4 ms·

Maybe we'd have better businesses if you couldn't run them right to the wall and safely declare bankruptcy while keeping your profits. There's a theory that th

Maybe we'd have better businesses if you couldn't run them right to the wall and safely declare bankruptcy while keeping your profits. There's a theory that the faster things happen, the better - where we forgive outright fraud because it's theoretically driving commerce. In my experience, badly run (or intentionally fraudulent) businesses actually kill an entire area of commerce - by cheating and often going bankrupt on suppliers who then go out of business themselves rather than being able to provide their product to actually competitive companies who would remain in business.

ineedasername 4y ago
There are some countering or counterbalancing factors here when looking at it through the lens of faster/slower. Slower capital might mean more care and less fraud, but not implicitly. On the other hand, the velocity of capital through a system is at least one measure of its health and prosperity, and a system that deliberately tolerates a moderate amount of risk to min/max fraud/velocity is probably going to be healthier than one that errs too much on their side of either factor (at least in a very simplistic manner— of course there are many more factors and considerations as well)
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  Sure, like all risk analysis you weigh benefits against costs. In a general sense I don't think we're far off a decent balance. The problem is that we seem to have entirely ignored the moral risk where some people (criminals in all but name) continually abuse the same issues. Companies intentionally go bankrupt with a ton of debt rather than trying to minimize debt when it implodes. I've seen companies buy big pieces of equipment just before bankruptcy which were then sold to pay general debts, only a small portion of which went to the seller. Management knew they were likely caput but they didn't act like it. Mistakes can happen, but in this case it wasn't a mistake and it was incentivized - not just allowed - by our system. At this point it's not a tradeoff, it's a trap that we're stuck in while its being exploited. If I borrowed your car and my garage burned down with it inside you wouldn't hold a grudge, but if I knowingly parked it in a burning garage you would.

ineedasername 4y ago

There are some countering or counterbalancing factors here when looking at it through the lens of faster/slower. Slower capital might mean more care and less fraud, but not implicitly. On the other hand, the velocity of capital through a system is at least one measure of its health and prosperity, and a system that deliberately tolerates a moderate amount of risk to min/max fraud/velocity is probably going to be healthier than one that errs too much on their side of either factor (at least in a very simplistic manner— of course there are many more factors and considerations as well)

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
Sure, like all risk analysis you weigh benefits against costs. In a general sense I don't think we're far off a decent balance. The problem is that we seem to have entirely ignored the moral risk where some people (criminals in all but name) continually abuse the same issues. Companies intentionally go bankrupt with a ton of debt rather than trying to minimize debt when it implodes. I've seen companies buy big pieces of equipment just before bankruptcy which were then sold to pay general debts, only a small portion of which went to the seller. Management knew they were likely caput but they didn't act like it. Mistakes can happen, but in this case it wasn't a mistake and it was incentivized - not just allowed - by our system. At this point it's not a tradeoff, it's a trap that we're stuck in while its being exploited. If I borrowed your car and my garage burned down with it inside you wouldn't hold a grudge, but if I knowingly parked it in a burning garage you would.