+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11
    Bullfrog
    Join Date
    July 20th, 2009
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark
    Posts
    517
    My point was simply towards people who have this simplistic view that "Just let the market work! The market will find the best solution! The market will find the most productive company! The market will find the most innovative product!" and so on. In reality, it is more complicated than that.

    And regarding regulations, I'm not sure what kind of system you envision where there are no laws governing business; there will always be some laws that govern how you can transfer wealth, how and what you can buy, and so on. Bain Capital and all the similar companies use loopholes and looseneds in the law. Toys R Us case is just one blatant example. Technically you can call these laws "regulations" since they "regulate" business but the more colloquial use of the word regulation is when the laws actually restrict and check what companies do rather than offer them protection or creating loopholes for them.

  2. #12
    Bullfrog
    Join Date
    December 19th, 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    987
    What was it that the government should have done to stop this?

  3. #13
    Bullfrog
    Join Date
    March 13th, 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    733
    Bailouts. Obviously.

    Duh. Toys R Us is too big to fail. Or something... Yeah?


    /s
    There's not a day goes by I don't feel regret. Not because I'm in here; or because you think I should. I look back on the way I was then: a young, stupid kid who committed that terrible crime. I want to talk to him. I want to try to talk some sense to him, tell him the way things are. But I can't. That kid's long gone and this old man is all that left. I gotta live with that. Rehabilitated? It's just a bullshit word. So go ahead and stamp your forms, sonny, and stop wasting my time. Because to tell you the truth, I don't give a shit.

    Red - The Shawshank Redemption

    The troubles from our proud and angry dust are from eternity, and shall not fail. Bear them we can, and if we can we must. Shoulder the sky, my lad, and drink your ale.

    -A.E. Housman

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Xywalan View Post
    My point was simply towards people who have this simplistic view...
    I like to keep in mind that the average intelligence of a Thresher is higher than the average intelligence of the common Facebook poster. I try not to make my points to the simpletons.

    But I also have to ask, "Why are they complex?" What made them complex? The myriad laws and regulations surrounding large business? Or is it more organic than that? I tend to be in the camp that interprets what I see as the overreach of government, and their regulations, as enablers to scenarios exactly like this. Not by accident, but fully by design. The crony capitalism/corporatism that exists currently is a tool used to promote groups unfairly. You might disagree with that, but that doesn't make it simplistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xywalan View Post
    And regarding regulations, I'm not sure what kind of system you envision where there are no laws governing business
    "Regulations are needed in business"
    ~Kirzad, circa three or four posts ago

    Quote Originally Posted by Xywalan View Post
    Technically you can call these laws "regulations" since they "regulate" business but the more colloquial use of the word regulation is when the laws actually restrict and check what companies do rather than offer them protection or creating loopholes for them.
    Regulations state not only what a company is allowed to do, but also what they are required to do. Same with other aspects of the economy - including bankruptcy law (which I admit I'm no expert in) as well as banking and investments. Every "loophole" that is found in tax law, bankruptcy law, business law is INTENTIONALLY INCLUDED and/or INTENTIONALLY NOT INCLUDED. It is put there to generate allowances, exemptions, exceptions and permissions.

    I mean, I understand the gripe here. It was shitty the way it all went down. It's kind of scumbag, honestly. But as far as I'm aware, nothing illegal occurred. If nothing illegal occurred on something of this size and scope, then it's blatantly obvious that this entire transaction is working as intended. That translates into:
    1) Government discussed, voted on and put in place regulations for multiple aspects of the economy
    2)Some of those things discussed and voted on allowed the acquisition of a business, the siphoning of profits from one business to another, the legal protections granted in bankruptcy of a business.

    The problem with more regulations is that somewhere down the line, somebody who didn't have a scumbag reason for doing everything that was just listed is going to be denied the opportunity to do so - which would have otherwise been a best-case-scenario outcome. Imagine if the legal protections of bankruptcy had been removed from the scenario above. If Bain Cap hadn't been able to just be absolved of their debts. Would TrUs have been acquired? Would it have been used the way it was? Bain would have remained responsible for it's debts, whether it be as Bain or as TrUs. Somewhere, somehow, they would have still been on the hook for billions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts