Schlake wrote:

Which one is responsible for more of the value?

I don't know. Who decides that?

Schlake wrote:

Are they owners creating value, or stealing value?

Think of this way, there are Takers, and Makers.  The Makers produce things of value.  The Takers take the value that the Makers produce and they hoard it for themselves.  If the business owners are just Takers, and not actually producing any value, then no they shouldn't get paid.  Sure, they might have set up the factory and provided the money to start things up, but if they've been made whole and been repaid for they work they did and the money they lent and they are no longer producing any value for the operation, then they are Takers.

every day Igo to work. Or allow my company to stay in business and employing people and don't sell the parts for profit and go home, Ihave created value.

People have jobs
Cities have taxes (so do states n feds)
Kids have food
Stores have products
People have things they need to buy

I created value.

Plus, 90% of the time, I did something to further it.

In Balance Photography wrote:

I don't know. Who decides that?

Someone has too.

Schlake wrote:
Someone has too.

Your qualifications for leader of the unfree world are?

In the world we all see outside our western windows, someone does.  The public in a free market economy.

Ask the people whose life savings is protected in a bank if the bank provides value.

Ask the bank, store, or factory employee if value is created where they work.

Countries tried it your way, USSR and old school China.  Ask modern China if they want to go back.  Ask moscowvites if they want breadlines and corruption back

Schlake wrote:

Someone has too.

Lets suppose I own a factory. I employ people to make widgets and then I sell them.

I pay my workers 10 dollars per widget. I sell them for 100. I pay myself 90 per widget. They take a lot of expertise to sell.

Fair?

Pinups4 wrote:

Your qualifications for leader of the unfree world are?

In the world we all see outside our western windows, someone does.  The public in a free market economy.

Ask the people whose life savings is protected in a bank if the bank provides value.

Ask the bank, store, or factory employee if value is created where they work.

Countries tried it your way, USSR and old school China.  Ask modern China if they want to go back.  Ask moscowvites if they want breadlines and corruption back

I'm not sure what you're talking about.  It certainly isn't about anything I've been talking about.

Pinups4 wrote:

Have you read the thread? The OPs position and others is that using bankruptcies to stiff the 'objects' that shouldn't need to be paid back what was agreed.  That is where Isee issues

I treat all administrative and judicial remedies as a hand of cards of equivalent moral weight

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:

I treat all administrative and judicial remedies as a hand of cards of equivalent moral weight

Perfect.  And the OPs concept that bankruptcy shouldn't affect your credit, life or anything else?

Pinups4 wrote:

Perfect.  And the OPs concept that bankruptcy shouldn't affect your credit, life or anything else?

shouldn't? is that my concept?

when I hear of bankruptcy, I hear of it as a reference to failure. When I read what bankruptcy actually is and how the courts handle it, it doesn't appear that failure is any part of it.

Bankruptcy does affect your credit, but it doesn't have to affect your access to capital. Access to capital being a broad topic, reaching far beyond the shenanigans of retail credit.

continue

Pinups4 wrote:
every day Igo to work. Or allow my company to stay in business and employing people and don't sell the parts for profit and go home, Ihave created value.

People have jobs
Cities have taxes (so do states n feds)
Kids have food
Stores have products
People have things they need to buy

I created value.

Plus, 90% of the time, I did something to further it.

I understand your perspective more now. You are weighing things morally based on their perceived social utility. Where you feel that bankruptcy has little social utility and therefore is less moral than what you do.

I wonder if everyone shares that opinion. At one point all of the Abrahamic religions had prohibitions on lending with interest. Today, its generally just Islam that still has a prohibition on lending with interest, in certain capacity. Perhaps to a certain set of people, it is the sinning creditors that got what they deserved

But anyway, I am sure we would disagree on a lot of things, as I am more apt to weigh actions by their consequences as I perceive them, like in a chess match.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
I understand your perspective more now. You are weighing things morally based on their perceived social utility. Where you feel that bankruptcy has little social utility and therefore is less moral than what you do.

You understand me ....not at all.  since you can't even properly credit my position, when I have stated the exact opposite of what you claim my position is.

simply. my position is choices and actions have consequences. and should

I wonder if everyone shares that opinion. At one point all of the Abrahamic religions had prohibitions on lending with interest. Today, its generally just Islam that still has a prohibition on lending with interest, in certain capacity. Perhaps to a certain set of people, it is the sinning creditors that got what they deserved

But anyway, I am sure we would disagree on a lot of things, as I am more apt to weigh actions by their consequences as I perceive them, like in a chess match.

Where did Isay bankruptcy has little social value?  I have stated many times over it has its place

So do the consequences of that choice.  Since every choice needs benefits (like clearing the deck of most debts) and consequences

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:

shouldn't? is that my concept?

when I hear of bankruptcy, I hear of it as a reference to failure. When I read what bankruptcy actually is and how the courts handle it, it doesn't appear that failure is any part of it.

Bankruptcy does affect your credit, but it doesn't have to affect your access to capital. Access to capital being a broad topic, reaching far beyond the shenanigans of retail credit.

continue

Hey Rav, think of it this way.

Let's say you have a car for sale. You advertise it on craigs list. It's a clunker so you only have liability on it, no reason to have comp and collision on a car worth $2000.

Someone comes for a test drive. He uses due caution but hits black ice and slams into a pole, totaling the car. He didn't do anything wrong, it was just bad luck - an accident.

So he walks back to your house, hands you the keys and says, "No, I don't want it"; gets in his car and drives away. You have a loss, he is sort-of responsible, and he just walks away. It wasn't your fault, either.

So, is the drive liable to you for wrecking your car? After all, it was just an accident. And you were trying to make money by selling the car, so it really was a business transaction gone wrong for you.

The argument that a bankrupt person isn't hurting anyone, just screwing over a bank that is looking at it as a business risk, is the same as you selling the car. In this case, you just shrug your shoulders and write it off as a business risk.

Oh, and you have to pay for the light pole, too, it was your car.

ArtisticPhotography wrote:

Hey Rav, think of it this way.

Let's say you have a car for sale. You advertise it on craigs list. It's a clunker so you only have liability on it, no reason to have comp and collision on a car worth $2000.

Someone comes for a test drive. He uses due caution but hits black ice and slams into a pole, totaling the car. He didn't do anything wrong, it was just bad luck - an accident.

So he walks back to your house, hands you the keys and says, "No, I don't want it"; gets in his car and drives away. You have a loss, he is sort-of responsible, and he just walks away. It wasn't your fault, either.

So, is the drive liable to you for wrecking your car? After all, it was just an accident. And you were trying to make money by selling the car, so it really was a business transaction gone wrong for you.

The argument that a bankrupt person isn't hurting anyone, just screwing over a bank that is looking at it as a business risk, is the same as you selling the car. In this case, you just shrug your shoulders and write it off as a business risk.

Oh, and you have to pay for the light pole, too, it was your car.

Bankruptcy is not ideal ...but I don't have any better ideas on how to handle people that have no realistic chance of getting out of debt.

Alec Dealty wrote:
Borrowing money from someone and not paying it back is bad. It is stealing and a violation of trust.

Uhm, no.

Its stealing if you don't intend to pay it back AT THE TIME the loan was being made. Sometimes shit happens that is completely beyond anything 1 person can directly control.

Alec Dealty wrote:
Yes, they are certainly excuses. If you borrowed money you didn't pay it back, you have unjustly enriched yourself, no matter what the reason is.

Unjustly?  No matter what the reason?  What a spectacularly ridiculous thing to say.

ArtisticPhotography wrote:
The argument that a bankrupt person isn't hurting anyone,

Banks aren't people; banks are objects.

PK Brazil wrote:
Personal bankruptcy is not "bad", but it is sometimes a factor that employers will evaluate when performing new hire background checks or during a security clearance process.

yes, very true.  the extent with which credit history could affect my career with a clearance was a factor in me leaving the DC area

I mainly just didn't want to be subject to the conditions of Top Secret Polysci clearances. Rubbed me the wrong way since in Maryland its prohibited to give lie detector for employment, but for the more lucrative federal employment it was a given

I've sort of built my life around not being subject to a lot of things, or just having less cascading consequences

ArtisticPhotography wrote:

Hey Rav, think of it this way.

Let's say you have a car for sale. You advertise it on craigs list. It's a clunker so you only have liability on it, no reason to have comp and collision on a car worth $2000.

Someone comes for a test drive. He uses due caution but hits black ice and slams into a pole, totaling the car. He didn't do anything wrong, it was just bad luck - an accident.

So he walks back to your house, hands you the keys and says, "No, I don't want it"; gets in his car and drives away. You have a loss, he is sort-of responsible, and he just walks away. It wasn't your fault, either.

So, is the drive liable to you for wrecking your car? After all, it was just an accident. And you were trying to make money by selling the car, so it really was a business transaction gone wrong for you.

The argument that a bankrupt person isn't hurting anyone, just screwing over a bank that is looking at it as a business risk, is the same as you selling the car. In this case, you just shrug your shoulders and write it off as a business risk.

Oh, and you have to pay for the light pole, too, it was your car.

I view actions differently when it is the state protecting you

and in bankruptcy, it is always the state protecting you

Schlake wrote:

Banks aren't people; banks are objects.

The employees who lose their jobs/raises/bonuses are people

The investors are people. They make the bank possible

The depositors whose money was loaned and lost are people

The owners who created the bank that allowed the person to buy a house/car/trip they wanted then stopped paying on are people

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
I view actions differently when it is the state protecting you

and in bankruptcy, it is always the state protecting you

Why is it different when steve the taxpayer is paying the bill

As opposed to steve the neighbor whose car you wrecked

Or steve the employee

Or steve the store owner

Pinups4 wrote:
Why is it different when steve the taxpayer is paying the bill

As opposed to steve the neighbor whose car you wrecked

Or steve the employee

Or steve the store owner

its not my concern how a state funds itself, if part of that institution will raise a legal shield for a person, the way that institution funds itself is completely amoral and is a red herring to the bankruptcy proceedings

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:

its not my concern how a state funds itself, if part of that institution will raise a legal shield for a person, the way that institution funds itself is completely amoral and is a red herring to the bankruptcy proceedings

But why do morals change when Iam a taxpayer funding the state and not a business owner

Besides.  Bankruptcy is state protection from private creditors.  Both steve the taxpayer and steve the person lose when jane files

Filing is her right, and a tough choice...but why should the credit and other consequences be erased?

The consequences and costs incurred by all of steve's roles don't go away...

Pinups4 wrote:

But why do morals change when Iam a taxpayer funding the state and not a business owner

actually I never agreed with your analogy to begin with

it has nothing to do with whether a creditor is an individual, or if the creditor is a big financial institution, or something else

so I can't really entertain this particular train of discussion, since I'm not in the habit of assigning arbitrary moral weights

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:

actually I never agreed with your analogy to begin with

it has nothing to do with whether a creditor is an individual, or if the creditor is a big financial institution, or something else

so I can't really entertain this particular train of discussion, since I'm not in the habit of assigning arbitrary moral weights

good. Neither am I which is why I oppose the OP position that bankruptcy should have fewer consequences than currently


That is patently absurd notion .

Pinups4 wrote:

The employees who lose their jobs/raises/bonuses are people

The investors are people. They make the bank possible

The depositors whose money was loaned and lost are people

The owners who created the bank that allowed the person to buy a house/car/trip they wanted then stopped paying on are people

Still doesn't make banks people.

Schlake wrote:

Still doesn't make banks people.

The distinction goes to u

The difference is...NONE.  hurt banks....hurt people

Why should people walk away wjthout consequence for screwing creditors?

Not just banks lose.  I lost 20k personally when someone I loaned to went bankrupt.  It hurt.  I am not whole!  Why should thy not suffer too?

Pinups4 wrote:
The distinction goes to u

The difference is...NONE.  hurt banks....hurt people

Why should people walk away wjthout consequence for screwing creditors?

Not just banks lose.  I lost 20k personally when someone I loaned to went bankrupt.  It hurt.  I am not whole!  Why should thy not suffer too?

Because the creditors aren't the bank.  If someone goes bankrupt they don't take anything away from the creditors, their debt was with the bank.  Which is just an object.

You can't really "hurt" an object, as objects don't have feelings.

But your logic is interesting.  Let's say the bank is the entity at fault.  The bank gave an improper loan that the lender should never have had.  The bank knew that the lender would never be able to repay it.  In this case surely you think all the investors should be held accountable for the actions of the bank, right?

Schlake wrote:
Because the creditors aren't the bank.  If someone goes bankrupt they don't take anything away from the creditors, their debt was with the bank.  Which is just an object.

You can't really "hurt" an object, as objects don't have feelings.

But your logic is interesting.  Let's say the bank is the entity at fault.  The bank gave an improper loan that the lender should never have had.  The bank knew that the lender would never be able to repay it.  In this case surely you think all the investors should be held accountable for the actions of the bank, right?

you have no clue about business.

I PERSONALLY loaned someone 20k. they PERSONALLY went bankrupt.  I PERSONALLY lost the 20k. 

I am an stockholder in Wachovia.  Actually I was. 20% of my 401k was with that stock.  When they went under, I lost.  big.  I have no issue there, risk comes with reward.  But, the people who filed bankruptcy (and certainly are not in a good place financially) shouldn't walk away without any credit or other issues to deal with for having been part of what created my loss.

wachovia employees, vendors, etc. lost money and jobs.  Many themselves went bankrupt.  But the people who signed on debt they couldn't afford should bear no responsibility?  Suffer no consequences?

Pinups4 wrote:
you have no clue about business.

I PERSONALLY loaned someone 20k. they PERSONALLY went bankrupt.  I PERSONALLY lost the 20k. 

I am an stockholder in Wachovia.  Actually I was. 20% of my 401k was with that stock.  When they went under, I lost.  big.  I have no issue there, risk comes with reward.  But, the people who filed bankruptcy (and certainly are not in a good place financially) shouldn't walk away without any credit or other issues to deal with for having been part of what created my loss.

I know how business works.

You lent money to someone, they went backrupt, you were hurt.  That's easy.  You're not an object.  But I am curious, were you immorally exploiting that person you lent money too?

And then you lent money to an object.  You lost that money.  No person took your money from you.   No person did anything to you.

Schlake wrote:
I know how business works.

Clearly you don't - or you'd realize that customers not paying their bills have direct impact on the businesses ability to pay the people performing services and providing products to that business, products and services requested by the customers.

Companies are not people.  They are made up of people, serve people, benefit people and help people.  Or (with no customers they are helping) they go out of business.

You lent money to someone, they went backrupt, you were hurt.  That's easy.

Yep. It's easy, but why do you support the people who burned me getting away with lesser consequences than they have now

You're not an object.  But I am curious, were you immorally exploiting that person you lent money too?

Nope. they needed money, I offered it at terms that were very fair, they made an adult decision to take my money so they could buy a boat (not a necessity, something they WANTED) that they later sold before bankruptcy. 

adults entered into a contract.  One side didn't follow through, and you want them to get away clean.  I don't mind them rebuilding their lives, but please- let the next person know they had issues, let them be forced to rebuild their credit and so forth while I try to recover from that loss.

And then you lent money to an object.  You lost that money.  No person took your money from you.   No person did anything to you.

agreed.  Except that loss was CAUSED by people DEFAULTING ON THEIR AGREEMENTS. Again, why should breaking your word, your promise, your contract have no consequence in your world?

Pinups4 wrote:
Clearly you don't - or you'd realize that customers not paying their bills have direct impact on the businesses ability to pay the people performing services and providing products to that business, products and services requested by the customers.

I realize that.  Why wouldn't I realize that?

Companies are not people.  They are made up of people, serve people, benefit people and help people.  Or (with no customers they are helping) they go out of business.

You forgot about companies hurting people, exploiting people, hindering people, and harming people.

Yep. It's easy, but why do you support the people who burned me getting away with lesser consequences than they have now

I don't remember ever supporting anyone who burned you to get away with it.  I've just been pointing out that objects aren't people.

Nope. they needed money, I offered it at terms that were very fair, they made an adult decision to take my money so they could buy a boat (not a necessity, something they WANTED) that they later sold before bankruptcy.

And so you lent them money interest free!  Good for you.  Most people are scumbags and would have exploited them for being poor.

adults entered into a contract.  One side didn't follow through, and you want them to get away clean.  I don't mind them rebuilding their lives, but please- let the next person know they had issues, let them be forced to rebuild their credit and so forth while I try to recover from that loss.

I've never said I wanted them to get away clean.

agreed.  Except that loss was CAUSED by people DEFAULTING ON THEIR AGREEMENTS. Again, why should breaking your word, your promise, your contract have no consequence in your world?

You didn't have to entrust your money to an object.  No one forced you.

And I never said it should have no consequence.

Schlake wrote:

Pinups4 wrote:
Clearly you don't - or you'd realize that customers not paying their bills have direct impact on the businesses ability to pay the people performing services and providing products to that business, products and services requested by the customers.

I realize that.  Why wouldn't I realize that?

because clearly if it's ok to "hurt an object" you are OK with the people that get hurt in the process being hurt. 

it's sad really.  such a lack of compassion.

Companies are not people.  They are made up of people, serve people, benefit people and help people.  Or (with no customers they are helping) they go out of business.

You forgot about companies hurting people, exploiting people, hindering people, and harming people.

and that impacts the OP and purpose of this thread how? 

Exploitation is wrong.  people agreeing to a loan at an agreed rate isn't .  No one forced them. 

Yep. It's easy, but why do you support the people who burned me getting away with lesser consequences than they have now

I don't remember ever supporting anyone who burned you to get away with it.  I've just been pointing out that objects aren't people.

Nope. they needed money, I offered it at terms that were very fair, they made an adult decision to take my money so they could buy a boat (not a necessity, something they WANTED) that they later sold before bankruptcy.

And so you lent them money interest free!  Good for you.  Most people are scumbags and would have exploited them for being poor.

silly.  I loaned them money for a LUXURY OPTIONAL ITEM at a rate that was better than they could get elsewhere.  Why shouldn't they be required to pay me back, or if they can't why should it be OK that they burned me?

an agreed loan is not exploitation.  anywhere in the western world

adults entered into a contract.  One side didn't follow through, and you want them to get away clean.  I don't mind them rebuilding their lives, but please- let the next person know they had issues, let them be forced to rebuild their credit and so forth while I try to recover from that loss.

I've never said I wanted them to get away clean.


You didn't have to entrust your money to an object.  No one forced you.

and no one forced any of these borrowers who went under to sign on their loans. 

And I never said it should have no consequence.

more places and ways than you even know, you did.  By stating it's ok to screw a bank and supporting the idea that bankruptcy isnt bad.  shouldn't have consequences.

the people who file arent bad. but, as a tool it is a LAST RESORT and should be seen as that.  And have consequences.  End of debate.  Your points don't further the thread.

Pinups4 wrote:
because clearly if it's ok to "hurt an object" you are OK with the people that get hurt in the process being hurt.

No, not clearly at all.  Stop making things up.

it's sad really.  such a lack of compassion.

Stop making things up.

and that impacts the OP and purpose of this thread how?

The same way your random apologist statement about objects impacted the OP and the purpose of this thread.  Since I don't know why you did that, I can't actually tell you.

Exploitation is wrong.  people agreeing to a loan at an agreed rate isn't .  No one forced them.

I'm getting a mixed message here.  First you say exploitation is wrong. But then you say that people escaping your exploitation are wrong.  If exploitation is wrong, then surely you support the exploited in overcoming their oppressor.  Unless, of course, you only think exploitation is wrong if you were the one being exploited, but you fully support it if you're the one exploiting other people.

silly.  I loaned them money for a LUXURY OPTIONAL ITEM at a rate that was better than they could get elsewhere.  Why shouldn't they be required to pay me back, or if they can't why should it be OK that they burned me?

So, you made bad choice and tried to exploit the person who made a bad choice with.  But who is arguing that they shouldn't be required to pay you?  It's not me.  And who is arguing that it is ok that they burned you?  Again, it's not me.

an agreed loan is not exploitation.  anywhere in the western world

That's true, a loan is not exploitation.  Loans are fine.  Loans are good.  Loans are useful.  Loans are important.  Charging interest is exploitation though.

and no one forced any of these borrowers who went under to sign on their loans.

Is this relevant?

more places and ways than you even know, you did.  By stating it's ok to screw a bank and supporting the idea that bankruptcy isnt bad.  shouldn't have consequences.

Nope, I didn't.  Sorry.

the people who file arent bad. but, as a tool it is a LAST RESORT and should be seen as that.  And have consequences.  End of debate.  Your points don't further the thread.

I agree that the people who file aren't bad.  I agree it is a tool of last resort.  I agree it has consequences.  As for furthering the thread, have you looked at your own points?

Schlake wrote:

Pinups4 wrote:
because clearly if it's ok to "hurt an object" you are OK with the people that get hurt in the process being hurt.

No, not clearly at all.  Stop making things up.

it's sad really.  such a lack of compassion.

Stop making things up.

and that impacts the OP and purpose of this thread how?

The same way your random apologist statement about objects impacted the OP and the purpose of this thread.  Since I don't know why you did that, I can't actually tell you.

Exploitation is wrong.  people agreeing to a loan at an agreed rate isn't .  No one forced them.

I'm getting a mixed message here.  First you say exploitation is wrong. But then you say that people escaping your exploitation are wrong.  If exploitation is wrong, then surely you support the exploited in overcoming their oppressor.  Unless, of course, you only think exploitation is wrong if you were the one being exploited, but you fully support it if you're the one exploiting other people.

silly.  I loaned them money for a LUXURY OPTIONAL ITEM at a rate that was better than they could get elsewhere.  Why shouldn't they be required to pay me back, or if they can't why should it be OK that they burned me?

So, you made bad choice and tried to exploit the person who made a bad choice with.  But who is arguing that they shouldn't be required to pay you?  It's not me.  And who is arguing that it is ok that they burned you?  Again, it's not me.

an agreed loan is not exploitation.  anywhere in the western world

That's true, a loan is not exploitation.  Loans are fine.  Loans are good.  Loans are useful.  Loans are important.  Charging interest is exploitation though.

and no one forced any of these borrowers who went under to sign on their loans.

Is this relevant?

more places and ways than you even know, you did.  By stating it's ok to screw a bank and supporting the idea that bankruptcy isnt bad.  shouldn't have consequences.

Nope, I didn't.  Sorry.


I agree that the people who file aren't bad.  I agree it is a tool of last resort.  I agree it has consequences.  As for furthering the thread, have you looked at your own points?

so in your belief they should borrow 20,000 from me for 10 years and I should at the end of that get $20,000 back?  No interest or it's exploitation?

Pinups4 wrote:

so in your belief they should borrow 20,000 from me for 10 years and I should at the end of that get $20,000 back?  No interest or it's exploitation?

That is what interest is.

Schlake wrote:
That is what interest is.

by whose definition  - besides yours.

You once said interest didnt exist until the 50s. references please