Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    14247
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dahobbs

  1. 1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

    You know what I meant by "like."  Sure it's not without precedent, but it's what you do after efforts to directly regulate fail.

    But more to the point, AOC, in her "argument" with the Wells Fargo guy, wasn't outright advocating anything specific, but her questioning either showed an ignorance of legal causation and liability, or, more unlikely, a nascent position for placing liability on lenders.for undesirable practices of borrowers.  Probably most of all, though, she just wanted to associate more or less neutral businesses (banks, in their lending capacities) with more objectively "evil" businesses (pipeline companies and private prisons).

    If she had wanted to be more pointed in her questioning, and less grandstanding, she could have asked if WF knew that pipeline borrowers committed environmental torts, or private prison borrowers "caged children," and if not why not and why doesn't that affect their lending practices.

    Yeah, I agree. I've already said AOC's questioning was poor and appeared to come from ignorance. But the idea that lenders should have some liability isn't completely absurd. I'm trying to get away from what AOC actually did, and address the more interesting question of whether the spirit of what she was suggesting is tenable. I think, as I outlined in my post above, it is. 

  2. 19 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    Dealing with the negatives is what regulation and laws are for.  That's the way to deal with it, not with the blowing of political winds.

     

    You understand we are discussing the possibility of congress passing a law that would extend liability to lenders of certain major projects (e.g., pipelines). I honestly don't have any inkling what you mean by "political winds." 

    For a more concrete example of how this could work (based on how the law works in other instances), the line of liability could looks like this:

    Lender --> operator --> public. 

    The public could pursue either the lender or the operator for damage caused by the pipeline. Both would be liable to the public. But the Lender would have a claim against the operator for any liability it occurred. Thus, if the public sued the lender but not the operator, the lender would just add the operator to the suit. The only time the lender would actually have to pay anything would be in the instances where the operator wasn't available (e.g., shuttered company) or where the operator had insufficient assets to cover the liability.  This would incentivize lenders to ensure that operators had sufficient resources or insurance coverage before lending to them (they already do that to an extent, this would just increase the amount necessary) and that operators had sufficient standards and procedures to prevent incidents. Ideally, this arrangement would add another check to make sure projects are developed appropriately and safely, provide a backstop for the public in instances of insufficient operator resources, but not overly burden the flow of capital. 

    I'm not saying this is the best idea in the world, but it certainly isn't absurd to discuss it and it isn't out of line with our jurisprudence in other areas of the law. AOC flubbed raising the issue in her questioning (that sort of questioning is difficult for even a seasoned litigator), but it is still a worthwhile issue to discuss. 

    • Like 2
  3. 8 hours ago, Incredulity said:

    JFC. Corporate limited liability is a fundamental pillar of Economic Liberalism.  Which is absolutely the foundation of all western economies.

    Corporations are a legal fiction we invented to facilitate economic development. But market based economics existed before corporations were created. The corporate form is not a fucking requirement for a market to develop. Do you actually think that market economics (the interaction of supply and demand to determine the value of a good) did not exist before the East India Company was created in the 1600s? Adam fucking Smith wasn't a fan of them. Maybe you've heard of him.

    Anyway, I was trying to have an actual discussion with Twicehorn. Maybe you can spend this time getting an actual education rather than continually proving what an ignoramus you are. 

  4. 19 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    You don’t have a point. You have some fanciful perception/dream of a reality where liability is allocated by political will.  That would be catastrophically bad.

      Corporations fundamentally exist to limit liability.  That is the reason for their invention, to facilitate risk taking and limit risk.

    Oh dear god. Can you keep a thought for longer than 5 seconds? Liability is established by government fiat. That is it. So, in that sense, it literally only exists due to the political will of the public.

    The discussion here is about how we as a society set the rules of liability. Yes, one of the rules we created allowed for a limitation of liability for shareholders of corporation. That doesn't make corporations a necessity or basis for our economic system. And it doesn't make ill-advised a discussion about how liability is determined when certain harms occur.

    You are just spouting terms and words of which you have zero understanding. 

  5. 5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    Manufacturers indemnify distributors, distributors indemnify retailers routinely in the normal course of business.

    Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Really irrelevant to my point. What do you think the purpose of indemnity is? It only matters if legal liability is an actual possibility. The point here is set the rules of who is liable. From there parties can agree to indemnify if they want. 

    It is pretty clear that you have very little understanding of law or economics. 

  6. 9 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

    Well she is a proponent of taxing corporations at 90%. Who owns a corporation if it’s taxed at 90%?

    As far as I know she hasn't proposed eliminating the graduated income tax scheme. 

  7. 9 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    Holy shit.  You believe that?

    the fuck do you think a corporation is for?

     

    What? It is the Coase theorem. And a corporation is a legal fiction. It is not a requirement or "basis of our economic system." It is just a tool we implemented in part to facilitate economic activity. 

  8. 1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I think it would be preferable to directly regulate things rather than impose some kind of common law liability where none has previously existed, that usually leads to unintended consequences.

    If we don't like pipelines, or private prisons, ban em, regulate them to the nines, don't push some liability on lenders to try to bleed em dry.

    It isn't about not liking them, it is about ensuring that all externalities are accounted for when evaluating their benefit. We impose liability as one tool to bring those externalities within the economic system. Doing so on just the pipeline operator is one way to do that, but if our experience teaches us that it is insufficient for some reason (e.g., lack of operator resources to cover the liability), then extending liability to another entity in the transaction may improve the situation. We do the same thing for instance under consumer protection statutes where all businesses in the chain (manafucturer, distributer, and retailer) can all have liability for a faulty product. It ensures that some entity is available to the consumer. The businesses in the chain then have a separate set of rules that determines liability amongst each other. 

  9. 10 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    The “division of liability” is only the basis of our economic system. NBD.  

    SMH.  Fuck.

    What? Having a system of liability is part of our economic system, but certainly not the basis for it. And where that liability falls is relatively unimportant from an economic perspective, so long as it falls somewhere predictably.

  10. 3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    Because terrorism is illegal.

    funding legal activities is completely different than funding illegal activities.

     

    Yes, I understand it is currently different under our laws. My point is that the line of distinction is arbitrary. We could change the rule on civil liability. Some statutes do just that for specific purposes. We have shifted the rules plenty over the year and we could do so here. It isn't absurd to discuss whether we should. 

  11. 1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

    Better than what?

    The proposition that a lender is culpable for the activity of a legal business’ legal activity is catastrophically stupid.  If she thinkes a pipeline shouldn’t be legal, then pass a law saying so.  Legislating through political pressure on a lender is a really bad idea.

     

    Why is it a terrible idea to discuss? If a lender knowingly funds terrorist activities, we hold them accountable. Why is discussing similar liability for civil projects completely forbidden? Do I think 100% liability is a good idea? No. Some portion of liability? It could work. It at least deserves consideration even if ultimately rejected. 

  12. 1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

    Read my posts again.

    Maybe she is a legal savant. I doubt it.

    Again, I respect her passion and effort. I fully disagree with her perspectives.  Her position and questions to WF CEO were unbelievably stupid. Calling that for what it is isn’t misogyny.

    I read then again and my disgust for you was reinforced. Nice attempt to change the subject though. 

  13. 27 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    It’s got nothing to do with her, her capabilities, or gender.

    Its got to do with the fact there is so much crap in the federal code anyone can play gotcha.

     

    Ooohhhhh, you don’t know CFR 318.65 21a 5r.  It’s illegal to allow you fish to swim without proper federally regulated flotation devices.

    Hahahaha, such bullshit. You're telling me the multitude of posts by you and others calling her an idiot and moron and your post assuming the only way she could know a code provision was by being supplied it by some third party, arent at all driven by the fact that she is a young woman? It is blindingly obvious that is exactly what animates you and it is fucking pathetic. 

  14. 3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    She doesn’t “know” it.  She was fed it, on a bet no one else did.

    Thats the problem.

    How the fuck is that the problem? Oh no, the freshman rep may have employed some competent people (unlike the fuck actually in charge of the census). The horror. Seriously, what an absurdly misogynistic post. 

    • Like 3
  15. 30 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

    Because so many people, especially young people, in this country are morons and gullible morons at that.

    And your posting here is some sort of performance art meant to demonstrate this point. Yes, that is a statement, not a question.

    • Haha 1
  16. 4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    Bullshit.

    Here's a direct copy/paste from the 2018 Texas GOP platform:

    Homosexual Behavior: We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization. We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin. We urge the Texas Legislature to pass religious liberty protections for individuals, businesses, and government officials who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. We oppose the granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

    Definition of Marriage: We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal, and moral commitment only between one natural man and one natural woman.

    State Authority over Marriage: We support withholding jurisdiction from the federal courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage.

    Right, but beyond being completely opposed to it, the party doesn't give a shit about gay marriage. Although, his statement is probably correct. The Democrat [sic] party gives a ton of shit about free speech. Ergo, the Republican party gives a ton a shit about gay marriage (as they obviously do). 

  17. 29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I don't intentionally read known biased news sites, either way. And have a decent soundbite sniffer.  The way she was quoted in the Bloomberg article seemed not to be out of context.  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-13/ethiopian-jet-s-black-boxes-will-go-to-europe-737-max-update

    But I see now that that is the same article reproduced on a number of wingnut sites.  I guess bloomberg goes on the unreliable list.

    To be clear, I wasn't suggesting you did anything wrong at all. I am just shocked to see so many news sites falsely reporting the quoted phrase. As a paraphrase it may be ok, but still lacking in important context and nuance. It is completely improper as a quote.

  18. I will also add that the debate of whether lenders should share in culpability for projects they finance is a legitimate debate to have. People act like this concept is completely foreign to our jurisprudence, but it isn't. If a bank loaned money to a drug cartel for the specific purpose of funding illegal operations, I am pretty sure some criminal liability will attach. Sure, it isn't the standard way we approach civil liability, but it isn't inconceviable that such a system could function in some positive ways.

    Do I think it is the best approach? No. Do I think some limited liability would could result in positive change without entirely disrupting the credit markets? Yes, I think the markets are resilient and would adapt.

    • Like 2
  19. 8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I took the quote from Bloomberg, not Breitbart.  I don't disagree with the general principle that capitalism has run amok, as I initially indicated.  But it's plainly obvious that she's going to blame business wherever possible, including in pretty wrongheaded ways.

    Again, she didnt say it, I posted the whole video and you will not find that phrase. If Bloomberg reported it as a quote, they didnt do their due diligence. And she specifically said there was nothing wrong with capital, just that we have elevated it beyond its proper standing. She is right. 

  20. 10 minutes ago, housious said:

    I'm not a big fan of churches, but I constantly see many of them doing good work on their own dime. Everything from feeding the homeless to lending a helping hand after natural disasters. Go and help next time there is a major storm that rips through an area near you. I think you'd be surprised to find that many of those volunteering are from churches. 

    While I assume his statement was wrong, it wasn't directed at churches in general, but specifically Evangelicals.

  21. 2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Maybe not "evil" per se, but I think we will find her frequently if not always blaming business for just about everything.  At times, she will have a valid point, at others, not so much.

    Jimmy already pointed it out, but she never actually says those words. Countless conservative websites have, in quotation marks, her saying "capitalism is irredeemable" but the actual footage reveals that those quotations are imaginary.  And you don't have to take my word for it (start at 33:20 or so):

     

    Her whole point is that segments of our society have come to worship the accumulation of capital at the cost of everything else. The economic principles of capitalism aren't evil. But prioritizing it above everything else, such as democracy and above human rights, is evil. And I agree with her. Capitalism done right is a tool to make society better by efficiently distributing resources where needed. But capitalism shouldn't be the end goal of society. 

    • Like 1
  22. 1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:


    Her questioning was retarded. If I’m Wells Fargo or JP Morgan and BP wants to do a bond deal (raise capital) to build more ships...you do your due diligence. Bankers likely check out the existing fleet, ask for designs on the new fleet, ask for reasons for expansion (replacing old ships, travel faster speeds, more demand, etc). They do that work. They make the loan.

    BP's ship  has an oil spill. It costs billions. If you make JP Morgan responsible for the clean up it will cost them billions. They will turtle up and never lend to any similar project again. Can’t imagine the coupon on a BP bond before the spill but they probably borrowed pretty cheaply post QE. Maybe 2 or 3 handle. You know what that financing costs them if you make the underwriter responsible? Probably 2,3,4x. Which means BP doesn’t borrow, which means no one builds the ships, which means less steel demand which means less dudes making steel.

    And why stop at the underwriter they don’t own the much of the loan? They allocate to big insurance guys and asset managers. Shouldn’t PIMCO, Blackrock, New York life be responsible too? They own the debt now?

    The problem is she has no idea what the fuck she is talking about or how capital markets work nor the effect of penalizing those who make loans to finance projects.

    I actually dont disagree with most of this. It was an uninformed line of questioning and she probably should have known better. That doesn't change the fact that your post was incredibly misleading. And you definitely should have known better.

     

  23. 18 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:


    She's even missed the fact that the public doesn't pay for spills from pipelines. Didn't she get a degree in economics? What do they teach in economics in college these days?

    The public doesn't pay for pipeline cleanups.

    Those operating companies buy and stack pollution-liability insurance policies on top of each other into an insurance "tower". The pipeline operators pay their self-insured retention (essentially their deductible) and the insurance companies pay everything else, up to the individual limits of the policies.

    Deductibles for operators are typically at least $5MM, with stacked insurance limits up to $25MM or $50MM. And the insurance companies also evaluate the operators' histories and spill prevention/response procedures, to see if they are an acceptable risk.

    Honestly, this is not rocket science. Pipelines leak and get cleaned up. Dry cleaners leak and get cleaned up. Landfills leak and get cleaned up.
     

    This isn't completely right. Yes, assuming the company is found liable AND has sufficient assets or insurance, then the company pays for the cleanup. But, (1) companies don't always have sufficient assets or insurance, (2) companies aren't always found liable or at the very least don't concede liability initially (in fact, they never do). In those instances, the public would indeed pay the for the cleanup, or at least initially pay for it. And, in many instances whatever settlement is arrived at is just that, a settlement of a dispute with neither side completely winning. Thus, the public still ends up paying for some of the cleanup.  In fact, litigation over pipeline spills is incredibly common precisely because companies and their insurers never say "yep, it is all on us." And I am not blaming them for that. I'm just stating how the world actually works and not this magical world where "pipelines leak and get cleaned up" just like that. You'd think a lawyer would know this really basic stuff. It isn't rocket science. 

    • Like 4
    • Fuck You 1
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...