Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollia  Hmm, I didn't think mere stock owners were capable of being that meddlesome, at least if the primary owners still had 51% of the stock - but, on the other hand, I don't know about investing, so, you could very well be right.
. . .
Perhaps, though, things would be better if there was a firm restriction that investors can't meddle, can't sue, and can only just sit there and wait for the profits to start rolling in. |
Well, it depends. One can set up a corporation or LLC in such a way that it is impossible to lose control of the company. The question is whether investors would accept shares in those companies, knowing that they have extremely limited rights. In many cases, I think that investors would be cautious before making such investments.
The change would probably lead to new, adaptive laws being written which provide more protection to minority stakeholders... the whole face of business organizations would change, probably preventing non-profit driven motives even in companies that try to be socially responsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollia Actually, I suppose even the act of banning usury could lead to trouble. The enforcement of it could lead to unfair infringements of freedom - actually, banning it could even itself be an unfair infringement of freedom, since there are people who are truly completely OK with accepting such deals.
. . .
Perhaps the results of banning usury would overall end up being something like the results of prohibition of alcohol, or the War on Drugs.
Maybe what we already have now is a lesser evil. |
Exorbitant interest rates are already illegal. They still occur. Just ask the mob.
The current laws against usury (unconscionable rates) and allowing bankruptcy are designed to protect borrowers. There will probably be new regulations soon designed to prevent the subprime practices which have hurt many borrowers. The system isn't perfect... but the alternative is probably worse.