Tarkak9

this may solve many problems....
still, probably more appropriate in the immigration and marriage based visa forums!!...Cha think?

chartreuse

Steerpike did, indeed, make an excellent point but, sadly, you've failed to successfully address it.

We already know how the regulation game is played, because we see it every day. It's a three step process:

1: Somebody gets outraged and regulation is proposed.
2: The big corporations in the industry under scrutiny publicly feign outrage while, at the same time, working behind the scenes to buy off regulators and shape the new regs.
3: New regulations are imposed which do naff all to address the perceived problem but do have the happy side effect of making it prohibitively expensive for anybody new to enter the market in competition with the corporations mentioned in 2.

Steerpike

Yeay - I'm not the only one!

That, and, legalize drugs (and therefore, open the door to taxing them).

A I

That step #2 sounds horribly pessimistic. Maybe Step 2.5, Jail and remove from office those accepting to be bought ? In Law and Regulation process, there are two steps, make the law and enforce the law...Seems that it's awfully hard to get both right. (IN part, I agree, due to your stated #2 - HUman beings are Altruistic and do what is best for them. Without accountability, the representatives don't see it in their best interest to regulate against their big contributors...I see that..). But do you stop trying ? I don't know what the option is.

I think Campaign reform is due...I like to be able to spend my money on whatever message I wanted to provide, because it is currently legal, and I have a very broad right to Free Speech. I think campaign reform starts with a Constitutional Amendment excluding ads naming or depicting a candidate for office within 6 months election (Or some better wording that includes some political advertising) so that the Campaign Finance reform regulation can survive challenges to it from the first amendment.

We have a Voluntary Government Finance Campaign for President to cap expenses in exchange for the money you'll spend. It's been alive for many years, but it is only Voluntary. Obama promised to take it during campaign but then changed his mind. He's the only candidate in recent history to not take the public funds when offered to him, because he knew he would be able to raise MUCH more.(I don't blame him. He did nothing illegal by opting out, and instead did what was in his best interest.)

The problem is that current laws favor the incumbents in the House and Senate...Same body that ought to write the law to fix the problem. Who the hell will write himself out of a job ?


Also, you say I failed to address his point (Which I interpret to say, who to jail when a collective decision by a large corporation causes a result that would cause a single person making the same decision to go to Jail ?)
I think I did, as best I could. You would address it the same as if it was a small group of people. Find the guilty ones and prosecute them. Same as a small group, if you can't get them convicted because their individual actions don't amount to the same crime, but their action as a whole does, then you must change the law if you want a different result. Maybe charge the group as a whole, and make each one serve part of the sentence. How else could you possibly get what you want ? (I ask because I honestly can't think of another way)

cindyabs

altruism is selflessness, not selfishness.

fatbrit

There are a few of us about.

A I

That's a glaring mistake I made, thank you for pointing it out. I should have stated NOT altruistic. or Selfish, as you pointed out.

cindyabs

No biggie, I was just having a problem trying to picture this one as a "for the greater good" scenario,

RoadWarriorFromLP

You miss the point of why corporations exist in the first place -- to limit liability. And no, nobody is going to be banning corporations anytime soon.

A I

I understand this point perfectly well.
Only the assets of the Corporation maybe used to pay it's debts. and not the other assets of investors. (For example, if you hold BP stock, the worst that will happen to you with the spill is that your stock becomes worthless and you loose your investment. Nobody will try to take your house away to pay for the spill clean up because of your BP stock)

Most Corporation earnings in the US, (excepting those from S-Corps -less than 20 investors and so choosing to be designated ) get taxed twice for this "benefit" of corporation limited liability. Once when the Corporation Earns the money, and again when it is distributed to the investors.


I'm not understanding where you think I'm missing the argument. Maybe I got lost somewhere in the last few pages.

The original argument I was addressing was the one when someone stated that a corporation was getting away with crimes because they were a corporation and not a person. (and my answer was Jail the guy that messed up. Th Guy that blew it is the criminal, not the corp.)

I guess my point was also that Limited Liability is not related to Criminal Activity, only to debts and promises made to others by the "corporation", as it related to recourse to the investors.

You could also say that an individual is by definition of "Limited Liability", since you can only get from the individual what he has. You can't go to his family or friends to extract what he might still owe you after you took it all from him. Only he can pay. and his liability is limited to his assets. He can claim Bankruptcy and even some of his assets will be unavailable to pay you.

Yes/ No ?
What am I missing ?

RoadWarriorFromLP

You're missing that mistakes and poor judgment aren't considered to be reasons to pierce the veil. Liability to individuals is limited to fraud and willful misinterpretation. Fraud is difficult to prove and almost impossible to establish, and it is next to impossible to pierce the veil.

If you want to change that, then you may as well eliminate corporations entirely, as this liability protection is their raison d'etre. We have corporations for a reason, namely to encourage creativity and risktaking, and that isn't going to change any time soon.

A I

As well as any criminal activity.

Is there a particular situation in which you currently wish someone could be prosecuted for which you think their derriere is saved because of a corporate veil ? Maybe that will help me fully grasp what you are thinking that I'm not getting.

Steerpike

It doesn't always 'limit' things though. In the case of the BP example, let's say we went after the individual responsible - let's say it's some lazy worker-bee who failed to follow some well-documented procedure. The most anyone would get out of pursuing the individual would be to throw this guy in jail, and take what meager assets he may have. That is not much of a deterrent, and has no compensatory element. Conversely, we go after BP the corporation and maybe sue them for negligence (or whatever the term is). I see billions of Dollars in penalties, restitution, etc coming out of this, and every oil-drilling corporation implementing far more safeguards in the future. I'm not always in favor of this but in this case, I think it would be highly appropriate.

sangiano

I like the way you think.

I agree with both points.

Firstly, if I choose to contribute to a particular political cause, then that's one thing.

I don't expect that the money I pay for my internet connection, for instance, be used to support parties, beliefs or Bills that I may not support or be in MY best interests. The telecoms and cable companies, as an example, have stifled competition for years on the back of their lobbying and donations.

It is not said that "America has the best politics money can buy" for nothing.

Many so called Religious Organizations might as well be Corporations in disguise, set up as money making machines.

The whole area needs a thorough overhaul.

A I

And whose fault is that ?

The companies will pay anybody off..That is expected and makes sense to me..in business to make money...invest in lobbying, get the regulation you want....

My question is Why are the lawmakers taking the money and putting corporate interest ahead of constituent interest !?

It seems to me it's the legislators that ought to be in trouble here.