quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

You dont understand what I mean by "aggregating capital" when in your next post you talk about "marshalling productive resources"? What do you think gives them that "marshalling" ability? CAPITAL.

Okay.  So you are referring to the ability of a corporation to raise capital through the sale of stock.

To answer your other point - I had not realized that "limited' liability referred to the firewall set up between its own assets and those of its investors.  I would hope that Brain simply made that same error as well.  Investors stand to lose their investment, but no more.

However, although company officers are generally held immune from lawsuits related to their actions on the job, note that they can be held liable in egregious cases.  Piercing the corporate veil and insider trading are two cases where they act for themselves, not for the company, and are liable for that reason.  And there have been officers held liable for committing fraud while on the job.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

Voila, no aggregation of capital.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

People do not have limited liability so that must be taken away pronto so corporations have unlimited liability like people.

Good idea. Dry up all of the means of aggregating capital, so we can devolve to the stone age.

whats that supposed to mean?

How would the dissolution of corporations dry up capital?

That does not make any sense

ROFL. I see you understand business very well.

Here is a hypothetical ...I assume you at least know what that means.... in a world without limited liability.

You are an investor. You receive a prospectus from Pharmavations, Inc. a drug company that has developed a breakthrough anti-depression drug via venture capital that has been thoroughly tested and approved by the FDA.

It is now going public and looking for expansion and marketing capital. They provide a link to their TV ad in the prospectus. At the end of the ad they give the standard precautions: "Use of any drug has potential side effects. Pharmajoy has shown rare side effects including suicide, compulsive behavior such as gambling and overeating, loss of sleep.....blah blah blah" And the SEC in this alternative universe requires another disclaimer in the prospectus. "Stock ownership in any company entails certain risks, including the potential for lawsuits against individual shareholders that extend beyond their investment in the company and up to their entire net worth."

And you remember the barrage of "Bad Drug Lawyers" ads on TV that encourage anybody who has suffered from any side effect of any drug to call and see if they have a potential claim.

There is no business that is immune from lawsuits, no matter how carefully and honestly run. No one with a bit of sense would invest in a company where they didnt personally control its operations and risks if the reach of lawsuits went beyond their investment in the company. Voila, no aggregation of capital.

seems like you just did a full circle here....  You claim capital would dry up?
Capital is the basis of each person within or that hold stock in the company.

So on one hand you claim aggregate capital will dry up and then show there is no aggregation of capital and what you must show here is that the individual would have less capital than the corp body which of course is impossible since the corp body is the sum of the individuals with each individuals capital brought to the body.

Even if the corp is dissolved each individual if they did not get fucked as they usually do, would walk away with and hold the same amount of capital.

So how can you argue the capital dries up?  if it does where does it go?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

aggregation of capital is not the same as aggregate capital, and the inability to aggregate it doesnt mean it "dries up".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

aggregation of capital is not the same as aggregate capital, and the inability to aggregate it doesnt mean it "dries up".

claiming it meant something else with out telling us what that something else is or was screams bullshit.

the way you used the term it certainly did.

If it did not then explain precisely what you meant by it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

aggregation of capital is not the same as aggregate capital, and the inability to aggregate it doesnt mean it "dries up".

claiming it meant something else with out telling us what that something else is or was screams bullshit.

the way you used the term it certainly did.

If it did not then explain precisely what you meant by it.

no one else had trouble with it. There are plenty of online dictionaries...words do have meaning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

   But then if that is your lot in life who am I to disagree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

well they probably know how fucking obtuse you are.

Once again you defer and drown in your own bullshit.  Why bother wasting the time to type if all you are capable of is deference and cannot support one damn thing you say.  You cant even defend your position in your own opinion much less a citation.  Spouting a bunch of shit then running away only makes you look the fool.   But then if that is your lot in life who am I to disagree.

Thats the truest thing you said since you started posting your conspriacy bullshit here. You are no one to disagree with me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

well they probably know how fucking obtuse you are.

Once again you defer and drown in your own bullshit.  Why bother wasting the time to type if all you are capable of is deference and cannot support one damn thing you say.  You cant even defend your position in your own opinion much less a citation.  Spouting a bunch of shit then running away only makes you look the fool.   But then if that is your lot in life who am I to disagree.

Thats the truest thing you said since you started posting your conspriacy bullshit here. You are no one to disagree with me.

hey dont look at me....

I am not the one in retardsville who would claim that 19 hijackers CONSPIRED to take out freedom and pass the patriot act and show fake beer cans flying through buildings without a scratch to prove it..

only conspiratard nutjobs would believe that fooolish shit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
no, you are the one in "retardsville", with the intellectual ability and vocabulary of a 3rd grader. come back when you grown up. He, he, even DK owns you.