[Grovenet] Dependent or Independent?

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

David wrote:

No dispute that frivolous lawsuits damage our economy and social  
structure.  No dispute that the "get rich quick" mentality has been  
part of our national psyche for a century or two ( the Gold Rushes  
are great examples of this).  There was a time when lawyers were  
unwelcome in some colonies.

--------------------

The "gold rushes" provided important lessons for the vast majority of those
who participated, as did many other "rushes" including the "land rushes" as
new territories were wrested from those pesky Indians and opened for
civilized "white" settlement.

The participants learned that very, very few got rich quick. Getting rich
took hard work, lots of hard work, and no small amount of luck. For many,
years of very long hard work resulted in nothing at all. 

If those suing a fast-food chain for serving hot coffee, and the juries
listening in the box, had to experience any of those hardships, things might
be much different <G>. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 


-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 8:31 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Dependent or Independent?


No dispute that frivolous lawsuits damage our economy and social  
structure.  No dispute that the "get rich quick" mentality has been  
part of our national psyche for a century or two ( the Gold Rushes  
are great examples of this).  There was a time when lawyers were  
unwelcome in some colonies.

The flip side would be hazardous industries where the management  
ignores safety regulations as a means to provide profit to their  
board of directors.  People are expected to work at their personal  
risk so that the stock holders can receive a proper return on their  
investment.  It may not be possible to make a risk-free working  
environment, but it does seem that those who are taking the risk  
should be sharing in the profit.  In those companies, the employees  
have the personal risk and the stockholders have the financial reward.

Instead many of the jobs have the risk and then when any effort is  
made to improve the working conditions the job moves to another area  
where they can avoid the cost of safety.  If the stockholders were  
personally responsible for the damages to the workers, they might be  
willing to invest in safety.  Instead the stock investors send their  
money to the location with the lowest overhead, which often means  
lowest standard of working conditions.  Those corporations that have  
a good ethic are at a competitive disadvantage to those with a "let  
them eat cake" ethic.  Allowing the investors in the unsafe companies  
share the risk with their employees should work to better balance the  
scales.

Will this cause the nation to export the jobs?  Only if the dollar is  
prevented from reaching parity with the market value, i.e. when trade  
is balanced.  The principle of free trade works even if one trading  
partner has strong workplace standards and the other has none.  So,  
China would have balanced trade with the USA today if the dollar were  
at parity with the value of the yuan, whether or not they had good  
working conditions.  The fact that we do not have that situation,  
demonstrates that the free market is not setting the exchange rate.

David
On Dec 17, 2007, at 7:45 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> So what?
>
> I merely suggested that we make sole proprietorships more
> attractive for
> larger companies.
>
> Sure, there may be many things one can do with corporations to make
> them
> less onerous, but that wasn't the point.
>
> I know, from my own experience, that one very important reason for
> forming a
> corporation is the attitude of so many Americans who spend their  
> lifetimes
> looking for a way to sue someone: "ka-ching! I'm rich!!"
>
> Americans have a long history of idiotic lawsuits, in effect
> claiming to be
> an incompetent bunch of idiots who must have the law caring for  
> them to
> avoid injuring themselves doing things such as trying to drive with  
> a cup of
> hot coffee in their laps to eating parts of furniture!
>
> American juries have a long history of agreeing with those idiots.
>
> The corporate structure keeps only the assets of the corporations
> at risk to
> such idiotic awards, limiting the harm to the people in the  
> corporation to
> the loss of their employment and their capital investment if the  
> corporation
> bankrupts. It's not much comfort, knowing that you're employment, your
> retirement account and your savings invested in the company are all  
> at risk,
> just ask any Enron employee.. Er, "ex" employee, but it's better  
> than losing
> your house and other personal property too
>
> I submit that step one is to put an end to that idiocy.
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of David Morelli
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:09 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Dependent or Independent?
>
>
> The creation of corporations in their current form can be traced to a 
> variety of legal decisions and legislative actions.  In the end, the 
> corporations had a real edge over sole proprietorships.  Corporations 
> can own property and people working within the corporation can make 
> decisions in the name of the corporation as if it was a living 
> thinking person.  Not bad for a piece of paper.  This is a bit like a 
> comatose patient having a trustee handling their estate, and 
> pretending that the patient is responsible for the decisions.
>
> And since it was not a real person, it doesn't have to worry about 
> inheritance or death interfering with the acquisition of wealth for 
> it's board of directors and corporate officers.  Yes, it also passes 
> some dividends to the stock holders, but in the modern corporate 
> America, the largest beneficiaries, in my opinion, are the board and 
> their officers.
>
> The other benefit is the limited liability aspect.  sole 
> proprietorships have strong liability for their actions, the owner can 
> be responsible for civil or criminal actions and actually go to jail.  
> Corporations cannot go to jail, and the board of directors isn't 
> likely to be sent to jail even if they hire individuals who are 
> illegally aggressive or negligent in their pursuit of profits for the 
> board.  The stockholders may benefit financially from the actions of 
> their "hired help" without holding any civil or criminal liability. 
> Corporate punishment is pretty much financial, with a cap on the 
> possible consequences to the stockholders.  Stockholders cannot lose 
> more than they invest.  While they can share in any profit that the 
> board, officers and management can create.  There is no incentive to 
> police the actions of their "workers", while there is an incentive to 
> invest in those corporations where the "workers" push the envelope or 
> step outside the bounds.
>
> Is there a corrective response?  I would suggest that this county 
> determine that, by law, corporations are a construct of the state and 
> that they are not "legal individuals".  Their existence may be 
> terminated by the issuing body for wrongful or illegal behavior - 
> which was the original standard.  Also, a determination that the 
> corporation is a special form of partnership, where it holds property 
> and conducts business in the name of its stockholders, rather than in 
> its own name.  Therefore the legal liability for wrong actions, may be 
> passed unto the stockholders, board of directors, officers and 
> administrators, in proportion to their ownership or control.
>
> David
>
> On Dec 16, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
>
>> We didn't outlaw sole proprietorships.
>>
>> So why don't we structure the laws to encourage sole proprietorships 
>> over corporations?
>>
>> People do what works best for them, whether it's a desirable carrot 
>> or a stinging thrash from a stick. Only they're less likely to revolt 
>> going for the carrot.
>>
>> Ron D'Eau Claire
>>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet