Reassurance that I am taking the right path?

LittleToke · 2012-05-25T03:41:32.979062+00:00

Justifications are easy. Affording to eat is difficult.

johnleemk · 2012-05-25T03:36:17.994801+00:00

Meh. I'm just interested in aquaculture. Going to try to take a course on it when it comes back into rotation in 2013, and I might even pick up a minor in fisheries biology. Veta la palma is interesting, sounds like a step in the right direction.

day465 · 2012-05-25T03:33:52.893609+00:00

A business can be healthy and still only be a steady earner, you think your local corner shop or barbers is rolling in money

Those may indeed be healthy.

But that's not sufficient for health. Health also requires that it can't be brought down by the owner deciding he wants to move to the beach at 58.

day465 · 2012-05-25T03:01:59.620835+00:00

If you have those reasons and you own an otherwise healthy business...

Your business isn't healthy.

Healthy business aren't killed by a family member of an owner going ill. If it's so weak that a single event like that can lead to it going under, then it's not healthy. By definition.

You just wish very adamantly that exceedingly weak businesses were healthy, but the real world doesn't work that way. You were that kid watching the nature channel rooting for the wildebeest with the hurt foot, right? It's just not fair it was eaten by a lion. It was only that sore hoof, and if it had had a few weeks to heal up, he was perfectly healthy!

gunnar120 · 2012-05-25T02:50:36.791510+00:00

Actually a single species.

gunnar120 · 2012-05-25T02:48:10.743253+00:00

Wasps are good guys that kill alot of nasty bugs.

gunnar120 · 2012-05-25T02:47:12.038924+00:00

D. medinensis.

gunnar120 · 2012-05-25T02:38:11.847808+00:00

That's like a dozen genera.

johnleemk · 2012-05-25T02:32:37.798301+00:00

Only salmon aquaculture relies on that, and personally I think they should be feeding Artemia and Anostroca to those.

LaBamba00 · 2012-05-25T02:30:32.207426+00:00

If you want to be simple, its just that he has to be a less than idea President so he can be President at all.

What good is that to me if he is a shitty president because of it?

navysilk · 2012-05-25T02:29:20.248709+00:00

This is why I'd never remarry.

navysilk · 2012-05-25T02:27:46.096357+00:00

This is totally acceptable as long as he murders his former client within a reasonable period of time, say 3 months.

navysilk · 2012-05-25T01:57:38.885287+00:00

The OJ jurors have already said they knew he was guilty, but they didn't want to risk riots that would kill more people.

LaBamba00 · 2012-05-25T00:22:27.906489+00:00

So your theory is he really wants to be a good president, but he has to be a bad one so that the republicans won't make fun of him?

LaBamba00 · 2012-05-25T00:21:08.748888+00:00

This war is a failure. We should stop using grenades. Claymores, thousand pound bunker busters,, mortars, and bullets are still ok though, don't stop shooting.

Pugert · 2012-05-25T00:05:55.101819+00:00

Not certain if it was the banks mistake which I can only assume it is

It's fair to assume this. If it wasn't, it would be the victim talked about in the article, not the bank.

on who ensures the bank maybe they will be?

That would be FDIC, but only in certain qualifying conditions. Since the bank would remain solvent, chances are they wouldn't cover it.

Or they might be able to sue this guy and get his wages garnished after he is out of prison.

Sure, he'd be fucked for a long time. But that's not my point. If/until that happens, who is $70,000 poorer?

I don't know, bottom line is he essentially found 70,000 dollars

I'm not disputing this. I'm not even claiming it's not theft (of sorts). I'm pointing out how it is anonymous money, and how difficult it is to attach a real person's name to it. The best case scenario is we say the bank (corporation) is out the money, and so it comes out of profits (along with a few firings of scapegoats)... which means that the shareholders, all 19 bazillion of them, are the ones who lose $70,000. But 19 bazillion names is psychologically equivalent to zero names on that money.

It's anonymous. That doesn't make it not theft (if you burglarize a home never having learned who lives there... the things you steal are stolen, but they are anonymous).

johnleemk · 2012-05-24T23:58:41.626298+00:00

Imagine that, the libertarian property-based solution works.

Still, fishing is the height of stupidity. We should learn to cultivate.

Pugert · 2012-05-24T23:40:27.574424+00:00

So let's say this dumbass managed to spend all the money on strippers. It's gone for good, he'll never be able to pay back restitution.

In such a situation, do you think that this other person you're talking about is then out $70,000? If they're not out the seventy grand, then who is? Please be specific.

Pugert · 2012-05-24T21:48:50.296177+00:00

Wow, your argument is unless the bank can prove who's money it is, then it is his.

My argument is that without a name attached to it, it's anonymous. By definition. Feel free to strawman me though.

Pugert · 2012-05-24T21:12:09.044556+00:00

What don't you get about what I said?

The part where you think there might be a specific person he was stealing from. Even in theory.

thebrightsideoflife · 2012-05-24T21:10:40.544656+00:00

So the GOP wants to elect people that republicans don't want to elect. Don't they recognize the irony of that?

Pugert · 2012-05-24T21:01:56.022082+00:00

You're missing the point. If this cash (or whatever in the hell it is, since it's not physical cash) is anything other than anonymous, then it must have a name attached to it. It is not simply the bank's own cash, because most of that is a deposit from some other customer. So unless they can say which customer (at least in theory), it's still anonymous.

day465 · 2012-05-24T21:00:30.451980+00:00

Potential to expand doesnt mean 5 million sat in the bank unspent you dipshit, it means if they keep going will they be able to expand in future

That's potentially true of any company. Period. If they just catch all the right breaks, anything is possible.

But it means nothing as a measurement of "health".

If you really think the only reason anyone would sell their business for a lump sum is because the business is bad you really are a complete dipshit

Ok, so you're stupid. I'll spell it out for you. They're not selling it because the business is bad... the fact that they're willing to sell it means that it is bad because it has them for owners/bosses. And it's still bad even if they don't get the opportunity to sell, just because they're still in charge and their attitude makes it that way.

I can't draw, so maybe we can get ShittyWaterColors in here to paint a picture for you.

Pugert · 2012-05-24T20:57:58.087503+00:00

Businesses only become something different from people once they incorporate. Until then, the actions of the business are legally indistinguishable from those of the owner(s).

day465 · 2012-05-24T19:47:17.651245+00:00

A healthy company can be determined in a couple of ways, like is it able to employ and pay workers

Many unhealthy companies can do this, albeit only temporarily. In 1914, buggy whip manufacturers could have claimed this, though obviously they were no longer healthy.

and have the ability to continue doing so with the potential to expand

If they have this potential, why not live up to it? Are they waiting for the perfect moment?

No, they're unhealthy companies that hope that they catch a break and that things turn around.

Now your saying that no small or medium sized business could not be bought by a company of mega rich millionaires?

If the owners decide to sell it because they wanted cash, how healthy was it? It was rotten from the top.

NoMoreNicksLeft

TROPHY CASE

Five-Year Club	reddit mold
Verified Email

NoMoreNicksLeft

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login