Slavery reparations

[KrazyHorse]

What's the history? Did it purchase another company? If so, then it's responsible for its debts.

[orange]

Re: orange

edit: bugger! I'll get this right one of these tries

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No, what I'm saying is that liability among individuals (slaveowners) tends, legally, to be lost after one or two generations.

Corporations remain liable just about forever.

Ok...

The restrictions on individual liability don't pertain to individuals seeking compensation, as far as I know.

Exactly. Once they die, they have no more claim.

[KrazyHorse]

Orange, are you even paying attention? If you scam money from my father, then he dies, I have total right to sue you.

If, on the other hand, your father takes 1000$ of my money then he dies and leaves you 500$, I can only sue you for 500$. If he dies and leaves you nothing then you're off the hook. Corporations don't die.

[David Floyd]

KH, of course I say the ex post facto debate. It doesn't make ex post facto laws - or, imposing our moral standard to a time with different conceptions of morality - is absolutely preposterous, surely you can see that?

[orange]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Orange, are you even paying attention? If you scam money from my father, then he dies, I have total right to sue you.

If, on the other hand, your father takes 1000$ of my money then he dies and leaves you 500$, I can only sue you for 500$. If he dies and leaves you nothing then you're off the hook. Corporations don't die.

That doesn't make sense for a few reasons...

first of all: the owner of a corporation can do whatever he wants with the profits, and may not reinvest much of the profits back into the corporation. He could simply take it and buy something with it. Should the corporation have to account for that money?

Besides, how are you to determine how much money the labor was worth? Or even moreso: how can you punish someone for doing something that was legal at the time (despite the fact that we recognize it was a horrible thing). It's like DF said, you can't punish people for something that was once legal, despite if now we consider it awful.

[KrazyHorse]

It's legal. I'm not arguing for or against, morally, in this thread.

The legal system allows so many ridiculous lawsuits that I'm surprised (though I probably shouldn't be) at the outcry over this one.

[KrazyHorse]

first of all: the owner of a corporation can do whatever he wants with the profits, and may not reinvest much of the profits back into the corporation. He could simply take it and buy something with it. Should the corporation have to account for that money

Corporations are limited-liability entities. The owners of a corporation are not responsible for anything beyond whatever part of the corporation they own.

EDIT: this means that once the money flows out of the corporation into an individual's hands, the money is untouchable, unless the individual has some additional liability beyond that incurred by his simple ownership of stock.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The legal system allows so many ridiculous lawsuits that I'm surprised (though I probably shouldn't be) at the outcry over this one.

It's the 1.35 trillion dollar demand that got me interested.

[orange]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

first of all: the owner of a corporation can do whatever he wants with the profits, and may not reinvest much of the profits back into the corporation. He could simply take it and buy something with it. Should the corporation have to account for that money

Corporations are limited-liability entities. The owners of a corporation are not responsible for anything beyond whatever part of the corporation they own.

EDIT: this means that once the money flows out of the corporation into an individual's hands, the money is untouchable, unless the individual has some additional liability beyond that incurred by his simple ownership of stock.

Even if we accept that as true, how can we determine a dollar amount? I mean c'mon, 1.35 trillion dollars? Saying that it's 'outrageous' is a large understatement.

[KrazyHorse]

It depends. How many slaves were involved in the actions cited by the suits?

[orange]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It depends. How many slaves were involved?

Lets assume 1000.

That's 1.35 billion in back labor wages for each slave. C'mon now!

[Guynemer]

Has it been established that they are definitely seeking $1.4 trillion? When I first learned of this story, it was merely speculation.

Welcome to the party, KH. Glad you're here.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It depends. How many slaves were involved in the actions cited by the suits?

I believe that the suit is on behalf of all Black Americans.

Anyway, the companies are estimated to have made $40 million dollars from slave labor from 1790-1860. You do the math on what that would be worth today.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by orange


Lets assume 1000.

That's 1.35 billion in back labor wages for each slave. C'mon now!

If it's only 1000 slaves then the figure is laughable.

Judgments would probably come in on the 2-5 million dollar level per slave.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


I believe that the suit is on behalf of all Black Americans.

Anyway, the companies are estimated to have made $40 million dollars from slave labor from 1790-1860. You do the math on what that would be worth today.

If they made 40 million dollars in 70 years in the early 19th century, then we have to be talking about at least 50 000 slaves.

Remember that a "fine, muscular young male slave" went for 40$ in 1800 IIRC.