4 ms·
I don't think it's that crazy, just totally different from what we expect. It would make sure that those who make the risks actually PAY for the risk should it
by s_baar 18y ago
I don't think it's that crazy, just totally different from what we expect. It would make sure that those who make the risks actually PAY for the risk should it sour. The type of leverage that you talk about is irresponsible when it is associated with bad assets, like sub primes.
Don't assume that they could go after all you're worth, either. No one would associate with an investment, that, if gone awry, would ruin them financially. The point is that liability would be determined on the market between individuals, and there wouldn't be a one size fits all LLC.
- ryanwaggoner 18y agoNo one would associate with an investment, that, if gone awry, would ruin them financially. One thing we've learned in this crisis is that leverage causes companies that appear healthy to go under very very quickly. So you're saying that people would steer clear of investments that might ruin them financially? Fine. You've just killed off our entire financial industry, our real estate industry, and a good portion of other industries that rely on leverage to do business.
- s_baar 18y agoIn case you didn't notice, these industries have serious flaws (caused by many things we won't get into here), that leverage magnifies. Besides, there's still no legal basis for llcs, just convention.
- ryanwaggoner 18y agoThat's what leverage does: it magnifies. That doesn't mean that these industries are inherently bad. We need a strong banking system and a strong real estate industry. And what do you mean about no legal basis for LLCs? I'm pretty sure every state has a legal basis for LLCs.