Politics 101

We shouldn't give any foreign aid, right c.i.?

0 Replies

Ah man, this is cool, two heavyweights. Except I don't know what their talking about yet.

0 Replies

That's okay, amigo ... you're in company with c.i.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Something our government doesn't understand:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Fiduciary duty)
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is about fiduciary in the legal sense. For optical field of view markers, see fiduciary marker.

The court of chancery, which governed fiduciary relations prior to the Judicature ActsThe fiduciary duty is a legal relationship between two or more parties (most commonly a "fiduciary" or "trustee" and a "principal" or "beneficiary") that in English common law is arguably the most important concept within the portion of the legal system known as equity. In the United Kingdom, the Judicature Acts merged the courts of Equity (historically based in England's Court of Chancery) with the courts of common law, and as a result the concept of fiduciary duty also became usable in common law courts.

A fiduciary duty is the highest standard of care imposed at either equity or law. A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom they owe the duty (the "principal"): they must not put their personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from their position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents. The fiduciary relationship is highlighted by good faith, loyalty and trust, and the word itself originally comes from the Latin fides, meaning faith, and fiducia.

When a fiduciary duty is imposed, equity requires a stricter standard of behavior than the comparable tortious duty of care at common law. It is said the fiduciary has a duty not to be in a situation where personal interests and fiduciary duty conflict, a duty not to be in a situation where their fiduciary duty conflicts with another fiduciary duty, and a duty not to profit from their fiduciary position without express knowledge and consent. A fiduciary cannot have a conflict of interest. It has been said that fiduciaries must conduct themselves "at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd"[1] and that "[t]he distinguishing or overriding duty of a fiduciary is the obligation of undivided loyalty."[2]

I think I understand what this means. Can you tell me more ? How might this a be important to what we are talking about?

Who can it be suggested might be the "fiduciary" or "trustee" and who is the "principal" or "beneficiary" in a nasty political/economic scenario?

0 Replies

Parliamentarianism - or, in other words, public licence to choose between five or so political opinions - flatters and wins the favour of all those who would like to appear to be independent and individual, as if they fought for their opinions. in the end, however, it is a matter of indifference whether the herd is ordered to have one opinion or allowed to have five. Whoever deviates from the five licensed public opinions, and stands apart, will always have the entire herd against them.

- The Gay Science (Nietzsche)

--------------------------------------

We are down to two licensed political opinions and even those are two sides of the same coin. Laughing

0 Replies

Leading To War

http://www.leadingtowar.com/

0 Replies

Amigo, Here's an example of "fiduciary responsibility."

http://www.sib.wa.gov/information/bi_fr.html

It usually applies to board members that must apply their best judgement to preserve the organization or company assets, and to increase it to the best of their abilities.

0 Replies

Thanks, I'm very glad to hear from you about that.

My next endeavor is to learn economics. I am almost totally unformally educated.

0 Replies

The problem stems from people organizing and going overboard. Unions were great to fight for workers rights but when they got too big such as a union covering a whole spectrum of activity such Auto Workers or Steel Workers they cover the entire industry and put smaller companies out of business and create an oligarchy of big business and big labor. The businesses organize to destroy the unions by either creating conglomerates which buy up smaller companies with numerous names or split the company into divisions to confuse unions to prevent union organization. Also, free trade is another tactic to avoid union labor with cheap overseas labor.

Now if one were to put the word 'marriage' into the production activity you clearly see the problem. Let us identify either the company as a spouse and the union as the other spouse. They form a union to produce goods. If one spouse has many opposite sex spouses it would be either polygamy or adultery. An industry-wide union that represent workers in many companies would be in an economic polygamy or adulterous position. A conglomerate that has many names or multinational would be fraudsters i.e. they were persons with many aliases.

0 Replies

talk, It's against the law to deny employees to organize for union membership.

0 Replies

To unionize across an industry should be illegal for the harm it does to the economy. To unionize in a company is okay but across a whole sector should be an economic crime. One can see the inflationary pressure developing from the large unions and free trade movement resulting from their activities. The loss of jobs from free trade is a result of big labor and big business struggling for supremacy. Unionization should stop at the company level and all companies should be required to have one only.

0 Replies

I worked as a teamster in the transportation industry when I attended college, because I had to work, and it provided night shift jobs. It also paid pretty good wages as a teletype biller; more than what minimum wage pays today, and that was back in the early sixties.

Also, we learned in economics class that unions also help nonunion shops. I'm a believer in unions.

0 Replies

Talk72000, I am having a hard time understanding what you are saying,but I wish I did if you wouldn't find elaborating.

I do think though that Unions (labor movement) need to go global and there should be a global minimum wage. As globalization becomes a reality national lines will disappear and people will be separated by classes more that anything else.

The globalist or the superclass continue to exploit people and put American unions out of buisiness by going where they can get the cheapest labor. That is why the only Union growing in America is the service union.

http://www.seiu.org/faqs/faq_whatisseiu.cfm

-------------------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080312/ap_en_ot/book_review_superclass

http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/449757?trk=ssp

http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/03/14/superclass/print.html

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

That is why the only Union growing in America is the service union.

They already drove the rest of the businesses offshore, but service has to stay here so it is a captive sector.

Unions love to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

0 Replies

Minimum wage is a relative term dependent on the standard of living and cost of living and the monetary exchange rate. In India and Hong Kong you don't need much to survive. You can sleep on the street as it doesn't get freezing cold. So housing is optional. With the warm weather you don't feel that hungry so you could subsist on very little. However, in North America, you need to be indoors in winter and preferably hot water for showers and washing. You need heavy clothes for winter and you need to eat more to battle the cold. So right off the bat it cost more to survive in North America. With a technical society you need education and training to obtain a good job. So you can see depending on the society and geography it is difficult to determine 'minimum wage' in a meaningful manner.

0 Replies

talk, I doubt very much "minimum wage" is relative to anything except what the government states it is.

The cost of living is not static and is different from city to city, county to county, and state to state. Even within these definitions for these so-called politically identified areas, there can be great disparities in income and living standards.

0 Replies

Intill the other half of American history is acknowledged and put in with the rest of the certified history nobody will understand what America is and above all America is a duality of terror and freedom.

The black history of America is assassination of democratic leaders that would not cooperate with American corporation. We train death squads to terrorize and torture people that resist their country being sold out. We make loans to countries that only the wealthy benefit from while the poor become slaves and so do their children.

We gave Iraq 24 hours to comply, knew they couldn't and dropped bombs on sleeping families in the middle of the night for WMDs they never had and if they did it was because we gave it to a dictator to secure our oil interest.

The niger papers were a farce just like what happened at Tonkin.

If you think you can take me on then bring it on. I know and tell the truth and you are clowns to believe any different. God save our souls.

The history of America can be summed up by a journal entry by Columbus;

" They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for them for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane...... They would make fine servants.......with fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."

The key word is subjugate.

Gold, oil, slave labour, stolen land, terror.

The victory is over myself that I will not believe lies, be like them or not acknowledge the truth. That is my duty and honer to man and the lose of innocent life.

0 Replies

C I
I beg your pardon.
Need based minimum wage should be the basic for survival.
Otherwise this rotten CEO's system shoul be ignored.
I cannot understand a system which allow some rascals to get billions without any risk( BILL Gate) while a person( BUSH) gets less.
.
The same is the case in India and Germany and France..
Avarice is culture?
Rapacity is civilization.
Take ten times of your need and stop .
help others to exist.

0 Replies

Thomas Jefferson's Warning To America

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

0 Replies

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.

As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption of high places will follow. The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.

I feel more anxiety at this moment for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."

Abraham Lincoln, November 21st, 1864

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know