301–310 of 406 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of the punishment could be that the company still has to pay all salaries and hourly wages while it’s shut down.
With what earnings would they do this?
To be clear, I’m not advocating these shutdowns as a good idea, there are a lot of implications that I haven’t thought through.
I remember when this happened, I was running a hedge fund. Supposedly he was doing collars (split-strike conversions) to make this money, but it just seemed implausible to me at the time, since I traded options. I figured he just punted futures, nice and easy way to sorta hug the index (I hadn't seen his "returns"), maybe Martingale it and get lucky until you're not so lucky. But then it turned out he wasn't doing an…
> Supposedly he was doing collars (split-strike conversions) to make this money, but it just seemed implausible to me at the time, since I traded options. I figured he just punted futures, nice and easy way to sorta hug the index (I hadn't seen his "returns"), maybe Martingale it and get lucky until you're not so lucky. For all I know you might as well be talking about a Rockwell Retro Encabulator[1] 1. https://youtu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See the "Exceptions and abrogation" section of your own citation. It is indeed a (albeit large) subset of actions to which they can apply sovereign immunity.
Yes. All I'm trying to say is it's opt-in, not opt out. I don't find this particularly interesting or important so this is the last comment I'll make here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I meant Madoff would be free to do whatever he wants. But ill bite. Just look at all the robinhood millenials getting robbed by Citadel that literally has insider knowledge of all the robinhood transactions.
That's not what I'm asking about. They specifically said trading desks at banks, Citadel is a market maker. But what's really you're just parroting baseless conspiracy -- Citadel is a legitimate business which provides a great service to Robin Hood users. Payment for order flow is very good for the retail investor, reducing commissions and improving prices, the recent episode of Bloomberg's Odd Lots podcast with Doug…
Your argument that it is to help retail traders to enter for cheap into trading is fallacious. It is exactly like saying getting into real estate nowadays is a no brainer due to low interest loans. even tho the loan means borrowing money for 30years and living like a slave to pay a rent that the generation before you got in 10years. In the same ways FB makes money out of people Citadel and Robinhood does it 0 conspiracy there
Earlier quoted context omitted.
‘Granted personhood’ doesn’t mean anything. The relevant legal term is ‘legal personality’. Governments certainly have legal personality. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be able to enter into contracts, file lawsuits, or... really make any claim to exist in any meaningful way.
Is the government itself granted first amendment protections as an association of citizens? Or is it thought of a fundamentally different sort of entity, that yes can enter some sorts of legal arrangements, but isn't granted all the rights of a citizen?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see, so Breivik can go kill a bunch of children and hang out in "prison" with his XBox and hope to leave on parole? And that's normal for you? I mean, if you think that isn't an insult to the victims, their families, etc.; if you don't think that's absolutely crazy, and I don't know what to tell you, man. Heck, if killing someone, let alone that many people, isn't so bad, why do we care about any other crime as muc…
> if you don't think that's absolutely crazy, and I don't know what to tell you, man > to adjudicate such things instead of leaving things up to a hate-filled lynch mob See the duality of your own post. If I try to be impartial, I can hardly see the point to any sentence larger than a couple decades. When you get to those levels of sentencing where you basically decimate the total useful lifetime of someone, you migh…
> See the duality of your own post.
That reads as though you scored some virtual point, but I can't figure out what you're saying. Can you clarify?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations (which are usually the payer of fines for bad behavior) don't fear prison because they can't be physically imprisoned. You can't put Exxon in jail. And, lawmakers deliberately make it so damn hard to pierce the corporate liability veil and hold shareholders or directors personally liable for the corporation's actions. So, we need to both move more towards prison and start digging in to which actual peopl…
This is one reason why CEO pay has skyrocketed: hazard pay. Something goes wrong, even if the CEO had no idea about it, and who gets vilified and maybe even prosecuted? The CEO. Just saying...there are trade offs for everything.
Let's call it what it is, It's a golden parachute.
I'd postulate that taking responsibility and leading the effort to genuinely right the wrongs would earn the company way more godwill from the people and media than activating your trump card which in this case is a mountain of cash to land on after successfully escaping responsibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The nature of ponzi schemes necessitate exponential growth, even if the doubling time can be made long, perhaps on the scale of years. This places a short bound on how long they can last. The US has about 1/20th of the worlds population, so that's less than 5 doubling periods before you run out of new marks. Maybe an additional decade or two at best?
compounded interest has exponential growth and is as risk free of an investment as one can find.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
‘Granted personhood’ doesn’t mean anything. The relevant legal term is ‘legal personality’. Governments certainly have legal personality. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be able to enter into contracts, file lawsuits, or... really make any claim to exist in any meaningful way.
Is the government itself granted first amendment protections as an association of citizens? Or is it thought of a fundamentally different sort of entity, that yes can enter some sorts of legal arrangements, but isn't granted all the rights of a citizen?
Note I'm a British Citizen, but the same basic legal principles apply over here, and have done for hundreds of years. I know there's a widely held conspiracy theory that this is all new, but jurists and legal scholars have been discussing and applying these principles for a very long time.