Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MMM Receives Legal Threats

mrmoneymustache.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats

#81

Post by nitrogen »

higherpurpose wrote: post #75
jimbokun wrote: post #55

Every time I see another example of frivolous litigation threats like this, I feel like one of the biggest shortcomings of the U.S. justice system is not enough pain inflicted on frivolous litigators. This goes for patent trolling, too, obviously. There should be a healthy fear of filing baseless legal challenges. Disbarment? Large fines? What's the effective remedy here, that doesn't go so far it dissuades legitimat…

US should just adopt the European system for lawsuits. You lose, you pay. Yes, it has a downside, as does everything else in the world, but I think the downside is much smaller than the upside (compared to the current US system).

Wouldn't a shared payment system work better for asymmetric opponents, where any legal fees either side wants to pay are contributed to a shared pool and divided equally, with some minimum/maximum amount based on income and/or net worth?

Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats

#82

Post by dragonwriter »

higherpurpose wrote: post #75
jimbokun wrote: post #55

Every time I see another example of frivolous litigation threats like this, I feel like one of the biggest shortcomings of the U.S. justice system is not enough pain inflicted on frivolous litigators. This goes for patent trolling, too, obviously. There should be a healthy fear of filing baseless legal challenges. Disbarment? Large fines? What's the effective remedy here, that doesn't go so far it dissuades legitimat…

US should just adopt the European system for lawsuits. You lose, you pay. Yes, it has a downside, as does everything else in the world, but I think the downside is much smaller than the upside (compared to the current US system).

The downside is it tilts the balance even further in favor of the richer party, as the poor party is forced to surrender if there is any risk of losing, since a party with a non-frivolous but risky case can't limit their risk by controlling their own expenditures.

Since I don't think not being tilted enough in favor of wealthy litigants is a real problem with the US system, I'm completely opposed to this method of deforming the system.

Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats

#83

Post by raintrees »

mberning wrote: post #79
daphneokeefe wrote: post #72

Aside from this current issue, which has no doubt raised awareness of MMM's website, one of the positive outcomes here is that HN readers may be exposed to some of the most awesomely good advice you will ever receive. Reading his posts has led me to understand that I am not alone by any means in my quest for financial independence, which is true independence. Check out his site -- you can begin with the "Start Here"…

I was not aware of the site before today. I looked through a few of the articles and came to the conclusion that it is a borderline religious frugal porn site. You can take a look at the site owners 2013 budget as a prime example. Assuming that your house and car is paid off and that nobody got seriously ill and no other unexpected expenses came up the guy claims to have spent 23k for one year of supporting a family…

If I remember the first few articles (I started at the beginning when I found the site, several years ago) Mr. Money Moustache and his wife were able to save radically while working fairly decent jobs. The result being they we able to "retire" very early (20's?) and are offering tips and sharing methodology.

So without the background, yes the numbers can seem very low. But with the background, you may find all of the research that went into the home they have (paid for), the retirement accounts they comfortably live on while they continue to grow, and the side jobs he takes for fun (and profit), like buying and rehabbing rental properties alone and with others. Not to mention the healthy lifestyles (why drive when you can bike? Even in Colorado winters?).

Similar to any perceived extreme point of view/lifestyle, it has its fans and detractors. There are many who are very thankful for the guidance...

But I think it comes down to some basics that the American media (if not others) do not seem to promote very often: Earn well, save a large percentage, keep expenses low, invest well, continue to learn. Question perceived "necessities."

YMMV

Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats

#84

Post by Hawkee »

This reminds me of a case I was involved in several years ago, http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/17/channel-intelligence-sues-j... - It ended up blowing up in their faces. I remember getting the phone number to the CEO of Channel Intelligence and calling him up directly. His response was, "Can you all just stop calling me! We'll fix this, just stop calling me!" I believe they were trying to collect license fees to establish their patent, but in the end they had to give it away for free to everybody involved. Those who wouldn't accept it got no further legal action. 5 years later Google bought Channel Intelligence. Go figure.

Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats

#85

Post by brazzy »

dragonwriter wrote: post #82
higherpurpose wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US should just adopt the European system for lawsuits. You lose, you pay. Yes, it has a downside, as does everything else in the world, but I think the downside is much smaller than the upside (compared to the current US system).

The downside is it tilts the balance even further in favor of the richer party, as the poor party is forced to surrender if there is any risk of losing, since a party with a non-frivolous but risky case can't limit their risk by controlling their own expenditures. Since I don't think not being tilted enough in favor of wealthy litigants is a real problem with the US system, I'm completely opposed to this method of de…

Um... isn't the exact opposite true, namely that under the current system a poor person can't even afford to win a lawsuit and thus have to avoid them at all cost, no matter how certain they are of winning?

Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats

#86

Post by jules »

dragonwriter wrote: post #82
higherpurpose wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US should just adopt the European system for lawsuits. You lose, you pay. Yes, it has a downside, as does everything else in the world, but I think the downside is much smaller than the upside (compared to the current US system).

The downside is it tilts the balance even further in favor of the richer party, as the poor party is forced to surrender if there is any risk of losing, since a party with a non-frivolous but risky case can't limit their risk by controlling their own expenditures. Since I don't think not being tilted enough in favor of wealthy litigants is a real problem with the US system, I'm completely opposed to this method of de…

This is 100% incorrect. The loser doesn't have to pay an unlimited amount of money to the winner. If I do a lawsuit against Google and they spend $10 billion on it then I don't need to pay then $10 billion. The judge awards a reasonable amount.

Also, empirically, there are a whole lot more frivolous lawsuits in the US. In many cases, like with patents, this is basically extortion enabled by the legal system. We sue you which means that you will have to spend at least $10000 on your defense even if you win, or we can settle for $1000.

There is a reason why virtually all modern democracies except the US use loser pays.

Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats

#87

Post by mberning »

raintrees wrote: post #83
mberning wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was not aware of the site before today. I looked through a few of the articles and came to the conclusion that it is a borderline religious frugal porn site. You can take a look at the site owners 2013 budget as a prime example. Assuming that your house and car is paid off and that nobody got seriously ill and no other unexpected expenses came up the guy claims to have spent 23k for one year of supporting a family…

If I remember the first few articles (I started at the beginning when I found the site, several years ago) Mr. Money Moustache and his wife were able to save radically while working fairly decent jobs. The result being they we able to "retire" very early (20's?) and are offering tips and sharing methodology. So without the background, yes the numbers can seem very low. But with the background, you may find all of the…

I have no doubt that a highly disciplined individual could accomplish such a feat. But then add a wife or husband. Then add a child. It seems increasingly less likely for an average or even above average saver to accomplish what is being espoused. At least without major push back from the other people you are attempting to subject to this lifestyle.

I am honestly wondering what they do when people they know are doing something that costs money. Do they just skip it? Birthday dinner @ a restaurant - skip it. Going to a sporting event - skip it. Kid is getting made fun of at school for wearing dollar store shoes - skip it. Kid wants to play school sports but costs $300/sport - skip it. Kid wants to go to dinner/movies with classmates - skip it. Holidays roll around, time to exchange gifts - skip it.

I guess what I am trying to say is that while extreme saving is a laudable goal, I highly doubt that their family budget is so neat and tidy. Exceptions come up all the time and you would have to put forth heroic efforts to say 'no' to most or all of them. You would also be making huge sacrifices and asking your SO and children to do the same.

Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats

#88

Post by dragonwriter »

brazzy wrote: post #85
dragonwriter wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downside is it tilts the balance even further in favor of the richer party, as the poor party is forced to surrender if there is any risk of losing, since a party with a non-frivolous but risky case can't limit their risk by controlling their own expenditures. Since I don't think not being tilted enough in favor of wealthy litigants is a real problem with the US system, I'm completely opposed to this method of de…

Um... isn't the exact opposite true, namely that under the current system a poor person can't even afford to win a lawsuit and thus have to avoid them at all cost, no matter how certain they are of winning?

> Um... isn't the exact opposite true, namely that under the current system a poor person can't even afford to win a lawsuit and thus have to avoid them at all cost, no matter how certain they are of winning?

Not as plaintiff, where there own legal costs are less than the amount at issue.

As a defendant, maybe, or a plaintiff in a case where the costs of prosecution outweigh the potential recovery, yes. (The former is clearly undesirable, the latter less clearly so.)

OTOH, with this change, it makes the position of the (largely mythical) certain-to-win party (plaintiff or defendant) somewhat better, while making a significantly less wealthy party worse off in pretty much every other case.

The outline of the current system, where awards of costs have a higher standard than just "whoever wins also gets costs". That's not to say that there aren't tweaks to the details of when costs and/or additional sanctions for abuses are awarded that would make the current system better, but switching to loser pays as a rule isn't one of them.

Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats

#89

Post by dragonwriter »

jules wrote: post #86
dragonwriter wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downside is it tilts the balance even further in favor of the richer party, as the poor party is forced to surrender if there is any risk of losing, since a party with a non-frivolous but risky case can't limit their risk by controlling their own expenditures. Since I don't think not being tilted enough in favor of wealthy litigants is a real problem with the US system, I'm completely opposed to this method of de…

This is 100% incorrect. The loser doesn't have to pay an unlimited amount of money to the winner. If I do a lawsuit against Google and they spend $10 billion on it then I don't need to pay then $10 billion. The judge awards a reasonable amount. Also, empirically, there are a whole lot more frivolous lawsuits in the US. In many cases, like with patents, this is basically extortion enabled by the legal system. We sue y…

> Also, empirically, there are a whole lot more frivolous lawsuits in the US.

"Frivolous" is not an objective descriptor and, therefore, this is not a statement which can be made empirically. At any rate, a higher rate of meritless lawsuits is an intentionally-accepted cost of minimizing the disincentive to pursue potentially meritorious lawsuits.

This is a value difference between the USA and countries that use loser pays.

> If I do a lawsuit against Google and they spend $10 billion on it then I don't need to pay then $10 billion.

Unless the lawyers Google spends billions on can convince the judge that those expenses were reasonably necessary to effectively prosecute the case -- and, incidentally, lawyers that are more proficient at convincing judges that their fees are reasonable will, have higher fees.

> There is a reason why virtually all modern democracies except the US use loser pays.

Yes, becaue most modern democracies value avoidance of private legal action more and effective venue of redress of legitimate disputes less than the US. Loser pays is a method of disincentivizing filing suits in general (it increases the expected costs for the plaintiff, particularly) as well as tilting the balance toward deeper-pockets litigants generally.

Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats

#90

Post by jules »

dragonwriter wrote: post #89
jules wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is 100% incorrect. The loser doesn't have to pay an unlimited amount of money to the winner. If I do a lawsuit against Google and they spend $10 billion on it then I don't need to pay then $10 billion. The judge awards a reasonable amount. Also, empirically, there are a whole lot more frivolous lawsuits in the US. In many cases, like with patents, this is basically extortion enabled by the legal system. We sue y…

> Also, empirically, there are a whole lot more frivolous lawsuits in the US. "Frivolous" is not an objective descriptor and, therefore, this is not a statement which can be made empirically. At any rate, a higher rate of meritless lawsuits is an intentionally-accepted cost of minimizing the disincentive to pursue potentially meritorious lawsuits. This is a value difference between the USA and countries that use lose…

Reading your comment here makes it clear that you won't be convinced by any form of logic, but hopefully it helps some other readers:

> Unless the lawyers Google spends billions on can convince the judge that those expenses were reasonably necessary to effectively prosecute the case -- and, incidentally, lawyers that are more proficient at convincing judges that their fees are reasonable will, have higher fees.

This has never ever happened and will never ever happen for blatantly obvious reasons. If you think judges can be convinced of such ridiculous ideas by a sufficiently high paid lawyers we better just throw the whole legal system out of the window.

> Loser pays is a method of disincentivizing filing suits in general (it increases the expected costs for the plaintiff, particularly) as well as tilting the balance toward deeper-pockets litigants generally.

This is incorrect. Loser pays disincentivizes meritless lawsuits. If the plaintiff thinks he will lose, then the expected amount he has to pay is higher in a loser pays system. If the plaintiff thinks he will win the expected amount he will pay is lower in a loser pays system. Therefore loser pays incentivizes reasonable lawsuits compared to the US system.

Post reply on HN