How could that happen?

By -
The NY Times recently reported that "Mr. Trump has used bankruptcy laws to shield him from personal losses while his investors suffer."

So the NY Times is against the existence of bankruptcy laws? Because this is what every bankruptcy does! They have phrased this to make it look as though Trump is doing something dirty and underhanded, but that is only the case if every single bankruptcy is dirty and underhanded. And I don't think the NY Times believes that.

Comments

  1. IRA SMITH TRUSTEE & RECEIVER INC.9:58 AM

    The honest but unfortunate person in financial difficulty should be entitled to use the bankruptcy laws to get out of trouble and be able to return to rebuilding their life. It is when people like Mr. Trump wear bankruptcy like a badge of honour, without a single ounce of compassion for those that got hurt, that is highly offensive.

    If he only came out and said that the business climate changed and his companies needed to use the bankruptcy laws to save the good parts, so that his companies could countinue to employ the people whose families rely upon him for their livelihood, it would have a totally different spin. IMO. www.irasmithinc.com

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more