From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations - A story
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:31:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Apr15.042321.11385@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
>I hadn't been going to post anymore replies to the net, but I'm now up to three
>that seem to require a public response. I'll save the others for latter ...
>
>In article <1992Apr14.194443.14491@dg-rtp.dg.com>, cole@farmhand.rtp.dg.com (Bill Cole) writes:
> 
>|
>
>|> In the meantime, the workers are not working, have lost their pensions
>|> and may be homeless. It wasn't their fault.  The CEO jumps out with a
>|> golden parachute and lands in another company to work his or her magic
>|> there as well.  Boards may not like losing (or loosing either) money but
>|> they find it convenient to find other scapegoats.
>
>What is wrong with this? Do you think that we should guarantee all workers jobs?
>Companies make misteaks and people lose jobs. There is nothing at all wrong with
>this. If you want to be guaranteed a job, move to a communist country, or form a
>Communist cooperative within our own.
>

JWS points out that we are not guaranteed the right to a job despite the
necessity (for most people) to work to earn money to live.

So here is a story (all in good fun)

Jason gets back one of his final exams at MIT and to his horror discovers
that he got a F.  Shock. Horror.  Then later he discovers the Prof. made
a mistake and that he really deserved an "A". So Jason goes to the prof.

JWS: Prof, you made a mistake and I really should get an A

Prof: Sorry, Jason, you will just have to suffer with an F, I cant
      change it

JWS: But that isnt fair, I worked hard for that exam

Prof: Oh well, that's life, I made a mistake but who cares

JWS: But you made the mistake, I shouldnt suffer for it

Prof: But, Jason, you are NOT guaranteed and "A", you are not even guaranteed
      the right to a college education

JWS: But I want my "A"

Prof: Look it was my mistake, who cares, I have a job, I havve summers
       off, and while I dont make as much as those CEO's at GM who
        run a company that loses millions of dollars a year and ignored
           the Japanese threat for so long, but dont complain

JWS: BUt I want my "A"

Prof: Look no matter what your GPA is at MIT you can get a job,
       if you cant find one in Boston you can always move

JWS: But it takes alot of money to move, rent a van, first and last 
      months rent, if I dont have a job what landlord will rent to
       me?

Prof: that is not my problem


End of story.

Remember in the 19th C. the govt gave huge incentives to move in the
form of the homestead Acts and thre was land to move to and a 
guarantee that if they moved they could farm the land for 7 years
and keep it.




>|> |> |> Credit bureaus routinely take mis-information and pass
>|> |> |> it along without attribution and without your knowledge.  Your neighbor can tell
>|> |> |> them that you come home roaring drunk several nights a week and that gets put in
>|> |> |> your credit history.  If it's not true, you have to prove it.
>|> |> 
>|> |> If the companies who recieve the information, are led to believe that it is
>|> |> inaccurate, they will stop using that credit information company and use another.
>|> |> With better information they will make more money.
>|> 
>|> There's no quality check, Jason.  How in the world do they know that?  If the
>|> credit bureaus are accurate within statistical error for the 'big picture',
>|> that's okay but it sure isn't if you're the one slandered.
>
>There sure is. Companies know the fraction of credit they extend that is
>defaulted on. Companies will choose the credit checking company whose reports
>best allow them to predict the probability that somebody will default. As far as
>slander goes, there is nothing wrong with reporting that "Mrs. Higgins down the
>street said the he gets drunk on weekends". Its a fact, and one which companies
>wouldn't pay much attention to if it didn't matter, and have a right to know
>about if it does.
> 

Once again, we seem to have the idea that profit will protect our
freedom.  H.Ross Perot had feud with Roger Smith the GM Chairman in
1984 about GM's executive wasteful corporate perks, first class
planes etc. and their lack of drive to recognixe the Japanese threat.
Now, 8 years later they are finally realizing it.  A rich CEO with
alot of perks who can keep the shareholders happy doesnt need to plan
long range.  He can earn alot and get out. Profit for himself in the
short run.

Since, JWS is going to the library this weekend (to look up telephone
companies) let me give you some case cites about interfering
credit collections.  Just b/c a company does something does NOT
make it useful and efficient NOr does it make it right and not an
infringment on our rights!!!!!!

Millstone v. O'Hanlon Reports 383 F.Supp 269 (1974)

In _Millstone_ a man was denied car insurance on the basis of an
interview a credit investigator had with the only one of four
neighbors contacted that would speak with him. The interview 
lasted less than a half hour. The neigbor who was now dead
claimed that Millstone had hippy types hanging out at his house. ANd
that he had long hair and a beard and this one neighbor thought
he used drugs.  NOne of the information was substantiated.

THis info was irrelevant to his car insurance but was on his file.

That is an invasion of privacy - and letting rumor and gossip 
affect your life.  (Kind of like all those files they are opening up
in E. Germany)

Remember there are only three major credit bureaus (Equefax, TRW and
some other) They have no incentive to change.

Businesses are out for themselves, they have no interest in protecting
our rights.  If you are so interested in giving us freedom, I fail to
see how competition will work.  Especially in light of the fact the
perfect market does not exisit, there is no perfect exchange of information
and there is alot of unequal bargaining power.  Meaning that poeple
due to economic duress and need will have to give up their rights.