(std. disclaimer)
The US does not have a "loser pays" system, as many countries do. However, in general a sued individual can countersue a corporation for legal fees.
As the other poster noted, the cost of losing is a significant risk for the individual, and an insignificant iota in the annual legal budget for DirecTV; so they don't begin on equal footing.
Actually, as a shareholder I view a large amount of retained earnings in a more negative light. As the investor, I'd like to get my earnings out of Company X, and then decide on my own whether Company X merits further reinvestment or if I think Company Y is better.
The taxation policy in the recent past has basically encouraged retained earnings. Those earnings are controlled by management. In many cases the money was either squandered or used to buy up company stock to boost its price (for management's benefit). Not a very efficient or ethical use of capital...
If there had been more boom and less bubble, I'd venture that the Fed's increase in interest rates wouldn't have lead to the crash in the stock market. The tech boom was largely an illusion --I think that should be clear to everyone by now.
Bill Clinton benefitted greatly from the economy in the '96 election (and from the GOP nominating Bob Dole). He doesn't deserve an ounce of credit for the boom that happened on his watch, and by the same token, I don't think Bush should bear the blame for the bust that's happened on his watch.
The (unelected) governors of the Fed Reserve Board created the bubble in the 90's, and they burst it when they saw fit. It's scary when you think about it.
"In fact, hard-line American policies made it easier for the Soviet government to justify repressing its own people."
Wow. You sound like a "blame-America-firster".
So, the logic goes:
1) America fails to roll over for a totalitarian dictatorship.
2) Aforementioned dictatorship represses its people.
3) America partially to blame for aforementioned repression.
Brilliant, really.
Slashdot Mirror
Sign me up, baby!!
In my experience, free beer exists only if you're a cute college coed at a frat party...
(std. disclaimer) The US does not have a "loser pays" system, as many countries do. However, in general a sued individual can countersue a corporation for legal fees. As the other poster noted, the cost of losing is a significant risk for the individual, and an insignificant iota in the annual legal budget for DirecTV; so they don't begin on equal footing.
The taxation policy in the recent past has basically encouraged retained earnings. Those earnings are controlled by management. In many cases the money was either squandered or used to buy up company stock to boost its price (for management's benefit). Not a very efficient or ethical use of capital...
LOL! New Jersey! That is seriously funny that you picked NJ for your comparison. Was that intentional, or just serendipity?
The parent didn't post flamebait. He simply violated the Slashdot party line. Stupid P.C.-mods.
If there had been more boom and less bubble, I'd venture that the Fed's increase in interest rates wouldn't have lead to the crash in the stock market. The tech boom was largely an illusion --I think that should be clear to everyone by now.
Bill Clinton benefitted greatly from the economy in the '96 election (and from the GOP nominating Bob Dole). He doesn't deserve an ounce of credit for the boom that happened on his watch, and by the same token, I don't think Bush should bear the blame for the bust that's happened on his watch.
The (unelected) governors of the Fed Reserve Board created the bubble in the 90's, and they burst it when they saw fit. It's scary when you think about it.
"In fact, hard-line American policies made it easier for the Soviet government to justify repressing its own people." Wow. You sound like a "blame-America-firster". So, the logic goes: 1) America fails to roll over for a totalitarian dictatorship. 2) Aforementioned dictatorship represses its people. 3) America partially to blame for aforementioned repression. Brilliant, really.