Learned something new today...

a reply to: watchitburn

But a company is someone's property

Created to limit liability of the owners.

gov't telling someone how or when they can sell parts of their company is a problem.

Well the Govt charging income tax was a recent phenomena.

You have a problem with Antitrust legislation, liability, responsibility to shareholders?

The Govt also intervenes in you buying or selling homes. They get their large cut influencing the market.

a reply to: Isurrender73

By the same token Federal govt should be broken up and the States regain their powers

double post

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Brian4real

it's because your lazy, you're younger obviously you didn't work hard enough

I do hope this was scarcasm.

me too

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: FyreByrd

I agree that workers should see more of the profits of their labors, but I have a hard time with the idea that the Govt. should be able to stop people from buying back the stock in their own company.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the stock markets just go away altogether. I'd be will to bet in the beginning it was a scam cooked up between the banks and the old big tycoons to fleece people out of their money.

I can understand your point on a surface level.

The point of the OP was that it used to be "illegal" to buyback any but the smallist amount of stock under the regulatory change implemented in the Regan administration (along with many other 'regulatory' changes which bypass our elected lawmakers - remember the executive branch enforces the laws the legislative branch passes.

This in turn changed the whole dynamic of Corporate Worth in a way that promotes wealth extraction by the few rather then the overall health and sustainability of a company. Stock Price became the marker not dividends. Remember stock was considered a long term investment - not a commodity to be gambled on. I'm oversimplifying quite a bit.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: watchitburn
I agree that workers should see more of the profits of their labors, but I have a hard time with the idea that the Govt. should be able to stop people from buying back the stock in their own company.

Then maybe disconnect the notion that the company is a "legal person"?

I don't have that notion...

But a company is someone's property, and the gov't telling someone how or when they can sell parts of their company is a problem.

A company and an individual are part of society. When a company becomes so large that it becomes detrimental to society that company should be broken up into smaller pieces by that society.

Society should protect itself from predators and their monopolistic practices. We used to enforce these laws, but we ignore them now. We were far more prosperous before we ignored those with the forethought to create such laws.

Ah another set of laws that the Reagan administration decided to ignore.....

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

disconnect the notion that the company is a "legal person"?

Oh you naughty man, coming to spoil the party again.

I'm waiting for the day when Directors are charged with capital offenses and commensurate penalties.

One can dream of a just World

That opens another big can of whoop-ass.

The corporation is designed to protect the owners from just such liability and any personal responsibility.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

disconnect the notion that the company is a "legal person"?

Oh you naughty man, coming to spoil the party again.

I'm waiting for the day when Directors are charged with capital offenses and commensurate penalties.

One can dream of a just World

That opens another big can of whoop-ass.

The corporation is designed to protect the owners from just such liability and any personal responsibility.

a reply to: FyreByrd

The penalties for a 'crime' against natural persons are lower for a "legal person' ie Directors.

A natural person enjoys larger penalties for financial white collar crimes than crime against others.

Makes ya go "hmmm"

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: watchitburn

The slippery slope cuts both directions.

Like who are the Government to tell companies they cant pollute the air to save money?

No?

Yes?

But they can pollute their company to save money?

Polluting the air is No because it hurts people, things. Well polluting ones own company hurts the workers, which trickles up to hurting the whole economy more and more (unless you're a 1%).

Let CEOs stand for the legal person...or maybe the Board of Directors...legally?

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: FyreByrd

The penalties for a 'crime' against natural persons are lower for a "legal person' ie Directors.

A natural person enjoys larger penalties for financial white collar crimes than crime against others.

Makes ya go "hmmm"

Where are you getting this stuff? Seriously.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Isurrender73

By the same token Federal govt should be broken up and the States regain their powers

100% agree. The Federal government was constitutionaly set up to defend our rights and handle disputes amongst the states, not to take them away.

We don't need a government that believes it can law people into obedience.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I believe it. Big business absolutely must be watched like a hawk, or else this is what happens. It should have been clear this is what would happen. Who wasn't paying attention? I was in my mother's womb, so...

**Hmm I mis-typed and autocorrect took over, changing "paying attention" to "partying attention". Perhaps my subconscious made that mistake on purpose because it was giving me a clue...?


This is a big part of why they want to de-emasculate America. They took away our fighting spirit. Nobody will take action like they would have in the past, for fear of being labeled "terrorist".

These are nothing but robber barons, thugs, punks who must be dealt with, in the only language They understand... fear and pain!

Vigilante Justice if that's the only justice we can have!

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: FyreByrd

Which is why you should be investing in stocks instead of real estate or gold.

wrong. It is a bubble set to pop now. It is manipulated from the top down.
Great thread!

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: FyreByrd

The penalties for a 'crime' against natural persons are lower for a "legal person' ie Directors.

A natural person enjoys larger penalties for financial white collar crimes than crime against others.

Makes ya go "hmmm"

Where are you getting this stuff? Seriously.

The legal definition for "person" changes from place to place in legalese. Each document, even each paragraph can use a different definition for "person"

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Isurrender73

By the same token Federal govt should be broken up and the States regain their powers

Yes that seems to be the underlying theme here. Federal overreach. There is a very good reason why each state is supposed to essentially be its own country, so that people have options. If some states want to try hairbrained ideas like the War on Drugs, trickle down economics, letting NYSE operate tax free, letting police kill whoever they want, then they should be free to do so, and the people living there who don't like it should be able to move to be around more like minded individuals, and put their money where their vote is.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Where are you getting this stuff? Seriously.

The penalties for a 'crime' against natural persons are lower for a "legal person' ie Directors

A person kills someone - manslaughter 8-10 years?

A company director through inaction or negligence causes a death by the company - hefty fine no gaol time.

I

a reply to: Isurrender73

This is because western democracies (cough cough) rule not by the "spirit" of the constitution but by regulation. Allows the judges and lawyers to be the arbiters of how far the politicians can go.

believes it can law people into obedience

We dont have a Bill of Rights but even a bill of rights becomes a toothless tiger when the Govt keep taking away more freedoms in the name of "good governance".

a reply to: 3n19m470

About 30 years ago there was talk about Western Australia seceding. Fear was pushed and never really gained traction.
The ones who control the roost control the media and the status quo remains the same.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Isurrender73

This is because western democracies (cough cough) rule not by the "spirit" of the constitution but by regulation. Allows the judges and lawyers to be the arbiters of how far the politicians can go.

believes it can law people into obedience

We dont have a Bill of Rights but even a bill of rights becomes a toothless tiger when the Govt keep taking away more freedoms in the name of "good governance".

Only government is bound by the Constitution.
Since 1871 we are ruled by corporation.
The law of the land in every court is the U.C.C.