Hello Jim, > > That's precisely why I'm against outlawing things. > I guess that means you'd like to outlaw outlawing :o) But as you say yourself, ursury is morally highly questionable. And as the increasing absence of moral values, indeed the decay of morality in society continues to be replaced by the worship of mammon the almighty buck, I fear that even a free market won't stand a chance as long as intoctrinated citizens leave school with maxxed out credit cards on a search for a loan to go to college and university.
The brief while of geek worship in the US was indeed only veiled envy of the gazillions they made and CEOs are the demi-gods of the new religion witch bankers and brokers serving as clergy. You don't expect that society will be repelled by its own rott, do you? It is more likely that things get real bad before enough voices are heard that are trying to convince people that loneliness and desperation are the results of greed and shortsightedness. Trouble is, once these voices gain enough momentum, the results are likely to be a violent move towards the right. Then you are not far from burning witches and hunting bankers with pitch forks. Maybe we should outlaw lawyers... > > Usury is wrong, but so is a Spanish Inquisition to > prevent it. > As I said, my expectation is that if ursury is not brought under control, that then the results over time will make the Spanish Inquisition look like a kindergarden field trip. People are prone to fall from one extreme into the other. So we might be looking either a theocratic Holy States of America or a American Communist Federation in a few decades. Fascism itself doesn't usually last very long, especially when the first wars are being lost - or drag on forever without any apparent benefit or visible goal. To avoid all that, maybe even to save the US, a bit of regulatory insight to cap interests might be at least retarding the process, if not indeed arrest it (puns intended). On the other side of the medal so to speak, it should become tougher to file for chapter 7 and chapter 11. Meaning, while companies and share holders should still be protected, etc. CEOs should become personally responsible for mismanagement and be charged with it deception and breach of trust, loosing at the very least all benefits, boni and large parts of their wages. In addition, CEO slaries should be capped at a reasonable level. Bonus should be paid in restricted shares of stock. Don't you think if the maximum a bank could charge was 1% non-compounding per month or 12% per annum - OR - transaction fees and service charges, but NOT both, and if executives could not earn more that $120,000 before tax and incentives, that maybe, the world would be a better place? I mean, I live in Asia most of the time and can't really spend $2,000 a month, no matter how hard I try. And spending $10,000 in the US really takes some effort as well - especially if you get piles of restricted shares on top, based on the value you generated for share holders... Cheers, Robert budget & privacy website hosting http://www.cyberica.net e-commerce & e-business services http://www.cyfrocash.net budget domain registrations http://www.u2planet.com --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
