"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message


Good one!
You would rather see lots of people die and have their heirs file
lawsuits,
than save lives by preventing the problem.


No, I would rather see people take responsability for their own
lives
and
projects. If you want you buildings done well make sure you get the
best
people. It is your responsability to make sure you get what you pay
for
beccause if it's not right it will cause you enormous grief.

This is a strong motivator.

Of course, it is fairly common that the developer woould sell the
property
soon after construction is completed. Therefore, it is in his best
financial
interest to have it built as cheaply as possible,

Not really.

and have all knowledge of
any defects kept hidden from his buyer. That maximizes profit.

Which is precisely why a buyer wold want to hire an inspector to make
sure
the buyer isn't getting ****ed.


A rational developer would build something that won't come back to bite
him
in court. You seem to think I want to eliminate laws about fraud and
anything that might be pro-consumer.

You have an innate Polyanna-like faith in the ethics of businesses.

I think most people in business are honest and it's only a minority that are
crooked. I also think that when confronted with the choice of being hauled
into court and facing heavy fines or jail time people tend to act in ways
that prevent that from happening.


This is not consistent with known history. You cn't rely on ethical
business parctices to be conducted in an anarchistic legal climate,

I'm not calling for an anarchistic legal climate. I don't understand why
you keep thinking this. If anything there would be a less anarchistic
legal climate because we would have more judges and law enforcement due to
the fact that they would not be wasting time and resources chasing
prostitutes, druggies, lap dancers, or any of the host of victimless crimes
they now have to concern themselves with.

with the only limits for behavior being the ferar of civil lawsuits.

You can't sell to someone who isn't going to buy without an honest appraisal
of the merchandise.

Individuals running businesses really don't care about the risk of
future tort actions.

I think you are wrong.

By the time that happens, they are long gone
forom the firm, hooked up with another company, or retired
ona golden parachute. Ethics, as taught in our nations business
schools, concentrates on maximizing shor term profits for the
sahreholders, and keeping the price of the stock high.

All well and good, however you still need customers. If your prodcut or
service isn't good nobody will buy it. Just ask Greg.

Spending
extra money (thus lowering profits) on unnefcessary protection
(anything more than the minimum required by law) is actually
viewed as an unethical practice, because it steals profits, thus
higher stock prices, from the shareholders.

Building a better product that you can actually sell increases profits.
Have a crappy one gets you nothing.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---