the_austrian Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 You seem to be missing out that the other party to this fraud has feelings, will react.All I was doing was showing you two reactions - the first that of the peaceful - they stop working/trading and the dangerous - they go batshit and demand satisfaction. Fraud is a bad idea because of the reactions, not because it's a law or anything mental like that. But even the idea that it is a fraud is subjective, many will argue truthfully (from their point of view) that the Hot Dogs are dog meat, what did you ever think it was! (Hopefully) people's anger won't be alleviated should the central bank choose to print up all the missing notes on the quiet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 because fraud is defined in law as an offence carrying a sentence of more than 2 years inside. (variable opinions on this I gather) The seller is not responsible for your faulty assessment of the nature of the product being sold. My advice: shop somewhere else, that you can trust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 But even the idea that it is a fraud is subjective, many will argue truthfully (from their point of view) that the Hot Dogs are dog meat, what did you ever think it was! (Hopefully) people's anger won't be alleviated should the central bank choose to print up all the missing notes on the quiet. Not really analogous. The bankers have deliberately mislead people. They are politically powerful, but that actually makes it worse, economically speaking. Rounding them up and jailing them and the recession that follows is nasty, but keeping them in place guarantees a depression and amazing amounts of argy bargy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 The seller is not responsible for your faulty assessment of the nature of the product being sold. My advice: shop somewhere else, that you can trust. He is if he signs a contract using similar terms which mean two things and relies on your misapprehension to make his profits. This line of thought is a non starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 The seller is not responsible for your faulty assessment of the nature of the product being sold. My advice: shop somewhere else, that you can trust. what? a misrepresentation is clearly fraud. If the buyer just picks up an item and receives no advice from the seller, then, yes the buyer is responsible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebag Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 It is? I thought it was a consequence of an expanding money supply?So what are the consequences of hyperinflation? Oh, and another thing. If hyperinflation IS expansion of the money supply, have we had hyperinflation for the last 30 years? Coz isnt that exactly what this bubble has been...more available money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Not really analogous.The bankers have deliberately mislead people. They are politically powerful, but that actually makes it worse, economically speaking. Rounding them up and jailing them and the recession that follows is nasty, but keeping them in place guarantees a depression and amazing amounts of argy bargy. My God, I'm not arguing that we keep them in place, at least not without reforming the system... It's just that I see more chance of them being stopped under the charge of printing money than I do of the accusation of dishonesty, and rightly so, I agree with their defence of caveat emptor. It would be more transparent if the central bank printed up all the monies but the empty vaults is not my criticism, it is the forced theft by inflation which relies on the coercion of the taxation system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 He is if he signs a contract using similar terms which mean two things and relies on your misapprehension to make his profits.This line of thought is a non starter. No it isn't a non starter, the definitions are perfectly clear and the rules allow it... He is not responsible for your misapprehension of how the system works. You are responsible for your own mistakes, your only complaint can be against something that has been forced upon you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 No it isn't a non starter, the definitions are perfectly clear and the rules allow it... He is not responsible for your misapprehension of how the system works. You are responsible for your own mistakes, your only complaint can be against something that has been forced upon you. sale of goods acts say no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 what? a misrepresentation is clearly fraud.If the buyer just picks up an item and receives no advice from the seller, then, yes the buyer is responsible. So what, I don't care if you are gullible, and you have no right of recourse either because lying to you is not a crime, I might be doing it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 So what, I don't care if you are gullible, and you have no right of recourse either because lying to you is not a crime, I might be doing it now. lying in a contract voids a contract, and if its a fraud, its a crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 sale of goods acts say no. I'm surprised you can't tell by now; I don't give a sh*t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) No it isn't a non starter, the definitions are perfectly clear and the rules allow it... He is not responsible for your misapprehension of how the system works. You are responsible for your own mistakes, your only complaint can be against something that has been forced upon you. he is responsible - the terms in the contracts are clearrly defined - and then he doesn't do them, he does something else entirely and still bills you like he's performed. You haven't made a "mistake" you've been lied to. Edited July 25, 2009 by Injin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I'm surprised you can't tell by now; I don't give a sh*t. youd better stay awake tonight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 My God, I'm not arguing that we keep them in place, at least not without reforming the system... It's just that I see more chance of them being stopped under the charge of printing money than I do of the accusation of dishonesty, and rightly so, I agree with their defence of caveat emptor. It would be more transparent if the central bank printed up all the monies but the empty vaults is not my criticism, it is the forced theft by inflation which relies on the coercion of the taxation system. You aren't going to stop them at all, except individually by taking them on on the contracts they have signed and the lies they have told. Systemic reform never going to happen, sticking their own words up their arses to cancel imaginary "debts" is possible and in fact not even difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 lying in a contract voids a contract, and if its a fraud, its a crime. To you it's a crime maybe, but I've said at least a couple of times now, I'm asking you to tell me if it should be a crime, not whether it is or not. To me, you have no right to retaliate against someone who has benefited from your misunderstanding, even if they are (at least partly) responsible for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 To you it's a crime maybe, but I've said at least a couple of times now, I'm asking you to tell me if it should be a crime, not whether it is or not. To me, you have no right to retaliate against someone who has benefited from your misunderstanding, even if they are (at least partly) responsible for it. that burgler coming round tonight is selling flowers, direct to your bedroom. I suggest you stay up for them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 To you it's a crime maybe, but I've said at least a couple of times now, I'm asking you to tell me if it should be a crime, not whether it is or not. To me, you have no right to retaliate against someone who has benefited from your misunderstanding, even if they are (at least partly) responsible for it. A crime is an objective thing - it's an action that causes actual loss harm or injury to someone else. You seem to eb using it in the sense of "a crime is whatever the judge says ti is." Not accurate or useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 he is responsible - the terms in the contracts are clearrly defined - and then he doesn't do them, he does something else entirely and still bills you like he's performed.You haven't made a "mistake" you've been lied to. He has no obligation to you, at best his obligation is to get out of your way, he is not occupying any of your property.. but let's not go there eh?! I'm sorry but all these complaints of having been hard-done-by aren't going to wash and as I have said caveat emptor. Perhaps it is a great big magic trick but you don't get a refund for paying for a top hat with no rabbit in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebag Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 It is? I thought it was a consequence of an expanding money supply?So what are the consequences of hyperinflation? Oh, and another thing. If hyperinflation IS expansion of the money supply, have we had hyperinflation for the last 30 years? Coz isnt that exactly what this bubble has been...more available money? No gonna answer me injin? Id really like to nail this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 youd better stay awake tonight At least I wasn't guilty of (doing) anything wrong, even if I am dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 He has no obligation to you, at best his obligation is to get out of your way, he is not occupying any of your property.. but let's not go there eh?! I'm sorry but all these complaints of having been hard-done-by aren't going to wash and as I have said caveat emptor. Perhaps it is a great big magic trick but you don't get a refund for paying for a top hat with no rabbit in it. Sorry. what? You signed a contract - now the banker wants repaying, even though he hasn;'t done his bit. You've got it all bass ackward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 You aren't going to stop them at all, except individually by taking them on on the contracts they have signed and the lies they have told.Systemic reform never going to happen, sticking their own words up their arses to cancel imaginary "debts" is possible and in fact not even difficult. Perhaps the debts can be shown to be illegitimate in court, if they can it will not be on the grounds of dishonesty or fraud because it makes a terrible case. Theft would be better, or the fact that the State has no business enforcing private contracts... They are not guilty of their customers ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 No gonna answer me injin?Id really like to nail this point. eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 that burgler coming round tonight is selling flowers, direct to your bedroom. I suggest you stay up for them So you think a violent response is legitimate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.