Don't you see the pattern? The spammers are suggesting that if you vote Obama your manhood will swell in size! As they say: Once you go Black, you'll never go back.

Certain US journos have already commented on feeling tingly down there and all they've done is fawn over Obama in print.

Wait till they cast their votes!

I recommend wearing gumboots if you use the voting stalls after a journo.

That's how SOLO stays afloat, by selling the private information of those who register here. If you think the email is bad, wait until the post arrives.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

does SOLO identify people to mailing list producers?

No.

I leave my ISP's spam filter turned off as it's quite rubbish and just delete them as they come in by hand. Recently though I've noted that the usual "conversational" subject lines have changed from the generic "Increase your size - shoot over the rainbow" nonsense, and are starting to look almost targeted. A lot of them are US election related.

What, am I too good to be true?

By the way, I'm suddenly receiving all sorts of mail that suggests Objectivist leanings--does SOLO identify people to mailing list producers?

Robert wrote

"That's presuming of course that neither party can agree on a mutually beneficial outcome to the situation. And it is my contention that the increase in such instances is a direct result of government meddling in the free market. (Here again I repair to my 'irrelevant example:' the NZ tax department has forced more viable businesses & individuals under than I care to count. Hard to trade your way out of trouble with the IRD on your back.) The solution is not more meddling to redress any perceived imbalance."

That pretty much says it all, Robert. Starting with reducing tax to close to zero, eliminating corporate fictions, and phasing out or transforming Bankruptcy. The market will teach harsh lessons, and some will never learn. But that's life. No guarantees and ye reap what ye sow. From the Bible, but it is true. You get what you pay for. What you do comes back to you. Say it however you will.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Or whatever your real name is. You are Correct, and that was a nice, cogent, productive post. Might be the first one I've seen out of you.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

It isn't oversimplification. I will repeat it again for you, garden troll.

People with no assets and no job history and poor credit shouldn't be given a loan.

Those with great ideas should sell their ideas, or save their money and build their credit. That's how it USED to be done in this country.

How you like them apples? Too simplistic?

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

...that Trump's pattern is repeated over and over and over, by Trump and businessmen all over in the U.S.

They incorporate, make sure that they are always personally well taken care of, and if the business goes under, well, so be it. Absolve itself of debt and the businessman has taken no loss himself despite screwing employees out of wages, vendors out of payment, etc., etc.

A businessman skilled in raising venture capital and obtaining loans from lending institutions based on contacts can themselves be quite wealthy despite never operating a profitable business and having file CORPORATE bankruptcy multiple times.

This Elijah nonsense about INDIVIDUALS being cretinous and a major problem is ridiculous. I do consumer bankruptcies for individuals on occasion. None of them jump for joy or take it lightly. Many cry in my office. And I am talking about employed adults. They definitely feel shame. As they should.

No doubt there are scumbags out there, but those who profit most and pay the least are the corporate bankruptcy filer, not the individuals.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

What comes to mind;

To disagree with me must mean you believe it is okay to incur debts and walk away from them with a shrug of the shoulders...and I am very disppointed to hear that, Mindy :(

SOLO-ists should be honourable people..."mean what they say and say what they mean" ...such as "I owe you money and will pay you" , but I suppose each person must live with their own conscience.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

Some of us trace our family tree allllll the waaaaayyyyy back to the Caesars.

And yet here we are, disagreeing with you!

--Mindy

Regardless of laws, or Courts, or Government policy or whatever....

The fact remains that honest and honourable people pay what they owe, and dishonest and dishonourable people do not.

It is no surprise to me the 'family backgrounds' of people on this thread who are critical...and miss the 'honour' point entirely....(gosh, there seems no surprises anywhere) ...compared with the family background of those who do get the 'honour' point.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

Individuals started doing business as limited liability trusts or companies.

Exactly the sort of dodge I was referring to when I commented about Black markets.

All the bankruptcy rules & any retaliatory legislation brought in to counter act it does is limit the scope of interaction between willing individuals.

Government's job is to act as a neutral arbitrator in such disputes. Apportioning blame and ordering compensation to be paid to either or both parties based on the facts of the individual case before it (And as I've been at pains to point out: even under this NZ Labour government, lenders are not powerless before debtors.)

That's presuming of course that neither party can agree on a mutually beneficial outcome to the situation. And it is my contention that the increase in such instances is a direct result of government meddling in the free market. (Here again I repair to my 'irrelevant example:' the NZ tax department has forced more viable businesses & individuals under than I care to count. Hard to trade your way out of trouble with the IRD on your back.) The solution is not more meddling to redress any perceived imbalance.

The net result of the change in bankruptcy laws that Mitch and Elijah bemoan is that more people will be considered a bad credit risk. Result: sensible businesses will not loan them money without stiff preconditions. Boo hoo hoo.

And those companies that do not, deserve neither sympathy nor the assistance provided by the legal punitive measures proposed by Mitch. Nor do they deserve a bail out as has happened with Freddie Mac et al.

What such lenders and debtors need is the unfettered opportunity to have reality teach them a lesson of what comes when you refuse to consider your self interest in the long term.

A 'Marxist's' solution.

Why would he go out of his way to turn a statistical fact into a racist slur?

Look, Elijah, racism is a universal attribution. That's why it's unfair. Even if 100% of blacks default on loans, their defaulting isn't because they are black. Defaulting on a loan is not a biologically determined act! Let's say it is part of the black culture, though. Let's say it's preached from "black" pulpits all over the country. Let's say it is a conspiracy to get "pay-back" for slavery, even. It still isn't a racial characteristic, because it isn't biological, and any black individual may decide to reject that norm, they might, because they have a mind, are capable of reason, make decisions about their own goals and actions constantly.

You don't have to speak in a racial/biological mode in order to dis' the practices, the culture, the mind-set of any group of people. Condemn the black culture, and you aren't being racial. Black culture is something black people can or can not subscribe to.

When you speak racially, you undermine individualism, reason, and choice. It may not make any difference as to how you think of things in your own head, but how you are expressing yourself is blatantly false as doctrine.

--Mindy

People with no assets and no job history and poor credit shouldn't be given a loan.

Oversimplification doesn't help. What if such a person had a great idea? Or great talent? Or was just starting out? Or all three?

And, yes, I don't know who exactly you are railing about in that particular post, and why; what premises were offensive; what you considered tripe; who was seeming to you to be a moron, etc.

--Mindy

 I'm with Scott on this, personally, which brings me to an interesting mental image: with all the corporate shenanigans that go on, does that mean that Donald Trump should have been an indentured servant to pay off HIS bankrupty? How many has he had at this point?

 That brings up the issue of the absolution of individual responsibility via corporation, limited liability companies, etc..

  Maybe poor people should start an L.L.C. of their own?  (Though I imagine they should be busy fighting for the right to fast food right now...)

In a true free market, people who seek bankruptcy would be financial lepers. And that is actually the case in the USA.
Christ, when I arrived here, I couldn't even get a bank account without a credit history, a Social Security number, and an agreement to have my employers direct credit my wages into the account.

US "Pay-day loan" companies demand that you sign a lien on your wages and provide them title to any significant assets before they will even deal with you. And there is nothing in NZ law that says that NZ businesses can't do the same!

So why the Fucking Hell don't they?

So when I see people complaining about idiot businessmen getting screwed by the dead-beat customers THEY CHOSE TO DEAL WITH - I get annoyed.

What's more, these businessmen and debtors then get bailed out by the government on my fucking dime. Worse, as an immigrant, I can't even vote the politicians who sign off on this crap out of office. And yes, I'm talking about you President GW Arsehat!

FYI.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

...and I am tired of Elijah and those who even partially ally themselves with his ideas. All of this has been done before on other threads. Too much effort.

You ~really~ have no idea what I was writing about? REALLY?

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

"Wouldn't this legislation just send a signal to all creditors to not give loans to anyone with less than $40K in assets?"

People with no assets and no job history and poor credit shouldn't be given a loan. But these mortgage companies HAVE done so, and are avoiding to pain of their folly.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

and proud of it.

Seeing as the only counter-argument is the: "well you're a Marxist then... Gosh!" It would be nice to have any of my mistakes corrected, but seeing as that ain't going time soon I'm going to get on with my day job and not wasting my time here.

I've got a product to help bring to market and genuine ex-bankrupt friends to go drinking with...

See y'all round. Maybe.

What are you talking about? What premises? What of this is tripe? Where's the black-heartedness? Stop whining and make an argument.

Not only newbies to Objectivism, but all sincere, thinking people are going to be put off by the minority here, who make posts such as yours, Scott. Ranting. Condemning, but not offering facts to back it up.

By the way, I think you'll find that if you in fact make a reasoned criticism of posts you dislike, you won't need to rail against their writers. At least make the argument first, and restrict yourself to a few rants at the end, what do you say?

--Mindy

Failed mortgage companies that lend to people who cannot afford to own and set their business model up based upon defrauding the system and falsified financials and home appraisals DESERVE to go out of business. That is the free market at work.

The largest danger to our economy is not individual bankruptcy, it is HUGE CORPORATE BAILOUTS of lenders. An additional problem is the government backing defaulted loans.

Here's what I do not understand about this brilliant government program: if someone cannot pay their mortgage, then they cannot pay. How does a government guarantee of someone who cannot pay helping anyone? I mean, I get it, the freeloader gets to keep "his" house until, inevitably, they default of the government loan. But ultimately, this is the government guaranteeing income and profit to huge private banks.

The same huge, private banks who in such ill-advised lust for higher profits decided to lend hundreds of thousands of dollars to UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE, LOW INCOME PEOPLE, PEOPLE WITH LITTLE OR NO JOB HISTORY.

As sick and tired as I am of the government stealing my tax money and giving it to poor people to waste, I am even more disgusted by multi-billion dollar contracts and bailouts given to huge corporate entities, who often, coincidentally happen to have close relations with the bailing politicians.

Both have something in common--poor guy and millionaire CEO both put themselves in the situation, and expect the government to help them out of it. I cut the poor guy more slack, because like as not, he is just a dummy, or mentally ill, or drug-addicted. That cannot be said for a college educated CEO.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Confused, black-hearted, morons, and perhaps even evil.

Yes, evil.

Not all of you, but you know who you are.

I am ashamed of SOLO for letting tripe like this on the site. What a foul misrepresentation of Objectivism, what foul premises some of the statements in this article and on the thread spring from.

It is stuff like this that will keep any seriously Objectivist-influenced politician from ever getting enough power to do anything. Because, let's face it, alot of you guys are outright crackpots. Utter lunatics.

You ARE aware that in the US, on college campuses, Objectivism is regarded as the refuge of anti-social nutjobs, right? They do not even know what the ideas are, because the nuttiness gets in the way.

And its a disappointing lunacy, because I think it would be nifty to see a Peter Cresswell or a Linz come onto article threads like this and dispel their power with clarifications.

"Oh, gosh, there goes that Italian-Irish chap with his ad hominem and insults"

Fucking right. I call it as I see it, and this tripe is worthy of no more.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

But the idea still holds. These idiots should be left to negotiate the stormed tossed seas of the free market without government throwing them a tax-payer funded life jacket or any special legislation that alters the calculus of business in their favor.

Ninety five percent of the people with mortgages in the USA are paying them off just fine under the current system. Morons who take leave of their senses and try and make money off the other 5% without protecting themselves with simple, non coercive expedients like having the precondition that the debtor take out a mortgage insurance policy, deserve to go down the tubes along with their customers.

But no, the government must bend over backwards to protect business against bad debtors.

Nobody here is advocating punishing men who have unprotected sex in order to protect the female from the consequences of not insisting that he wear a rubber, so why in the hell is anyone proposing some similar protection for businessmen?

Are businessmen somehow mentally deficient? Do we really need the equivalent of affirmative action for lenders or (debtors for that matter)? Laissez-faire anyone?

By the way, it's Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

--Mindy

Absolute statement: "the people who declare bankruptcy a disgusting, despicable disgrace."

So pointing out instances where this isn't true such as People bankrupted by the IRD is a side issue.

So pointing out that taking out a loan requires both sides to negotiate the terms of the agreement is irrelevant. True, the sanctity of the contract is paramount. But if you sign a contract with someone you know to be dishonest or unable to fulfill the expectations the problem is yours too. The only person who put you and your business in jeopardy by acting this way was you.

According to you the lender should be exempt from the consequences of their actions - even ones that place their business in jeopardy. No businessmen, including crony-capitalist ones like Freddie Mac and Freddie May, are paragons of virtue who can do no wrong.

But all of that is a side issue according to you.

"Well it just belies your underlying anti-rich prick/big business stance."

Yeah, that's it. I'm a marxist.

"Lastly, loose does not equal lose."

I think my grammar is the last thing you should be worried about if you seriously believe shit like this:

"Slavery should be reinstituted for the sole purpose of making those who declare bankruptcy pay off their debts."

And what to do with businessmen who consciously do nothing to insulate themselves against the possibility that the loan may be defaulted on - in spite of all of the tools currently available to them?

Bad businessmen should not be allowed to fail then. Is that it?

No need to answer any of this Mitch. Like Elijah, I no longer care what you think.

Oh! Mitch just pointed something out..and yes..gosh...I may not have been clear...

I do not have a problem with a chap who is declared bankrupt on the petition of his creditors...that is a different thing entirely.

Usually the creditors are seeking "blood not justice" as Sir Robert Jones puts it, and they foolishly incur all manner of legal fees and court costs which they may never recover (let alone what they are owed).

What you also find in these situations is the debtor has offered a payment arrangement but the creditor/s are bloody minded and short sighted and persist with a bankruptcy petition.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

Has anybody considered that Elijah is one?" (Troll)

First time you've made me smile Mind y.

You're using smoke and mirrors to try and make me out as some slavery touting, brown hating advocate of "cruel and unusual punishment". I'm gonna have to drown an extra batch of kittens because of you, just so you know. 

But let's get back to basics. In case you weren't aware, there is a difference between those who are forced into bankruptcy through misfortune and what not, and those who voluntarily declare bankruptcy to avoid paying debts that they have incurred. The latter is dishonest and dishonourable and was what Elijah was railing against in his initial blog. I agreed with Elijah that people who voluntarily declare bankruptcy to avoid paying debts that they have incurred are dishonest and dishonourable. 

As Elijah said: "an honourable chap will contact his creditors, explain his desire to repay them in full, explain that everything has gone tits up (despite the best of intentions) and get stuck in to doing so in a reasonable way...(even $50 per week until the cows come home is better than bankruptcy)"

See the context? 

I then said that those dishonest and dishonourable people who voluntarily declare bankruptcy to avoid paying debts that they have incurred should be forced into labour (slavery by another name, because you are so touchy about the word) if necessary in order to repay their debts. 

At this point, to avoid more abuse from your polite self, I will restate my repudiation of Elijah's "breeding" bullshit. 

That you continue to bring up all sorts of side issues: "oh, but the small business who is owed money", "oh, but the IRD", "oh, but cruel and unusual punishment", shows you have completely missed the point.

Your bullshit about "pools of lenders" etc is also completely irrelevant to the point I was making about dishonest and dishonourable people who don't pay their loans.  

As for this: "Remember that those who give credit and lend money intend to make money from the loan. They are voluntarily taking a business risk too. Why exempt them from the equation?" Lending is a mutually beneficial exercise.

and this: "If they negotiate a contract without these conditions with a customer they know nothing about - they deserve everything they get." 

Well it just belies your underlying anti-rich prick/big business stance. 

You sit there talking about "principles" while ignoring the most basic one, the sanctity of contract.  

Lastly, loose does not equal lose.

I meant to add the following:

If you are arguing against removing bankruptcy as a haven for people who don't pay debts, I'm all ears.

Perhaps your plan is that lenders should be able to place a lien against future earnings of their debtors for as long as it takes to pay back the loan.

Well there is nothing to say that they cannot. Except, that is, for the fact that the lender cannot force the person to sign that contract and no sane person would.

Business is about managing risk. And if you fail you loose your shirt. Only, under your scheme it would be mandatory that you not only loose your shirt, but that you become an indentured servant to those you owe money to.

Gee that's really going to encourage new business ventures.

Remember that those who give credit and lend money intend to make money from the loan. They are voluntarily taking a business risk too. Why exempt them from the equation?

Not only that: In NZ you can already demand security (eg title to a house or other asset) or collatoral or a third party garuantor to the loan or even that the person takes out insurance against unforeseen risk. There are also credit records to allow lenders to do due diligence on their customers. If they negotiate a contract without these conditions with a customer they know nothing about - they deserve everything they get.

The issue here is that the decision to give and receive loans is a voluntary contract. Both parties have to negotiate something that is beneficial to both. Arbitrarily imposing draconian penalties on one party or the other will handicap both sides.

Genuine lenders (as opposed to those fishing for indentured servants) need customers and will not appreciate having that pool depleted by stupid ideas like Mitch's.

In the same way I would guess as the pool of potential lenders has been depleted by the fact that it is so hard to get your money back via the current justice system which includes the current bankruptcy laws.

You may also choose to consider why bankruptcy is considered a minor crime in NZ: see IRD example above. Thus, what ought to be a major stain on one's reputation (and ability to gain capital for future ventures) is almost a right of passage for small NZ businessmen - so many of them have been done over by the taxman...

But go ahead with your slavery/servitude plan Mitch. Just don't be surprised when the only thing that flourishes under your scheme is the black market.

That's generally the result when a law limits the options of both parties aiming to interact voluntarily.

Law of unintended consequences anyone?

Well done with noting that principles count. I disagree, though, that lenders should be blamed for every defaulting loan. It's not an exact science: who "deserves" credit; and, as you said, defaulters are sometimes the victims of other defaulters.

If I understand it, "Troll" doesn't mean, here on SOLO, an ugly beast who threatens bridge-walkers, but some kind of fake identity??? Has anybody considered that Elijah is one? I enjoy Elijah's posts as spectacle, but he seems intent on displaying just the misconception of egoism and selfishness that so many people have about Objectivism.

--Mindy

I note that you haven't repudiated your stance nor claimed it to be an attempt as humor. Instead, you appear to be seriously attempting to argue for turning debtors into slaves.

So let us set the context of this discussion: my opposition to slavery is on principle. People are not fucking property.

Even violent criminals are granted the right to live free from cruel and unusual punishment. Except it seems in the fevered confines of your imagination.

One of the practical reasons for this is that government with its monopoly on the use of force, should never be allowed to enslave someone. Governments have a very poor record of administering such powers you see... or maybe you don't - I'd prescribe some history books for that lack of context.

Moreover, the person who lent the money seems immune from the consequences under your system. Lending money, extending credit etc. is a risk. It's a risk that can be mitigated with due diligence and no vendor is forced to lend money.

Thus if a business man lends money to someone who can't pay, part of the blame is his own. The dumb arse should have been more careful.

If you are arguing against removing bankruptcy as a haven for people who don't pay debts, I'm all ears.

But just remember that 'people who don't pay their bloody debts' are often small businesses who are owed money themselves - often by larger companies that decide that they don't need to settle their debts promptly because they can out lawyer and out last any smaller company that sues them for money owed.

The problem isn't lack of penalties. The problem is the time it takes and the money it costs to get satisfaction from the civil justice system.

And your solution is slavery... And you are waiving the 'objectivist' card in my face?

Jesus H. Christ indeed!

...but over here individuals are given credit ratings by banks and other lenders.

Of course I agree that it is a stupid law, but my point was that it harms the poor instead of helping them to borrow more money in the long-term, once finance instituions have adjusted to the new law.

you're being stupid.

"Don't lend to those with assets under $40K who do not have a good credit history. Even if it is as simple as having repaid an overdraft or hire-purchase."

Aside from the fact that "good" credit history doesn't really exist (the only thing you can deduce from a credit report is a lack of "bad" history WITH BAYCORP) that still doesn't prevent losses.

The fact remains that if you remove one of the major incentives for people to pay their debts (aside from a person's honour, which can be very hard to ascertain) you are going to see a rise in unpaid debts.

Do you not agree?

"Not trading with someone who wanted less than $40k/$40k worth of goods or services would kill many (esp. smaller) businesses."

Don't lend to those with assets under $40K who do not have a good credit history. Even if it is as simple as having repaid an overdraft or hire-purchase.

 Elijah:"the vast majority of defaulting mortgages in America in the sub-prime crisis are non white..."

 Well, Duh!

"Fifty-five percent of black and Latino borrowers in metropolitan Boston who obtained loans for single-family homes from seven US lending institutions had subprime loans, compared with 13 percent of white borrowers,"

So where is the surprise here. It's in the numbers not in the skin colour. I know that doesn't suit your argument though....

 "The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

And another thing:

everyone is paranoid someone they know will read what I have written and hysterically claim they are racist and think they are an a**hole by being a member of solopassion.com

Anybody that thinks that way - that is able to make conclusions about me based upon what you write - will most likely determine from my own writings that I am an asshole. So I'm not particularly paranoid and I don't particularly care.

And as I said, the insinuation is that their ethnicity is a factor. After all, you seem to believe that one should not be surprised if a black person defaults on a debt.

But in the interest of clarity I asked:

Could you be clearer and explain coherently why you are not surprised at their "colour and ethnicity"?

So, why aren't you surprised?

And a couple of other things:

Everyone spouts "A is A" from the rooftops, except when you say something like "the vast majority of defaulting mortgages in America in the sub-prime crisis are non white"

If in fact you had said anything even remotely like that, I would barely have blinked. About all I would have been interested in is some proof - after all the words "vast" and "majority", when they appear next to each other with no supporting data, tend to trip my bullshit detectors.

But you didn't say anything like "the vast majority of defaulting mortgages in America in the sub-prime crisis are non white". You said there should be "no surprises" about the colour of their skin.

I'd like to know why not?

Philip, I have been reluctant to comment on Lance's question because SOLO-ists tend not to be...ummmmm...objective...when it comes to certain matters.

Everyone spouts "A is A" from the rooftops, except when you say something like "the vast majority of defaulting mortgages in America in the sub-prime crisis are non white"....and however much people do not want to accept this reality, it is true...(just ask Bear Stearns or Merril Lynch)...so I will not mention that, Philip, because everyone is paranoid someone they know will read what I have written and hysterically claim they are racist and think they are an a**hole by being a member of solopassion.com

So to prevent this happening....I shall not mention the colour or ethnic background of the average mortgage defaulter in America....despite it being true...despite A being A....despite everyone wanting it to be "A is A so long as they are not black"...

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

 Or are you going to actually respond to the questions put?

 Typical Elijah bullshit: "Gosh, a chap  can get hot under the collar, what?" Yep, that excuses everything....

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

I must admit, when I read Mitch's comment about slavery I rather laughed to myself and took it as a lighthearted 'off the cuff' remark.

I am surprised Robert has taken it literally.

(P.S as I have said 200,000 times, I am opposed to slavery)

Philip, with regard to middle class people...yes..I dislike such chaps, not my sort of people, but by God they pay their bills and do not walk away from obligations as working class people do.

Repudiating debts or incurring voluntary bankruptcy is morally wrong....my biggest business disaster was due to this.

A certain construction company had contracted me to undertake some publishing work for them....which involved my company spending $130,000 in expenses...in the expectations of...ummmm...you know...actually being paid.

This did not happen....so not only was I out of pocket the $180,000 I was owed, but also the $130,000 I had already spent! ...took me 2 years and 50,000 headaches to sort out, whereas the slimey property developer/construction company owning spiv, liar, cheat, crook, wideboy wanker liquidated his company, declared personal bankruptcy and continued living the highlife (presumably on the contents of an offshore bank account with an ATM card)...and although I will not name this chap...will not lower myself to mention his dishonored nomenclature....around 300 businessmen were also left out of pocket to the tune of $30 million (of other people's money, naturally) and many of these poor chaps did not have a sideline business involving speculation on various sharemarkets to tide them over, so went under, too, through no fault of their own.

So having gotten that off my chest ..ha ha...(tend to get a bit hot under the collar whenever I think about those events, despite the passage of time)...I hope you can all see why voluntary bankruptcy makes me so angry.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

I agree with you completely I just don't think it qualifies as slavery. Nit picking I know, but I think the clarification could save everyone a lot of argumentation about nothing .

As for Elijah I'm eagerly awaiting his reply to Lance and Phil though I doubt it will amount to much.

I was very specific about what the "slavery" should be used for:

"Slavery should be reinstituted for the sole purpose of making those who declare bankruptcy pay off their debts."

In other words, people should be forced into labour if necessary in order to repay debts that they have incurred.

Slavery = forced labour.

Forced labour/slavery need'nt be the first option for repayment of debt, as the creditor may well want to renegotiate the terms of the credit etc etc as Robert so politely pointed out. But it should absolutely be an option, just as we should still have chain-gangs for prisoners.

Cool?

 This?

"Contrast that with white, middle class WASP types in America who, despite their stuffiness, are paying their mortgages and would rather die than walk away from an obligation....(oh yes, it is always about 'class')"

Or this?

"I just cannot stand grubby middle class types and their presumptiousness, stupid occupations, bizarre values and attitudes...*sigh* ...(why are there not more 'normal' people in the World?)."

Depends which way you perceive the winds to be blowing on this board doesn't it.

Enough with the class and breeding stuff; it just a puffed up excuse to express your bigotry. And, if you do bother answering Lance's colour and ethnicity question perhaps you could address your 'breeding' obsession too?

Still, some, like Kasper fall for it: "The superiority complexes, "that chap", non PC remarks and others are just part of his laugh and sense of bewilderment at the extraordinary moronry that goes on in Politically correct New Zealand and socialist mindsets.'

Yeah, good one have a crack at race and 'class' (whatever that is) to express bewilderment.
Give me a fuckin' break.

100% agree with the 'No Asset Procedure,"- it's bollocks. But that is what your are after isn't it, Elijah? Make a post that is half-sense and hope the bullshit racist collective crap sticks to it.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

Rather than editing my post to add extra arguments, I'm going to add a separate one. You should try it sometime.

For the record, this is what you added: 

"For extra credit, please explain to me how bankruptcy is beneficial to either lender or borrower when the lender isn't some psuedo government organization propped up with OPM?

Is there not already enough protection in the statutes that grant aggrieved parties the right to sue for breach of contract in instances where bankruptcy is used maliciously by someone who can repay the debt but chooses not to?"

I restate my question: Do YOU know what bankruptcy means if people can be DISCHARGED after 12 months?

And now I see you're blaming the lenders? Do you also blame rape victims for wearing short skirts? 

There are many many people out there now who try to get lending without giving a thought to how they are going to pay it back. This easy out - 12 months to a "fresh start" is going to greatly increase those numbers. What it's doing is taking away the incentive for people to repay their debts. Get it? 

You say that it's the lenders own fault? Have you ever done any lending buddy? I'm one of the good ones and yet I've still been burned by those who don't honour their commitments. The previous five-seven year bankruptcy period (i.e. no bank account or lending for a long time, buddy) is a good enough incentive to see most people be responsible with the lending they take. 12 months is laughable. 

I haven't really finished yet, but I've gotta get to work and do some more moronic lending to risky borrowers. I'm sure I'll have more of your idiocy to reply to when I get back. 

Slavery is when someone is forced to work without any kind of payment. You're advocating people to be forced to work until they pay off their debts.

Their debt being wiped is a form of payment so you're misusing the word, yes?

Thanks all the same Robert, but you picked the wrong person to try and lecture on bankruptcy. I work at a bank dealing with this sort of crap all day long. I know exactly what bankruptcy means.

Do YOU know what bankruptcy means if people can be DISCHARGED after 12 months?

As for (b), WTF? You're on an Objectivist website talking to a card carrying member of the Libz, and you bring up the IRD like I would support their bankrupting of people?

If you had half a brain you would have applied some context to the discussion. Also, you would have realised that I'm not Elijah so my advocacy of slavery was not "anti-brown people" but "anti-people who don't pay their bloody debts" (excluding the IRD).

Have I spelled it out loud and clear now?

Before you do, I suggest doing a little research into (a) what bankruptcy actually means to the bankrupt and (b) which NZ entity forces routinely forces people into bankruptcy because they couldn't give a shit whether they recover the debt or not.

I'll give you a hint for (b): Their initials are I.R.D.

Now re-evaluate your 'slavery' proposal and administer a swift kick to your own groin and save me the bother.

For extra credit, please explain to me how bankruptcy is beneficial to either lender or borrower when the lender isn't some psuedo government organization propped up with OPM?

In other words, how much bankruptcy would there be without government meddling...? Would the lender, concerned with recovering the debt from an unlucky (as opposed to malicious) borrower not be better off renegotiating the deal?

Shouldn't savvy lenders be more wary & secure more collateral from risky borrowers? And if they fail to do so, is that not their own fault?

Would not slavery/debtors-prison just be another crutch that protects moronic lenders from the consequences of their own stupidity?

Is there not already enough protection in the statutes that grant aggrieved parties the right to sue for breach of contract in instances where bankruptcy is used maliciously by someone who can repay the debt but chooses not to?

If you look at the billions being written off in this 'Sub Prime' crisis in America it is due to poor people... (and I shall not mention the colour or ethnicity of most of them, except to say "no surprises") ...not paying their mortgages, not honouring obligations.

Contrast that with white, middle class WASP types in America who, despite their stuffiness, are paying their mortgages and would rather die than walk away from an obligation....(oh yes, it is always about 'class')

If recognising the collectivist racial horse-shit inherent in that statement makes me a closet socialist, commie, "LINO", bleeding heart then so be it. I'm not sure what sort of back pedalling or "oh gosh thats not what I meant at all" sort of crap this is going to turn into - but the insinuation of race as a factor is quite clear.

But let me do something stupid and futile and ask this:

Could you be clearer and explain coherently why you are not surprised at their "colour and ethnicity"?

Well said, Mitch...I should also point out to you chaps the reason most businesses fail is because of bad debts.

Occasionally things go wrong...a lack of customers, an industry dies due to foreign competition, or an unexpected severe recession or whatever...but generally speaking it is because a business has to write of a $100,000 bad debt that puts them under.

If you look at the billions being written off in this 'Sub Prime' crisis in America it is due to poor people... (and I shall not mention the colour or ethnicity of most of them, except to say "no surprises") ...not paying their mortgages, not honouring obligations.

Contrast that with white, middle class WASP types in America who, despite their stuffiness, are paying their mortgages and would rather die than walk away from an obligation....(oh yes, it is always about 'class')

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

It will hurt business either way.

Not trading with someone who wanted less than $40k/$40k worth of goods or services would kill many (esp. smaller) businesses. At the moment it still pays to do these deals under $40k because the number of people who honour their committments are enough to mitigate the losses of those who don't. But it won't last in the current environment when word spreads about this easy out. That's when you'll see good people going out of business because of the unpaid debts of scum, whilst other good people (who actually repay their debts) will be unable to trade/get lending because of the clampdown on the under $40k stuff.

Robert, you seem like such a lovely chap. Your last compliment blew me away. We should have a beer next time you're back in NZ and I'll explain to you the merits of forcing people to repay debts that they incur.

Obviously the Government shouldn't be bringing in this legisaltion in the first place, but...

Wouldn't this legislation just send a signal to all creditors to not give loans to anyone with less than $40K in assets? This would ultimately punish the poor, no?

Or is there further legisaltion blocking them from doing this?

I'd prefer mandatory post natal abortion for people who utter such tripe even in jest.

The company Lay founded declared bankruptcy which let them off the hook when it came to paying back all the stockholders they lied to and ruined.

What I'm getting at is that Elijah is bringing up a legitimate problem and then using it as another opportunity to make broad insults about poor people when it's totally besides the point.

There was no mention of bankruptcy declaration in the link you provided Matty. What are you trying to say anyway?

And besides, it's a poor example anyway as Ken Lay was born into a working class family so...well...gosh...how could one be surprised at Enron's downfall?

Elijah, I agree completely (except for the breeding BS). Not only are the people who declare bankruptcy a disgusting, despicable disgrace, but this government making it possible makes me so goddam angry.

This "No Asset Procedure" will hit the best people (business owners, particularly smaller businesses) hardest, while letting the scum of the earth off the hook. The gummint would have known all this of course. Words fail me...

Slavery should be reinstituted for the sole purpose of making those who declare bankruptcy pay off their debts.

"I made a submission to the Parliamentary select committee opposing the legislation because working class poor people would abuse it"

And it's not as if rich people have ever used bankruptcy to dodge their responsibility, Right?

I worked for a finance company in the summer holidays called Five Star Consumer Finance. I was in a small team of 5 responsible for recruiting $40 million of debt. The one thing that really fucked us off was this legislation. You just wanted to ruin the bastards and now they could walk away with debt.
Hell I am a student. Why don't I just go to Noel Leeming, buy a fridge, stereo system, oven, home theater, finance it all and then piss off. I could declare bankruptcy. It would be a free ride.