Forum Post: End "Limited Liability" along with corporate personhood?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 16, 2011, 4:18 p.m. EST by stray
(219)
from Philadelphia, PA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"Limited liability" in essence means shareholders of a corporation are only liable for the money they put in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability
Doing so would change the market completely, but then would do away with the concept of socializing losses. Discuss.
Limited Liability was established in England about 1850. The US followed a few years later. Once their lack of responsibility for the harm they do to the community was in place, their right as a person under the 14th amendment was declared by the US Supreme Court in the mid 1880s. This evil is no new thing in America.
"In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Exactly why I'm suggesting this... well, that and reaching out to the Austrian school economists. You get free market dynamics AND accountability all throughout the system.
Excellent historical context, kaiser.
Great idea, OP.
Excellent bit of information! One I've been looking for years to fill. I knew about the 1886 case, but not it's precedent. Thanks!
Do you have opinions, feedback, info related to these pages on the nations history, article 5 etc?
http://algoxy.com/poly/emergency_powers_statutes.html http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html
"Some critics argue that limited liability favors creditors who are in the position to negotiate secured terms".....
Now, wouldnt that just be exactly what the Big Ten Banks are doing anyway? And, As Investment Banks are Not Regulated ( as yet!)... they are in the Cat Bird Seat .. of Inside Trading.
Limited liability was established for the Massachusettes Bay Company as the joint stock company to protect individuals who would no longer risk their fortunes to exploit the New World. A bad idea in the 1600s, and a bad idea now. I agree, end the corporate form and end limited liability.
The 1850s and 1886 actions undid responsibility and left them with protection. They now have all the money and power. How will they be regulated? How will they be forced to serve the community they gather wealth from?
You don't necessarily have to change limited liability. You just have to recognize that the grant of limited liability is a delegation of power and privilege by the public, and that the corporation is thereby fully regulatable by the public. Indeed, the public has an affirmative obligation to carefully oversee every entity to which it grants a corporate charter.
See Corporations and the Public Purpose: Restoring the Balance, available at: http://www.corporatepolicy.org/issues/corppurpose.pdf
That actually makes a lot of sense.
Limited liability protects investors in small corporations.
In a lot of cases smaller companies spread liability around, with cosigners and so on. However I'm still not sure what to do about smaller companies.
Small businesses create most new jobs, and they do that through investment dollars and vehicles like Limited Liability Companies. Your grand idea would severely reduce job creation.
Absolutely not. This is the worst idea so far that I have read online, and I am not trying to be mean. The limited liability concept does not remove liability to the entity. Limited liability means that you are not liable for the actions of the entity (and you probably are not if you are a shareholder in a corporation or a member of a company (LLC)).
That is kind of the point, shareholders SHOULD be liable.
why should shareholders be liable?
Why should they NOT be liable?
Limited liability is government intervention in the markets! Get rid of it!!!
facepalm What? Look up how many LLCs are really wealthy, high profit companies, to the number that are small businesses. I'd be interested to see if this holds up your assertion.
I'm talking about liability for publicly traded C corps, not LLCs per se. I'm not sure what to do about it from the small business side.
Ah, so you're not talking about LLCs, you're talking about C corps. Yeah, the problem with just saying, "let's get rid of X type" is that there are small business owners in most types, and most certainly in LLCs. I think looking more at the specific practices that are harmful would be more productive.
I can't reply directly to you, cmt, (thread limit reached) but maybe you'll see this anyway...
C level positions are part of a full corporation, not LLCs, as I understand it. I didn't say anything about shareholders, I was just suggesting we look at the specific problems, rather than using broad strokes and wiping out entire types of businesses. Kind of like saying, well, some kids die from anaphylactic shock eating peanuts, so let's get rid of nuts. Goofy analogy, I know, but this seems equally broad handed to me. Just my perspective.
I really hate it when people try to put words in my mouth, or twist what I've said into something entirely different. :( Unless maybe you were trying to post to somebody else... but I said absolutely nothing about punishing or acting otherwise towards shareholders.
I was not responding your post, but to someone else, who said that shareholders should be held liable. My point was that shareholders have little power.
Hope that's clearer.
Oh, heheh, geez, sorry about that! I guess that explains why it seemed like you were totally twisting my words - they weren't my words to begin with :} Thanks for clarifying.
CEO's and boards do the damage, and you want shareholders to be punished. This would make sense if shareholders actually had much power, which they rarely do.
They cannot nominate members of the board of directors. They cannot vote against any person running for the board. The current laws allow them to vote for, or to abstain. There are no "anti" votes.
There have been efforts to allow large shareholders to nominate people to corporate boards. The courts have shot this down recently. It's very frustrating.
Isn't that how all voting is though? I can't think of one voting system I've ever taken part in where you can vote against someone, as in your vote cancels out someone else's.
It's rigged by law. Corporate board elections are bizarre. A vote can be "for" or it can be "withheld" but it cannot be "against". If a bad board member votes for himself - one vote - he has won.
No matter how many shareholders are against him, they cannot cancel out his vote!
And the way board members are nominated is usually terrible as well. So the cronyism at the top of corporations is best described as incestuous.
No I understand how corporate board elections are run. I was looking at it in the larger context of "what is voting". And I do believe that not all board positions are up to vote at the same time. I would imagine of the other board members wanted to vote someone else in, they could just by ensuring two or more board members vote for someone else.
They could vote as you say on nominations, but once the person is on the ballot, their own vote is all it takes, technically. One vote is enough to win.
Now, there are more votes than one in reality, but the incorporation laws allow a minority to retain power, no matter how much the majority wants them out.
As for voting against them, the boards are usually very, very cosy. They rarely push someone out.
Pension funds have worked for years to try to open the system up, the the lobbyists are powerful. They finally got "Say on Pay" which is non-binding, but is a vote on the CEO's pay that shareholders can be use to embarrass the worst of them. Unfortunately, all the shares in mutual funds and 401k's are voted by the mutual fund companies, who want to keep execs and boards happy so they can do business with them.
Because the shareholders simply invested in the company. They did not make the decisions of the Board of Directors (corporation) or Board of Managers (company) in which liability arose.
The shareholders can control the corporation through electing board members and approving certain things as specified in the bylaws. Otherwise, they really have no control.
We cannot hold shareholders liable when they are not empowered to control the corporation.
Shareholders vote on the board, you know...
So then we should hold you personally liable for the people you elect into office then right. So if they commit fraud you are then financially liable to me if we didn’t vote the same way right?
If you disagree with who the other shareholders elect to the board you could still vote by selling your stock in the company...
They elect the Board.
So... they influence company direction with ZERO liability. How is that functional?
Most corps aren't structured as LLCs (those are small businesses generally). We need to take down the c-corps.
Voice your demands at the occupy resistance network and have people vote on them. http://www.occupyr.com/ is the place to do it.
Yes, thank you! LLCs are primarily small business, as I've seen and read. I'm no business guru, but I think this will be devastating to the small guys trying to get their own business off the ground.
yeah. the c-corps are the ones that are taxed as "entities" no different than people. c-corps are also generally used to make it easier for investors to buy stock in a company. just about every large company is a c-corp.
C-corps still have limited liability. They're people, remember?
I think the OP meant the actual business designation of LLC, as opposed to full corporations (not the abstract term of something that has a limitation on its liability of something unspecified, but funny). Full corporations are totally different beasts. Google "comparison of LLC to corporation".
Here's a description of them for tax breakdowns: http://taxes.about.com/od/taxplanning/a/incorporating_2.htm
It doesn't matter in the end. The corps are "above the law," being too big to fail. The whole system needs to end.
Just like the 1%/99% concept, the same exists in the business world. Small businesses, LLCs, etc, even mid sized businesses, which makes up (not in cash, but in total number/pop count) most of the business in existence, have strict laws, guidelines, regulations, and most of the time are sued up and down the street. The guys owning mega corps, with insured and installed board members, legal teams to keep complaints as far away from earshot as possible and tied up in court for years, those guys are the ones who have zero accountability in their mind and will do whatever they feel like as long as they have the backing (or non informed acquiescence) of shareholders, not the rest of the world. That's where you get your Monsantos, Cokes, BOA, Sachs, etc.
So you don't want any businesses? Or just don't want corporations, specifically? How about partnerships, non-profits, sole proprietorships? What's the line you're thinking about?
I mean, if you're saying no business at all, who produces stuff? Is this a back to barter and trade kind of thing, or a complete release of all productivity in general? Is a central government supposed to dictate jobs to individuals, as well as control distribution of resulting goods, to avoid any possible business like entity from forming and potentially encouraging greed?
I'm not saying "no bussinesses." I just mean that a simple law won't help when businesses can always go to the government and ask for a bailout.
Banks donate millions to politicians. Obama took several million. He won't just leave the banks hanging. The government is corrupt.
So you're just saying no bailouts, not 'end the system', then?
Corporate "personhood" yes; limited liability, no; not unless the goal is to do away with capitalism.
Limited liability does not mean losses most be socialized. Socialized losses are a product of "too big to fail" and undue corporate influence.
Hmm... I think it would make capitalism work far more as intended, I don't believe you can have a true "free market" WITH limited liability.
LLCs make sense for small corporations. You have to allow S-Corps to exist unfettered. They make most of the jobs.
I actually agree with this, however businesses that small need a cosigner anyway in many cases.
I am a dentist and my practice is a limited liability corporation. Without it the fees I charge for my services would be much, much, higher because my insurance premiums would go through the roof since I would need a larger policy. If the risk of any investment goes up, the corresponding returns also need to go up. That will all ultimately get passed to the consumer.
What you post is only true as the result of a scam between; insurance companies, courts, attorneys and the medical industry.------
If the medical industry provided for its own accountability ENOUGH, then no suits alleging malpractice would apply because actual malpractice/negligence would be more readily identified, THEN go to court if it was actually there.
To make big $ off of Americans, courts worked decisions in a way over years that attorneys use to prolong cases and make $, insurance companies accordingly raised rates.--
To deal with this problem requires Article V of the US constitution because the coruption goes so high.
Congress is very afraid of an Article V.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Congress acted preemptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention."
Our first right in our contract is Article V, the right to have congress convene delgates when 2/3 of the states have applied for an amendatory convention.
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Lots of facts here about Article V. http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html
To be fair, I'm talking more about public companies. Small businesses don't have the same benefits, ironically.
It is all the same though. Middle class people invest in those public companies. Should someone's personal assets, like their house, be at risk if they invest in a stock? That would cause the cost of capital to go way up since the risk would go up. If a company needs to pay more to get capital, it is going to pass it on to the consumer.
I'm personally approaching this from the viewpoint of shrinking supermegacorps and keeping companies smaller, focusing more on their specific market segments.
You know, that "free market" conservatives always talk about. Where many small competitors compete and keep prices down, and wages up.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpXbA6yZY-8
End corporate person-hood. Support the Human Worth Amendment. To learn more, please go to http://occupywallst.org/forum/human-worth-amendment/
In practice, speaking from someone who deals with LLC companies, sometimes I see a negative response to the term Limited Liability. (mostly because i think people think that means the company has, well, limited liability to the public if they screw up). I'd actually have to support LLC as a more transparent system with dealings to the public.
Say for instance, an investor and a group of people to do the work (who don't have capital themselves or they'd provide the money for the company themselves) form a LLC - if that LLC for some reason messes up and gets sued, it means within that founding group of people, the investor is liable for damages for the percentage he or she has in the company, which is going to be the most since they put in the capital. It protects the people who own small amounts of share and puts the brunt of overall liability in case of company screw up on the investor person.
In larger C corps, inc, etc, board member are not personally liable for anything in most cases (unless there is a civil suit against them) and there you have more of a culture of not caring of consequences as much. Most people involved in LLCs are VERY aware of how liable they are at any time and they would be less likely to do the things that larger corps do, since they are not as concerned on what it means to them personally.
LLCs may be more cavalier in their business dealing since they have to hustle a lot more than larger, insured, C corps, etc, but they are not the ones out there blatantly ripping anyone off as much as insured, insulated corps.
woah woah woah...
so let's say there is this earnest middle class man who sets up his own company, employs himself, and provides machining services for other manufacturing companies.
one day a storm rips through his small little office and destroys a million dollars worth of really expensive high tech replacement parts, for which he has accepted from a supplier on credit.
KABOOM. he's liable for the whole thing. the parts, the office, the building. can't declare bankruptcy, can't wind down the business, can't get a new job until he is discharged from the loan.
end your pathetic little life, you sorry luckless earnest middle income man!
Of course investors will balk. Limiting liability and therefore risk is at the very heart of investment. When we choose to invest, we have to be prepared to lose every single dollar we are investing. As an investor I will tell you this, if the rules suddenly change and the possibility of losing MORE than my investment becomes evident; there will be no more investment. Period. Screw the people that need my money to build their businesses and the employees they would have needed to run it. If my society does not see fit to protect me as an investor, I see no reason to invest.
At least you acknowledge society is doing you a favor.
No more the favor than I do by investing. The best environment for investing is one of quid pro quo.
I don't think much of society is thankful for the financial engineering "favor" you've granted us from derivatives.
Try again.
Somebody made money. That's all that counts. Would you say the same if I betted against derivatives? Those are the people who made money you know.
While this makes sense on the surface, the reality is that corporations never really take a hit...loses are passed on to the consumer, or absorbed by increasing profit by cutting jobs, pay, or benefits. Stocks might take a hit, but they eventually come back up, and a lower stock price means that major stockholders can acquire larger percentages.
The best way to start taking power away from corporations is by rewarding those that practice ethical business, consumer, environmental, and employee relations. This makes change over time and allows employees to move where the demand is. Watch for takeovers by non ethical companies, though. You can't get comfortable, but must stay vigilant about following the connections of the major stockholders, parent companies, and company leadership.
We also need to take business influence out of government, as has been discussed at length in the forum.
Finally, one of the most important ways of controlling corporate behavior is through oversight that works, rather than by individuals who play in the revolving door, or self regulation which does not work at all.
For example, a local power company was regularly allowing over limit emissions. I called to report to the state version of EPA that I was frequently seeing a line of brown smoke coming from the plant in the early hours of morning when I got off work. (yes, they were trying to hide this in the dark of night, but the wind did not always clear the telltale line by dawn) I learned they needed a report by someone to do a check with specific dates so they could check the monitoring reports from the companies own equipment.
These kind of demands not possible to implement in the existing legal framework as they are trumped by existing legal precedent. What is primarily needed is fundamental changes in the legal structure changes affecting the behavior of corporate entities. Otherwise no change will stick.
Here is one suggestion for a demand that could go a long way in cutting corporate political influence:
Demand:
Say Yes to “One person, one vote” and No to “One dollar one vote” political systems! Level the political playing field! Squeeze money out of undue political influence!
All persons, natural or corporate citizens of voting age should have the right for one political voice, but no person, natural or legal, should exercise excessive spending to unduly influence political or legal decisions!
Specifics of demand:
Only a natural person with voting right, a citizen, should hold political office. All persons, natural or legal (such as a citizen or a corporation) of age 18 years or older should have equal vote in political affairs.
No natural or legal person with voting right should be limited in its political speech, and in its right to vote, but all natural or legal persons should be limited in their financial contribution to holders or candidates of elected political or legal or law enforcement office.
Specifically:
Each politically active natural person, each citizen with voting rights, should personally represent his or her political interests without financial contribution to others or otherwise should be limited to make financial contributions to holders or candidates of elected political or legal law enforcement office or interest groups supporting holders or candidates of political or legal law enforcement office no more than 10% of the citizenry’s average yearly income. Any contribution beyond that should be made public and be taxed at the 500% rate and such taxes be payed by the individual into funds designated to alleviate outstanding public debt.
Each non-natural legal person with voting right should be required to designate a single natural person as its sole political representative for the representation of its political interests and any such political representative can contribute on its clients’ behalf no more than 10% of the citizenry’s average yearly income to holders or candidates of elected political or legal office or interest groups supporting holders or candidates of political or legal office. Any contribution beyond that should be made public and be taxed at the 500% rate and the tax be payed by the designated individual political representative into funds designated to alleviate outstanding public debt.
Any holders or candidates for elected political or legal or law enforcement office, or any legal persons declared as political interest groups supporting holders or candidates for elected political or legal or law enforcement office, could receive tax free unlimited fully disclosed monetary contributions observing the requirements above. Non-disclosed contributions should be returned to the donor. Violation of these rules should constitute the violation of public interest, should constitute a felony, resulting in criminal procedures against the natural person at fault or dissolution of the legal person at fault, and any funds given in violations of these requirements should be taxed at the 500% rate and the tax be payed by the person or its political representative into funds designated to alleviate outstanding public debt.
You assume that shareholders have power in a corporation. In reality, not much unless they have huge holdings.
Modern corporations are run mostly for the CEO, board of directors and top executives. Look up the research on this. The term used is the "agency problem". There is a lot written about it.
over regulation by the dim's created this mess. obama's failed policies have only escalated these financial problems.
By ending Limited Liability, you're punishing the shareholders for what the management do.
You might want to check out the "benefit corporation" idea, which some states are adopting or considering adopting. It broadens corporate responsibility to include the community, employees, environment, etc.
Short breakdown of the types of businesses (this link is from Washington), including LLC: http://bls.dor.wa.gov/ownershipstructures.aspx
LLC (from link above):
Limited Liability Company (LLC)
A Limited Liability Company (LLC) is formed by 1 or more individuals or entities through a special written agreement. The agreement details the organization of the LLC, including provisions for management, assignability of interests, and distribution of profits and losses. LLCs are permitted to engage in any lawful, for-profit business or activity other than banking or insurance. Filing with the Washington Secretary of State is required.
Corporation (from link above):
Corporation
A Corporation is a more complex business structure. A corporation has certain rights, privileges, and liabilities beyond those of an individual. Doing business as a corporation may yield tax or financial benefits, but these can be offset by other considerations, such as increased licensing fees or decreased personal control. Corporations may be formed for profit or nonprofit purposes. Filing with the Washington Secretary of State is required.
Sole Proprietorship (LLC of just one person, from link above):
Sole Proprietorship
A Sole Proprietorship is one individual or married couple in business alone. Sole proprietorships are the most common form of business structure. This type of business is simple to form and operate, and may enjoy greater flexibility of management, fewer legal controls, and fewer taxes. However, the business owner is personally liable for all debts incurred by the business.
Proof that most of you guys have absolutely no clue.
There is little if any "socialing loses" involved as a result of LLCs. The people with losses are those invested in the business and possibly some creditors of the business if it were to go bankrupt or otherwise not pay. Other than maybe in some very rare cases, which I can't even really think of a good example offhand, losses do not transfer to the government or 'society.'
I'm talking about C corps... sigh
Then you should be more specific... sigh
Limited liability isn't limited only to C corporations. There are a whole host of LL-type corporate structures.
Most corporate structures have limited liability.
Heh... excellent way to kill small business owners. Or at least scare the crap out of 9/10 of them into not starting their own ventures because they simply aren't rich enough to afford full liability for a potentially failing small business. :/ Many small businesses switch from LLC to a full Inc once they 'make it big' enough to do so, and once their infrastructure supports the increased needs of a full corp or inc, as I understand it. I could be wrong, but having done some research into it in considering my own small business, that's what I've gathered thus far.
Then, only the already rich would feel safe in operating new businesses. This would also really stymie the more innovative new businesses, because they're simply too risky for anyone but someone rich to chance. Suddenly we get a small number of wealthy business owners who monopolize all the startups that are truly innovative, and only a tiny cadre of small business owners who can possibly afford to risk their own business (and if it's a good idea, they better prepare for one of the weathy entrepreneurs to wipe them out via an SBU that steals the idea on birth, or a subversive campaign of legal and product attacks that eventually just outpaces the small guy).
If I hadn't posted this 2 hours ago what you say would still be true.------ http://occupywallst.org/forum/end-limited-liability-along-with-corporate-personh/#comment-117670
the same thing applies to all business and the public in general.
Eh, yeah, I saw your post earlier. Nice repost of it in the same thread, heh. So, which part of what I said specifically? I wasn't just talking about the liability of malpractice and injury claims... :)
So, what you're trying to say is if there are both changes to the way the liability of business owners works, as well as changes to insurance and other areas of liability that typically threaten the livelihood of small business owners (the most), then what I'm saying won't be true, is that right?
Yes, but occurs because of courts and the medical standards experts, in the case of medicine, are working together so well that bogus claims and the sharing of liability, indemnification etc. is equitably distributed for the majority of cases. This actually will improve medicine. Currently it seems controlled by corporate whimsy and occasional inspiration. The same aspect of courts can work through a department of consumer affairs that is functional, for some years they were quite good. So good they were putting corporations to task and making things easier and easier for consumers. With Regan it seemed to decay and corporate interests gained dominance. My point is that smaller buisness can benefit from reduced exposure to liability by working within tried and true standards. After proving out innovation, that too recieves recognition. From the original perspective, corporations are simply solid investment structures that secure agreements between investors in a constant changing and flexible environment of capitol aquisition to get business done. Nothing says they only exist for profit in the original ideal. Just like the ideal of capitalism is not about greed, its about being able to invest in doing things easily by having on hand a surplus. Greed was a standard applied later after it was seen how efficient things could be made and labor exploited. That was a human corruption, which has become a legal problem, an unconstitutional one.-
Otherwise I see your point of intimidation of start ups because of reduced incentive. That, is actually a painful pill. Some businesses probably will fade. Not many that are needs based. Any of those will convert to another form of service that creates the needed control/scale to reduce any chance of problems. The entire corporate concept will get worked. As long as it is not a quick change, it should only improve in the long run. Article V of the constitution is the way to do it and restructuring of corporate control is inevitable, but they will have a say through the people that own them and work in them as well as those impacted by them. It should work MUCH better than now, because its a runaway if we are compromising our air and water while corporate media won't properly represent the seriousness of it.
What do you mean by that?
I don't disagree that something needs to be done, but we just have to be careful about making assumptions, and blanket action that may have unintended consequences, that's all I'm saying. People are eager to fix things, and often when people jump to do so too passionately, they gloss over or simply overlook important factors in their desire to make things better, or their assumption that they know everything there is to know about the subject, when in truth they do not.
I mean that when human needs are involved a majority scrutinize the methods by which they are met. Corporations that do that, will see more public tolerance of the conditions they create.------
Consider, when all corporations loose their equal protection of law, individuals working for the corporations will sometimes be open liability that the public used to assign to the corporation. It is a the removal of blanket protection, but nothing else. Courts can consider public needs and apply a higher standard of proof showing fault because of the public interest. I agree, the knee-jerk reaction or "people jump to do so too passionately" has been there. But I think people are partially that way because they resent the corporations having equal rights so jump in retaliation.-
Courts are lazy and social cowards, that needs to change. They must be able to learn the difference in corporate intents.
Sorry, no reply option below. So, can you give a definite example of this, to illustrate?
Watch the videos linked from my profile so a complete understanding is gained. If you cannot come back and discuss it you will find that it is because of an illogical social fear. You will understand the courts failure then, but will find (probably), ultimately that such fear disables you from protecting the constitution or your future, just like the courts.
Hehehe, so you're saying if I don't agree with you after watching your videos that it's purely illogical and fear based? <grin> You don't sound like a cult leader at all <chuckle>
Hmmmm, if you cannot talk about the subject, social fears control you. That would be normal, but forget being effectin in politica against the nwo. Clearly, you are more comfortable helping them.
Clearly, you make no assumptions, heh. <sigh> At least you're afraid of the NWO concept. <bigger sigh> I'll just be over here, I suppose, waiting. Maybe you'll actually read what I posted, and not what you want to read.
I'm not kidding. The most important records that humanity can keep. There is no way you can understand what it means without watching the video "CIRCA". The knowledge cannot be found anywhere else, and much of what is communicated in the historical documentary is self verifying.
Post it here for everyone to see, please :)
(btw, you can quote with the indent using the right ankle bracket, in case you wanted to do that, like I did above. Found that on accident, though I'd share)
There are those here that work with the usurpers of the constitution, like the courts, and not enough experience is here to know the difference. This web forum cannot distinguish, nor is the inclination here to do so. The people are lazy too. Won't try to understand, "Let lawyers do it they say". Lawyers, courts, the infiltrators of this web forum, the movement, the infiltrators of the government, would benefit too much from that.-
There are videos linked from my profile that will provide a fuller understanding and the proof is scanned in them. The more open your mind is, the broader the implications are related to behaviors.
Mm, what are you founding that statement on? That seems a generalization. Remember that courts are supposed to remain as unbiased as possible, which often easily comes across as "cowardly" to those with a specific stake or interest in the outcome. Not to say that's not the case with some, maybe even many, but I think that's a large accusation without any info to back it up.
That said, I do agree that we have too many loopholes because we don't look closely enough at circumstance.
The link between church and state is not easy to see. When a court is confronted with proof of a violation of law that also deprives a plaintiff of equal protection of law, allowing a governmental entity to operate outside of law, and all of this relates to the most important records humanity can keep, THEN, they are cowardly traitors of society allowing an infiltration of the government.
e000 wrote: "Courts are lazy and social cowards"
Mm, what are you founding that statement on?END-----
Considerable experience that includes violations of all right and law costing thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives that no one knows about because of complicit media. PM me if you want details.
That would effectively eliminate Corporations and destroy the economy.
No, I don't think so, because after this, the courts will make sense.---
http://occupywallst.org/forum/end-limited-liability-along-with-corporate-personh/#comment-117670
I'm leaning towards "resurrect" the economy. Care to elaborate, or are you another one that can only speak in fearmongering?
This is logical because it already works to a degree. A series of transitions, the first removing the pressure from the economy by ending war, the second by conservation of petroleum, something we already have needed to do for a long time.-----
Unforutunately, before we are very effective at that, we need to learn the difference between wants and needs:) -
We need to share amongst ourselves to be certain that we are able to understand one another and secure our common information in a larger paradigm or set of truths. We have to learn to recognize speech vital for survival under these specific conditions, then collectively empower it through our social contract, which, thankfully is mutually consistent with the notion.
It's just obvious. Corporations are investment tools. People invest their savings in stock to put their money to work in the economy instead of letting it rot in a bank. The money goes to creating jobs which, if productive, go towards providing goods and services that improve quality of life of the customers of the corporations. In return, a dividend check arrives. This money they invest not as a full time job, so they do not have time to do due diligence on the corporations, but still they try to invest smartly. If the corporation does something bad, and is sued, or just goes under because it owes more than it can generate, they already lose everything they put in under today's system. If however they can be held liable they then could lose much more. Perhaps their homes, other assets, etc. No one would be able to risk that. People would stop investing. Stocks would collapse. Corporations would become pointless. Corporations would not be able to provide jobs or goods or services. The customers of corporations would not be able to enjoy the same quality of life because those goods or services would no longer be available. Is that specific enough? BTW- I don't think it is "fear-mongering" to point out the obvious downside of a proposed idea.
The issue of not learning about the corporation or its business is the problem. The constitution is not for protecting lazy, ignorant investors, and there are LOTS of them.-----
Otherwise I agree with the structure of impacts you describe. Consider some corporations produce items that ultimately are pointless, but another media corporation made such a thing desired. Consider, we are a dumbed down people that can't even meet our own needs for the most part. How weak, how unaccountable how dependent. I'm not supporting any part of that. I am for people learning how to invest in ways that donot create a danger or destroy valuable, irreplacable habitat
That was a really noble attempt to explain something that this guy is apparently just never going to understand. I made a couple of attempts of my own too. He thinks that he's an economics genius but he doesn't understand the function of investment in creating jobs, and just refuses to accept it.
Hmm... as far as negating corporations, that's partially what I'm going for. "Free market" principles and all that.
As long as there are customers, there will be demand, and by extension opportunity. I think it's asinine to believe corporations create jobs in a vacuum. I think its ridiculous that something like this would dissuade investors who HAVE done due dilligence, regardless of the increased risks. To be honest I think the removal of risk has led to a much more reckless environment, so... I respectfully disagree.
I have a lot of stocks and I would pull it all out. I have a job and no time to investigate companies well enough to feel safe. I believe most individual investors are like me. That would prevent me from being able to invest my money in companies at all. I couldn't even use a mutual fund to invest through because technically I would still be liable. I don't have enough to create my own company. I could not participate in the economy as an investor. How would that be a good thing? I cannot agree either on this one.
Your liability would be proportionate to how much stock you had, so keep that in mind.
Now that I think about it, I find it funny no one even asked me how to calculate the liability before freaking out. Goes to show how many people legitimately thought about it, before the rhetoric started.
The potential liability on a $1k investment is $1k if your liability is limited. If your idea were law, then the potential liability on a $1k investment would be my entire life savings. So I would not invest that $1k. I would buy gold or something with it, and that would move wealth out of the economy and into the mattresses of wealthy people, where the capital couldn't do any good and couldn't provide anybody with any jobs.
You have pretty much owned this guy and I am sure he still won't get it. But great job at trying. And thanks for the civility.
Eliminating limited liability would mean that if I were going to invest a million dollars in a startup company, that I could potentially lose more than my original million dollars. I could lose money, for getting involved. If that's how it worked, then I wouldn't invest that money. Which means that any jobs that the startup may have created with my money will not be created.
This is a really simple direct cause and effect that you don't have to be an economist to understand.
If that company is successful, however, you would give up the potential of turning that 1 million into 10 million?
I think that proves my idea will do wonders for the market... I thank you for reinforcing my original line of thought.
Of course investors will balk. Limiting liability and therefore risk is at the very heart of investment. When we choose to invest, we have to be prepared to lose every single dollar we are investing. As an investor I will tell you this, if the rules suddenly change and the possibility of losing MORE than my investment becomes evident; there will be no more investment. Period. Screw the people that need my money to build their businesses and the employees they would have needed to run it. If my society does not see fit to protect me as an investor, I see no reason to invest.
Many investors would balk, yes, because investing in a startup is already risky enough. You could lose your entire investment. Under your genius idea, an investor could also lose his life savings by investing in a startup that fails. So who would invest?
The part that you just don't seem to understand is that your idea for harming rich people will also harm poor people, because businesses create jobs, and investors create businesses. Any reduction in investment will result in a reduction in jobs. This is a big part of our current unemployment crisis.
"Harming rich people" lol.
If you can actually devise a response not entirely made up of talking points, I'll be around.
If you're dismissing the connection between investment as a "talking point" then that doesn't really bother me at all. You obviously have a lot to learn about economics and I'm not going to get you there.
Thankfully, people who DO understand the connection between investment and jobs are the ones writing the business legislation and that's why we have wonderful things like the Limited Liability Company, without which many small businesses would not be able to form new ventures that hire new employees.
You can throw $1 million, or $10 million, or $100 million into an industry without a market. You only "create jobs" for as long as you're willing to piss money away.
Is that the correlation between investment and jobs you're talking about? Why, exactly, do you think investors will "create jobs" by throwing away money? You have a sincerely flawed view of the market.
Are you trolling? It is certainly looking that way at this point.
You really need to take an economics class before you start coming up with economics proposals, if you want anybody to listen to you.
How are you going to pay for your first batch of widgets? How are you going to pay all of your employees who build the first batch of widgets? How are you going to pay the rent on the real estate that you're investing in making widgets, that you hope that people are going to buy? How are you going to buy the materials for your first batch of widgets?
INVESTMENT makes all of this stuff happen. INVESTMENT is what makes jobs possible. Entrepreneurs who have a vision for what consumers might buy, who convince investors to take a chance. If the widget really does sell, then everybody wins. Why would those investors take a chance if it might mean that they could lose their entire life savings?
My career is to create jobs. I've been relatively successful. At least one other person reading this has a job because of that. I do know a few things about this. Try to remember that as you have this conversation.
Wait, I thought "consumers" didn't matter? Stay consistent, buddy. You're contradicting your own rhetoric.
perfect for this poll https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&pli=1&formkey=dFlNNHJTRlZwMWs5ZjlhTWN0NlZReHc6MQ#gid=0
Who would invest under those conditions?
Who wouldn't invest, if there were gains to be made?
Have you ever invested?
Because the risk of loss is too great. You could have invested in Alta vista and lost you savings house 401k....what about DEC computer? Auburn motors? Peoples express
By the same token, what would have happened to those companies if investors were fully vetted in their long term health?
What would have happened to the jobs of the people who work at those companies if your idea had convinced them not to invest in the first place?
You're telling me investors would NEVER invest, no matter what the potential for profit? I don't believe that for a second.
No I'm not. I'm telling you that if you make investment more risky then there will be less of it, because investment is a risk calculation and you're short-sightedly messing with the factors in that calculation. If you reduce investment then you reduce job creation, because investment leads directly to job creation.
"Limited liability" since its inception ALREADY messed with the factors in that calculation. I'm talking about restoring them to true "free market" levels.
No investor gives people money for an idea thinking it will fail Why dont you give a buddy your cash to start a coffee shop First you need to have cash (get a job, spend less than you make) Then take your savings Give it to you buddy and be fully committed And if it faills You would be on the hook for all the unpaid bills (think about the lease payment for the coffee shop)
If you invest in a coffee shop with your buddies, you all stand to lose everything... so why shouldn't that accountability go up the chain?
I'm talking about equalizing risk throughout the market. You know, true "free market" principles.
Not sure I follow? You mean if you have saved $20k and 5 buddies each put up $10k for the coffee shop and it fails, you could lose your $10k you have left as well? What happens if youband your 4 buddies ask a rich person with $1mm in cash for $10k for the coffee shop, if he stands to lose his $1mm, do you think you will get any investors?
If there's a market for the coffee business, I don't see why not.
Expose anybody to potential total financial ruin for investing in any business? Do you have any idea how many jobs this would eliminate?
TechJunkie, your uses of cognitive distortions for your infiltration effort are soooooo obvious.
http://algoxy.com/poly/nwo_cognitive_distortions.html
http://algoxy.com/poly/nwo_cognitive_infiltration.html
Ty for pointing out the logical fallacy.
It is not a "logical fallacy" to point out that investment creates jobs, and if you make investment riskier then fewer jobs will be created.
Bingo. Without the infusion of investors who are willing to invest in your company, you can't hire people. Why is this so hard to get? It adds more capital to make expansion possible. This all just makes me shake my head.
The usenet was stolen from the public for a reason. Congress wanted to eliminate the "free speech" aspects that the usenet had. It was hosted on servers at universities. It was a global message board. How much of a threat would that have been had in been in place from 1995, when it was removed, to the post 9-11 psyops that geared up in 2003?
Congress is very afraid of an Article V.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Congress acted preemptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention."
Our first right in our contract is Article V, the right to have congress convene delgates when 2/3 of the states have applied for an amendatory convention.
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Lots of facts here about Article V. http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html
Why would it cost jobs? Well run, well researched companies would still be prime investment opportunities. The jobs you would mostly need to be worried about are overpaid executives hired to gut the company.
If you make investment riskier then there will be less investment, which means less jobs.
Investors don't create jobs, consumers do. Investors don't "create" anything if there's no perceived market for it. So... what changes, really?
Entrepreneurs create jobs, with the help of investors. Not all businesses depend on consumers, which is why most Wall Street firms don't really care about public opinion.
Directly or indirectly, you need consumers. Thinking otherwise is moronic. VC startup looking for a revenue stream based on advertising? You need consumers to advertise to. Building planes? You need consumers to fly on them. In the shipping business? Someone is buying what's on those pallets or in those boxes down the chain.
There is such a thing as a B2B that doesn't care about consumers, but it's hard to start one without investors. There are professional service industries with no consumers. You're trying to put the consumer in charge of everything and make investment irrelevant, but even in a consumer-oriented company, how are you going to build your first batch of widgets to sell to consumers, without investors?
You're building a strawman. I never said investment was irrelevant. What I've been saying investment will STILL happen with full liability.
The issues I'm talking about are 1. ACCOUNTABILITY 2. True free market principles. IMO you never get those without liability.
You aren't going to get much investing at ALL with full liability. Have you ever actually invested in anything related to the market? A mutual fund? An ETF? A straight stock? Maybe even just bought a CD or treasury bond?
Not to put words in Tech's mouth, but you shove full liability to all investors in a company, you MAKE investing irrelevant. And if I am a regular Joe, and I think Starbucks stock looks great today, and I can buy it today at a discount, should I have to accept full liability along with all the other investors if some yahoo spills hot coffee all over his lap tries to round up other yahoos to file a class action?
stray, allow me to interpret the cognitive distortion TJ attempts to use.
"Expose anybody to potential for investing in any business? Do you have any idea how many jobs this would eliminate?"
Expose anybody=over generalization/all or nothing thinking
This thread attempts to deal with this issue.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/strategy-nuetralize-expose-infiltratorsnon-chaos-f/ Strategy-Nuetralize, Expose, Infiltrators=Non Chaos-Forum-skype
total financial ruin=minimalization
Do you have any idea=inversed entitlement ,ei, like, "you we have a right to expect you to subscribe to our way of thinking, WTF is wrong with you? Attempt to get you responding to social fears.
eliminate?=generalization and minimalization/maximization
PS:If you see no "reply" link below this post, use the main comment, or even TJ's I'll be back to check it. It appears my work here is targeted for techno sabotage.
NO REPLY LINK on opposition http://i52.tinypic.com/2ho9svb.jpg http://i54.tinypic.com/2nsxcab.jpg CAB no reply http://i55.tinypic.com/sb4ia9.jpg http://i52.tinypic.com/2dj293l.jpg
Sorry I said "anybody" I should have said "any investor". And you really crack me up with the cognitive infiltration. Read the Isebyrt book that you're going around quoting and you might see why I think that you're such a hilarious self-parody.
Since you have established that you are working against Americans seeking to use the constitution to protect itself, I would have to conclude that Isebyrt was somehow used to deceptively make your position appear to have some veracity.-----
Therefore reading the book is a waste of time and my selectivity is justified in using truth the book does impart, to assist in the defense of the constitution. Do you mind?------
Why are you here?
OH MY GOD that was genius! That was an unbelievable rationalization for NOT reading something that you're afraid might conflict with your belief system. Just like Sarah Palin, pushing away a copy of, "The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers". YOU are why I'm here! You assume that because I don't agree with you, that I'm working against Americans seeking to use the constitution to protect itself. And therefore you don't need to read the book that you're quoting. Genius! THAT is why I'm here. The mark of an extremist is absolutism. To classify everybody as either with them or against them. It's just really funny to me because somebody else on a different web site recently tried to use Isebyrt's book as a reference for their own crackpot idea, a totally different idea of course. And yet again, they didn't bother to actually read the book first before referencing it. As it turns out, the book is completely crackpot. I mean, off-the-wall, fear-of-black-helicopters craziness. Getting inside the head of really extreme crackpots has been my hobby since that happened. This web site is a profoundly powerful crackpot magnet.
Okay, so you will not say why you are here and continue to try and impede a citizen attempting to use free speech in use to defend the constitution by rationally sharing the the use of Article V of the constitution.-----
Consider this readers: The infiltrator cannot admit logic no matter how accurately they are identified and exposed. And, the more accurately they are identified and exposed, the less likely they are to abandon the effort despite the increeasing exposure. The logic in this is IF they do not succeed with infiltration and overthrow of the constittution, and the identification and exposure is so thourough, that they will be exposed, THEN they must act as TechJunkie acts.
We need tort reform
No. Leave the 7th Amendment alone.
7th Amendment remains in tact. Torts reform is focused on removing the greed of trial lawyers from out legal system, and to protect the true victims. Trial Lawyers have by far the largest lobbyist influence in Washington. Tort reform is needed.
End corporate overregulaton and let them create jobs! Hope for change in 2012, vote republican.