SkyDekker 1,465 #76 July 29, 2009 QuoteBy damaging other (non-consenting) parties, for example with pollution? I think they should have to fix the damage. Without paying their employees? They should have to honor their contracts. I'd want the courts to enforce them. If you're a consenting party, it's ridiculous to claim that you were harmed unless there was real fraud involved. If we're not talking about fraud, then you should have done your due diligence, and you ought to face the consequences of your How would the court force a bankrupted company to do anything or to pay their employees? If you ave an answer for that, I think there are some former Enron workers who would like to speak with you. QuoteWithout delivering the product to their customers? That would be fraud, which I would have a problem with. Right, but you are against regulations, so how do you try and prevent the fraud? Once the fruad has taken place and the company has gone bankrupt, there isn't much that can be done. You do realize that the financial system only works when people have confidence in it working. If a bank can close or go bankrupt at any time, and people lose their deposits, the whole financial system would collapse. With a collapsed financial system, no lending would take place, no investing would take place etc etc. QuoteYes. I call bullshit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #77 July 29, 2009 Quote Right, but you are against regulations, so how do you try and prevent the fraud? Fraud is a crime. It's not a regulatory issue. If someone has defrauded people, you can go after them for recompense. Piercing the corporate veil is pretty easy in that kind of case, which means you just end up recovering from the underlying people, who committed the fraud (and made the gains from it). Quote You do realize that the financial system only works when people have confidence in it working. That's a pretty good argument for having a financial system that doesn't depend on consumer confidence, then, isn't it? Use a gold standard, for example, and only allow loans that are actual backed by hard (meaning metallic, in this example) currency. The susceptibility to consumer fear is a major flaw in our current financial system. It's fairly easy to design one where that's not an issue, but unfortunately there are too many people with a vested interest in the current one, and they've bought too many politicians (who, coincidentally, handed over billions of taxpayer dollars to them--have I mentioned that yet in this post? )-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #78 July 29, 2009 Quote The susceptibility to consumer fear is a major flaw in our current financial system. It's fairly easy to design one where that's not an issue, but unfortunately there are too many people with a vested interest in the current one, and they've bought too many politicians (who, coincidentally, handed over billions of taxpayer dollars to them--have I mentioned that yet in this post? ) I didn't realize that you were talking about simply your ideal system. I was referring to how to deal with the failures of the one we have now. I don't know that I, or my kids want are ready to allow the US system to collapse so we can be reborn from the ashes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #79 July 30, 2009 QuoteFraud is a crime. It's not a regulatory issue. If someone has defrauded people, you can go after them for recompense. Piercing the corporate veil is pretty easy in that kind of case, which means you just end up recovering from the underlying people, who committed the fraud (and made the gains from it). Then why is it that all these Enron people, and Madoff investors are so pissed off? I mean they are just going to recover their money from them directly. According to you it is pretty simple. QuoteThat's a pretty good argument for having a financial system that doesn't depend on consumer confidence, then, isn't it? Use a gold standard, for example, and only allow loans that are actual backed by hard (meaning metallic, in this example) currency. Gold Standard still depends on regulation. I thought you were against regulation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites