Should Fraud laws be eliminated?

Sisqouc · July 14, 2011

This is the 1996 Alan Greenspan comment that I think well explains the decision to not honor warranties.

In a fascinating story first printed in Stanford Magazine, former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Brooksley E. Born recounts her 1996 lunch with Alan Greenspan during which he told her

“Well, you probably will always believe there should be laws against fraud, and I don’t think there is any need for a law against fraud,” she recalls. Greenspan, Born says, believed the market would take care of itself.

Given that we (Americans) are now experiencing a powerful sentiment that we are over-regulated and that laws governing business are too overreaching.

So I ask who on this board believes, as did Alan Greenspan, that there should be no laws against fraud civil or criminal?

Perhaps if the tinting industry is allowed to make any and all claims, without fear of regulation or punishment, it would be a fantastic growth engine? (Think 3M's on-angle claims and what Vclimber said)

I have to imagine that Sun Gard's former and present owners decided that there was no moral question only those of profitability. They likely held focus groups and decided that two things are likely:

1) No-one had enough damages to make a lawsuit viable.

2) We have short memories.

I honestly cannot see what the harm would be in revoking the Corporate Charter in the state they are domiciled in as a way of saying: "The right to use the name SunGard comes with Rights and Responsibilities" like honoring the obligations associated with it.

Although I made no attacks on others, apparently I hit a nerve by saying the very fashionable trend towards massive deregulation of business is likely the cause of many of our problems not the cure to them.

Tinitman · July 14, 2011

In my opinion you are talking about two diferent things.

If a company was operational, producing product, answering phones, and had employees then yes the company who purchased an existing company should be liable for warranty situations. That is not what happened to Sungard.

For years there were rumors of problems with the company you are upset about. For years I heard rumors about warranty liabilies were larger than assets. At one time I thought it was one of the top three products. I installed it in the late 80's. But I watched the quality deminish over time.

Look, I am not the brightest crayon in the box, but I do have a flashlight in my pocket. I don't see any fraud here. What I did see was lousy management decisions. Poor decisions were made and then poor decisions were made in response to the first poor decision. It went from the top quality product line to a bottom feeder line. The writing was on the wall but everyone turned their heads and refused to read it. Because of that they failed miserably. Unfortunately that failure has caused and will cause a ton of grief for the consumers who are and will have issues. It is obvious you are one of them who is burned.

It is what it is in the corporate world. Some make mistakes and change. Others make mistakes and keep going until they fail.

Slick · July 14, 2011

but I do have a flashlight in my pocket.

Really? or are you just happy to be here? :dunno :lol

July 14, 2011

we need an ax grinding e-mo ....

Slick · July 14, 2011

:dunno

Tinitman · July 14, 2011

but I do have a flashlight in my pocket.

Really? or are you just happy to be here?

:lol :lol

July 14, 2011

at least now we know why Sisqouc's flag is in distress ...

wheres fly paper when ya need him ... :dunno

TintDude · July 14, 2011

This is from the last one to post thread, but I think it applies here too.

Yes, it's a rediculous idea to try to treat the symtoms of this problem with an amendment to the constitution.
The problem is with the "federal" reserve. It's not federal or a reserve at all.

It's a bank that prints money and issues it AT INTEREST.

It was never meant to be this way in the constitution so editing the constitution to patch some symptom of this problem is not the solution.

The news keeps going on about the debt, without explaining what the debt is.

EVERY federal reserve note in ciculation is OWED BACK to a privately owned bank...AT INTEREST.

Where is that money supposed to come from to pay that interest?

Why, we can just borrow money from those same creditors to make the interest payments!

Anyone see a problem here?

Fine, lets pay off the debt to this handful of individuals that own the printing presses. What's that? There isn't enough money in existence to pay the interest?

Well, lets just give them REAL assets for the privilege of using their paper currency.

Get my point?

It was never meant to be this way. We can raise taxes all we want to pay them back their worthless paper, all that will accomplish is to destroy the economy.

The only solution is to disavow the "debt" abandon the "federal reserve note" and return to a real, issued at no interest, currency backed by, or constructed of precious metals.