Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (336388)	5/4/2007 6:32:48 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574491

re: certainly not for things like maximum salaries, which I think you've advocated in the past What's wrong with "maximum" salaries?

To: TimF who wrote (336388)	5/5/2007 1:28:22 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574491

He hasn't gotten rich off them yet, nor is he likely to if they are actually poor (although they own their own business, I don't think I'd categorize them as poor), as they wouldn't have enough wealth to make him significantly wealthier. He'll never collect $65mil from them. I join you in finding this ridiculous, but note that Pearson is using the power of the state against the Chungs. He's invoking Washington consumer protection law, and suing them in the courts. If that's the type of activity by "the rich" that you want to reign in, I'm all for it, but your providing an argument for tort reform, not for high taxes and heavy regulation; certainly not for things like maximum salaries, which I think you've advocated in the past. What that judge is doing is taking advantage of people by exaggerating the purpose behind a particular law. Its a very obvious way that the rich and powerful take advantage of those who have less power and wealth in this country. And I bet you that asinine judge never thought his case would get so much publicity. But then he didn't count on the growing backlash in this country against people like him. Whether its cheapening animal foodstuffs with poor quality barley from China, or saving money on the production of a car by cutting corners, or by selling someone a new house on tainted landfill, its one of the ways the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. Caveat emptor was not a concept created in business for the hell of it. Since the beginning of time, the rich have schemed to find ways to make more money at the expense of the rest of society. In fact, they consider themselves above the law; case in point, P. Hilton........she didn't think she was on probation and couldn't drive. It continues to amaze me that you defend these people who moralistically tend to the be the latter of us in this society. I am hoping its simply a kneejerk reaction because you are a disciple of the Austrian school of economics.