Re: Down with the government
- On 10/15/2010 05:15 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
> At 03:23 PM Friday 10/15/2010, Dan Minette wrote:The cost of living in California is still too high for it to compete
>> California has put itself in a box and I'd expect housing prices to drop
>> another factor of
>> before it can start to rebound. Now, there's a topic we
>> can debate. :-)
>> Dan M.
> Something missing here . . .
> . . . ronn! :)
with other livable areas. Therefore, no new business moves to
California, especially the bay area. But if housing costs matched those
in the Plains or Appalachia then it would be more attractive to open a
business in California. After all, a low cost of living is why New
England has weathered the Great Recession so well.
- On Oct 26, 2010, at 10:00 PM, Chris Frandsen wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2010, at 20:39, Dan Minette <danminette@...> wrote:It may be a separate topic, or maybe not. The conflict over "corporate
>> The second is that the bank who gave them the loan knew that they
>> qualify for the loan, and had a high probability of eventually
>> but the officers of the bank thought it was in their own best
>> interest to
>> make the loan anyway. In that case, don't they have responsibility
>> when the
>> borrowers follow the law when they no longer are able to make
> Actually, it seems that in many cases 1st bank packaged this type
> of loan up and sold it. Now the question is if the mortgagee
> defaults is the 1st bank morally obligated to pay off the buyer of
> the loan they sold? Or was it the loan buyers responsibility to know
> the amount of risk they were taking? I think we all know that
> corporations do not have moral obligations only legal ones.
> Corporations are legal constructs. So I guess one could argue that
> humans have moral obligations but corporations do not. (Somehow, I
> am must have made an error in reasoning here.
> This could be a whole new thread. Maybe we have a new way to define
> the difference between who is and is not a citizen?
personhood" began, at least in the US, with the 1886 case "Santa Clara
County v. Southern Pacific Railroad" (right here in my home county),
when the Court Reporter, J. C. Bancroft Davis (a former railroad
president) inserted a comment in the headnote of the case, recasting
it as an assertion that corporations are due the same legal rights as
natural persons under the 14th amendment.
All of this moved from being of interest only to politics junkies and
liberals like me when the Supreme court decided, in Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission, that corporations have the right to buy
whatever form of government they want to impose on the rest of us,
which will likely result in more and more egregious misbehavior on the
part of corporations, eventually driving the pendulum back towards the
Or so I dream.