Another one is dating apps such as Tinder or Bumble. These apps could easily filter out of your search any fake, inactive or incompatible (meaning, for example, the person on the other end has filtered you out of their criteria and therefore you will not show up in their swipe queue) profiles, allowing you to efficiently search and then move on when you've run out of potential matches. But no, these apps are designed to keep people swiping pointlessly and luring them into paying for features that won't really increase their chance of matching.
> We would need to make certain judgment debts senior to mortgage debt to give landlords or lenders skin in the game to ensure they are not profiting from illicit activities
I have very mixed feelings about this. While I love the "skin in the game" as a concept (ask me sometime about my ideas for this regarding Senators and Representatives!) as a one-time small business owner and current very-small-scale landlord I have a fair amount of dislike at the idea of every property owner having to become an effective private investigator too.
Presumably there would be an insurance market for this, and notice requirements, and the statutory ability to terminate and evict. There's a way to do it. The fundamental issue is that there's nothing to "get" on the entire platform except the real estate, as these businesses have no value as assets since they serve as a job for the owner, who is often judgment-proof.
That's an amazingly simple idea. It would work. I used to have to get bonds working for the Feds and certain large publicly owned utilities. They are easy to get and relatively inexpensive - IF you have a reputation for performance. Forty years ago, my first bonds had an SBA guarantee - which kept the bond rates low for new risky entrants - but cost the government nothing as long as there was no default.
These bonds are like buying insurance and they are underwritten to control risk. If you are a shady operator - don't plan on getting a bond. If you are wealthy, bond yourself. Competitive advantage, you don't have to give the money to the government to hold, you have to secure your promise to pay. The investment is still yours to manage.
If there is no money - there is no tort pursued in the courts. Bonds solve the problem. It's a brilliant idea.
Do we want to make it even harder to start a business? Think about it. We already suffer from having too much economic activity under the aegis of large corporations. I'm OK with reserving SBA loans for American citizens, but I don't want to multiple the amount of red tape that small businesses have to negotiate., None of the matters Aaron mentions seems worth the price of that.
If a business is breaking the law or becoming a public nuisance we already have the legal means to shut it down.
Note the proposal is to require large bonds for all possible torts for foreign businesses selling into the US, who effectively cannot be shut down, or, in the alternative, whoever in the US is profiting from their illicit activities must be jointly liable for any foreign actor contributing to their profits. Molson Hart can tell you how Chinese counterfeiters and thieves can easily setup new Amazon accounts and be back in business within days or weeks of a court order, and Amazon is never held liable since it's Section 230. Chinese vape manufacturers cannot be sanctioned by US courts, etc. Such a requirement would make US-based small businesses easier to start and sustain by strangling scammy competition.
Insurance is a cost of doing business. This is compliance insurance. It's going to be cheap for the compliant and it makes private enforcement possible. When we are talking about vape shops that are constantly out of compliance with no public enforcement, why not make them buy a bond. Private enforcement would follow.
We have the legal means, but not the will or perhaps the budget. Like Tom said, (or was it John Adams?) Our form of government is suitable only for a religious and moral people,. It is wholely unfit for the governance of any other.
Jon, you and I pay our taxes because we are supposed to pay our taxes. Most of world doesn't think like that.
Re: Our form of government is suitable only for a religious and moral people
While our besetting sins have changed we are no more or less moral than the Founding generation, so can we please give that hackneyed old chestnut a rest?
We are a good deal less religious than the founding generations. I'll save the immorality argument for later.
You do like to argue Jon. We can't give Adam's hackneyed old chestnut a rest because it has become a prophecy and it's being fullfilled before our eyes in our times.
Another one is dating apps such as Tinder or Bumble. These apps could easily filter out of your search any fake, inactive or incompatible (meaning, for example, the person on the other end has filtered you out of their criteria and therefore you will not show up in their swipe queue) profiles, allowing you to efficiently search and then move on when you've run out of potential matches. But no, these apps are designed to keep people swiping pointlessly and luring them into paying for features that won't really increase their chance of matching.
> We would need to make certain judgment debts senior to mortgage debt to give landlords or lenders skin in the game to ensure they are not profiting from illicit activities
I have very mixed feelings about this. While I love the "skin in the game" as a concept (ask me sometime about my ideas for this regarding Senators and Representatives!) as a one-time small business owner and current very-small-scale landlord I have a fair amount of dislike at the idea of every property owner having to become an effective private investigator too.
Presumably there would be an insurance market for this, and notice requirements, and the statutory ability to terminate and evict. There's a way to do it. The fundamental issue is that there's nothing to "get" on the entire platform except the real estate, as these businesses have no value as assets since they serve as a job for the owner, who is often judgment-proof.
That's an amazingly simple idea. It would work. I used to have to get bonds working for the Feds and certain large publicly owned utilities. They are easy to get and relatively inexpensive - IF you have a reputation for performance. Forty years ago, my first bonds had an SBA guarantee - which kept the bond rates low for new risky entrants - but cost the government nothing as long as there was no default.
These bonds are like buying insurance and they are underwritten to control risk. If you are a shady operator - don't plan on getting a bond. If you are wealthy, bond yourself. Competitive advantage, you don't have to give the money to the government to hold, you have to secure your promise to pay. The investment is still yours to manage.
If there is no money - there is no tort pursued in the courts. Bonds solve the problem. It's a brilliant idea.
Do we want to make it even harder to start a business? Think about it. We already suffer from having too much economic activity under the aegis of large corporations. I'm OK with reserving SBA loans for American citizens, but I don't want to multiple the amount of red tape that small businesses have to negotiate., None of the matters Aaron mentions seems worth the price of that.
If a business is breaking the law or becoming a public nuisance we already have the legal means to shut it down.
Note the proposal is to require large bonds for all possible torts for foreign businesses selling into the US, who effectively cannot be shut down, or, in the alternative, whoever in the US is profiting from their illicit activities must be jointly liable for any foreign actor contributing to their profits. Molson Hart can tell you how Chinese counterfeiters and thieves can easily setup new Amazon accounts and be back in business within days or weeks of a court order, and Amazon is never held liable since it's Section 230. Chinese vape manufacturers cannot be sanctioned by US courts, etc. Such a requirement would make US-based small businesses easier to start and sustain by strangling scammy competition.
Insurance is a cost of doing business. This is compliance insurance. It's going to be cheap for the compliant and it makes private enforcement possible. When we are talking about vape shops that are constantly out of compliance with no public enforcement, why not make them buy a bond. Private enforcement would follow.
We have the legal means, but not the will or perhaps the budget. Like Tom said, (or was it John Adams?) Our form of government is suitable only for a religious and moral people,. It is wholely unfit for the governance of any other.
Jon, you and I pay our taxes because we are supposed to pay our taxes. Most of world doesn't think like that.
Re: Our form of government is suitable only for a religious and moral people
While our besetting sins have changed we are no more or less moral than the Founding generation, so can we please give that hackneyed old chestnut a rest?
We are a good deal less religious than the founding generations. I'll save the immorality argument for later.
You do like to argue Jon. We can't give Adam's hackneyed old chestnut a rest because it has become a prophecy and it's being fullfilled before our eyes in our times.
Thanks! I'm glad you liked it.
Had to sign up for the Tom File
I've been a long time subscriber and fan.