I believe personal finance to be an integral part of the ability to think for yourself. For example, there's a huge problem with people who don't understand economics at all, but want to make all sorts of society impacting rules and policies. Personal finances actually provides a means by which people can understand the mechanics of a society and government.
The corporation isn't a person. You obviously don't understand what "corporate personhood" is. It's a legal mechanic for how to treat corporations under certain circumstances, not a universal equating of corporations with people.
Also, laws which prosecute property (which a corporation can count as) are among the most unjust laws of the US today. I think it would be a really bad idea (and unconstitutional to boot) to implement your previous ideas on this subject.
How about a program that provides decent-paying jobs? Wouldn't that do a lot toward ending personal financial crises?
Most such "programs" provide decent-paying jobs by taking away more decent-paying jobs elsewhere, but doing so in a invisible manner (few people see opportunity costs). I suggest market capitalism instead (it doesn't have to be "free market", regulated markets usually work well too) as something that actually works at creating decent-paying jobs.
If you don't have a job, if you can't pay your mortgage or your student loans, must be because you didn't pay attention in your "personal finance" class in high school.
BUT you might not have such large mortgage and student loans with that personal finance class. The more people who have smaller, more manageable problems, the better it is for society as a whole. This isn't about preventing financial mistakes altogether, but about reducing the number of people who are in seriously screwed up financial circumstances and about improving everyone's quality of life.
You have no basis for that claim. You listed everyone who was involved and/or responsible. If none of them can be prosecuted for criminal negligence, then there's no criminal negligence. It doesn't get any more real than that.
Tyrants (kings) have no place in a functional society.
A typical "no true scotsman" fallacy. Most societies have gone through a strong man phase. It's not the best for a society, but it beats anarchy.
Rich guys also don't, because free market capitalism does not allow people to get rich.
Free market capitalism both provides mechanisms for getting rich and an absence of caps on how rich you can be. So it does allow and enables people to get rich. A good recent example is the guy who developed modern oil fracking. He picked up something like two billion dollars by doing that.
So anarchy then? I don't think Wall Street would have done very well in an anarchy.
Sounds like you answered your question without any need for help from me.
As to my comment about constraints - limits on my ability to pollute or harm others is a constraint. So is having to live on the road or in a slum because thugs burned my house down. So is being imprisoned in a gulag.
I consider "constraints" like I do genetic mutations. Some are helpful, but most aren't. Merely stating that constraints are necessary for the "good of society" ignores this important bit of nuance.
Keep in mind that most of these people probably have friends or relatives who can tell them what it's like. My understanding is that most immigrants don't immigrate without a fair idea of what they'll see on the other side and some help to ease the transition.
SO, who was criminally negligent? That's right, the corporation.
You just listed four people who were negligent. If you can't show criminal negligence among the parties actually involved in the activity, then there wasn't any criminal negligence.
Wow, you really can't wait to fall to your knees and kiss your new kings feet, can you?
Nonsense. This sort of thing is something you have to work to achieve and maintain. The "new kings" or the "rich guys" don't magically come out of thin air. They come from functional societies. So do jobs. So does prosperity.
Your obsession with sticking it to the employers comes at the cost of that society.
Sorry, no. We all have to live within constraints for the good of society.
This is an example of what I'm talking about. You're more concerned about "don't care to worship the 'job givers'" than whether there are jobs out to give. And you even note that your so-called "job givers" aren't giving many jobs in the developed world. Why should they, when they would have to deal with crap like your attitude and the corresponding political hassle it represents at the national level.
My view is that so-called "job givers" or the employers are doing a big service for society by employing people. We should be assisting them, not kneecapping them.
This is typical of the economic ignorance out there. It breaks societies and then lays the blame on convenient scapegoats. Where's the jobs coming from when you punish those who would provide them?
It is not the "wrong tool" if what you seek is something that is closest to the truth
And there we go. We don't seek something "closest to the truth" in the political and business arenas. They have other purposes, other constraints, and embedded conflicts of interest that preclude the scientific method being successful.
Yes but a fine that only represents a fraction of your net profits is hardly a disincentive.
Sounds like you're speaking of regulatory violations not crimes. Inciting someone to break a regulation generally is still a crime.
I propose that when corporations commit criminal acts that would land an individual in jail, we should put the corporation "in jail". That means freezing all their assets and bank accounts and halting all sales for as long as a real person would have been locked up. This is certainly doable and would actually be consistent with the (foolish) notion that "a corporation is legally the same as a person".
A corporation isn't legally the same as a person. And corporations can't commit criminal acts. People can.
Choosing to live the rest of your life in a distant location is not a suicide in any way.
From the article:
âoeSuch a one-way journey poses a real risk to life, and that can never be justified in Islam,â the committee said. âoeThere is a possibility that an individual who travels to planet Mars may not be able to remain alive there, and is more vulnerable to death.â
It does sound pretty flimsy as an argument. But keep in mind that current one-way plans to go to Mars really haven't even gotten to the Power Point stage yet. They don't really have a lot of incentive to burn brain power on this. I suspect this is a nice way to say, "please don't fall for these scams".
The most telling and alarming is your willful resistance to application of the scientific method to governance and worklife.
Maybe it's because you're using the wrong tool for the job? Scientific method works nice when understanding is the highest goal. When instead, it's some other agenda, then it's going to fail hard. And you just mentioned two of the areas where such sufficiently large agenda exist.
So the problem is that labor is no longer as scarce as it was thirty or more years ago. I'd rather adapt to the reality rather than complain uselessly about it.
Sure, there's a bunch of people who get most of their wealth from capital instead of labor. They did quite well. But if you actually managed to take them down, you wouldn't get paid any more.
Slashdot Mirror
So do you have an actual rebuttal? Or is your empty rejoiner going to be it?
I believe personal finance to be an integral part of the ability to think for yourself. For example, there's a huge problem with people who don't understand economics at all, but want to make all sorts of society impacting rules and policies. Personal finances actually provides a means by which people can understand the mechanics of a society and government.
The corporation isn't a person. You obviously don't understand what "corporate personhood" is. It's a legal mechanic for how to treat corporations under certain circumstances, not a universal equating of corporations with people.
Also, laws which prosecute property (which a corporation can count as) are among the most unjust laws of the US today. I think it would be a really bad idea (and unconstitutional to boot) to implement your previous ideas on this subject.
What's the point of having public schools? Might as well get them to teach something useful.
How about a program that provides decent-paying jobs? Wouldn't that do a lot toward ending personal financial crises?
Most such "programs" provide decent-paying jobs by taking away more decent-paying jobs elsewhere, but doing so in a invisible manner (few people see opportunity costs). I suggest market capitalism instead (it doesn't have to be "free market", regulated markets usually work well too) as something that actually works at creating decent-paying jobs.
If you don't have a job, if you can't pay your mortgage or your student loans, must be because you didn't pay attention in your "personal finance" class in high school.
BUT you might not have such large mortgage and student loans with that personal finance class. The more people who have smaller, more manageable problems, the better it is for society as a whole. This isn't about preventing financial mistakes altogether, but about reducing the number of people who are in seriously screwed up financial circumstances and about improving everyone's quality of life.
The right wing quite forcefully opposes such forms of instruction.
Do you have an example in mind? Or is this the doings of the imaginary right wing?
Your answer is contrary to reality.
You have no basis for that claim. You listed everyone who was involved and/or responsible. If none of them can be prosecuted for criminal negligence, then there's no criminal negligence. It doesn't get any more real than that.
Tyrants (kings) have no place in a functional society.
A typical "no true scotsman" fallacy. Most societies have gone through a strong man phase. It's not the best for a society, but it beats anarchy.
Rich guys also don't, because free market capitalism does not allow people to get rich.
Free market capitalism both provides mechanisms for getting rich and an absence of caps on how rich you can be. So it does allow and enables people to get rich. A good recent example is the guy who developed modern oil fracking. He picked up something like two billion dollars by doing that.
So anarchy then? I don't think Wall Street would have done very well in an anarchy.
Sounds like you answered your question without any need for help from me.
As to my comment about constraints - limits on my ability to pollute or harm others is a constraint. So is having to live on the road or in a slum because thugs burned my house down. So is being imprisoned in a gulag.
I consider "constraints" like I do genetic mutations. Some are helpful, but most aren't. Merely stating that constraints are necessary for the "good of society" ignores this important bit of nuance.
Keep in mind that most of these people probably have friends or relatives who can tell them what it's like. My understanding is that most immigrants don't immigrate without a fair idea of what they'll see on the other side and some help to ease the transition.
All is good and all that, except for the energy input required to produce the solar cells.
Most of the energy input would come from the solar cells already produced on the Moon.
SO, who was criminally negligent? That's right, the corporation.
You just listed four people who were negligent. If you can't show criminal negligence among the parties actually involved in the activity, then there wasn't any criminal negligence.
Wow, you really can't wait to fall to your knees and kiss your new kings feet, can you?
Nonsense. This sort of thing is something you have to work to achieve and maintain. The "new kings" or the "rich guys" don't magically come out of thin air. They come from functional societies. So do jobs. So does prosperity.
Your obsession with sticking it to the employers comes at the cost of that society.
Sorry, no. We all have to live within constraints for the good of society.
Most constraints are harmful for society.
Tell that to SCOTUS.
It's established at the SCOTUS level.
Isn't it amazing how a corporation poisons the water for thousands of people and they speak quietly of a possible fine.
It wasn't a criminal act.
If a person did that even accidentally, they'd be talking jail time AND fines big enough to bankrupt them.
A person did do that.
This is an example of what I'm talking about. You're more concerned about "don't care to worship the 'job givers'" than whether there are jobs out to give. And you even note that your so-called "job givers" aren't giving many jobs in the developed world. Why should they, when they would have to deal with crap like your attitude and the corresponding political hassle it represents at the national level.
My view is that so-called "job givers" or the employers are doing a big service for society by employing people. We should be assisting them, not kneecapping them. This is typical of the economic ignorance out there. It breaks societies and then lays the blame on convenient scapegoats. Where's the jobs coming from when you punish those who would provide them?
It is not the "wrong tool" if what you seek is something that is closest to the truth
And there we go. We don't seek something "closest to the truth" in the political and business arenas. They have other purposes, other constraints, and embedded conflicts of interest that preclude the scientific method being successful.
Yes but a fine that only represents a fraction of your net profits is hardly a disincentive.
Sounds like you're speaking of regulatory violations not crimes. Inciting someone to break a regulation generally is still a crime.
I propose that when corporations commit criminal acts that would land an individual in jail, we should put the corporation "in jail". That means freezing all their assets and bank accounts and halting all sales for as long as a real person would have been locked up. This is certainly doable and would actually be consistent with the (foolish) notion that "a corporation is legally the same as a person".
A corporation isn't legally the same as a person. And corporations can't commit criminal acts. People can.
Inciting someone to commit actual crime is already illegal.
They would no longer have any influence to prevent it or other adaptations to the labor surplus
In other words, there would be even less demand for labor. Why don't you come up with ideas that don't make the problem worse?
Choosing to live the rest of your life in a distant location is not a suicide in any way.
From the article:
âoeSuch a one-way journey poses a real risk to life, and that can never be justified in Islam,â the committee said. âoeThere is a possibility that an individual who travels to planet Mars may not be able to remain alive there, and is more vulnerable to death.â
It does sound pretty flimsy as an argument. But keep in mind that current one-way plans to go to Mars really haven't even gotten to the Power Point stage yet. They don't really have a lot of incentive to burn brain power on this. I suspect this is a nice way to say, "please don't fall for these scams".
FDIC insured funds limit is $250,000.
Per account.
Looks more like another glib data point for confirmation bias.
The most telling and alarming is your willful resistance to application of the scientific method to governance and worklife.
Maybe it's because you're using the wrong tool for the job? Scientific method works nice when understanding is the highest goal. When instead, it's some other agenda, then it's going to fail hard. And you just mentioned two of the areas where such sufficiently large agenda exist.
Until business owners are held personally liable for the actions of their employees nothing will improve.
Why should they? If an employee steals from my business, it isn't just to throw me in jail.
So the problem is that labor is no longer as scarce as it was thirty or more years ago. I'd rather adapt to the reality rather than complain uselessly about it.
Sure, there's a bunch of people who get most of their wealth from capital instead of labor. They did quite well. But if you actually managed to take them down, you wouldn't get paid any more.