Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Anything goes. But keep it civil, please.

Moderator: lvergon

Jim Gilmore
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:25 am
Contact:

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Postby Jim Gilmore » Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:56 pm

True, But pointing out problems, Does not mean we have the answers.
Perhaps you have an answer ?

bpgui
Posts: 1173
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:33 pm
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Postby bpgui » Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:58 pm

I'm still not understanding your point, but what happened in the Enron scandal was certainly illegal. Many of the execs went to prison. That happens when they do something illegal, not something legal but immoral.

DoingHomework
Moderator
Posts: 5605
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:01 am
Contact:

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Postby DoingHomework » Sun Jun 26, 2011 7:39 pm

bpgui wrote:That happens when they do something illegal, not something legal but immoral.


Whose morality? Is it immoral to sell a product that kills people? Is it immoral to allow people to gamble? Is options trading gambling or is it an effective tool to facilitate market clearing and risk reduction? Is promoting ritualistic cannibalism or mutilation of infant boys immoral?

I just don't think you can appeal to morality to restrict what corporations or groups do. You've just got to enforce transparency and let their members/customers decide what they will tolerate.

bpgui
Posts: 1173
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:33 pm
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Postby bpgui » Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:30 am

DoingHomework wrote:
bpgui wrote:That happens when they do something illegal, not something legal but immoral.


Whose morality?

Jim Gilmore's morality. As I understood his post, he's claiming Enron was legal but immoral.
As to Enron what they did to my understanding also was not truly illegal....it was immoral though.

Savarel
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Postby Savarel » Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:32 am

DoingHomework wrote:I just don't think you can appeal to morality to restrict what corporations or groups do. You've just got to enforce transparency and let their members/customers decide what they will tolerate.


Except that Enron execs were convicted of fraud, ie lying about their actual actions via complicated accounting manuvers and illegal loans.

Basically, enron was being loaned money by citigroup, except they reported the loan as operating income. If they had been completely transparent with the public, no crime would have been committed.

DoingHomework
Moderator
Posts: 5605
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:01 am
Contact:

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Postby DoingHomework » Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:59 am

I'm not defending Enron!

But in general I think one major problem with regulating anything is that some people will use the rules as a roadmap to doing bad things. They will stay within the law/rules yet still find a way to rip people off. Much of what Enron did was legal (the off balance sheet stuff) yet was clearly designed to deceive. While their executives deserved the jail time they got, investors partly deserved what they got. It did not take much to figure out that it was a house of cards.

Tightwad
Posts: 1356
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:15 pm
Contact:

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Postby Tightwad » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:15 am

I guess Enron wasn't too big to fail.

Jim Gilmore
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:25 am
Contact:

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Postby Jim Gilmore » Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:20 pm

As I said Enron was not convicted for what they were doing...
As far as shutting down powerplants during peak need in Ca and buying electricity from their other out of state plants at much higher rates...they were found guilty and convicted on different things.
As far as making great rates from the public it was legal though immoral...

bpgui
Posts: 1173
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:33 pm
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Postby bpgui » Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:52 pm

And as DH asked, whose morality?

How do we set up a "moral" system when morality is defined differently person by person.

DoingHomework
Moderator
Posts: 5605
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:01 am
Contact:

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Postby DoingHomework » Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:40 pm

I think morality is too personal to apply to a whole society. I think telling someone else what to believe is inherently immoral. In my opinion one must think for themselves and exercise good judgement in order to be moral. That means anytime you do something just because someone else tells you it is the moral thing you are not being moral. You are just following someone else's bidding.

Wait, what was the question again? All this fuzzy, philosophical stuff is making my brain hurt.

NoBoB
Posts: 317
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:10 am
Contact:

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Postby NoBoB » Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:32 pm

bpgui wrote:So what happens when the company, no longer profitable due to being forced to hire workers that don't provide enough value to the company to offset their pay/benefits, goes out of business?

My guess is the taxpayers will write them a huge bailout check, their previous ownership will be wiped out, their creditors will receive pennies on the dollar, and their employee union will be given ownership of a big chunk of the reconstituted company.

Theoretically. :)

Jim Gilmore wrote:Good examples are the movie "Milago beanfield war"

You know that was a fictional story, right?

Neither of your examples (the movie nor Enron) qualifies as an "immoral but legal event".

Jim Gilmore wrote:Just because they have a plant that might need work to be done on it choosing when to do it so they could charge more was the issue at it's heart.(Enron)

You might want to read up a bit on what actually caused the failure of Enron.

Jim Gilmore wrote:Walking away from a home by going through foreclosure.(getting to live there free for several months) and not pay the mort. That you actually can afford to pay even though the market today has dropped and your home's value today is 1/4 mil less. Is also just a business decision. Thought they are really at heart decision's of one's moral value's.
The law's concerning defaulting on mortage's were never intended for that purpose.[/url].

If the laws weren't intended for that purpose, then that purpose would have been expressly prohibited in the mortgage contract.

As long as banks are too big to fail, and the taxpayers still backstop the mortgage industry, there's no motivation for the industry to concern themselves with that non-payment end result, so it will likely continue. Eventually, though, I suspect those backstops will come to an end. When they do, lenders will be much more careful about who they lend to, and will take far more steps to protect themselves when they do, which probably means it will be much more expensive to take on a mortgage when you do, and you'll probably be held accountable for not complying with the terms.

Tightwad
Posts: 1356
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:15 pm
Contact:

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Postby Tightwad » Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:23 am

NoBoB wrote:As long as banks are too big to fail, and the taxpayers still backstop the mortgage industry, there's no motivation for the industry to concern themselves with that non-payment end result, so it will likely continue. Eventually, though, I suspect those backstops will come to an end. When they do, lenders will be much more careful about who they lend to, and will take far more steps to protect themselves when they do, which probably means it will be much more expensive to take on a mortgage when you do, and you'll probably be held accountable for not complying with the terms.

And that is the way it should be.

bpgui
Posts: 1173
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:33 pm
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Postby bpgui » Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:06 am

Tightwad wrote:
NoBoB wrote:As long as banks are too big to fail, and the taxpayers still backstop the mortgage industry, there's no motivation for the industry to concern themselves with that non-payment end result, so it will likely continue. Eventually, though, I suspect those backstops will come to an end. When they do, lenders will be much more careful about who they lend to, and will take far more steps to protect themselves when they do, which probably means it will be much more expensive to take on a mortgage when you do, and you'll probably be held accountable for not complying with the terms.

And that is the way it should be.

+1 :)

DoingHomework
Moderator
Posts: 5605
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:01 am
Contact:

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Postby DoingHomework » Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:49 pm

Tightwad wrote:
NoBoB wrote:As long as banks are too big to fail, and the taxpayers still backstop the mortgage industry, there's no motivation for the industry to concern themselves with that non-payment end result, so it will likely continue. Eventually, though, I suspect those backstops will come to an end. When they do, lenders will be much more careful about who they lend to, and will take far more steps to protect themselves when they do, which probably means it will be much more expensive to take on a mortgage when you do, and you'll probably be held accountable for not complying with the terms.

And that is the way it should be.


-1. I want a handout. Everyone else gets one. Why should I be penalized for working hard, educating myself, and saving? Yep, let's just vote to give ourselves everything we want and let someone else pay. Wait, we've already done that.

bpgui
Posts: 1173
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:33 pm
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Postby bpgui » Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:29 pm

DoingHomework wrote:-1. I want a handout. Everyone else gets one. Why should I be penalized for working hard, educating myself, and saving? Yep, let's just vote to give ourselves everything we want and let someone else pay. Wait, we've already done that.
:)

Reminds me of this:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

I would source the quote, but my brief search indicated that the actual source is not certain.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users