81–90 of 249 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are just anti people. Correction: anti-poor people.
> Correction: anti-poor people. Correction: anti-middle class people. They can't extract any money from the poor, and clearly not from the rich, so guess who's left?
this was not about protecting consumers but instead about protecting the interest of trial lawyers who saw their money slush fund about to dry up. this is a group that notoriously donates to one party over another and exerts incredible control over that party. this rule would have done far more than just smack financial institutions as it was only a first move by the bureau which operates too far outside of what shou…
What are some arguments for money in politics; lobbying?
There's no way to have meaningful freedoms of speech, assembly, and petition while the government decides what counts as "fair" speech, assembly, and petition. Lobbying is literally talking to people in power. It involves money because advertising and marketing aren't free. A special interest group is literally a group of people who want to talk about a particular set of issues. So to return a question, what are some…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your claim sounds good the way you put it, but less so when you consider that retributive justice seems ineffectual at deterring violent crime... unless you're also going to claim that shitty companies are generally smarter than felons.
The analogy does not work. People commit violent crimes for very different reasons than shitty companies commit economic crimes. And at the end of the day, there is some amount of basic deterrence for people who are not in some kind of adverse mental state. How many more crimes of passion would there be if murder, or assault, were not so harshly penalized? The “deterrence does not work“ line as a matter of degrees, n…
That is, the crime is conducted for direct financial gain (various black markets, theft, burglary, fraud), to defend a criminal enterprise (turf wars), to gain resources to feed some criminal activity (drugs and gambling addictions, especially), or as a consequence of economic marginalisation (people pushed into desperate situations, or engaging in activities on account of those).
(There's also a tremendous amount of white-collar and corporate crime which is never prosecuted, a whole 'nother story. The dumb criminals are the ones who get caught.)
Even various forms of tribalistic / hate crimes are often related (with varying levels of justification, having a floor of zero) to economic perceptions. As are crimes of passion or pride or reputation.
There's not a whole lot of crime that isn't at least arguably connected to some economic motive or dynamic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the banks left all their customers money protected by a wind screen door that was accessible in the alley, I think suing could be justified.
Your example falls under the purview of negligence in tort law. Nevertheless an arbitration agreement may supersede a potential lawsuit. The widespread use of forced arbitration seems ripe for examination by the SCOTUS. I'm no lawyer, but it seems like a fairly blatant violation of the 7th amendment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But we're supposed to be a democratic country where everyone's vote is "equal". The money is speech thing completely bypasses and greatly skews that rule. It's like a parallel voting system where a wealthy person's "vote" is quantified in the amount of dollars he or she spends to buy politicians. Also, wealthy people will almost always prefer pro-small taxes politicians, on either party. So they will fund either Repu…
In America, “one person, one vote” only arose in the 1960s. The Constitution was framed with suffrage for only land-owning white men. > That's not how it should work, right? That’s a big question. I don’t think it’s safe to presume it’s answer.
Pure speculation ahead: Suppose for a moment that the Equifax hack was carried out by a nation-state (like, say, North Korea). This is not an issue of consumer trust and safety. It is an issue of national (US) security and safety. To give another analogy, imagine that in 1920, the Canadian military marched over the border and robbed some banks. Does it make sense for the patrons of that bank to be able to sue the ban…
The way to get better security is to let the free market system work as its intended: Equifax should die a painful death by the masses, if necessary piecemeal one lawsuit at a time until the company coffers have been emptied (and preferably any directors, agents, vested entities, and anyone else within a legally-defensible stone's throw). It may sound harsh, but that's life and life ain't fair. That's the only way to…
I'm not sure that's a good argument for the free-market. We just have to suffer security breach after security breach until companies clean up? It seems like a total willingness to admit security failures in the first place where regulation could help us here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But we're supposed to be a democratic country where everyone's vote is "equal". The money is speech thing completely bypasses and greatly skews that rule. It's like a parallel voting system where a wealthy person's "vote" is quantified in the amount of dollars he or she spends to buy politicians. Also, wealthy people will almost always prefer pro-small taxes politicians, on either party. So they will fund either Repu…
In America, “one person, one vote” only arose in the 1960s. The Constitution was framed with suffrage for only land-owning white men. > That's not how it should work, right? That’s a big question. I don’t think it’s safe to presume it’s answer.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=one+person+one...
Is this an opportunity for a new type of law firm that opens up to deal with one type of complaint for one company and offers extremely low fees to file? The idea would be that the paperwork is all the same for the X thousand/million people suing INDIVIDUALLY such that economies of scale take over and the cost of actually filing and pushing the suit through becomes cheap enough for almost anyone. On the side of Giant…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not. Actually, you're a provider to Equifax, in the form of the data trail they're ingesting. A pretty good WashPo item (by way of Outline because fuck WP's nagwall) spelling this out: https://outline.com/aKwW2y
> fuck WP's nagwall Funny how "Fuck you, pay me" is an acceptable sentiment when you're a freelance software dev, but now when you're a journalistic institution.
A topic I've addressed (and cited people who do not manifest on the Internet as Space Alien Cats, including Joseph Stiglitz) numerous times. And you can read for free!
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=information+ma...
Or this yesterday on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15540536