It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Originally posted by ogbert
If that is the case; then why don't we try them for owning other corporations, under the slavery laws? If Corporations are considered people, then, how to they get away with owning other corporations/people?
I say lets go there too. I think they havent yet been tried like this because they have so slowly been worming their way into personhood incrementally. But hey they got a big boost this spring, with the right to free speech, so I say, lets use it against them. You bring up a fabulous option. I love it.
I honestly dont think any lawyers have yet thought of really pounding them with the personhood issue, but I think thats where we should head. You want to be a person? You dont just get the benefits of that, you get the liabilities too.
What class did you take that says owning corporations is like owning people? Owning shares in a corporation is complicated, but could hardly be considered owning a person. There are many types of entities that you can have an ownership stake in, some are to minimize estate taxes, protect assets, but mostly it is to preserve wealth and control your money from the grave.
I used to enjoy reading this website but it seems lately that there are a lot of misguided and uneducated posts here. Sorry, don't mean to be a buzz kill. This whole topic is kind of a waste of time. The market allowed for these imbalances and now it is correcting itself. It is merely history repeating itself. Hardly the first time it has happened.
Why isn't the gent who makes $40K/year who signed a legal contract to get into a no money down loan for $300K which he could never afford be in jail? Because he's a "little guy"?.
It is no different than saying that a rich guy who robs a bank deserves a greater sentence than a homeless gent who robs a bank. Both are equally guilty and both deserve scorn and punishment
Neither party broke laws in the vast majority of cases. The banks were trading legal instruments and folks were buying homes based on the easy cash made available by trading those instruments. Try to get past your hatred of someone who works in the financial sector and do a bit of homework.
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by dolphinfan
they were calling people and telling them that they believed whatever they said. if you said, "i'm making 100k a year, and have been at the same job for 10 years, and have no outstanding debts," you could not only get the loan with no proof of your ability to pay it back or proof that anything you said was true but you could get a better loan with lower interest rates and lower payments (and they were telling people that as well -- the bigger the lie, the friendlier the loan will be). then attached a huge balloon payment in fine print, so the loans would explode on everyone at the same time.
Instead, the government needs to take a step back and implement higher level, simple regulations and force 100% compliance of those. Basic things that are simply not done today, for example an investment bank can legally advise its clients to do one thing while it is at the same time doing the opposite with its own money. In other words, tell their clients to move heavily into, say gold while at the same time selling gold short anticipating a drop in gold. In that way, they push the gold market up should their clients take their advice and then when it corrects their short position is worth all the more. That should be illegal, plain and simple. The government also needs to take over the rating of debt and securities and get it out of the hands of firms like Moodys and S&P who have shown themselves to be at least marginally conflicted. The government needs fewer, more simple regulations around which there is no ambiguity as to whether or not they have been complied with.