Yes, in every transaction in which there is a profit, wealth shifts from buyer to seller. And yes, individual wealth, adjusted for inflation, is lower for the poor and middle classes today than in the past. At the same time corporations and the wealthy are richer than ever.
It's presently lower than a few times in the recent past. But the personal net worth and income both have risen steadily for at least the last century.
What you're looking at is the portion of new wealth accruing to different economic levels of the populace. By that measure, we're a good match for Latin America.
I beg to differ. Regulation has been gradually and systematically dismantled by the moderates and the right. That's why we had the housing bubble. That's why our financial system melted down. Wall Street bankers, oil companies, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, for example, have been having a field day merrily exploiting the un-regulated/under-regulated business climate for years, and that's why we have the problems we have today.
They play games with regulations that have to do with massive amounts of money, but the trend in regulation is ever more, and more, and more, constantly increasing the burden on the poor, keeping them poor. One of the reasons for the huge gap between poor and rich is that the poor spend so much a higher portion of their income on the cost of regulation that they can't climb out of the swamp.
Regulation has increased the cost of food, furniture, housing, health, and everything else in everyday life. In some areas, the cost of regulation comes to nearly a quarter of the price. For the rich, that's no big deal; for the poor, it's crippling.
Oh, come now, Kuli. HCR opponents have been crying "tort reform" for years now. They insist that that's going to be some magic bullet to lower the cost of healthcare. To that I politely say "bullshit." Tort reform is just another way for government to regulate the consumer rather than regulating business, which is what's REALLY needed.
The "tort reform" that's usually pedaled is simplistic and foolish, tailored to protect business because it generally makes it harder to sue.
I've already shown that my concept does no such thing; in fact it would effectively pay people to sue companies. I've even considered the idea that whether or not the plaintiff should get its legal+ costs paid by the company ought to be a separate issue from the actual damages: if damages are awarded, those costs are automatically paid; if not, the jury would then consider whether the plaintiff had a reasonable cause to believe the company was at fault -- and if so, the company would pay the costs anyway.
Why should there be a limit on awards? How can the government arbitrarily decide what punitive damages should be? That's what our legal system is for.
Our legal system can get wacky -- that's what the legislature is for.
I have yet to see a reform proposal with limits that are rationally written on a level reaching fifth grade. The size of punitive damages should be tied to that of actual damages -- say, three times the size. I'd add something else in, though, to cover cases where the jury considers a company's behavior to be truly unconscionable: up to ten times the punitive damages awarded to the plaintiff to be awarded to some organization which exists to combat or mitigate the results of the sort of thing concerning which the suit was brought.
Okay, so you injure me, and I have $100,000 in medical expenses, plus I'm permanently disabled, never to work again. So, you're being very generous getting me compensated for my costs involved in bringing suit, but what's my future worth? I'll never be able to win that Nobel prize I was working toward. I'll never be able to father the 62nd President of the United States. I'll never be able to buy that private island I've had my heart set on. I won't be able to send my kid to Princeton.
Who decides what my future is worth? The government, for crying out loud? I think not.
Your future, as far as I'm concerned is actual damages. For that, the only limit I might consider is the most generous possible government pension and benefits -- in other words, you'd get cared for as well as the most distinguished U.S. Senator also drawing a military pension the equivalent of a colonel. More than that, I might consider excessive.
[/QUOTE]
Who decides what it costs the shrimpers and fishermen in future income? Is that to be decided by some arbitrary limit? Who decides what the damage to the ecosystem is worth? We're looking at the potential for devastation of the entire Gulf Coast for generations to come! What about the damage to the tourism industry? What's that worth???? Should BP, Halliburton and TransOcean be able to walk away from this horrific disaster for just the price of cleaning up the oil (which ain't gonna happen anyway. . . that genie's out of the bottle)?[/QUOTE]
Again, you're talking about actual damages -- and I accept no limit to those; in fact I would ditch the law saying that corporate officers aren't personally responsible, and allow their personal fortunes to be fair game.
) are willing to consider "necessary and appropriate," then it's up to the COURTS to decide. The language, as Kuli points out, invites the shirking of responsibility and the monetary gain of lawyers. You want tort reform, son? Banish qualifying remarks like "necessary and appropriate."
