Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Without the corporate liability shield, YOU could be held personally liable by dissatisfied customers at any job you choose... :thumbsdown:
or any company you own stock in.
First of all, I didn't advocate anything really. I asked questions. But for the sake of this thread I will argue for it.
There could be shares. Their terms would be dictated by contracts instead of the articles of incorporation or what not. I don't see why you couldn't sell these shares. The real change would be the lack of liability protection.
...in the US?
If you say so buddy...great argument. I have completely changed my mind now that some random internet poster said it was utter nonsense.
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Without the corporate liability shield, YOU could be held personally liable by dissatisfied customers at any job you choose... :thumbsdown:
Sounds like you want protection from the government. How about you let the markets do their thing? If you have a dissatisfied customer and their claim is right, you should be responsible to them. If you can't handle that, don't make the transaction with them.
"How about you let the markets do their thing? If you have a dissatisfied customer and their claim is right, you should be responsible to them. If you can't handle that, don't make the transaction with them."
Are you saying corporations are not responsible to dissatisfied customers?
Are you saying corporations are not responsible to dissatisfied customers?
Just as I thought. You have no real idea of how markets work, corporate law, limits of liability, why/when corporations were formed to begin with or, it appears, very little else about this subject. When confronted with questions and opposition to your statements this ignorance is your failing and you have to resort to asking questions you claimed to already know the answer to and of course sarcasm, the last resort of the ignorant when confronted with their own shortcomings.
You should probably ask someone to lock this thread and start it again when you're actually capable of having an intelligent discussion about the topic.
Infohawk personally hold several corporations.
Without them any of my tenants could make a frivolous lawsuit and take out every last one of my properties. In a world without without corporations there would probably be insurance against this. Of course it would be expensive and force me to raise rents even higher.
The other issue I would have would be in partnering with another person. If we purchased a property together I would have to worry about every business arrangment he had. Without corporations I'd be much less likely to enter a joint venture.
I'm not taking a stance right now, just giving you my situation, do with it as you will.
Without them any of my tenants could make a frivolous lawsuit and take out every last one of my properties. In a world without without corporations there would probably be insurance against this. Of course it would be expensive and force me to raise rents even higher.
The other issue I would have would be in partnering with another person. If we purchased a property together I would have to worry about every business arrangment he had. Without corporations I'd be much less likely to enter a joint venture.
I'm not taking a stance right now, just giving you my situation, do with it as you will
.You do realize that attacking me doesn't hurt my arguments right? You have to attack the arguments themselves.
No, what I realize is that your "arguments" aren't based in fact nor any kind of knowledge of the subject matter therefore they aren't relevant and a waste of bandwidth. The first two sentences in your OP are simply wrong and the rest is ignorant drivel. Defend your premise or be quiet.
Right! (And if there is a problem with frivolous lawsuits, I say that is with the courts, not with the existence or non-existence of corporations).
It does raise the question whether in a system like this you could limit your liability with the tenant directly via contract. I don't see why not. That would be the case in the libertarian / economic anarchist postiion right?
Sometimes that happens in a free market...
There wouldn't necessarily be a difference. You would just have to have your own partnership agreement through contract.
Infohawk: X?
sbacpo: X is wrong!
Infohawk: If X is wrong, please show why.
sbacpo: X is wrong! Defend X! You don't know anything!
(I probably won't respond to your next post.)
Info I'm having trouble seeing the benifits of eliminating a corporation. I'm open minded.
When you say that there's a problem with the courts you're dead right, but corporations are one of the few shields we have left. I look at what is happening in health care with liability insurance and I shudder at the thought of that happening in other markets.
I mention that rents would go up and you agreed that happens in a free market. However states with the most pro-tenant laws also have the highest economic cost for rentals. Good tenants end up paying (alot) for the bad seeds. In Baltimore rent would drop ~10% if we used the eviction laws philly uses. I bring this up because I feel we would see a simular increase in other goods and services if liability were increased.
Finally you state that we could have our own partnership agreement through contract. I'm no expert in torts so I can't comment here. It just seems alot weaker and more vulnerable.
Again I'm open minded.
When you say that there's a problem with the courts you're dead right, but corporations are one of the few shields we have left. I look at what is happening in health care with liability insurance and I shudder at the thought of that happening in other markets.
I mention that rents would go up and you agreed that happens in a free market. However states with the most pro-tenant laws also have the highest economic cost for rentals. Good tenants end up paying (alot) for the bad seeds. In Baltimore rent would drop ~10% if we used the eviction laws philly uses. I bring this up because I feel we would see a simular increase in other goods and services if liability were increased.
Finally you state that we could have our own partnership agreement through contract. I'm no expert in torts so I can't comment here. It just seems alot weaker and more vulnerable.
Again I'm open minded.
The owners of corporations are. Without limited liability, if you owned one single share of enron, you could be held responsible for ALL of the damage it caused.
I thought corporations are for the sole purpose of making money now and in the future....................
To add (sorry for posting two in a row!): Without corporations, you would simply have other utilities for investment. Instead of issuing fixed-rate bonds, you would have bonds linked to earnings. This would still provide limited liability, but SOMEONE would still have unlimited liability.
That would have made people think twice about investing in and supporting such a bogus enterprise huh?
1. Corporations are not fictional entities created by the state. They are legal entities, they do exist there's nothing "fictional" about them.
2. Corporations were alive and well in this country long before the 18th century. Do a little research before you spout nonsense.
3. "If you enter into a contract, and can't pay it, I think it is distorting trade to allow one party to say, "hey-- this was just an imaginary creature you were bargaining with. I'm going home. Tough luck." " is, in fact, pure and utter nonsense. No one can just walk away from a legally executed contract, not a corporation, not anyone.
4. The crux of your "argument" (haha) seems to be to do away with corporate law, the primary and secondary stock markets (do you know the difference without google) and who knows what else and replace that relatively efficient, market driven system with a system where if I want to buy 10 shares of P & G stock, I would have to enter into specific contract with P & G? Is that what you are proposing? It appears that it is and it appears to be based on the false premise that corporations are "fictional" and aren't liable for their actions.
3.
How would you resolve ownership in mutual funds? All fund members would be liable for damages as well.
I'm just putting the idea out there. I'm not sure I would do it if I suddenly had the power to get rid of corporations. Wanted to see what people's responses were and especially those that like free markets / libertarians. Also, this is sort of my reasoning: many economists argue the least state intervention you have, the richer everyone is. Libertarians argue this too to some extent. I'm wondering if we would take it to the logical conclusion and prevent these liability shelters. There would be some pain for some people, but overall wouldn't it help everyone?
Again, if we really went forward with such radical libertarianesque scenarios, I would imagine you could limit your liability directly with the tenant. So you could force them to go to arbitration and set a maximum amount of liability and save costs. And if they didn't like your attempt to limit liability, they could pay a higher price somewhere else.
Making contracts would be more difficult. But heck, some of the corporate law is complicated too. Big companies hire tons of attorneys and people who start businesses with other people also have to make pretty sophisticated decisions regarding the details of the corporate structure.
Yeah they would be liable too. I imagine if there were millions of owners the damages per individual would be small too. But it's not my concern that they are protected. They would have to think seriously about where they put their money.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter