[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dr. P,
Interesting questions. A few thoughts:
- The only way an “escrow” court could work is in small towns where commerce is extremely limited. Nearly every transaction would require a deposit on a theory that something in the deal could go sour, from small consumer goods to large capital purchases. I don’t think that would work as a practical matter since the Indistrial Age - look at every good you have in your home…to get some protection against bad craftmanship or basic non-performance, on everything from a toaster to a shipload of pork bellies, youd have to have money deposited with the court.
It’s also impractical because I can’t imagine would want to administer the deposited funds and track all that for every commercial transaction. That would be an enormous and expensive task.
[/quote]
Bitcoin. Funds would be guaranteed by the blockchain and those people running the bitcoin service would be paid transaction fees for their effort.[/quote]
Blockchain will be broken. How will you guarantee the funds? [/quote]
How can it be broken? In the last 5 years it still has not been.
That is the nature of distributed systems - greater than 50% of the computing power would need to be compromised for the blockchain to fail. Because of how people are incentivized by it to remain honest it would be very difficult to gain such a computing advantage in the first place.
Right now people are using bitcoin for escrow and it is proving very efficient.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bitcoin+escrow[/quote]
5 whole years, whoa look out that shit is definitely uncrackable.
In your fantasy land where bitcoin via Blockchain becomes the backbone of commerce there’ll be a little more incentive to crack it, don’t you think??[/quote]
I don’t think you understand. It would require amassing more computing power than the current market cap of bitcoin that is in existence. In this model honesty will always be rewarded but dishonesty comes at a very expensive price that may not even be successful.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I win.[/quote]
No you really don’t. [/quote]
I do in your hypothetical situation that was not very well thought out.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t think you understand. It would require amassing more computing power than the current market cap of bitcoin that is in existence. In this model honesty will always be rewarded but dishonesty comes at a very expensive price that may not even be successful.[/quote]
I understand you’re putting all of your faith in a technology that’s in it’s infancy. Lol, you sound like a devout follower of the Church of Bitcoin. It’ll be broken when the incentive is there to break it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
There won’t be a single insurance company if said company’s ownership isn’t shielded from personal liability beyond their investment. [/quote]
Yet somehow insurance arose in the market before the invention of the concept of the “limited liability corporation”. Someone took ALLLLLLLLL the risk upon himself to do exactly this.
Please explain this phenomenon.[/quote]
c-corps. Which have been around for, like, ever man.
I’m pretty sure your buck stopped quite a few bong hits ago. You literally don’t even begin to understand business formation beyond it’s name ffs.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I win.[/quote]
No you really don’t. [/quote]
I do in your hypothetical situation that was not very well thought out.[/quote]
Everyone else agreed with me, but keep on keepin on I guess.
The “private insurance will solve it” angle is hogwash. Insurers already do cover certain business losses, but only up to a point, amd only amid a ton of qualifications. No insurer is going to step entirely into the shows of a business to protect an individual in whole from having all his assets taken by creditors. Even reinsurers wouldn’t go that far. Even assuming it made business sense to do so - and it doesn’t - the price for the insurance would be so prohibitive that no business could afford to buy it.
Just think - I raise a bunch of capital and start a new business selling gizmos across the United States. I am personally liable for all debts the business incurs and any judgments against. Having started the business with that risk on the table - which I would never do - I seek an insurer who will insure me up to 100% of all claims against the business and me from the business. 100%.
The insurer would not. Most businesses fail, and not long after they start, which means that an insurer wouldbtake in almost no premiums before the risk of huge payouts starts accruing. It isn’t like health insurance, where you can actuarially predict payouts based on the health and age of the insured. No, an insurer is basically going to start paying from the inception of these policies, and the risk - 100% of all claims, and they keep going to cover personal assets - it’s bad business.
But after the insurer stops laughing at my request, he says sure he’ll write such a policy - and the premiums are so astronomically high that I can’t afford to run the business I started.
So, no insurer would offer such insurance, and no one could afford if they did, libertarian fantasies - a theme here at PWI lately - notwithstanding.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The “private insurance will solve it” angle is hogwash. Insurers already do cover certain business losses, but only up to a point, amd only amid a ton of qualifications. No insurer is going to step entirely into the shows of a business to protect an individual in whole from having all his assets taken by creditors. Even reinsurers wouldn’t go that far. Even assuming it made business sense to do so - and it doesn’t - the price for the insurance would be so prohibitive that no business could afford to buy it.
Just think - I raise a bunch of capital and start a new business selling gizmos across the United States. I am personally liable for all debts the business incurs and any judgments against. Having started the business with that risk on the table - which I would never do - I seek an insurer who will insure me up to 100% of all claims against the business and me from the business. 100%.
The insurer would not. Most businesses fail, and not long after they start, which means that an insurer wouldbtake in almost no premiums before the risk of huge payouts starts accruing. It isn’t like health insurance, where you can actuarially predict payouts based on the health and age of the insured. No, an insurer is basically going to start paying from the inception of these policies, and the risk - 100% of all claims, and they keep going to cover personal assets - it’s bad business.
But after the insurer stops laughing at my request, he says sure he’ll write such a policy - and the premiums are so astronomically high that I can’t afford to run the business I started.
So, no insurer would offer such insurance, and no one could afford if they did, libertarian fantasies - a theme here at PWI lately - notwithstanding.[/quote]
But but but; creditors, reputation agencies, other fancy words, etc…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The “private insurance will solve it” angle is hogwash. Insurers already do cover certain business losses, but only up to a point, amd only amid a ton of qualifications. No insurer is going to step entirely into the shows of a business to protect an individual in whole from having all his assets taken by creditors. Even reinsurers wouldn’t go that far. Even assuming it made business sense to do so - and it doesn’t - the price for the insurance would be so prohibitive that no business could afford to buy it.
Just think - I raise a bunch of capital and start a new business selling gizmos across the United States. I am personally liable for all debts the business incurs and any judgments against. Having started the business with that risk on the table - which I would never do - I seek an insurer who will insure me up to 100% of all claims against the business and me from the business. 100%.
The insurer would not. Most businesses fail, and not long after they start, which means that an insurer wouldbtake in almost no premiums before the risk of huge payouts starts accruing. It isn’t like health insurance, where you can actuarially predict payouts based on the health and age of the insured. No, an insurer is basically going to start paying from the inception of these policies, and the risk - 100% of all claims, and they keep going to cover personal assets - it’s bad business.
But after the insurer stops laughing at my request, he says sure he’ll write such a policy - and the premiums are so astronomically high that I can’t afford to run the business I started.
So, no insurer would offer such insurance, and no one could afford if they did, libertarian fantasies - a theme here at PWI lately - notwithstanding.[/quote]
COncidering the insurer herself would also be 100% liable and need the same insurance, lol…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t think you understand. It would require amassing more computing power than the current market cap of bitcoin that is in existence. In this model honesty will always be rewarded but dishonesty comes at a very expensive price that may not even be successful.[/quote]
I understand you’re putting all of your faith in a technology that’s in it’s infancy. Lol, you sound like a devout follower of the Church of Bitcoin. It’ll be broken when the incentive is there to break it. [/quote]
I am not so much the church of bitcoin, yet but the technology is not going away. Bitcoin is to crypto-currency what aol mail was when the world wide web was just coming online. Virtually no one knew how to use it and thought it was just a fad. Now, no one relying on modern commerce would be without an email account.
Also, I am not saying bitcoin cannot be broken but it would be like breaking the internet, in general. The internet is not just one single entity that be switched on or off and neither is bitcoin. It is a protocol stack for one-way, distributed, cryptographic exchange verified by math.
Early adopters of crypto-finance technology will be at the cutting edge of the business world and not necessarily “going all-in”, either.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
There won’t be a single insurance company if said company’s ownership isn’t shielded from personal liability beyond their investment. [/quote]
Yet somehow insurance arose in the market before the invention of the concept of the “limited liability corporation”. Someone took ALLLLLLLLL the risk upon himself to do exactly this.
Please explain this phenomenon.[/quote]
c-corps. Which have been around for, like, ever man.
I’m pretty sure your buck stopped quite a few bong hits ago. You literally don’t even begin to understand business formation beyond it’s name ffs.
[/quote]
Bull shit, you have no clue. Insurance has existed since long before this arbitrary tax code was established.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I win.[/quote]
No you really don’t. [/quote]
I do in your hypothetical situation that was not very well thought out.[/quote]
Everyone else agreed with me, but keep on keepin on I guess. [/quote]
Bahahahahaha!
Everyone here also believes in supernatural deities, too.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The “private insurance will solve it” angle is hogwash. Insurers already do cover certain business losses, but only up to a point, amd only amid a ton of qualifications. No insurer is going to step entirely into the shows of a business to protect an individual in whole from having all his assets taken by creditors. Even reinsurers wouldn’t go that far. Even assuming it made business sense to do so - and it doesn’t - the price for the insurance would be so prohibitive that no business could afford to buy it.
Just think - I raise a bunch of capital and start a new business selling gizmos across the United States. I am personally liable for all debts the business incurs and any judgments against. Having started the business with that risk on the table - which I would never do - I seek an insurer who will insure me up to 100% of all claims against the business and me from the business. 100%.
The insurer would not. Most businesses fail, and not long after they start, which means that an insurer wouldbtake in almost no premiums before the risk of huge payouts starts accruing. It isn’t like health insurance, where you can actuarially predict payouts based on the health and age of the insured. No, an insurer is basically going to start paying from the inception of these policies, and the risk - 100% of all claims, and they keep going to cover personal assets - it’s bad business.
But after the insurer stops laughing at my request, he says sure he’ll write such a policy - and the premiums are so astronomically high that I can’t afford to run the business I started.
So, no insurer would offer such insurance, and no one could afford if they did, libertarian fantasies - a theme here at PWI lately - notwithstanding.[/quote]
If the market doesn’t address this “problem” - as you see it - then maybe government shouldn’t either.
There is no getting around risk and distributing it to taxpayers is not really a solution but rather a recipe for a whole new problem.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The “private insurance will solve it” angle is hogwash. Insurers already do cover certain business losses, but only up to a point, amd only amid a ton of qualifications. No insurer is going to step entirely into the shows of a business to protect an individual in whole from having all his assets taken by creditors. Even reinsurers wouldn’t go that far. Even assuming it made business sense to do so - and it doesn’t - the price for the insurance would be so prohibitive that no business could afford to buy it.
Just think - I raise a bunch of capital and start a new business selling gizmos across the United States. I am personally liable for all debts the business incurs and any judgments against. Having started the business with that risk on the table - which I would never do - I seek an insurer who will insure me up to 100% of all claims against the business and me from the business. 100%.
The insurer would not. Most businesses fail, and not long after they start, which means that an insurer wouldbtake in almost no premiums before the risk of huge payouts starts accruing. It isn’t like health insurance, where you can actuarially predict payouts based on the health and age of the insured. No, an insurer is basically going to start paying from the inception of these policies, and the risk - 100% of all claims, and they keep going to cover personal assets - it’s bad business.
But after the insurer stops laughing at my request, he says sure he’ll write such a policy - and the premiums are so astronomically high that I can’t afford to run the business I started.
So, no insurer would offer such insurance, and no one could afford if they did, libertarian fantasies - a theme here at PWI lately - notwithstanding.[/quote]
If the market doesn’t address this “problem” - as you see it - then maybe government shouldn’t either.
There is no getting around risk and distributing it to taxpayers is not really a solution but rather a recipe for a whole new problem.[/quote]
That’s an excellent point, but government is not totally separate from the market. The market controls the government, and anyone with the ability to do so will initiate force to accomplish his goals.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
That’s an excellent point, but government is not totally separate from the market. The market controls the government, and anyone with the ability to do so will initiate force to accomplish his goals.[/quote]
Yes, I agree but just because someone can pay a mercenary’s salary to guarantee business transactions are always in his favor doesn’t make them free market transactions.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
That’s an excellent point, but government is not totally separate from the market. The market controls the government, and anyone with the ability to do so will initiate force to accomplish his goals.[/quote]
Yes, I agree but just because someone can pay a mercenary’s salary to guarantee business transactions are always in his favor doesn’t make them free market transactions.[/quote]
No doubt. A free market is an unachievable ideal.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I win.[/quote]
No you really don’t. [/quote]
I do in your hypothetical situation that was not very well thought out.[/quote]
Everyone else agreed with me, but keep on keepin on I guess. [/quote]
Bahahahahaha!
Everyone here also believes in supernatural deities, too.[/quote]
I would love to know how someone as delusional as yourself actually function on this planet.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Bull shit, you have no clue. Insurance has existed since long before this arbitrary tax code was established.[/quote]
I’ve only studied business and taxation for the last 15 or so years, have letters after my name to that effect, and recognized the world over for those letters, and have ten years experience working in business.
You’re right, I have no clue. You don’t even know WTF a LLC is, nor how it differs from a General Partnership, Limited PArtnership, S or C corp… But you’re right, I have no clue.
The reason this is obvious is your rebuttal lacks any semblance of understanding of basic economics, business function or history.
Protip: Corps are older than this “arbitrary” tax code.
Also Protip: the IRC is anything but arbitrary.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
That’s an excellent point, but government is not totally separate from the market. The market controls the government, and anyone with the ability to do so will initiate force to accomplish his goals.[/quote]
Yes, I agree but just because someone can pay a mercenary’s salary to guarantee business transactions are always in his favor doesn’t make them free market transactions.[/quote]
No doubt. A free market is an unachievable ideal.[/quote]
Actually, it becomes more achievable everyday.
The internet has been able to spread these ideas that no one would ever have been able talk about in such a large and open forum.
Technology will eventually enable us to completely subvert coercive institutions altogether.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Everyone here also believes in supernatural deities, too.[/quote]
And some here even believe in superficial political fantasies that require less intelligence than that found in a grapefruit.[/quote]
Yes, they are called progressives and conservatives.