By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 03 July 2015
Edit Thread
enlightenedmaster said:

1. well yes,but the money once lost to fraud or lost in market cannot be recovered

just look at the way BANKS are gambling again even after the 2008 crisis,its like they are not 1 bit worried

 

civil cases will never prevent fraud cause it can be influenced by money and law is pretty much negotiable with money

2. govenments have always  been the stability on which corporations and trade works may it be world-wide sea being governed by BRITISH NAVY in 19ths Century or suppoting the world economy with a GOLD standard



1. That money isn't recovered, but compensation is still made through other assets that individuals in that company own or if the company still exists (assets that the company owns.) As it is now individuals in said companies have limited liability, so once the company goes bankrupt that's the end of that. However, these people are the ones who made the fraudulent decisions, and if they aren't held accountable through the criminal system then the civil system will hold them accountable. I don't see how the criminal system prevents bribes any more than the civil system does, to be honest. In fact there is more incentive to bribe when taken to criminal court because the cost of imprisonment is quite high. If people are suing for the return of their assets however, the cost to bribe might likely exceed the cost to settle. As Aielyn mentioned, another way to prevent this is to diversify the assets. Instead of investing everything into one company, invest into multiple companies and if you so choose - natural resources (I'm not sure if Australia allows the other or not, but it should be possible.) 

2. The U.S remained quite low-key in the economy until the progressive era (early 1900's.) Besides protectionism and patents, both of which were overburdening on their system, the U.S let money stay in the hands of its people without many intrusions.  3% of GDP was government owned, and they still performed functions like enforcing anti-fraud laws, maintaining a defensive military, navy, and reserve, court system, etc, etc. I am not saying things were perfect then, or even better. They were a lot simpler though, and people couldn't get away with fraud so easily due to convulusion and high legal costs caused by such convulusion. There is a balance somewhere in the modern world. Furthermore, without such huge government expenditures (30-40% of GDP) the U.S could afford to not take out debt, and live within its means. People want their cake (social programs and military programs) and to eat it too (a stable economy that allows for employment and retirement through your own individualized actions where hyperinflation is not looming around the corner.)