing what he's doing.

But it can be, if it's "as is", sort to speak. Then you purchase the product at your own risk, but I'd assume not too many people would buy it.

[evilbau]

Whether or not it is on the market is not the issue. Just look at car recalls and the lead toy fiasco: it happens. But you are saying individuals should be liable. So in the car example, the engineers, the factory workers, the execs (naturally) all have their private finances exposed simply for working on the car? Do the Marketing gurus get hit too for marketing on its safety when they have no engineering knowledge of its faults? If you want to change the liability protections of corporations you are gonna get stuff like that and more, after all those are just random examples I thought of off the top of my head.

I think there is more opportunity for injustice than what we currently have. Oh, and I'm definitely not saying things are perfect, I could go into tons of ways I think the system is jacked, but I don't think what you are saying is better.

[Beckwin]

I think we should be taking advantage of corporations being treated as separate entities- they aren't people and they aren't citizens; lay on the regulations (moreso than we already do). Conscious negligence or otherwise malicious intent on an individual level could be punished, but otherwise just keep the corporations highly restricted.

Well if a drug or a car, or a cellphone technology harms that many people, it really shouldn't be on the market? And that chemist or engineer should be doing what he's doing.

But it can be, if it's "as is", sort to speak. Then you purchase the product at your own risk, but I'd assume not too many people would buy it.

And who is there to verify that something is ready to sell? Fear of lawsuits would deter a lot of progress, I think.

[aurik]

Fear of lawsuits would deter a lot of progress, I think.

It already does, it's called "patent law"

[Beckwin]

Fear of lawsuits would deter a lot of progress, I think.

It already does, it's called "patent law"

I was talking about guartz insinuating that the chemist or engineer should bear responsibility if for some reason a harmful defect occurs or w/e, since we're on the subject of liability.

I suppose there's an obvious argument for patents limiting progress by confining certain strains of development to a seed patent holder, but are you going for something else with that reference? (just curious if I'm missing something here)

[evilbau]

probably just a joke haha :rocl:

[guartz]

Whether or not it is on the market is not the issue. Just look at car recalls and the lead toy fiasco: it happens. But you are saying individuals should be liable. So in the car example, the engineers, the factory workers, the execs (naturally) all have their private finances exposed simply for working on the car? Do the Marketing gurus get hit too for marketing on its safety when they have no engineering knowledge of its faults? If you want to change the liability protections of corporations you are gonna get stuff like that and more, after all those are just random examples I thought of off the top of my head.

I think there is more opportunity for injustice than what we currently have. Oh, and I'm definitely not saying things are perfect, I could go into tons of ways I think the system is jacked, but I don't think what you are saying is better.

well you know, liability means legally responsible. The people you mentioned, say like, engineers, accountants/marketers, etc. employed by a group of businessmen have contingency liability pending from case to case. In most cases not with 3rd party, but with said businessmen themselves. So I don't know exactly how it will work, but a simple work-around to avoid legal complications, is that it won't be too difficult to get a job with specifically stating that you not liable pending probable contingency thats not your fault entirely?

However, I'd also like to mention that, with examples you are giving, the present system would hold a corporations to what's called piercing the veil. Since these are no longer simple financial irresponsibilities, but more like negligence, criminal intent, etc.

But I can give you an example what it would look like in a company that's not a fictitious person, say you are an engineer, you are hire to design a model car by 10 people who equally own a factory, and their plan is to build 100,000 cars and sell them. In return, they will pay you 10% of their profits.

Let's say to help sell the car, they offer awesome warranty, like 150,000 miles 10 years.

Well, 7 years down the road, the cars start breaking down, people start calling in, where's my fking warranty? And let's say they go, oops, no money sorry. People can sue the financiers since to get their warranty/money. Engineers have no legal responsibility for that warranty.

But let's say it's a different scenario, and the car design turns out to be a death trap. It's not much different then how it works now. Say like, brakes fail after 40k miles. Hundreds of people die! Now the engineer is at fault. Now the process goes to, was it intentional/ was it negligence? etc.

The engineer can say, fuck that, my design wasn't bad! It's the people who put it together, they fucked up. If it's true, back to the factory owners. Etc.

But say it was a marketing error, and what they really meant was 50k miles warrant and the marketers fucked up. Well, they have to pay now.

Somebody could in fact thought up of a better way then what I presented here. Maybe Rothband did. I don't know for sure.

But it does promote extra caution and responsibility more then anything without replying on the government to come in and throw money at it.