It’s obvious to all but the highest level of Progressives that Soros is creating diseconomies through this action, which should be stopped ASAP by the US Congress and Trump through legislation that addresses tort reform for frivolous lawsuits that jam court dockets and put more money in the pockets of lawyers.
A lawsuit Is an economic activity that does NOT produce a good or service that benefits the public as a whole. It is focused on individuals, thus the costs of the damages and legal fees are passed back to the public through insurance or awards paid out of business coffers that must then or later PASSED BACK TO CONSUMERS (I.E. THE PUBLIC). It is contrary to the theory / agenda of Socialists/ Communists who support their use to accomplish social justice causes.
“A lawsuit Is an economic activity that does NOT produce a good or service that benefits the public as a whole.”
Having been a part of, or having family be a part of, class action suits against student loan companies, telephone/cable companies, and banks, I beg to differ that suits don’t produce a good or service that benefits the public.
Sure, the attorney’s usually get the bulk of the settlement, but suits are still successfully used to get some companies to cub their unlawful actions (yup, I’m looking at you Wells Fargo!)
Your line ‘… attorney’s usually get the bulk of the settlement…” proves my point and contradicts yours.
You do not understand diseconomies (of scale) and economic inefficiencies.
If the suits stop corporations from further deceiving the public (e.g. Wells Fargo), the suit providing a benefit to the consumers. Even if the bulk of the settlement isn’t going into their pockets, the company’s behavior wouldn’t have changed had they not been sued.
@Rosenblatt: George Sore-ass doesn’t intend to sue to stop misbehavior; that is impossible. He is suing to create chaos in the US, which is his child-like temper tantrum as an ineffective means of opposing US citizens voting for Trump, thus against his agenda.
Regardless of his intent, are you still of the mindset that “lawsuits [are] an economic activity that does NOT produce a good or service that benefits the public as a whole” in spite of the examples I provided?
June 28, 2018 at 9:19 pm
SuPolaReme Court Bear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Yes, lawsuits rarely produce anything but wealth re-distribution, from ‘one’ party to two parties incl lawyers. ‘One’ party may include liability insurance policyholders.
June 29, 2018 at 8:42 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
So we agree – while lawsuits RARELY provide a good/service to the public, there are suits that do provide that outcome. Maybe it’s 1 out of 10, or 1 out of 20, but at least we agree there are SOME cases where suits are helpful to the public.
June 29, 2018 at 9:10 pm
SuPolaReme Bear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Yes, but think about the TOTAL impact of a large portion of diseconomies offset by a large percentage of positive impacts.
July 1, 2018 at 7:53 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
No, we don’t agree. Lawsuits are inefficient because a huge cost component is added to the system of indemnity for loss; i.e. legal fees at 25% to 33%, and perhaps to 50%. This creates diseconomies which take financial assets away from better uses.
July 2, 2018 at 3:58 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Me: “So we agree….?”
You, post 1: “Yes”
You, post 2: “No”
Pick an answer. You can’t have it both ways.
July 11, 2018 at 5:07 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Polar, he buses in trouble makers at every hot spot. Most of the protestors are in front of the Supreme Court as we speak.
June 27, 2018 at 11:45 am
KP says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
15
6
Soros, go figure. He’ll need the $ to fund his socialist agenda.
As an attorney who practices primarily in Plaintiffs injury work, for the non-attorney, listen-up: (1) “frivolous lawsuits” cannot exist as a pattern or practice. They are a creation of the insurance lobby to make people think there are baseless suits. Check and see whether insurance rates in States with severe caps on damages have lower insurance rates; (2) There are strict disciplinary rules and laws that have been in-place for judges and opposing counsel to move to sanction “frivolity;” and (3) “Frivolous” is synonymous with “meritless,” which means their value would be nominal. Now, as to lawsuit “advances,” while they may be appropriate in some instances, I hate them. These industries these were created out of the Rules that prohibit an attorney from advancing their own money to his or her clients, at NO FEES. What better scenario than to permit an attorney to simply pay a client’s rent for a month or two until a likely settlement (who knows the outcome and time frame of a case). Instead, we have created an industry that charges clients 50% of the amount borrowed plus origination fees (is that fair?). This “loan” industry should not exist if the ethics rules permitted attorneys (under rules) to advance their own clients money, which would be at NO FEE. Finally, lawsuits create a service: they regular the safety industry better than any governmental or private entity subject to lobby efforts. There is a direct correlation between lack of access to legal redress, and the level of corruption.
I routinely ask insurance brokers the following question: how many of your client’s discrimination claims are fraudulent.
No matter the politics of the broker, the answer is always the same: 80% plus. It is the reason insurance companies have such large deductibles on EPLI policies in California, to chase away some of the bogus claims, since attorneys who can’t shake down an insurance company usually don’t want to fight the employer’s lawyer over bogus claims.
And discrimination claims are only the first example. There are lots and lots of bogus/shake down lawsuits, suits with little or no merit just chasing the fat wallet.
Man, you must live in a strange unreal world if you think lawyers are uniformly “serving justice”.
It’s obvious to all but the highest level of Progressives that Soros is creating diseconomies through this action, which should be stopped ASAP by the US Congress and Trump through legislation that addresses tort reform for frivolous lawsuits that jam court dockets and put more money in the pockets of lawyers.
A lawsuit Is an economic activity that does NOT produce a good or service that benefits the public as a whole. It is focused on individuals, thus the costs of the damages and legal fees are passed back to the public through insurance or awards paid out of business coffers that must then or later PASSED BACK TO CONSUMERS (I.E. THE PUBLIC). It is contrary to the theory / agenda of Socialists/ Communists who support their use to accomplish social justice causes.
“A lawsuit Is an economic activity that does NOT produce a good or service that benefits the public as a whole.”
Having been a part of, or having family be a part of, class action suits against student loan companies, telephone/cable companies, and banks, I beg to differ that suits don’t produce a good or service that benefits the public.
Sure, the attorney’s usually get the bulk of the settlement, but suits are still successfully used to get some companies to cub their unlawful actions (yup, I’m looking at you Wells Fargo!)
Rosenblatt, not sure I would boast of being a part of so many class action law suits.
Wasn’t boasting – was citing examples where suits have produced benefits to the public.
The difference here is that Soros is backing Personal Injury suits, not larger class action suits that could or could not positively impact society.
That’s a fair point
Off topic post much??
Your line ‘… attorney’s usually get the bulk of the settlement…” proves my point and contradicts yours.
You do not understand diseconomies (of scale) and economic inefficiencies.
If the suits stop corporations from further deceiving the public (e.g. Wells Fargo), the suit providing a benefit to the consumers. Even if the bulk of the settlement isn’t going into their pockets, the company’s behavior wouldn’t have changed had they not been sued.
@Rosenblatt: George Sore-ass doesn’t intend to sue to stop misbehavior; that is impossible. He is suing to create chaos in the US, which is his child-like temper tantrum as an ineffective means of opposing US citizens voting for Trump, thus against his agenda.
Regardless of his intent, are you still of the mindset that “lawsuits [are] an economic activity that does NOT produce a good or service that benefits the public as a whole” in spite of the examples I provided?
Yes, lawsuits rarely produce anything but wealth re-distribution, from ‘one’ party to two parties incl lawyers. ‘One’ party may include liability insurance policyholders.
So we agree – while lawsuits RARELY provide a good/service to the public, there are suits that do provide that outcome. Maybe it’s 1 out of 10, or 1 out of 20, but at least we agree there are SOME cases where suits are helpful to the public.
Yes, but think about the TOTAL impact of a large portion of diseconomies offset by a large percentage of positive impacts.
No, we don’t agree. Lawsuits are inefficient because a huge cost component is added to the system of indemnity for loss; i.e. legal fees at 25% to 33%, and perhaps to 50%. This creates diseconomies which take financial assets away from better uses.
Me: “So we agree….?”
You, post 1: “Yes”
You, post 2: “No”
Pick an answer. You can’t have it both ways.
Polar, he buses in trouble makers at every hot spot. Most of the protestors are in front of the Supreme Court as we speak.
Soros, go figure. He’ll need the $ to fund his socialist agenda.
At some point you run out of other peoples money!
We live in the greatest country in the world. Join me as I seek to transform it. BHO
As an attorney who practices primarily in Plaintiffs injury work, for the non-attorney, listen-up: (1) “frivolous lawsuits” cannot exist as a pattern or practice. They are a creation of the insurance lobby to make people think there are baseless suits. Check and see whether insurance rates in States with severe caps on damages have lower insurance rates; (2) There are strict disciplinary rules and laws that have been in-place for judges and opposing counsel to move to sanction “frivolity;” and (3) “Frivolous” is synonymous with “meritless,” which means their value would be nominal. Now, as to lawsuit “advances,” while they may be appropriate in some instances, I hate them. These industries these were created out of the Rules that prohibit an attorney from advancing their own money to his or her clients, at NO FEES. What better scenario than to permit an attorney to simply pay a client’s rent for a month or two until a likely settlement (who knows the outcome and time frame of a case). Instead, we have created an industry that charges clients 50% of the amount borrowed plus origination fees (is that fair?). This “loan” industry should not exist if the ethics rules permitted attorneys (under rules) to advance their own clients money, which would be at NO FEE. Finally, lawsuits create a service: they regular the safety industry better than any governmental or private entity subject to lobby efforts. There is a direct correlation between lack of access to legal redress, and the level of corruption.
Oh, man. Are you serious?
I routinely ask insurance brokers the following question: how many of your client’s discrimination claims are fraudulent.
No matter the politics of the broker, the answer is always the same: 80% plus. It is the reason insurance companies have such large deductibles on EPLI policies in California, to chase away some of the bogus claims, since attorneys who can’t shake down an insurance company usually don’t want to fight the employer’s lawyer over bogus claims.
And discrimination claims are only the first example. There are lots and lots of bogus/shake down lawsuits, suits with little or no merit just chasing the fat wallet.
Man, you must live in a strange unreal world if you think lawyers are uniformly “serving justice”.