I wondered if my view was too much of a generalization based on my experience in the US.
I hear Battersea powerstation is doing very well, in the same respect there is a mall not far from my house that is nightmarishly busy.
However my experience is still that the majority are ghost towns in comparison to what they once were.
In the Netherlands, they are abolishing shopping malls and converting them into residential units for those who cannot afford normal housing - no good…
This is a planned process, which is promoted by Professor Jeremy Riffkin and his “3rd Industrial Revolution”.
Do you think Amazon is mostly responsible for the demise of the malls?
Idk, you would think so, right?
I travel quite extensively for work and the amount of enormous Amazon distribution centers I see around is telling.
@VaCrunch I am also not sure Amazon is to blame, as in at fault, a more convenient option came along. Is it bad, not sure, I dont miss wondering around malls one bit.
I feel kind of guilty myself. Amazon’s convenience, prices and delivery speed are so good I rarely shop anywhere else. Returns are painless also.
You have obviously never been to Cumbernauld. First mall/shopping centre in UK and still by far the best. ^ What’s it called?
I have single-digit numbers of visits to the local mega shopping centres - I leave that to Mrs Southside.
^For nostalgic early 1970s hooliganism, shoplifting. underage drinking, meeting girls and skateboarding. My mum used to like the freezer shop when that was a new thing.
I prefer “creative destruction.” Innovation naturally kills off old ways of doing things. Kinda like what Safe will do to the current/crotchety old internet. 
IMO, that’s fascist propaganda – it’s an example of a person who is a fascist calling those who support freedom and individualist thinking fascist as a cover for their own agenda.
The various linkages he made in that google doc are all pro-freedom & anti-state (true that this is far right) groups. But being anti-state is necessarily anti-fascist - as you can’t have fascism without a large and powerful state.
What people refuse to see is that after the defeat of the Nazi’s, fascism still won the day.
“Fascism is more appropriately called corporatism, for it is the perfect merger of state and corporate power” – Benito Mussolini
The idea here is exactly what’s been happening in the US in particular - the government doesn’t write laws to override your freedoms, instead the near-monopoly corporations just don’t allow you to financially participate in actions that the oligarchy doesn’t like. And since there are no other alternatives to these corporations, you are locked in - another way of looking at it that fascism transforms an entire nation (an entire world) into one big “company town”.
In the google doc he gave he connects the holo guy to the free state project – these are libertarians who want to break away from big government. They are pro-individualism and pro-freedom. Many on the left link them with ‘hate’; but this is absurdity as they are pro-freedom and anti-fascism – not to be confused with the antifa people who are actually for big government and who’s name is itself a mockery of real anti-fascism.
The propaganda of big government supporters is hardcore legit - they twist everything around and those who get sucked in are foolishly promoting what they likely really hate.
this.
I used to think I was pro capitalism. But now I say I am for free-enterprise.
In my mind, the difference is that the word “Capitalism” has become synonymous with Corporatism, which is absolutely fascist. Government and Businesses are joined at the hip. But how, people say, when the corporations have private owners? Well it is because the corporation itself is registered with the state, and the state grants the corporation unnatural powers. Specifically, the power of “limited liability” for owners and directors of the corporation. This limited liability takes away personal responsibility which is a cornerstone of a true free-enterprise system. Without personal responsibility, businesses are driven mostly by profit/gain, and do not factor in liability properly in their decision-making. Because again, the decision makers cannot personally be sued for product liabilty, environmental harm, business debts, etc.
So what is the alternative? simple: remove all forms of limited liability protections. Make all businesses proprietorships, partnerships. Owners/proprietors are personally responsible. period. This would probabaly mean lots of small businesses rather than huge international megacorps, and that’s probably a good thing.
or so it seems to me.
(yeah I’ve said all this before, but I think it bears repeating.)
edit: ps the free state project is amazing. I spent a week at PorcFest about 10 years back and had a wonderful time. Bitcoin ATMs, people walking around with guns, amazing speakers and workshops, agorist marketplace, children/families, and everyone appreciates freedom, censorship-resistance, etc. all in the middle of the woods.
19 posts were split to a new topic: Guns - the never ending debate
4 posts were merged into an existing topic: Guns - the never ending debate
I could be perhaps persuaded to agree with this.
Sadly not going to happen.
yeah, not in the current paradigm. But a new paradigm must be imagined before it can be created.
A post was merged into an existing topic: Guns - the never ending debate
There of course needs to be some limitations available for the small business.
If a person/company wants to take out and keep out a small business owner whose business is growing maybe because of a product they developed then its easy. Take them to court and use up all their funds and the owner is then poor because bankruptcy is also a form of limited liability on ones funds.
You’d see this as an easy route for bigger businesses to continue becoming bigger.
But then you’d also have to remove shares since all share holders become liable for a business dealings since they are the owners of that business.
In the end the only ones wanting to run a business are the ones who are really big and can absorb liability claims or the state.
There is a reason why it was introduced in the first place and not all things are introduced for big business, although in this case it certainly had that effect. IIRC it wasn’t long ago that in AU directors, company officers, can be held accountable for decisions made.
What is really needed is certain counter measures to make certain liability can be put on the decision makers and people responsibility for operations.
The State grant of limited liability is for shareholders. It doesn’t grant immunity to the managers or the company itself for misdeeds.
If limited liability is removed, then more investor funds would flow to local companies that are more easily monitored and tracked by investors - where they can be a part of the management and insure that it doesn’t go off the rails or get in trouble.
As it is now the big companies get a free ride at the expense of smaller ones as when it comes to total capital available for investment it is a finite amount. So smaller local businesses have been getting the shaft capital-wise for a long time.
Limited liability is a strong pro-fascism tool of the oligarchy - it keeps competition at bay by limiting it’s capitalization.
edit: this is another reason why there are so many uber rich billionaires. These big wigs get huge stock up front and make a mint when they take the company public. It would be much harder for them to do so well without the limited liability “subsidy”.
Limited liability is a very necessary thing for small business. The owners are usually husband/wife or two partners or … So many “2 dollar” limited liability companies.
Yes there is the bad effects, but there is the essential need for those 1/2 share holder businesses to protect the owner from losing everything and never being able to recover because of a larger business wanting to destroy it.
As far as investors rolling in. I think you miss the point of the ease a large company can use up all the funds the investors poured into those small companies. Investors run away from investing into ventures that can end up in court to lose all they put in, or more if the argument is used the investor control the direction and/or enabled the action the claims are aimed at. Its the time in court that uses up the money not the right/wrong of it
I really don’t think limited liability helps the billionaires all that much. They would just make their companies more separate to start with to avoid liability issues affecting their wealth. They simply keep controlling interest in all their companies and if one goes under due to liability problems then they only lose 51% and the other shareholders lose 49%
You realise these billionaires make most money from buying a controlling shareholding and not “going public” The “going public” has worked in some notable cases to make uber billionaires but mostly the person gets millions then proceeds to buy up other companies and go from there. The exceptions are not the rule.
When i was in business for myself as a sole trader I did not go limited liability as my risk was low in that area and saved a buck or 2 in accounting fees required. But many of the tradies I interacted with were limited liability business for the protection it gave them over losing their houses, their car/trucks, their whole life as they know it. It helps more business than the ones that “get rich” off it.
Not everything in life is legislated to benefit the rich (yet).
It’s useful, but not necessary. Regular insurance can cover most issues for small business. Protection for shareholders in a small business generally means protecting the owners who are also the managers … but the managers are still liable, so the way it’s done by some is to keep assets in a separate company that leases to the operating company - which is a bit more management overhead, but gives the same degree of protection for assets and no limited liability is even helpful.
I’m unclear what you are saying here.
That’s exactly my point. Without limited liability investors are going to choose ventures they can keep their eye on.
It’s important to recognize that this grant of limited liability, like any government product is not ‘free’ for society - the investors are protected, but the costs end up being born by the public and this generally means the poor. I don’t know what the numbers might be, but certainly must be in the 10’s of billions per year on average - maybe a lot more factoring in major collapses driven by malinvestments.
I’ve made my case for that and I think it’s a strong one. Trillions of dollars sits in these mega corp stocks. All the well known billionaires are certainly the product of limited liability laws - including Musk and Gates.
Many of these billionaires get to buy in at the very opening of the IPO. Many buy in before the IPO - The angel investors. The IPO historically has been a huge deal for them.
The key to it is that the general public comes in with huge bank and bids up the price after they are in. IPO aside, the publicly traded stock market in general is bid up far in excess of it’s legit value because of coercive superannuation schemes driving endless capital into a limited pick of oligarch-controlled companies. And that simply could not happen without limited liability for investors.
So yes, it has made most of the billionaires today whether it was via IPO’s or just trading in the existing highly controlled public stock markets.
I’m not sure you are understanding what limited liability offers for protection here. It doesn’t protect a companies assets.
Forming a separate legal entity as a business protects your personal assets only if you as the manager of that company aren’t sued - and you can be for various wrong-doing (criminal activity, corporate malfeasance, breach of duties, making personal guarantees, and other fraudulent things). Limited liability is mostly a shield to investors.
The real way to gain protection with companies is to set up a “holding” company and to put all of your assets into those. Then lease them to yourself (for tax purposes) or just benefit from them yourself directly. This way if you get sued they can’t be taken from you. The holding company doesn’t participate with the general public, so it’s unlikely to ever be sued.
edit again (sorry, but this is a rabbit hole) … shares in your holding company could be confiscated as well if you get sued - so be careful about who in your family get’s them 
