The riots after the Trump election are the a good example. They lost a election so instead of preparing for the next one, they complained and moaned.
Were you in a coma between 2008 and 2016? Have you heard of the TEA party? You know, the one where all of a sudden, after Obama was elected, they had been Taxed Enough Already? Do you not remember the 8-year hissy fit coming from Republicans? The birth certificate nonsense? The Terrorist Fist Bump? That Obama was criticized for wearing a tan suit?
I agree that Democrats have lost their minds over Trump. He is a boorish buffoon, but still they have kind of lost their shit. But really, this is just stupid partisan politics and the Republicans give it better than they get it.
Outside the country, there is nothing in US law that prevents it from spying on other countries.
Outside the US, US law is completely irrelevant. I know of no country where it is legal for a foreign government to spy on people.
Okay, but those domestic laws also do not apply the foreign governments. And around we go. In reality, spying is worked out between governments. It's not so much a matter of law ans policies and agreements.
I just knew you were going to cite the Drake case.
Thomas Drake reported that he thought there were illegal activities going in. The lawyers reviewed his accusations, and determined that he was wrong - the programs in questions were legal.
Drake didn't accept that a bunch of lawyers and judges could know more about the law than he did, and so he stole a bunch of classified documents. And you know what? It turns out that all those lawyers were correct in the first place. His concerns were about legal programs that he just didn't like.
Drake was not a whistleblower. He was wrong about his facts, and he paid for committing crimes based on his ignorance.
How about William Binney and Russ Tice? Both were retaliated against for reporting illegal activity.
The USA can spy on its own citizens as much as it likes. If the citizens don't like it, they can vote for another government or take steps to make their legal system less of a joke. However, outside US jurisdiction, the US government has no right to violate people's rights.
You have that exactly backwards. In the US, the 4th Amendment to the Constitution forbids the government from spying on its citizens. I know it happens anyway, but it is illegal. Outside the country, there is nothing in US law that prevents it from spying on other countries.
First time I've heard that narrative, and I've been following it here on slashdot since it went down.
Well, you learn something new every day. That has been Snowden's story all along. Not sure how you missed it, since you have been following it since it want down.
We all have smartphones already. Their maps are constantly up to date. Why would I want to use outdated maps in my vehicle? The importance of the vehicle's entertainment system is lessening (is that a word?). Phones and tablets have overtaken the pricey navigation and DVD systems.
Go through along tunnel, with exits, using your phone. Once it loses the sat connection it doesn't know where it is. Your car's nav system can use information from the car to keep track of it's location on the map, and tell you where to exit. I often chuckle at the stories of Uber riders going way out of their way because the driver's phone lost signal in the tunnel, and didn't know where to get off.
This is good news. Now, if I could get CarPlay to not crash every two minutes (seriously, every two minutes, almost like clockwork) I might be able to use this. It's a nice feature, and sounds better than Bluetooth (upgrade your codecs too, Apple) for audio. But it is useless if it crashes constantly.
It's not. I thought that would be painfully obvious to everyone by now. Facebook, Google, etc show quite clearly that it doesn't even register as part of the thought process for people let alone have any weight.
That is, until they see the results (okay, some not even then). There was quite a stir a little while ago, when people finally understood Facebook's business model. I don't think it's so much that people don't care about privacy as it is that people lack foresight and imagination, as you mention. They like using these "free" services and don't stop to ask why they are free, how the company actually makes money or whether they should really be sharing so much information with these companies.
Once it is pointed out to them that the information these companies have is used to manipulate them, they don't like it. By then it's too late, of course. People want privacy, but take it for granted until it's gone.
Raytheon is in the keep your kids from getting killed by the enemy business. You can support them or not, but it's their tech that will be relied on when someone tries to save your kids. Up to us how good that tech is. Apparently you don't give a shit and would rather an enemy be in a superior position.
Would you say the same to a Pakistani mother? I'm guessing not. Funny how good things and bad things can change position, depending on one's point of view.
Outside of silicon valley, as a generalization? *No one cares*.
Do you hear people complaining about other US corps involved with the US military? What about US tech firms like IBM, Oracle, Sun(history here), Microsoft, and EVERYONE ELSE!
Yet, Google gets involved -- Google which I hate I might had, but to be fair.. they get involved and BLAH BLAH BLAH.
There's no story here. At all. If this is a story, then setup some website that shows all companies in the US, and all their funding, and start bitching at the top!
It's a fair point. But I think it's because people expect Google to be better than that. They started out trying to not be "evil", which shows an understanding that power can corrupt and that corporations can often act sociopathically. They seem to be going against that now. I expect Raytheon to be in the death business; I would like it if Google did better.
That, of course, is unfair to the employers, but nobody cares about them.
It's amazing to me that in America anyone could think that nobody cares about employers. This country is run for business. Look at corporate profits compared to wages and tell me no one cares about the employers.
Does Venezuela exist? Hasn't Cuba been allowed to exist? Are there not countries all over the globe that sit on valuable resources that we actually pay for instead of just take by force? Of course there are.
We backed an attempted coup in Venezuela in 2002 and have enforced an embargo against Cuba for decades (that embargo has been relaxed recently, which I take as a positive development). We invaded Iraq partly to enable or corporations to get at their oil. Just saying.
Look, the United States isn't all bad. I very much like living here; it's a great country. We have freedoms and opportunities here that are not duplicated anywhere else. But I also think we have a romanticized view of ourselves that enables us to ignore or excuse the many times we have acted in ways inconsistent with our professed values. I think the people of Syria and Pakistan, where we have been conducting drone strikes against poorly identified people, might have a different perception of our ethics and benevolence.
So we are only doomed to repeat history and not learn from it then?
Even in that case, doesn't having an already strong and capable military beat having to go "total war" such as in WW2?
To the people we kill, it makes no difference.
The primary cause of WW2 was weakness in the face of aggression, both in Europe and in the Pacific. Had the USA not been on a pacifist kick and had been properly arming itself, Japan would have never tried their war and Germany would have easily been defeated in short order. Even if war had been inevitable in WW2, had the USA been ready the pain suffering and death of the war would have been much less as the war would have been much shorter.
Tell me again why we need to repeat this mistake a third time in modern history?
The above is speculative opinion, nothing more. You have no way of knowing what would have happened differently if things had been different. Reality has no control group. From my point of view, the mistake we keep making is thinking violent means can have peaceful ends.
Are we so naive to believe that a strong and capable military isn't necessary anymore because we have principles?
If so, How soon we forget the lesson of WW1 and WW2....
Those who know history are doomed to helplessly watch while those who don't know history, repeat it.
No, we are so naive as to think that war can be either ethical or moral. It is neither and will never be. If a person is scared enough, principals of morals and ethics go out the window.
I don't know if you are American, but I am. My country likes to think of itself as moral and just. But we torture people. We wiped out a population of people almost completely. We export more weaponry than any other country. We kill innocent people in foreign countries at will. We support dictators and repressive regimes when it suits us. We are the only country to have ever actually used atomic weaponry against people.
We have the most powerful military, perhaps in the history of the world, and think of ourselves as a peaceful people. It is dark humor at its finest. We do learn from history, but need repeated lessons. Eventually I believe we can evolve enough to understand that having a military is only good for death and destruction; for projecting power against those who stand in our way. I'm not saying we should not have mobilized against Hitler (though we only did that once we were directly attacked). But I am saying that as long as we are locked in the mindset of needing more and smarter weapons, and using our military to get our way in the world, we will not have peace.
No, you stupid fuck. We're saying the telling the police there is an active hostage situation with a hostage taker so twitchy he already 'accidentally' shot one of the hostages in the head is inherently dangerous.
This is an important factor. However, the police need to assess the situation on their own before taking action. That is part of their responsibility, and why they are supposedly trained in law enforcement.
Um, I'm pretty right -leaning and this horrifies me and most of the right wingers I know would feel the same way. This guy is just an idiot, or a troll. Or hell, maybe some supposed right wingers DO support this, but this is more something lefties would love.
I agree, the poster I was responding to was an idiot or a troll, or both. I'm sure some right-wingers would support this, as well as some left-wingers. As I'm sure you are aware, the media and powers-that-be divide us into opposing sides of Left and Right. They may be useful as general descriptors, but do not mean much on the individual level. I am left-leaning myself, but like you I do not support this type of state overreach.
When people stop fighting and arguing, and instead talk and listen, they often find they have more in common than they thought. Most of us don't fit neatly into these Left and Right boxes that have been constructed for us. I'm always glad when I can agree with someone who is on the "opposite" side of the political spectrum. Because we should all be Americans first, and then try to work out our differences.
If this sort of service started to be used in the ways you suggested, then we would possibly do something about it. However, just because something can be used for "bad" purposes doesn't mean we should throw it out.
If you're in public you have no expectation of privacy. If law enforcement wants to build a database of who was at a rally or protest, then more power to them.
In my opinion, that would violate the 1st and 4th Amendments. Making a list of everyone at a location is a warrantless search of that location (violation of the 4th Amendment). And it would have a chilling effect, possibly violating their right to peaceably assemble (violation of 1st Amendment). What possible business would the authorities have in keeping track of people at a political rally? They are not committing crimes. What lawful purpose would that serve?
I am American and many people agree that the vast majority of the public SUPPORT this kind of law and order in this country and you libtards are the minority, AGAIN. This is why we support who we support even though it makes you weak snowflakes so angry, the people who will make this country great are the ones who oppose the city thugs who terrorize our daughters and cuckold our sons.
See, this is why the rest of society thinks you're dumb. You have not thought this through, and it shows. You only support this because you think it will be used on those you deem undesirable, whether that be people convicted or suspected of crimes, or people in this country illegally, or "libtards". But there is nothing stopping it from being used on you and your fellow travelers; at which point you will cry about your rights and how unfair it is.
What if this service were used to keep track of NRA members, or people in a citizens militia? What if it were used by the FBI to watch for people wearing MAGA hats? Would you still support it? Or would you recognize it as the affront to your rights that it is? Whether you like it or not, when one group loses its rights, it makes it easier to take them from another group. You should fight for the rights of all people, not just those you like or agree with. Because that's how you protect your own.
While the parent post you quoted takes the idea a bit far, I'll answer your question ("why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money?"):
Because people in need have been taught that those who are certified to know more than them can be trusted to make good decisions. If someone is told that the guy handling your retirement portfolio/pension actually knows what he's doing and is making decisions best for you (a fiduciary), then that person sure as hell should not be allowed to legally separate "stupid investors from being separated from their money". Because they wouldn't be "stupid". They'd be rationally trusting. One should be able to trust one's official financial representative.
Fair enough, I agree. I was responding in the context of venture capital, not retail investing. Retail investors need more protection because they are not professional money managers. Venture capitalists at least should be professional money managers and evaluators of companies. I used to work in VC (on the tech side), and believe they should sink or swim based on their ability to evaluate businesses and business plans. It is, after all, their business.
We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite. I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned, but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down. And then again each year. Hell, you shouldn't even be allowed to get to things like IPOs etc. at that point.
Why? Seriously, why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money? How does this hurt society overall? Fraud is already illegal. So unless someone is being lied to about these companies, I don't see why the rest of us should care.
Your statement implies that company owners and stakeholders are always 100% honest and truthful about their companies. Trying to claim that it's against the law is a fucking joke. Laws don't prevent crime. Effective punishments do. And we hardly ever punish anyone in the financial sector. And you have one hell of an ability to turn a blind eye to the 2008 global financial crisis asking ignorant questions as to who this can hurt society overall.
Let's put it this way; if every company had to prove themselves financially solvent for 10 years before filing for any kind of IPO, a shitload of companies would never even bother forming. Take the bullshit motivator we call the stock market out of the picture, and you've eliminated 90% of this problem.
Um, what? My question was how more government intervention would help in this situation. And you reply by saying that the laws we already have are not enforced. I agree, especially when it comes to the financial sector. Bunch of criminal up in that bitch. But I don't understand how that is at all germane to my point.
I think Trump is an absolute piece of shit, but it is incredibly ignorant to dismiss him as stupid or insane. He is obviously neither, and it's fools like you that helped get him elected.
Look at how much control we have over people on the right. Look at it! They don't make their own decisions, they do what we tell them to do (though we have to use reverse psychology). Witness the power of the political left!
Next election, I'm going to tell all my Trump-loving relatives that I, as a lefty, think he is awesome, and that they'd be totally doing the smart thing by voting for him. I'll tell them they'd have to be idiots to vote for the Democrat, but that they probably will because they're so dumb. That should do it, don't you think? I mean, I keep hearing that the left is responsible for his election, because we made those on the right feel so disrespected, they had to vote him in. Because they care so much what we think.
We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite. I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned, but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down. And then again each year. Hell, you shouldn't even be allowed to get to things like IPOs etc. at that point.
Why? Seriously, why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money? How does this hurt society overall? Fraud is already illegal. So unless someone is being lied to about these companies, I don't see why the rest of us should care.
Slashdot Mirror
The riots after the Trump election are the a good example. They lost a election so instead of preparing for the next one, they complained and moaned.
Were you in a coma between 2008 and 2016? Have you heard of the TEA party? You know, the one where all of a sudden, after Obama was elected, they had been Taxed Enough Already? Do you not remember the 8-year hissy fit coming from Republicans? The birth certificate nonsense? The Terrorist Fist Bump? That Obama was criticized for wearing a tan suit?
I agree that Democrats have lost their minds over Trump. He is a boorish buffoon, but still they have kind of lost their shit. But really, this is just stupid partisan politics and the Republicans give it better than they get it.
Isn't "learn to code" what we typically say to the lower class when they're rendered obsolete?
Yes, some people do say that. And it's a stupid thing to say. As if everyone can or wants to be a computer programmer.
Outside the country, there is nothing in US law that prevents it from spying on other countries.
Outside the US, US law is completely irrelevant. I know of no country where it is legal for a foreign government to spy on people.
Okay, but those domestic laws also do not apply the foreign governments. And around we go. In reality, spying is worked out between governments. It's not so much a matter of law ans policies and agreements.
I just knew you were going to cite the Drake case.
Thomas Drake reported that he thought there were illegal activities going in. The lawyers reviewed his accusations, and determined that he was wrong - the programs in questions were legal.
Drake didn't accept that a bunch of lawyers and judges could know more about the law than he did, and so he stole a bunch of classified documents. And you know what? It turns out that all those lawyers were correct in the first place. His concerns were about legal programs that he just didn't like.
Drake was not a whistleblower. He was wrong about his facts, and he paid for committing crimes based on his ignorance.
How about William Binney and Russ Tice? Both were retaliated against for reporting illegal activity.
The USA can spy on its own citizens as much as it likes. If the citizens don't like it, they can vote for another government or take steps to make their legal system less of a joke. However, outside US jurisdiction, the US government has no right to violate people's rights.
You have that exactly backwards. In the US, the 4th Amendment to the Constitution forbids the government from spying on its citizens. I know it happens anyway, but it is illegal. Outside the country, there is nothing in US law that prevents it from spying on other countries.
First time I've heard that narrative, and I've been following it here on slashdot since it went down.
Well, you learn something new every day. That has been Snowden's story all along. Not sure how you missed it, since you have been following it since it want down.
We all have smartphones already. Their maps are constantly up to date. Why would I want to use outdated maps in my vehicle? The importance of the vehicle's entertainment system is lessening (is that a word?). Phones and tablets have overtaken the pricey navigation and DVD systems.
Go through along tunnel, with exits, using your phone. Once it loses the sat connection it doesn't know where it is. Your car's nav system can use information from the car to keep track of it's location on the map, and tell you where to exit. I often chuckle at the stories of Uber riders going way out of their way because the driver's phone lost signal in the tunnel, and didn't know where to get off.
This is good news. Now, if I could get CarPlay to not crash every two minutes (seriously, every two minutes, almost like clockwork) I might be able to use this. It's a nice feature, and sounds better than Bluetooth (upgrade your codecs too, Apple) for audio. But it is useless if it crashes constantly.
If privacy is important
It's not. I thought that would be painfully obvious to everyone by now. Facebook, Google, etc show quite clearly that it doesn't even register as part of the thought process for people let alone have any weight.
That is, until they see the results (okay, some not even then). There was quite a stir a little while ago, when people finally understood Facebook's business model. I don't think it's so much that people don't care about privacy as it is that people lack foresight and imagination, as you mention. They like using these "free" services and don't stop to ask why they are free, how the company actually makes money or whether they should really be sharing so much information with these companies.
Once it is pointed out to them that the information these companies have is used to manipulate them, they don't like it. By then it's too late, of course. People want privacy, but take it for granted until it's gone.
Raytheon is in the keep your kids from getting killed by the enemy business. You can support them or not, but it's their tech that will be relied on when someone tries to save your kids. Up to us how good that tech is. Apparently you don't give a shit and would rather an enemy be in a superior position.
Would you say the same to a Pakistani mother? I'm guessing not. Funny how good things and bad things can change position, depending on one's point of view.
I don't get the US.
Outside of silicon valley, as a generalization? *No one cares*.
Do you hear people complaining about other US corps involved with the US military? What about US tech firms like IBM, Oracle, Sun(history here), Microsoft, and EVERYONE ELSE!
Yet, Google gets involved -- Google which I hate I might had, but to be fair.. they get involved and BLAH BLAH BLAH.
There's no story here. At all. If this is a story, then setup some website that shows all companies in the US, and all their funding, and start bitching at the top!
It's a fair point. But I think it's because people expect Google to be better than that. They started out trying to not be "evil", which shows an understanding that power can corrupt and that corporations can often act sociopathically. They seem to be going against that now. I expect Raytheon to be in the death business; I would like it if Google did better.
That, of course, is unfair to the employers, but nobody cares about them.
It's amazing to me that in America anyone could think that nobody cares about employers. This country is run for business. Look at corporate profits compared to wages and tell me no one cares about the employers.
Does Venezuela exist? Hasn't Cuba been allowed to exist? Are there not countries all over the globe that sit on valuable resources that we actually pay for instead of just take by force? Of course there are.
We backed an attempted coup in Venezuela in 2002 and have enforced an embargo against Cuba for decades (that embargo has been relaxed recently, which I take as a positive development). We invaded Iraq partly to enable or corporations to get at their oil. Just saying.
Look, the United States isn't all bad. I very much like living here; it's a great country. We have freedoms and opportunities here that are not duplicated anywhere else. But I also think we have a romanticized view of ourselves that enables us to ignore or excuse the many times we have acted in ways inconsistent with our professed values. I think the people of Syria and Pakistan, where we have been conducting drone strikes against poorly identified people, might have a different perception of our ethics and benevolence.
So we are only doomed to repeat history and not learn from it then?
Even in that case, doesn't having an already strong and capable military beat having to go "total war" such as in WW2?
To the people we kill, it makes no difference.
The primary cause of WW2 was weakness in the face of aggression, both in Europe and in the Pacific. Had the USA not been on a pacifist kick and had been properly arming itself, Japan would have never tried their war and Germany would have easily been defeated in short order. Even if war had been inevitable in WW2, had the USA been ready the pain suffering and death of the war would have been much less as the war would have been much shorter.
Tell me again why we need to repeat this mistake a third time in modern history?
The above is speculative opinion, nothing more. You have no way of knowing what would have happened differently if things had been different. Reality has no control group. From my point of view, the mistake we keep making is thinking violent means can have peaceful ends.
Why?
Are we so naive to believe that a strong and capable military isn't necessary anymore because we have principles?
If so, How soon we forget the lesson of WW1 and WW2....
Those who know history are doomed to helplessly watch while those who don't know history, repeat it.
No, we are so naive as to think that war can be either ethical or moral. It is neither and will never be. If a person is scared enough, principals of morals and ethics go out the window.
I don't know if you are American, but I am. My country likes to think of itself as moral and just. But we torture people. We wiped out a population of people almost completely. We export more weaponry than any other country. We kill innocent people in foreign countries at will. We support dictators and repressive regimes when it suits us. We are the only country to have ever actually used atomic weaponry against people.
We have the most powerful military, perhaps in the history of the world, and think of ourselves as a peaceful people. It is dark humor at its finest. We do learn from history, but need repeated lessons. Eventually I believe we can evolve enough to understand that having a military is only good for death and destruction; for projecting power against those who stand in our way. I'm not saying we should not have mobilized against Hitler (though we only did that once we were directly attacked). But I am saying that as long as we are locked in the mindset of needing more and smarter weapons, and using our military to get our way in the world, we will not have peace.
China sure, because the US isn't the world's largest arms exporter.
Sshh! You're upsetting America's self-image!
No, you stupid fuck. We're saying the telling the police there is an active hostage situation with a hostage taker so twitchy he already 'accidentally' shot one of the hostages in the head is inherently dangerous.
This is an important factor. However, the police need to assess the situation on their own before taking action. That is part of their responsibility, and why they are supposedly trained in law enforcement.
So everyone gets charged except for the cop that actually killed a man? That seems a huge lapse of justice.
I thought the same thing. It shows the degradation of respect for the rights of citizens that "swatting" is even a thing.
Um, I'm pretty right -leaning and this horrifies me and most of the right wingers I know would feel the same way. This guy is just an idiot, or a troll. Or hell, maybe some supposed right wingers DO support this, but this is more something lefties would love.
I agree, the poster I was responding to was an idiot or a troll, or both. I'm sure some right-wingers would support this, as well as some left-wingers. As I'm sure you are aware, the media and powers-that-be divide us into opposing sides of Left and Right. They may be useful as general descriptors, but do not mean much on the individual level. I am left-leaning myself, but like you I do not support this type of state overreach.
When people stop fighting and arguing, and instead talk and listen, they often find they have more in common than they thought. Most of us don't fit neatly into these Left and Right boxes that have been constructed for us. I'm always glad when I can agree with someone who is on the "opposite" side of the political spectrum. Because we should all be Americans first, and then try to work out our differences.
If this sort of service started to be used in the ways you suggested, then we would possibly do something about it. However, just because something can be used for "bad" purposes doesn't mean we should throw it out.
If you're in public you have no expectation of privacy. If law enforcement wants to build a database of who was at a rally or protest, then more power to them.
In my opinion, that would violate the 1st and 4th Amendments. Making a list of everyone at a location is a warrantless search of that location (violation of the 4th Amendment). And it would have a chilling effect, possibly violating their right to peaceably assemble (violation of 1st Amendment). What possible business would the authorities have in keeping track of people at a political rally? They are not committing crimes. What lawful purpose would that serve?
I am American and many people agree that the vast majority of the public SUPPORT this kind of law and order in this country and you libtards are the minority, AGAIN. This is why we support who we support even though it makes you weak snowflakes so angry, the people who will make this country great are the ones who oppose the city thugs who terrorize our daughters and cuckold our sons.
See, this is why the rest of society thinks you're dumb. You have not thought this through, and it shows. You only support this because you think it will be used on those you deem undesirable, whether that be people convicted or suspected of crimes, or people in this country illegally, or "libtards". But there is nothing stopping it from being used on you and your fellow travelers; at which point you will cry about your rights and how unfair it is.
What if this service were used to keep track of NRA members, or people in a citizens militia? What if it were used by the FBI to watch for people wearing MAGA hats? Would you still support it? Or would you recognize it as the affront to your rights that it is? Whether you like it or not, when one group loses its rights, it makes it easier to take them from another group. You should fight for the rights of all people, not just those you like or agree with. Because that's how you protect your own.
While the parent post you quoted takes the idea a bit far, I'll answer your question ("why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money?"):
Because people in need have been taught that those who are certified to know more than them can be trusted to make good decisions. If someone is told that the guy handling your retirement portfolio/pension actually knows what he's doing and is making decisions best for you (a fiduciary), then that person sure as hell should not be allowed to legally separate "stupid investors from being separated from their money". Because they wouldn't be "stupid". They'd be rationally trusting. One should be able to trust one's official financial representative.
Fair enough, I agree. I was responding in the context of venture capital, not retail investing. Retail investors need more protection because they are not professional money managers. Venture capitalists at least should be professional money managers and evaluators of companies. I used to work in VC (on the tech side), and believe they should sink or swim based on their ability to evaluate businesses and business plans. It is, after all, their business.
We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite. I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned, but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down. And then again each year. Hell, you shouldn't even be allowed to get to things like IPOs etc. at that point.
Why? Seriously, why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money? How does this hurt society overall? Fraud is already illegal. So unless someone is being lied to about these companies, I don't see why the rest of us should care.
Your statement implies that company owners and stakeholders are always 100% honest and truthful about their companies. Trying to claim that it's against the law is a fucking joke. Laws don't prevent crime. Effective punishments do. And we hardly ever punish anyone in the financial sector. And you have one hell of an ability to turn a blind eye to the 2008 global financial crisis asking ignorant questions as to who this can hurt society overall.
Let's put it this way; if every company had to prove themselves financially solvent for 10 years before filing for any kind of IPO, a shitload of companies would never even bother forming. Take the bullshit motivator we call the stock market out of the picture, and you've eliminated 90% of this problem.
Um, what? My question was how more government intervention would help in this situation. And you reply by saying that the laws we already have are not enforced. I agree, especially when it comes to the financial sector. Bunch of criminal up in that bitch. But I don't understand how that is at all germane to my point.
I think Trump is an absolute piece of shit, but it is incredibly ignorant to dismiss him as stupid or insane. He is obviously neither, and it's fools like you that helped get him elected.
Look at how much control we have over people on the right. Look at it! They don't make their own decisions, they do what we tell them to do (though we have to use reverse psychology). Witness the power of the political left!
Next election, I'm going to tell all my Trump-loving relatives that I, as a lefty, think he is awesome, and that they'd be totally doing the smart thing by voting for him. I'll tell them they'd have to be idiots to vote for the Democrat, but that they probably will because they're so dumb. That should do it, don't you think? I mean, I keep hearing that the left is responsible for his election, because we made those on the right feel so disrespected, they had to vote him in. Because they care so much what we think.
We honestly need - as a planet - to put in laws that stop this shite. I know the shareholders are the main ones being burned, but if after a year of operation you can't show overall profit (or at the very least, contracts GUARANTEEING that the profit will be repaid and progress towards fulfilling those contracts), you should just be shut down. And then again each year. Hell, you shouldn't even be allowed to get to things like IPOs etc. at that point.
Why? Seriously, why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money? How does this hurt society overall? Fraud is already illegal. So unless someone is being lied to about these companies, I don't see why the rest of us should care.