Go on Cat - put on your best Goth gear, lace up your Sid Vicious boots and settle back to watch the movie. It's all on youtube if you look.
Actually it's right up your alley, but perhaps you won't be able to overcome your natural bias against the source of recommendation.
Watch it anyway - no one will know, you don't have to admit it, and you will learn something. It's getting late in Kyoto, what else do you have to do?
Great film, I was a big fan when it came out.
Two criticisms I have of it:
- it gets a bit didactic at the end. I don't need Michael Moore giving me a pep talk - they are trying to prove a corporation is a psychopathic person. To do this, they take examples from a number of different corporations. Assuming each corporation is a "person", then surely taking multiple examples from different "people" and grouping them as though it's a single "person" is a bit misleading.
"No nation has seriously proposed giving corporations the right to vote, for example, and even nations with very strong traditions of free speech for citizens (e.g. the US), do not wholly extend those rights to corporations"
Well thats true, but the obligations are meant to be the same.
I'm not a solicitor, perhaps you are?
As I recall corporations were first introduced to allow a group of people to build a bridge and they needed an entity who could act like a person but with liability limited to the corporation, and not extending to the shareholders or directors. It was never meant to evolve the way it has.
I invite you to watch the documentary and then tell me how wrong I was.
Well, I watched the first chapter, and was confronted with
- the Bad Apple metaphor - the "can't we pick a better metaphor" metaphor - the "jigsaw" metaphor - the "sports team" metaphor - the "family unit" metaphor - the "telephone system" metaphor - the "eagle" metaphor (particularly vapid -- "OK, guys, enough bullshit")
etc., etc., etc.
Nowhere (in this first chapter at least) was there a concise and well defended explanation of what a corporation is, and certainly no reference to the Dutch and (arguably) Venetian origins of the concept.
I gave up at the "please give us money" part. Perhaps too early, but...
"No nation has seriously proposed giving corporations the right to vote, for example, and even nations with very strong traditions of free speech for citizens (e.g. the US), do not wholly extend those rights to corporations"
Well thats true, but the obligations are meant to be the same.
I'm not a solicitor, perhaps you are?
As I recall corporations were first introduced to allow a group of people to build a bridge and they needed an entity who could act like a person but with liability limited to the corporation, and not extending to the shareholders or directors. It was never meant to evolve the way it has.
I invite you to watch the documentary and then tell me how wrong I was.
Well, I watched the first chapter, and was confronted with
- the Bad Apple metaphor - the "can't we pick a better metaphor" metaphor - the "jigsaw" metaphor - the "sports team" metaphor - the "family unit" metaphor - the "telephone system" metaphor - the "eagle" metaphor (particularly vapid -- "OK, guys, enough bullshit")
etc., etc., etc.
Nowhere (in this first chapter at least) was there a concise and well defended explanation of what a corporation is, and certainly no reference to the Dutch and (arguably) Venetian origins of the concept.
I gave up at the "please give us money" part. Perhaps too early, but...
Did I really miss much?
Well it's a Canadian production - always trying to outdo their wealthier neighbours, so the lead in is a little excessive.
OK, I'm up to Chapter 3 now. - Still no mention of relevent European antecedents, particularly the Dutch model - One mention of a corporation as a "citizen", by an anonymous commentator, without any elaboration on what that might entail.
Still no sign of historical or intellectual rigour on the topic.
Sorry, it's not really up to even "History Channel" standards.
OK, I'm up to Chapter 3 now. - Still no mention of relevent European antecedents, particularly the Dutch model - One mention of a corporation as a "citizen", by an anonymous commentator, without any elaboration on what that might entail.
Still no sign of historical or intellectual rigour on the topic.
Sorry, it's not really up to even "History Channel" standards.
well if the Canadian definition is a little lightweight for you, then try wiki.
Quote:
Legal personality (also artificial personality, juridical personality, and juristic personality) is the characteristic of a non-living entity regarded by law to have the status of personhood.
A legal person (Latin: persona ficta) (also artificial person, juridical person, juristic person, and body corporate, also commonly called a vehicle) has a legal name and has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities under law, just as natural persons (humans) do. The concept of a legal person is a fundamental legal fiction. It is pertinent to the philosophy of law, as is essential to laws affecting a corporation (corporations law) (the law of business associations).
It won't be much of a shock. It is exactly what I am predicting. When the Aud falls, I intend to bring over a large wad of cash and buy several houses, as will every other UK migrant that has made the trip in the last five years. The only thing that will screw me is the timing. I'm stuck in the UK for a year at least, so don't lower those interest rates too fast.
If you read b_b you'll see that it doesn't work like that.
I thought I was bringing my money/cash here when I moved here from the UK in 1999. But I didn't bring anything. What happened was that although I asked my bank in the UK to transfer my money to my bank in Australia, they are not able to do that. The banks use foreign exchange services rather than transfer money across borders. The foreign exchange service found traders holding AUD (already within the AU banking system) who wished to do a swap for UK pounds in the UK banking system. The result was that someone else became the new owner of my pounds in the UK and I became the new owner of some already existing AUD in Australia. No funds left the UK and no new funds appeared in Australia. The AUD I acquired already existed in Australia. It may be that the new owner of AUD, like yourself, has a greater inclination to use those funds for house purchase. But it may be otherwise. Neither trade nor immigrants increase funding.
Immigrants with money tend to have the effect of raising the exchange rate of the currency of their target location.
I was talking about a change in housing demand, and the drop in the Aud being a trigger for that increase in demand. Anything else is a bonus.
Christ - even when I'm being bullish you have a dig!
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy