Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Toto deVeer

Members
  • Posts

    1,897
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Toto deVeer

  1. We are not going to stop robotics. We have to rethink and redefine -- what are the useful human endeavours of the future and what constitutes a productive life . We have to redefine employment.
  2. The 800 pound gorilla in the corner that nobody wants to think about is ready to pounce...
  3. Agreed that the subjects of liability and various business forms could quickly descend into something quite tedious. I'll just note that you make a number of valid points. But I don't view these things as the state shielding people from liability. The state permits its citizens, any citizen (or any person - one could say - without discrimination) to pool their resources and form a new legal entity that has certain legal standing. In return for this the new entity must meet strict rules - for example it must be held solvent, a going concern - or the persons operating this company could potentially be subject to criminal prosecution if they continue to engage in transactions (when it is not a going concern). For small businesses the guideline for 'going concern' is when the net current asset value goes negative (although it is not exactly this clear - there are exceptions). You can call the persons so forming this new legal entity 'businessmen' but any person can create one of these entities. In the UK this can be done for less cost than a decent meal at a local restaurant. Hardly restrictive for anyone. So I do not see that there is any unfair advantage. There is a difference between theory and reality. Banks, for example, simply will not allow the limitation of liability to be of any use for a starting business. They will require collateral in the form of pledges to personal assets of the business owners where loans are issued. This reality is at variance with your assertion that business persons are in some way 'shielded'. In this case the bank is shielded, not the business owner. So there are few, if any special exceptions, in reality. A business entity, in an economic sense, is defined by its net current asset value. Until this gets sufficiently large, and has a history, there will be no treatment of it as an established entity, in reality. All other matters otherwise become highly theoretical.
  4. Recent history will support your conclusion - unfortunately this is a strong possibility. There is also the possibility that the City will whisper in the ear of our political leaders with an ultimatum, however. If the wheels come off the trolley the City will be one of the biggest losers...
  5. If someone slips on the front doorstep of the office on a rainy day and cracks their skull, investors don't want to assume unlimited liability when 'Lawsuits R Us' wins a record breaking settlement (on a contingency basis)... Statutory law clearly defines liability -- commercial contracts, by contrast, are nothing more than a starting point of court argument -- therefore is not a statutory limitation but merely an attempt to limit liability. This introduces more investor uncertainty - in the latter case. Plus contract liability limitations must be crafted on a case by case basis - whereas statutory limitation is the same for all. These aspects have nothing to do with honesty or dishonesty or seeing a project through. Simply prudence. There is no reason why a share-based company cannot have workers as shareholders. Certainly I have worked for employee-owned limited companies in the past. Cooperatives have a much more stringent governance structure established by statutory legislation - governance and member participation is enshrined in law - more so than share based companies.
  6. Ouch. Double Ouch. But they can pull a trigger though. Amazon is so Ebay these days... Actually I find that their 'retail experience' is deteriorating these days...
  7. I think you are looking at this too simplistically. There are contributions agreements in all forms of Cooperatives. Members are vested in it - regardless of the liability issues. Recall that the concept of limited liability arose from certain high risk shipping undertakings - that would not have found investment otherwise. Nonetheless those investors still have 'skin in the game' in any case - whether limited or unlimited. From a functional perspective, for share based capital structures - dividends are taxed at source - effectively the net income is taxed first, then the dividends are taxed next, and ultimately capital gains on shares are taxed. However a Cooperative is not a capital based structure - net income is distributed (or reserved). Generally most jurisdictions don't tax distributions. Therefore income is only taxed once - not twice. These are some of the issues, among others, in the establishment of a limited liability Cooperative or a Limited Liability Company. It could be beneficial for joint venture arrangements, collaborations between small enterprises, or fair trading vehicles - like with tea or coffee production.
  8. Here's my 2c. The BOE can buy up bonds indefinitely to keep interest rates at zero. Therefore there should never be a bond collapse. However, there will be a currency collapse. You can't have it both ways. Thus all debts will be repaid, but the currency of payment may become worthless. At some point the currency collapse (or hopefully risk-of collapse) is going to trigger some effort by Whitehall and the BOE to do something with interest rates. When it gets to this stage - fighting currency collapse by increasing interest rates and debt levels - its going to be a white knuckle roller-coaster ride...and the cars could fly off the tracks... In my opinion, if they are smart, they will pre-empt this risk by gently nudging rates up just a little, from time to time - staying ahead of everybody else - to play the 'safe-harbour' card...
  9. I don't think that the issue of limited or unlimited is so important. Cooperatives around the world come under strict governance and share guidelines - this is in fact what defines them as being apart from other business forms - shared, distributed and representative decision-making. The issue of limited and unlimited is more to do with the type or object of the enterprise - the risk involved. High risk enterprises (such as certain insurance activities, or the commercialization of research) might not be undertaken, otherwise. Yes that is a possibility. Point taken.
  10. QE is enabling the 'Nazification' (or is it Stazification) of the USA - later to be emerge across the rest of the world. Without QE, the security state combined with endless invasion would not have been possible. Without QE, governments would be forced to shrink.
  11. What I am saying is that resources can be extracted with cooperative types of business structures. This is, in fact, the basis of some of the world's most successful businesses with shared responsibility and shared reward. Coops were introduced originally for collective benefit of farming. Now you have such organizations as Fonterra or Mondragon - and most of the safest banking institutions are Cooperatives. Currently very big in Banking, Forestry, Fisheries, Agriculture, Industrial production. Thus proving that capitalism, resource utilization and shared benefit can coexist - without concentration of ownership.
  12. Splitting hairs. Cooperative businesses. Same model as Barcelona FC - arguably the world's most successful football club.
  13. Most folks associate the name Sassoon with Vidal or Siegfried. But this family name runs a lot deeper than those.
  14. The Sasooon family: '...started as 'Opium traders from Bagdad... ...in 1832... ...expanded from Bagdad to Bombay... ...and thereafter into China, Japan and the entire Orient ...'. The Sasoons were considered more influential, more wealthy and more secretive that the Rothschilds (formerly Bauer in Germany). Descendants of the Sassoons are known as Soongs in China - prior to the revolution they ran the largest bank and the Central bank in China. The two Dynasties (Sassoons and Rothschilds) were joined by intermarriage in 1881. --Empire of the City, EC Knuth, 1945 (Reprinted 2006). Guess who David Cameron's key advisor is today? Lord Sassoon.
  15. Implictions? Younger childless couples can get on the ladder? Families (who need bigger houses) will become permanent renters? Older empty nesters can get on the ladder? British population control -\combined with immigration explosion?
  16. What your trying to say is that if people can't earn enough to buy things, then they don't get bought, no? Here's what's happened during the last 40 years, as I see it: 1 - Salaries started stagnating in the late 1970's. To keep demand going, the wife/partner entered the workforce - to boost household income. 2 - But salaries are still stagnant. So the extra worker only had a temporary effect. So household income stagnated. 3 - Now there must be a way to keep demand going - so asset prices were bubbled - this created another temporary boost to household wealth. 4 - But then this stagnated - and almost collapsed - in 2008. So here we are. Where is demand coming from now?
  17. So are we all agreed that 'trickle down' does exist but at the moment the wealthy are 'trickling' all over the Asian workers?
  18. None of us puny mortals is intelligent enough to question the Gods Dimon and Blankfein
  19. Hell - a referendum will boost British GDP by a few percent. Just imagine all the EU campaign/advertising/bribe money that will flow into the country for a year or so. Ireland x 10. And anyway, as far as the EU is concerned, 'no' is 'no' until a re-vote is 'yes' - and 'yes' is forever.
  20. When it comes to Europe, I like the 'in/out' part (a lot ), it's the rest of it I find troubling...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.