Are the Super Rich and there companies to blame for our Economic crisis and plunder?

[nmgauss]

I think debtors prison would go a long way to limit excessive risk taking by corporate executives.

If there were no nationwide repercussions caused by taking excessive risk, there would be no worry about corporate executive’s practices. But when huge financial companies affecting millions of clients goes bankrupt, that sets off a crisis. In cases like this, executives should be held accountable.

 

[nmgauss]

I think debtors prison would go a long way to limit excessive risk taking by corporate executives.

Debtors prison only affects people who declare bankruptcy. Executives are employees and have no debt to pay back.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Debtors prison only affects people who declare bankruptcy. Executives are employees and have no debt to pay back.

But when executives take on excessive risk and bankrupt the companies they work for, should they not be held accountable? If an executive faced jail time for bankrupting his company that would align incentives better than they are now.

 

[nmgauss]

But when executives take on excessive risk and bankrupt the companies they work for, should they not be held accountable? If an executive faced jail time for bankrupting his company that would align incentives better than they are now.

Taking excessive risk is not a crime. How would one know ahead of time what excessive risk is? Jeff Bezos took huge risks when he leveraged Amazon to the hilt. The company hardly showed any profit at all to its stockholders during the beginning years. His excessive risk paid off.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Taking excessive risk is not a crime. How would one know ahead of time what excessive risk is? Jeff Bezos took huge risks when he leveraged Amazon to the hilt. The company hardly showed any profit at all to its stockholders during the beginning years. His excessive risk paid off.

While excessive risk is not a crime it should be. After all, do you think that the banks needed bailing out because of prudent decision making on the part of the executives?

If juries determine negligence, they should have no problem determining excessive risk.

 

[nmgauss]

While excessive risk is not a crime it should be. After all, do you think that the banks needed bailing out because of prudent decision making on the part of the executives?

If juries determine negligence, they should have no problem determining excessive risk.

Making bad decisions is not a crime. Many U.S. Generals and Admirals in past wars made bad decisions. They might have been removed from their commands but were not put in prison because of them. Abraham Lincoln had a tough time finding Generals who could outsmart Robert E. Lee. None of them was court martialed.

In Japan, Generals and Admirals committed hara-kiri after making bad decisions, but they were not accused of crimes.

In the Soviet Union. Generals were shot after making bad decisions.

Should we resort to these kinds of tactics?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Making bad decisions is not a crime.

Actually in some cases it is a crime. For example, registered investment advisors have a fiduciary responsibility to act in their clients best interests. If they don’t do that they face legal sanctions.

 

[Nogginer]

Of course our country’s poor economy is because of the rich. They usually earn their money by hard work, use it to create jobs, and actually care about their investments, but obviously they are all selfish and malicious people. They clearly never make any beneficial products affordable for the public, (such as computer software) and they always treat their workers like dirt. All of their employees, from chubby fast-food cashiers, to well-dressed pencil-pushers, are obviously starving and down-trodden people. Just look at the typical programmers that work for someone like Bill Gates. How skinny those people are! It is of little importance that some of them own high-end Alienware computers. They are clearly not being fed enough. They all seem to wear glasses too. A clear sign that they do not have the money for proper eye care. In addition to neglecting the needs of their employees, the rich never donate any of their money to charity. So it all must be their fault.

Our poor economy cannot possibly be the fault of the massively irresponsible institution which takes money from wise investors, especially the rich, and tosses it carelessly about like confetti. No. It cannot possibly be *that *institution’s fault, even though it continue to steal and borrow money when it already owes over seventeen trillion dollars. It cannot possibly be its fault, even though it causes inflation by printing loads of money to placate its debtors. The poor economy obviously has nothing to do with that organization even though it is the one in charge of the country and the value of our green paper depends on it. No. We would be too judgmental if we pointed at that institution. It’s clearly the rich who are to blame.

 

[Nogginer]

While excessive risk is not a crime it should be. After all, do you think that the banks needed bailing out because of prudent decision making on the part of the executives?

If juries determine negligence, they should have no problem determining excessive risk.

If bad financial decisions is what got us here, you can’t ignore the government and blame it all on the rich. The government is king of bad decisions right now. How do you think it got over seventeen trillion in debt? To make matters worse, the government is using other people’s money in these bad decisions, whereas rich folks, with the exception of banks, are using their own money. As far as accountability, people should at least be fired for making major bad decisions, but that isn’t even happening in the government.

 

[tabycat]

I am sure the charts are accurate but they have no bearing on the question on this thread.

What is NOT shown in the charts is the ever changing dynamics of our economic brackets.

Everyday, rich people take economic losses that sends them to the middle class or even the ranks of the poor. Middle class people lose a job and drop into a lower bracket or they work their way up into a higher bracket. Poor people also work their way up. This is ever changing. Incomes are not static…they change both ways.

As you said there seems to be more millionaires and billionaires today. Where do you think these people came from? If you say from the poor and middle class…go to the head of the class.

Right on about the millionairs and billionairs.

 

[tabycat]

While excessive risk is not a crime it should be. After all, do you think that the banks needed bailing out because of prudent decision making on the part of the executives?

If juries determine negligence, they should have no problem determining excessive risk.

What is excessive risk? When the internet and what is on it was just started to go public, that just might be considered ‘excessive risk’. When you get on the internet and post on a forum or have a email account, you run the risk of being hacked, is that a excessive risk? Just wendering.

 

[tabycat]

Of course our country’s poor economy is because of the rich. They usually earn their money by hard work, use it to create jobs, and actually care about their investments, but obviously they are all selfish and malicious people. They clearly never make any beneficial products affordable for the public, (such as computer software) and they always treat their workers like dirt. All of their employees, from chubby fast-food cashiers, to well-dressed pencil-pushers, are obviously starving and down-trodden people. Just look at the typical programmers that work for someone like Bill Gates. How skinny those people are! It is of little importance that some of them own high-end Alienware computers. They are clearly not being fed enough. They all seem to wear glasses too. A clear sign that they do not have the money for proper eye care. In addition to neglecting the needs of their employees, the rich never donate any of their money to charity. So it all must be their fault.

Our poor economy cannot possibly be the fault of the massively irresponsible institution which takes money from wise investors, especially the rich, and tosses it carelessly about like confetti. No. It cannot possibly be *that *institution’s fault, even though it continue to steal and borrow money when it already owes over seventeen trillion dollars. It cannot possibly be its fault, even though it causes inflation by printing loads of money to placate its debtors. The poor economy obviously has nothing to do with that organization even though it is the one in charge of the country and the value of our green paper depends on it. No. We would be too judgmental if we pointed at that institution. It’s clearly the rich who are to blame.

tsk: To to true!!!

 

[nmgauss]

Actually in some cases it is a crime. For example, registered investment advisors have a fiduciary responsibility to act in their clients best interests. If they don’t do that they face legal sanctions.

It is not a crime. Legal Sanctions are usually levied as monetary penalties. Not acting in good faith, if it can be proven in a court of law, subjects the perpetrator to civil damages, not time in prison.

 

[stinkcat_14]

If bad financial decisions is what got us here, you can’t ignore the government and blame it all on the rich. The government is king of bad decisions right now. How do you think it got over seventeen trillion in debt? To make matters worse, the government is using other people’s money in these bad decisions, whereas rich folks, with the exception of banks, are using their own money. As far as accountability, people should at least be fired for making major bad decisions, but that isn’t even happening in the government.

Nobody is ignoring the government here, it is not an either or proposition. There can be stupid government decisions and stupid corporate decisions.

Actually, in the case of the rich, you are wrong. They use.a lot of other people’s money, either shareholders money or the lenders money. So when they make a decision that harms other people, they deserve to be punished sufficiently harshly to discourage that type of behavior. If you are a rich sole proprietor with no debt, then I couldn’t care about your decisions, but when you use other people’s money you have an obligation to them.

 

[Seraphim73]

Perhaps you need to take a class in logic. For example, I am concerned about the income distribution when people’s incomes are higher because of rent seeking and corporate welfare? Does that mean that class envy is the only logical explanation for such a concern? Of course, not.

I’m not sure what you mean by “rent seeking” but bailouts and corporate welfare are most definitely theft. More importantly than that it removes one of the biggest incentives in a true free market economy, the danger of failure and going out of business.

If occupational licensing means that physicians make more money and nurse practitioners make less due to scope of practice limitations put in place due to lobbying of the AMA, then the income distribution will be unjustly skewed. And Christians have a right to be concerned about economic justice.

All occupational licesnsing is designed to reduce competition for those already in that occupation.

 

[nmgauss]

Nobody is ignoring the government here, it is not an either or proposition. There can be stupid government decisions and stupid corporate decisions.

Actually, in the case of the rich, you are wrong. They use.a lot of other people’s money, either shareholders money or the lenders money. So when they make a decision that harms other people, they deserve to be punished sufficiently harshly to discourage that type of behavior. If you are a rich sole proprietor with no debt, then I couldn’t care about your decisions, but when you use other people’s money you have an obligation to them.

As long as the money is in your hands, it is your money. You have no other obligations than to fulfill the agreements made at the time of the cash inflow.
If a corporation has shareholders, they own the place. It is the corporation’s money. If the corporation wants to continue to attract investors, it has to look good to them by making sound decisions. Also, if I loan you money, it is your money while in your possession. You can use it for your own purposes. Your only obligation is to pay me interest for the privilege of loaning you the money with the expectation that eventually you will return it. The only way out of it is to declare bankruptcy. That is what risk is all about. Shareholders risk have their shares become worthless as happened to Lehman Brothers.

 

[esieffe]

The rise for the top ten strangely mirrors the time when deregulation really took off.
Unbridled free market efforts have bombed just as badly as it’s polar opposite communism. You can’t have a free market when so many players, business, and countries alike, have stacked the deck.

I look to Germany and Scandinavia as models of a successful balance.

Nice illustrations, Good topic, as it is one of the larger concerns the Holy Father has been addressing.

 

[Seraphim73]

Unbridled free market efforts have bombed just as badly as it’s polar opposite communism. You can’t have a free market when so many players, business, and countries alike, have stacked the deck.

Well that’s simply not true. Where have unbridled free markets been tried? How could you possibly compare any relatively free market to the failure of communism? Do you have any idea what life was like in the Soviet Union or in Cuba today? If you think modern Western economies compare to communism you have been lied to my friend, and lied to boldly.

 

[WilT]

The Pope talks about corruption, greed, and pride. ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/pope-corruption-easiest-sin-fingertips-anyone-power :highprayer

 

[nmgauss]

The Pope talks about corruption, greed, and pride. ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/pope-corruption-easiest-sin-fingertips-anyone-power :highprayer

The Pope is idealistic and lives in a wishful thinking arena. Idealism is good if it is in accordance with basic human nature. To do otherwise is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.