| ▲ | digitaltrees 3 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Not confused. I studied finance, economics and the history of corporate entities in law school and published papers on the topic. Limited liability is not necessary for the advancement of standards of living. Free market capitalism can exist without limited liability protections being so broadly available. Investment banks were partnerships until the 1990s, law firms are now specifically because society wants to incentivize lawyers to be personally liable for any harm to their clients at the hands of their partners rather than being shielded from rendering bad legal advice or tolerating their partners from the same behavior. Instead of having a gut reaction to reject my suggestion why don’t you sit with it, research the history of how commercial activity has been structured and think about the consequences. You might recognize a different perspective than the current group think. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | nradov 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thanks I'm also familiar with the history and have written papers etc. Things have improved rapidly with increased adoption of limited liability. It would be stupid to turn back the clock and throw away all of the benefits because of a few isolated minor problems. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||