No they don't. A corporation can't vote. It's a fiction that anti-corporate rabble like to blather about. They have _some_ of the "rights" of citizens, but that's because they are _comprised_ of citizens.
Seriously. I mean what is wrong with people? I joked previously that it would be funny if people thought Apple had "invented" voice recognition. I guess I shouldn't joke about such hilariously plausible things.
I don't know how many Touchpads are out there, but certainly far more than some of the other niche platforms CyanogenMod supports. Maybe 300k? 500k? There are a shitload of devices, and I think your estimates are way off. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people who run Android on the Touchpad far exceeds the number on the Nook Color, for example.
Would you feel better if the name on the lawsuit was the CEO's instead of Apple Corp.? Corporations aren't people, not even legally - but they are _comprised_ of people, who do have rights.
I totally agree, we should have one system for all and ridiculous shit like you mention should be stopped. I think you'll find, however, that it won't stop the core issue. Money, in a capitalist system, tends to concentrate. And capitalism may not be the perfect system, but there's none better.
Then stop selling them your labor so cheaply. I really don't understand why so many people live in fairytale land. Your labor is decided by a) what you're willing to sell it for and b) what someone else is willing to do it for. The formula is simple - your labor is worth the lesser of a and b.
Yes. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the only place "everyone" can experience financial independence is in make-believe land. I believe it's just North of the moon, and just south of Unicorn land.
Again, you're not citing any specific laws. The reason you're not doing so is because none exist, you're arguing about the way you wish things were not the way they are.
If we let failures fail, there would be no need for such laws. If you make bad/stupid loans - sucks to be you when you go out of business. But we insisted on propping up the system.
I do blame our legislators, but not because they didn't pass enough silly laws. I blame them for artificially propping up a system that is inherently flawed.
With this idiocy we're just going to continue to accrue institutions which are "too big to fail".
That's called begging the question. Nobody said you have to work your ass of to be rich. Similarly nobody guarantees that you will be rich if you _do_ work hard.
The only thing guaranteed is that you have the right to try to work your ass off and to try to be rich.
You're describing "envy", and nobody but children considers it a legitimate concern.
The rich pay the majority of taxes in this country, and by any definition pay at least their fair share.
But I'm all for a slightly graduated fair tax. 10% rate for income between $30k and $200k, 15% for anything over $200k - for all income sources of any type.
No it isn't. Usury is only codified in the law in some locales, and refers to the terms of the loan. If I loan you $800k I know you'll never pay back but I do so at a 2% interest rate then I am not committing usury.
That's not what predatory lending is, and "predatory lending" isn't a legal term, it's a general description of specific practices. What specific law did they break? Did they misrepresent the loan rates? Did they forge documents? Did they lend at a rate above any state or federal loan limit?
The reason the ability to repay the loan is determined by the bank is because it's in the _bank's_ interests, not because of any legal requirement. I can lend you $1 billion dollars if I want, as long as the terms of the loan itself are within legal parameters, and I could do so knowing full well you'll never be able to pay the loan back.
Now, if I have legal financial responsibilities to stockholders or a board of some sort, _then_ I may have civil liabilities for doing so.
It's only rabble rousers who call for banksters to be "jailed", unless they have _specific_ details of a crime any individual committed.
Your inability to grasp English is not my issue. One "makes a loan" by creating it or originating it. If I lend you money I am "making a loan" [agreement].
Loans are written in contracts. Again, to write a loan is to define the details of a loan in contract form.
So reading comprehension aside - there was no crime here. A loan consists of one party lending the other money - unless you're mentally incapacitated (in which case there is still no crime - the loan contract is simply void) or the loan violates state or federal law when it is made, it's by definition not criminal.
So sure, if you do bad risk management and lend money unwisely or against bank policy you should be fired. There is no legal apparatus to fine or imprison these much hated "banksters" for making bad loaning decisions.
The reason there is no such make-believe law is that there doesn't need to be. If banks make [See above for English 101] bad loans, they would pay for it by losing money. If the banks weren't bailed out (TARP was a bailout), it would be a non-issue.
The federal government obviated the need for risk management by providing insurance that no matter what the banks do, we'll bail them out. That's the problem.
Odd how we the people never accept any responsibility. It's always those evil corporations somehow forcing us to vote for politicians. I don't recall Proctor and Gamble paying me to vote any given way. Apparently they're running hypnotic ads which force people to vote for the candidate?
Since you can't blame the tragedy of the commons, we apparently blame the corporations. Makes sense...
Personally, I vote against a politician if I disagree with their policies - no matter how many TV commercials some corporation runs or pays for.
Nonsense. Giving someone such a loan is not at all unconscionable, and if so it is in direct proportion to the idiocy of _accepting_ such a loan.
The way it's supposed to work is that the idiot who writes that loan loses his ass. This is a disincentive.
The problem is the government bailed them out. So if anything - bitch at the assholes who bailed people out for making bad decisions. Making the loan is in no way illegal and you're just making shit up out of an idiotic sense of populism.
I have stories too - the rabble did real well in 20th century Russia, eh? Oh, I know - the glorious revolution got co-opted by corruption. But that's what _always_ happens. Also, those "filthy commoners" setup the system the whiners are so vehemently complaining about, including the onerous concept that you are free to succeed or to fail on your own.
If you believe that chain-letter-for-lefties nonsense I have a bridge to sell you. Someone repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it true, plus you're forgetting "church" and "lord" were both ruling class. It's like me making distinctions between CEOs and Vice Presidents and lottery winners.
Complaining about wealth distribution is a lie rabble rousers use to rouse the rabble. Standard of living is what's important - and in the US it's very high. By all means we need to solve our health care costs/availability issue, but other than that these people are whining because someone else has a BMW and they want one.
What exact crime is it to give someone a loan? Please, who exactly do we arrest and for what? In fact, if they had been as tight as a duck's ass about handing out loans people would be whining that the American dream is dead because "normal people" can't afford a house.
If you're going to throw some banker in jail for loaning $300k to someone for a house, make sure you throw the asshole who thought he could afford a $300k house so he could keep up with his neighbors.
We have a choice - we get run by the wealthy and powerful or we get run by the rabble.
Sorry, I pick the wealthy and powerful. The rabble have proved throughout history that they will run things to shit.
We have a precarious balance - the rabble have the numbers, the wealthy have the power - if that dynamic shifts too much either way we're in deep shit.
But isn't wealth disparity just something stupid people complain about?
Thought experiment - let's say the 5% richest people in the US move to Mexico (or Canada, or wherever). Wealth disparity instantly "improves" in the US. Please explain how this great leveling of wealth helps anyone here in the US?
Slashdot Mirror
No they don't. A corporation can't vote. It's a fiction that anti-corporate rabble like to blather about. They have _some_ of the "rights" of citizens, but that's because they are _comprised_ of citizens.
lolwut? That is the most obtuse analogy ever, and I don't know how you managed to be rambling and incoherent in so few sentences.
Seriously. I mean what is wrong with people? I joked previously that it would be funny if people thought Apple had "invented" voice recognition. I guess I shouldn't joke about such hilariously plausible things.
I don't know how many Touchpads are out there, but certainly far more than some of the other niche platforms CyanogenMod supports. Maybe 300k? 500k? There are a shitload of devices, and I think your estimates are way off. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people who run Android on the Touchpad far exceeds the number on the Nook Color, for example.
Would you feel better if the name on the lawsuit was the CEO's instead of Apple Corp.? Corporations aren't people, not even legally - but they are _comprised_ of people, who do have rights.
I totally agree, we should have one system for all and ridiculous shit like you mention should be stopped. I think you'll find, however, that it won't stop the core issue. Money, in a capitalist system, tends to concentrate. And capitalism may not be the perfect system, but there's none better.
Then stop selling them your labor so cheaply. I really don't understand why so many people live in fairytale land. Your labor is decided by a) what you're willing to sell it for and b) what someone else is willing to do it for. The formula is simple - your labor is worth the lesser of a and b.
Yes. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the only place "everyone" can experience financial independence is in make-believe land. I believe it's just North of the moon, and just south of Unicorn land.
Again, you're not citing any specific laws. The reason you're not doing so is because none exist, you're arguing about the way you wish things were not the way they are.
If we let failures fail, there would be no need for such laws. If you make bad/stupid loans - sucks to be you when you go out of business. But we insisted on propping up the system.
I do blame our legislators, but not because they didn't pass enough silly laws. I blame them for artificially propping up a system that is inherently flawed.
With this idiocy we're just going to continue to accrue institutions which are "too big to fail".
You're not making sense. Those 100k people are paid for their work.
But by all means, maybe the 100k people working at some megacorp can all quit and go form their own corporation and share all the profits, right?
That's called begging the question. Nobody said you have to work your ass of to be rich. Similarly nobody guarantees that you will be rich if you _do_ work hard.
The only thing guaranteed is that you have the right to try to work your ass off and to try to be rich.
You're describing "envy", and nobody but children considers it a legitimate concern.
The rich pay the majority of taxes in this country, and by any definition pay at least their fair share.
But I'm all for a slightly graduated fair tax. 10% rate for income between $30k and $200k, 15% for anything over $200k - for all income sources of any type.
No it isn't. Usury is only codified in the law in some locales, and refers to the terms of the loan. If I loan you $800k I know you'll never pay back but I do so at a 2% interest rate then I am not committing usury.
At last, someone who makes sense. Yes - if we can find specific instances of fraud we should absolutely prosecute to the full extent of the law.
That's not what predatory lending is, and "predatory lending" isn't a legal term, it's a general description of specific practices. What specific law did they break? Did they misrepresent the loan rates? Did they forge documents? Did they lend at a rate above any state or federal loan limit?
The reason the ability to repay the loan is determined by the bank is because it's in the _bank's_ interests, not because of any legal requirement. I can lend you $1 billion dollars if I want, as long as the terms of the loan itself are within legal parameters, and I could do so knowing full well you'll never be able to pay the loan back.
Now, if I have legal financial responsibilities to stockholders or a board of some sort, _then_ I may have civil liabilities for doing so.
It's only rabble rousers who call for banksters to be "jailed", unless they have _specific_ details of a crime any individual committed.
Your inability to grasp English is not my issue. One "makes a loan" by creating it or originating it. If I lend you money I am "making a loan" [agreement].
Loans are written in contracts. Again, to write a loan is to define the details of a loan in contract form.
So reading comprehension aside - there was no crime here. A loan consists of one party lending the other money - unless you're mentally incapacitated (in which case there is still no crime - the loan contract is simply void) or the loan violates state or federal law when it is made, it's by definition not criminal.
So sure, if you do bad risk management and lend money unwisely or against bank policy you should be fired. There is no legal apparatus to fine or imprison these much hated "banksters" for making bad loaning decisions.
The reason there is no such make-believe law is that there doesn't need to be. If banks make [See above for English 101] bad loans, they would pay for it by losing money. If the banks weren't bailed out (TARP was a bailout), it would be a non-issue.
The federal government obviated the need for risk management by providing insurance that no matter what the banks do, we'll bail them out. That's the problem.
Odd how we the people never accept any responsibility. It's always those evil corporations somehow forcing us to vote for politicians. I don't recall Proctor and Gamble paying me to vote any given way. Apparently they're running hypnotic ads which force people to vote for the candidate?
Since you can't blame the tragedy of the commons, we apparently blame the corporations. Makes sense...
Personally, I vote against a politician if I disagree with their policies - no matter how many TV commercials some corporation runs or pays for.
What crime? What specific crime is "giving a loan to someone who can't pay it back"? I'd love to see where this is in the US code.
The only "crime" here was bailing out the idiots making these loans.
Nonsense. Giving someone such a loan is not at all unconscionable, and if so it is in direct proportion to the idiocy of _accepting_ such a loan.
The way it's supposed to work is that the idiot who writes that loan loses his ass. This is a disincentive.
The problem is the government bailed them out. So if anything - bitch at the assholes who bailed people out for making bad decisions. Making the loan is in no way illegal and you're just making shit up out of an idiotic sense of populism.
I have stories too - the rabble did real well in 20th century Russia, eh? Oh, I know - the glorious revolution got co-opted by corruption. But that's what _always_ happens. Also, those "filthy commoners" setup the system the whiners are so vehemently complaining about, including the onerous concept that you are free to succeed or to fail on your own.
If you believe that chain-letter-for-lefties nonsense I have a bridge to sell you. Someone repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it true, plus you're forgetting "church" and "lord" were both ruling class. It's like me making distinctions between CEOs and Vice Presidents and lottery winners.
Complaining about wealth distribution is a lie rabble rousers use to rouse the rabble. Standard of living is what's important - and in the US it's very high. By all means we need to solve our health care costs/availability issue, but other than that these people are whining because someone else has a BMW and they want one.
What exact crime is it to give someone a loan? Please, who exactly do we arrest and for what? In fact, if they had been as tight as a duck's ass about handing out loans people would be whining that the American dream is dead because "normal people" can't afford a house.
If you're going to throw some banker in jail for loaning $300k to someone for a house, make sure you throw the asshole who thought he could afford a $300k house so he could keep up with his neighbors.
Also known as "I want a BMW too you materialistic assholes!".
We have a choice - we get run by the wealthy and powerful or we get run by the rabble.
Sorry, I pick the wealthy and powerful. The rabble have proved throughout history that they will run things to shit.
We have a precarious balance - the rabble have the numbers, the wealthy have the power - if that dynamic shifts too much either way we're in deep shit.
But isn't wealth disparity just something stupid people complain about?
Thought experiment - let's say the 5% richest people in the US move to Mexico (or Canada, or wherever). Wealth disparity instantly "improves" in the US. Please explain how this great leveling of wealth helps anyone here in the US?