• General

  • Wishing To Live In A Slightly Better World

Angelina i still have the idea that companies work for the people because they ensure the companies' profits and not against the people.

For small and maybe even mid sized companies there is some truth to that. But for the big globally acting corporations, rules are different. If even the diesel scandal was unable to destroy VW, the idea that a few negative twitter posts could is an illusion. Look at how VW took advantage of German buyers who unfortunate did not have the legal tool of class action available to them compared to US customers.
VW was scared of a trial in the US courts where a punitive damage based on the proven intend to cheat would most likely have been in the billion dollar range. So VW settled the case, taking back all affected cars from US customers or paying for the reduced value.
German customers got nothing comparable, because German law does not know class action and VW was not afraid of individual legal cases from Germany, where no punitive damages loomed and even if losing, VW would have to pay a few thousand Euros Max for the I dividual car's reduced value.
If there are now regulations to reign in internationally operating corporations, we the people wil, always be disadvantaged. These corporations can shift around money from one country to another with legal tricks and evade not only taxation but also accountability for what they do to a large extend.
I am all in favour for a free market, but it will only stay free and fair if seller and buyer are at least roughly facing each other on equal terms.

Want another example? Terms and Conditions of big companies are many pages long, written by in-house lawyers to make sure there is as little legal accountability for the company as possible. Have you actually spend an hour or two reading through all that stuff before you bought your last car or signed up for your mobile phone contract?
Of course not, no sane person has the time and frequently neither the legal knowledge to comprehend everything written there. But by not doing that, you are already at a huge disadvantage. A little less so in Germany where the law states that 'surprising clauses in T&C are not legal, but if that law did not exist, good night to your rights as customer.

      curious

      two things come to mind. on the one hand, you are right that large corporations can exercise more power than small and medium-sized companies, but there is a reason why large corporations have become large and the same path can also be taken backwards, so if VW were to sell nothing more, then the company would consider other ways, but that is down to the preferences of the customers. The second thing is that it is really problematic that no class action lawsuits are allowed in Germany, the laws should change there.

        Originally posted in Financial Chastity Belts:

        audioguy58 Cash is definitely the enemy here. If Junior is employed as a waiter, bartender, pizza delivery driver etc. , that would mean they are bringing home a large part of their income in cash every night, and that would tend to make an agreement of the type I have outlined above unenforceable.

        audioguy58 I was trying to imagine that we were living in a slightly better world. What if there were nothing but digital currency, “smart” debit/credit cards, and Apple Pay?

              “Whenever you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship.”
              -Harry Truman

              Yes. I agree. That is precisely what I want.

                audioguy58

                do you really think it's good if all your finances are controlled by the state?

                  16 days later

                  audioguy58 Everyone would have an internet birth certificate, which would contain your DNA profile and a link to your current biometrics.

                  I think it is very draconian, I think China is doing something similar.

                  They require 3d face recognition data stored to telecom companies to open a phone line, and all social media like WeChat being linked to that. Cameras on streets recognize people's faces all the time and in some regions these system being used to oppress certain group of people.

                  And in an era when identity theft and phishing cause more and more damages, I would rather advocate to restrict collecting personally identifiable information to sectors that are required to do such things for tax purposes such as banks, stock exchanges, employment, insurance, etc and government services like online accounts for tax agency. If people know when and where that collecting such information are allowed, they will less likely to fall for Apple ID scam emails.

                  No offense, but your idea kind of reminds me of China at best and North Korean style to be fair. Chinese social credit score system basically dictating what is "right" way of life designed by CCP already freaks me out.

                      Angelina as a libertarian i reject such things on principle

                      I think there are some things that we can agree on, I also reject these kind of principles.

                      In my opinion the problem of "nanny state" is based on refusal, or frustration with difficulties of today's parents to take responsibility as parents and want to throw their burden to the state.

                          Rina In my opinion the problem of "nanny state" is based on refusal, or frustration with difficulties of today's parents to take responsibility as parents and want to throw their burden to the state.

                          yes, i can really agree with this. i have often thought to myself: "don't have children if you are not prepared to take over the education". nowadays even 2 year olds are taken to institutions while the parents work. to be clear, i don't think it is bad if the parents work, but nowadays the children are educated more by the state than by the parents.

                            3 months later

                            curious See VW Dieselgate and how they handle it in most of Europe, where the authorities basically treated them the car manufacturers very nicely, and the customers often had to sue the car makers individually for damages.

                            Most of the costs e.g. VW had related to Dieselgate were actually outside the EU, where the authorities were not so coy in dealing with them.

                                George See VW Dieselgate and how they handle it in most of Europe, where the authorities basically treated them the car manufacturers very nicely

                                You don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs... 😉

                                  Rina
                                  It is not about parents.
                                  A "nanny state" is defined as a state that is not holding inviduals responsible for their own mistakes.
                                  That kind of tendency is visible in one way or another in most countries.
                                  One good example from Australia folliwing the 2008 financial crisis.
                                  To counter the crisis, stabilise the economy and at the same time invest into a sustainable future, the government had created a "home insulation program" where so far homes without insulation could get money from the government to put in insulation, in the hope of reducing heating/cooling costs in the future.

                                  Now many new companies were created which specialised in insulating houses, among those many small businesses where people were essentially self-employed and just wanted to make money. Unfortunately some were actually not very smart and just nailed or stapled insulation material into the attics without first checking that there were no power lines in the way. And a few people died from electrocution.

                                  While I would argue that when you carry out such work, you better should know about such basics. But the opposition made a big deal out of that and attacked the government, that it should have protected these people from their own stupidiy (as I would describe it).

                                      curious A "nanny state" is defined as a state that is not holding inviduals responsible for their own mistakes.

                                      yes, and exactly these mistakes can be made with one's own children. But if the state says that parents shouldn't make these mistakes and the state thinks it knows better how children should be educated, then I'm also talking about a nanny state