Companies that don't like individuals? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2022, 05:14:16 pm
content: What do people do when they buy a product that is still current, but it's manufacturer demands yoube a company to sign up to their support site?This is a complex networking product, and its not plug and play. and I bought it, in part to learn more about enterprise class hardware.

author: bob91343
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2022, 05:20:59 pm
content: Don't buy.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2022, 05:24:30 pm
content: I already own it but I'm not using it yet.

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2022, 05:25:54 pm
content: Did you already buy it, or do you want to buy it? If the latter, then is it available from distributors? If not, then either become a company, find one that will buy it for you (unlikely), or find something else. Generally speaking, there is no way to force a company to do business with you unless you can show that refusal is for an illegal purpose (e.g., not selling to you because you are some protected class).If you just bought the product from the company, it must respect any warranty. After the warranty expires, then you are in the "want to buy" category.That is basically how it is in the US. Other countries have different laws. Why don't you show your location to avoid such unnecessary efforts?

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2022, 06:14:56 pm
content: I am in the United States.. My profile lists me as living in theCentral Atlantic Magmatic Province. Which is an interesting area when it comes to its history and geology.As regards this piece of hardware. I already bought it and I got a good deal on it. And its a product that still being marketed and soldAll I want is to be treated equally to any other customer.At other times in my life Ive been connected to companies, and when I have been I've been a good employee and taken my responsibilities to them very seriously.I think there are a number of important ethical issues at play here..

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2022, 06:47:37 pm
content: Discrimination is not illegal in the US. In fact, it is hard to imagine a (free) society in which people can't discriminate.What is illegal are certain types of discrimination in which a protected class is adversely affected. In other words, that company cannot refuse to sell to you because of your race (a protected class). It can refuse to sell to you if you're a Republican (not a protected class). It has apparently said it will not deal with unincorporated entities, including persons. Nothing at all illegal or unethical about doing that. In one reported case from the 70's, former President Nixon was refused a rental in an exclusive apartment in NYC. The operators made no attempt to cover up the real reason was his politics, and that was upheld.Now, let's assume you won a scope from Keysight last year that had a 5-year warranty. Keysight has decided it will not deal with individuals, but it awarded you that scope. Did you disclose you were a non incorporated entity when you entered the contest? There might be an issue there. However, I do not suspect that applies to you.It doesn't seem you have any sort of discrimination case. What may seem like a poor business practice to you is not illegal.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2022, 07:05:33 pm
content: Do they require like registration, tax information and all that? Or just a name?For legal purposes, you can just represent yourself as (DBA, Doing Business As) whatever name you like.Tim

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2022, 07:29:54 pm
content: Most States require a fictitious business name to be registered (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fictitious-business-name-requirements-sole-proprietors.html). The cost is very minimal. But registration provides no protection and probably won't suffice.What companies who insist on only dealing with a business probably look at is the buyer's address, whether physical (e.g., a business park) or internet, e.g., .com, .edu, etc. I have gotten away with .org, but <your name>@gmail.com won't cut it.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2022, 07:37:30 pm
content: That said, I've seen more than several corporations (as in big enough to have C-levels) that used employee GMails...Which is not to say that's good and professional behavior of them... perhaps more just that they haven't been burned by that yet. Whether for reasons of data loss (trust in Google!), security (typosquatting employee accounts?), supplier reluctance (as above), or plain old customer service / professionalism (they use gmails?!).Tim

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2022, 07:50:06 pm
content: Never underestimate the ignorance of an "IT expert." I learned that a long time ago. I know of a CEO in Cleveland who put her complete trust in her hand-picked IT czar. That worked as expected (nothing good was done) for about 2 to 3 months until his ignorance almost killed someone. That CEO suddenly had second thoughts, begrudgingly.I sense we agree that corporations that allow employees to use gmail accounts at work have a fool for CEO.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2022, 08:09:33 pm
content: On the rare occasion I have found myself in that position, I've just registered using my actual employer and work email, it doesn't matter that I'm using the device at home, I've never had them contact the company to confirm anything.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2022, 01:02:18 am
content: They just ask for a company name.. And since posting my post I read that they have all inhouse tech support and that its very good..Note that as it stands right now all I want is to be able to download the documentation for the product I bought and use their support forum .. which is a forum similar to this one..I dont want to pretend I am a company.. when I'm not.

author: Martian Tech
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2022, 02:11:51 am
content: You can't just put c.dev consulting as the company name?

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2022, 11:54:48 am
content: I do not know much about consumer protection in the US, nor about contract law.But in Europe, consumer protection is generally very strong, and similarly, there are quite a few clauses that would be fine in a business to business contract, but are not allowed in busines to customer contracts.It comes down to that businesses are not allowed to take undue advantage over customers, but other businesses are generally fair game. It is assumed that a business knows what it is doing, and a consumer is not, and therefore needs protection.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2022, 05:25:21 pm
content: Quote from: Ranayna on March 25, 2022, 11:54:48 am"Consumer protection in the US" doesn't exist, it is not a concept we have here. Companies can pretty much write whatever contract they want and a consumer can agree to and buy/use the product or not. There are regulations around safety and whatnot and it's illegal to discriminate against various protected classes but that's about it.

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2022, 06:17:53 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on March 25, 2022, 05:25:21 pmI think you are being overly pessimistic. Consumer protection very much does exist in the US. One type in particular, "tort" is a reason some people come to this country to file claims. Medical malpractice is quite common. Product liability is also common. Look at all the attorney advertising on TV for injury from Roundup and other herbicides, talcum powder, etc. Automobile liability insurance is high because of our tort system.Here's a brief discussion of implied warranty:https://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/10/know-your-consumer-protection-laws.aspYears ago, the bar for implied warranty was very high, today it is almost at ground level. Years ago some guy using his mower to trim bushes got injured. He won based on the fact there was no warning. A common joke is that in the 1950's when you bought a new car, there were instructions on how to set the valves. Today, there are warnings not to drink the battery acid.As for companies being able to put anything they want in a contract that is still pretty much true, but there are restrictions and most important, such clauses may not be enforceable. An example that is used in introductory law is the ticket you get when entering a parking lot. It is written as a contract and used to/maybe still does include a disclaimer for anything that may happen to your car. In reality, that is very difficult for the parking lot to enforce. Thus, they have insurance. The teaching is that a valid contract must include at least 3 elements: an offer, negotiation, and acceptance. The parking lot ticket does not include negotiation or a realistic ability to reject in most cases.Where there is a difference in American consumer law is our system of payment for costs and attorney's fees. That is, each party pays its own costs, including attorney fees. It's even called the "American System." In other systems, the losing party pays for both sides. There are some statutory exceptions in the American System for attorney fees and costs. Some consumer contracts will include a clause saying the consumer must pay all costs and attorney fees if he loses. That's just a scare tactic, and in many states, such clauses are interpreted to be reciprocal.Finally, in the US, mandatory arbitration is becoming extremely common in consumer contracts. It wasn't always that way. The problem with arbitration is that when one considers a typical situation with three arbitrators, each side chooses one and those two arbitrators choose the third. All of the arbitrators are hired and paid for by the businesses who participate in the program. One can see how that might bias things a little.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2022, 09:43:51 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on March 25, 2022, 01:02:18 amYou are overthinking this.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2022, 10:52:28 pm
content: Quote from: jpanhalt on March 25, 2022, 06:17:53 pmNo, you’re mistaken. You need to look at how consumer protection is done in Europe, that’s what people mean when they talk about it. Tort (which absolutely exists in Europe) is the last resort for when nothing else is in effect. Note that consumer protection doesnotmean product safety, which is why james_s mentioned product safety regulationseparately. Consumer protection means protecting consumers from abusive business practices by companies.Honestly, the main form of consumer protection in USA is credit card companies, who will simply do a chargeback. (European credit card issuers are far more reluctant to get involved, and won’t intervene except in cases of outright credit card fraud.)

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 09:08:52 am
content: @tooki1) The OP is in the USA. Why divert the conversation to Europe, including snide comments about the US. Politics are not allowed here.2) I gave a reasonable reference to American "consumer protection." The fact you define it differently is again OT. As for your version of abusive practices, America has a very effective system that allows class action lawsuits. Subway (as fast food sandwich shop) advertised a "$5 footlong" for years. That was quickly stopped when an attorney actually measured it. Successful businesses almost uniformly allow no question asked returns from 30 to 90 days. What more do you want? The consumer should bear some responsibility too for performing a modicum of diligence before buying.We also have a "small claims" court system that allows a consumer recourse when the victim of shady practices. The cost is minimal, is usually recovered if the consumer wins, and in most states, the business must have a licensed attorney. Hence, there is a strong incentive for the business to settle. My first Sansui high fi was obtained by such a settlement in 1968.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 10:16:19 am
content: Why these conversations always end up in legal bullshit and USA vs EU or whatever?Companies make adistinctionofretail businessandbusiness with other corporations/businesses.It is avalid market choicedecision, that they are fully entitled to make.Retail(end user, private customers) and dealing withother companiesarecompletely different business.Even if you are selling nominally same physical product(same scope for instance) to thosetwo different markets, these will,internallyto you, bede facto different products with different scope of delivery, marketing, and support structure.Andretail (private end users) business will invariably be more involvedwith customer care and support and also with completely different marketing and sales channel (in both size and structure).And many companies will chose not to do it.That includes myself. I do not sell to private customers, and deal only with companies.Fact that some of us (me included) like to have professional grade products in our home labs is anomaly.Situation is in fact equivalent to many other pro grade stuff you cannot really expect to buy for your garage: WRC race car that you want to register and drive on street, particle accelerators, all kinds of nuclear and chemical reactors and equipment..... Sounds stretched? Not many years ago 1 GHz scopes many of us have on the desk where classified, controlled equipment. Many members here have equipment sophisticated enough for a NASA lab..Not very expensive Signal Hound BB60C is actually an ITAR controlled item... I had to sign all kinds of paperwork to get it here in EU.I wouldn't be surprised if there were agencies that have me on list for that. It has very high POI and can be (and is) heavily used in SIGINT community.You could imagine that people selling that kind of stuff might want to limit their exposure to selling only to legal entities where they can keep their legal exposure to maintainable level.Or to simply put it: It isnotthat "some companies don't like individuals". It is more thatthey cannot afford to do itor made avalid target market decision not to be on that market. Same type of business decision that is reason Ferrari doesn't make trucks, or doesn't sell F1 cars to private persons. It is simply not what they do..

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 01:10:44 pm
content: Quote from: jpanhalt on March 26, 2022, 09:08:52 am1. I wasn’t the one who brought it up. Just correcting your errors. I’m American, I can make whatever types of remarks I want about the US.2. You’re talking aboutrecourse. (None of those tools are unavailable in Europe, by the way.) But you don’t understand that consumer PROTECTION meanspreventativemechanisms.Also LOLing at you mentioning class action lawsuits, which are arguably one of the least effective tools in the arsenal.Anyhow, your reply is one of someone who has no idea how other places do things, and thus has no idea which of their approaches are things we should be adopting. As an American who’s lived roughly equal amounts of time in USA and Europe, I have a good feel about what things each place does better than the other. Consumer protection is one where Europe is generally a bit better, though it varies by country. USA simply doesn’t have it. We have recourse, but no protection.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2022, 01:06:11 am
content: The US is creating a new global deregulatory regime that is greatly reducing the ability of individuals to seek redress of any kind from corporations, no matter what the implications are.And of course corporations want to sell and tie people within a rentier economy to companies which demand rents..Say drugs or technical products, we're privatizing everything, more widgets so the tendany is to let corporations try to maximize profits in every possible way they can, say with products, define a short lifetime for a product, say three years and then terminate the customers rights unless they buy a service contract - they now want to cut off independent repair . This is a taking because previously I think customers expected to get more than three years of use out of the average product. Be it computer or a car or networking product.The US government , decades ago figured out a way to preserve their investment in complex technology products, it was requiring disclosure of source code.. Government customers got the source code to complex products to be used if the vendor crapped out on them. Open source turned out to be very powerful improvement. But now the US is trying very hard TO PUT THE GENIE BACK IN THE BOTTLE and cancel open source.. vis the WTO.Quote from: tooki on March 25, 2022, 10:52:28 pmDo people know that there is now no limit on what interest people can be charged by credit card companies arbitrarily. The Democrats rejected (on principle) a proposal to limit Colorado credit card interest to 100% and rejected it on principle. Credit card and other loan companies reserve the right to jack interest rates up as high as they want and they do do this here if ANYTHING changes.. that makes people a more risky creditor.in a cashless society this will be disastrous to the millions of people who carry debt.,. but by then it will be too late

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2022, 09:21:21 am
content: Quote from: cdev on March 29, 2022, 01:06:11 amI can’t find any reference to such a proposal or a rejection thereof. Colorado’s interest rate cap (45%) is among the highest in the country. States have been progressively reducing maximum interest rates over the past 15 years, not raising them.What Colorado did do recently — with full bipartisan support — was to eliminate its ban on credit card surcharges, meaning that retailers in the state are now allowed to charge consumers a credit card surcharge when paying by credit card. Only 2 states now still have such laws on the books.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2022, 02:09:18 pm
content: Classic example of "regulatory capture", seems to me.. You know that when somebody's credit scores change, interest they must pay on loans often arbitrarily changes.. their monthly payments might soar.. I see this as potentially happening to borrowers all around the country overnight if any one of a number of things change..One pending dispute in the WTO could do it. Literally change their world. If it goes the way I think it may. I see us as being set up for this huge theft. Its been being put in place bit by bit over the last three decades, basically. Reverse engineering of regulations they want by collusion between oligarchs. This time they are making sure they can get away with it. Previous attempts like the MAI, were shot down because they emerged into the public view too soon. People realized how bad these plans were... and nixed them in the bud.Thanks to this "Understanding on Commitments in Financial services" document, filed in Geneva in 1998, more than 30 countries now canonlyderegulatefinancial services, we cant regulate themmore. They frame that as violating a sacred contract once a deal has been signed, democratic debate ends.. Also the rules only allow the least restrictive regulations possible. Anything more is forbidden. They have set up databases like the STRI to make sure they all know what least restrictive means. Its not the compromise people in any democracy expect, thats no longer allowed. So when think we see it, itsfakedThe healthcare situation I brought up is a good example of that. Of course its justified by their closed echo chamber. They see all the lying as necessary. Dani Rodrik has explained this well in his online talks, one is about the economics of "populism". They use that term to establish a sort of thought termination effect. Thats cult like thinking, according to Robery Jay Lifton's work on cults.The US signed the Understanding on February 26, 1998. The WTO web site used to explain what the concept of standstill date and rollback ment but they removed it a few years ago.Every standstill has a date TTched to it. Which is called the rollback date. Thats the date tht the regulatory regime can be rolled back to on demand.In 1998 the regime for banks nd finncial services generlly was very favorable, very profitable. It was long before the 2008 global financial crisis which brought down a great deal of regulation. (Temporary, we all are assured, the protectionist measures were only temporary, and had to be eliminated. They couldnt be allowed to last more than a set period of time, probably ten years. A statement emerged at Huangzhou to that effect.THis was the line as it was repeated again and again.Only services that were existing on that date (in 1998 as far as the US) can continue. Other "non conforming monopoly services" have to be dismantled completely or reduced in scope. (in the several dozen countries that signed the Understanding.) Thats called "Progressive Liberalization". The meaning of "progressive" is the same as one might find in a ratchet or a noose, it means going in one direction only, towards eliminating all restrictions on business irreversibly.Thus is why the concept of patents only being for a limited time is under attack. They want them to be their permanent propertly, like land or accumulated wealth. They dont want them ever to expire, they claim that makes their business "unsustainable". Depriving them of the value in their investments. They say its "expropriation" through regulation to expire patents.;They also claim that high wages in developed countries make their business unsustainable. Nobody calls them out on that. But many point out,who will buy these patented products if wages are locked into a downward spiral due to this rigging?Thats not their problem, they wont go there. its natural for wages to fall once the artificial scarcity created by international borders is done away with.Its a subsidy to the privileged.And well connected groups. They claim anti disriminatory laws are a subsidy that props up well connected groups.. So all affirmative action schemes and laws against unfair discrimination are forbidden subsidies? Apparently, if they limit hiring or force it to obety domestic regulations if there would be a less trade restrictive alternative.So now we see lots of "evergreening" of drugs which allows the patent owners to prevent the emergence of low cost competition after a patent expires. Denying humanity the benefits of science. (Indeed all the alleged benefits of free trade should arguably be attributed to science, which nobody owns, The use of tricks to keep old drugs ever profitable and never allow generic versions to be made at lower costs is arguably a theft from all society.Also, the existence of a secretive hidden standstill clause is a similar theft as its freeze on future regulations, thats like an ending of democracy, functionally. No wonder politicians dont want it revealed that they can not regulate the things they claim.That is what a professor of international law told me. I'm not kidding. This means that the scheme set up in the US in 2010 to lessen the impact of health insurance problems for the millions of "uninsurables" - The word insurers us is "medical risks".. You see health insurers are not eleemosynary organizations, they are in the business for profit. And they win by getting out of paying .There is a violation of trade law and ultimately unsustainable and a third of the country (US) may become unable to purchase health insurance at any price because they survived some disease, or similar. This is the way it was not so long ago here. (the regulatory level of 1998 was frozen in time here on Feb 26, 1998. Thats supposed to be the ceiling for them. So subsequent laws are largely for appearances, they cant survive a challenge in the WTO, the organization we all agreed in 1994 was in charge.It will be the same for England, with their NHS. This is what they wanted.At that time, the situation as far as health insurance was really horrible. Many people were rejected out of hand because of their health history.Nearly a third of the families in the US - those that had a member with a serious health problems, couldn't buy health insurance at any price and costs were and are arbitrary. Drug costs especially. Thats what the Uruguay Round did, it was successful in that respect. In exchange developing world gets market access. They get jobs. As many as they can do, as long as they are competitive on price.That situation destroys peoples lives.. Even the developing country workers because it limits their wages to the lowest possible. They will be racing one another to the bottom as precious jobs dry up. We're in a real trap if things continue down this path, and its all being hidden from people by design. One can see of course why a scheme to trade as many as 45% of the jobs for these new expanded IP laws is being hidden. In exchange we get tio charge whatever we want for drugs, even in pandemics. But there was a revolt, a special addition to Trips was added allowing the very poorest countries to issue compulsory licenses allowing them to mnufacture drugs and vaccines (if they could figure out how to do it themselves) in emergencies, as long as they stayed poor. The rich countries really hated this. And the poor countries have to recertify that they are the poorest countries every few years if they ask for this. They have to remain poor, most importantly. Only the really poor countries get to do this. The Trips sensitivities are an endless bone of contention.. Everybody else has to pay whatever the patent holder demands.No questions. Forever.What I am saying is that the regulatory scheme Americans are convinced is in place is a sham and the real truth is quite a bit uglier. Its like that in many countries. We're living in a reality distortion field while in the real world, corporations are literally taking over the world, by stealth, behind the scenes, an intentional deception. and creating a situation that normal people cannot survive in. They are doing it because they can, behind everybody's back. And hiding it. I'm not joking! Now I better stop because I'll get in trouble for telling you this. But its the truth. I'm reading a pretty good book (by Peter Drahos, an Australian legal scholar) that attempts to explain whats happening as far as its effect on the commons.Its mostly about IP. It doesnt tell the story in these other areas,but one should extrapolate and understand that thus kind of thing is not confined to IP, its happening in every service sector. What changed is the weaponization of services against everyday people. In service of unlimited corporate profits and new rights for investors that subsumed democracy to its will. Drahos's book which is quite good and not written with the alarm I feel it simply says that the cost to society will be unreasonably high compared to "benefits" (which I cant see as being there, honestly, for most people. I have personal experience with that on a very large scale)(the book) Its entitled "information Feudalism" But it doesnt go into the financial services mess, most of which involves predatory practices by banking and payment firms.. The creation of a global cashless society would be a huge mistake and lead to globalized slavery due to the large scale loss of jobs and mushrooming debt.Concentration of wealth is growing exponentially.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2022, 04:09:15 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on March 29, 2022, 09:21:21 amTooki, laws limiting interest rates charged by lenders are called usury laws. It seems that usurylaws exist but are rare and in danger of one way "progressive liberalization" that locks restoration of them in the future out in perpetuity, (thats how it works) due to WTO limits on FS regulation.At least thats my understanding. Since the creation of the WTO and its "progressive liberalization" rules, limits on banks have become almost impossible too. This is a serious problem.I also just read that banks interest rate are determined by the states they are incorporated, and Delaware, where many are incorporated limits such rates to 5% above the Federal rate.. This is one of a number of conflicting things that I just read and so I dont know which one is trueI tend to lean towards the worst case scenario, an almost unlimited amount of bank greed and manipulation being possible but as it stands right now I have to say that I may have been wrong. The point I am getting at is basically that I suspect extremely arbitrary changes in the terms of loans affecting large numbers of US borrowers on things like their credit cards and home loan mortgages coulod cause rapid economic fluctuations without warning. This is what is often abbreviated a systemic risk".Anyway, fear of such risk has kept me away from loans, etc. I try to live very frugally. I ride a bike, I (now am starting to) grow my own food. I try to save energy in anticipation of future price increases.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2022, 04:36:31 pm
content: This bullshit that companies will sell product to you but not you has got to go.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2022, 03:47:04 am
content: Quote from: cdev on March 29, 2022, 04:09:15 pmRare? Every state has them, to some extent. A more accurate representation would be that usury laws are “omnipresent but toothless”.I don’t think WTO rules have anything to do with consumer credit in USA.Quote from: cdev on March 29, 2022, 04:09:15 pmThe credit card industry in USA became so abusive to customers that in 2009, a major law outlawing most of the egregious abuses was passed. (CARD act, I think.) It banned or restricted things like universal default. I mean, given how much influence the bank lobby has, it had gotten way, WAY out of hand for Congress to take action anyway!Want sane banking and credit in USA? Go to a credit union. They’re usually legitimately local (so subject to your own state’s usury laws), but moreover, they’re not for-profit entities, so rates are lower, and they don’t have investment banks, so their loans are conservative (if they give you a loan, it’s because you can actually afford it). They also tend to have great service.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2022, 01:18:49 am
content: Countries and states are not supposed to be involved in businesses any more. Every few years the WTO rates countries on their "progressive liberalization" progress.. Countries that violate these rules are put under pressure. They frame it as stealing the profits from businesses. (Credit unions, etc.) New allegedly "protectionist" regulations that sprung up after the 2008 crisis are supposed to be repealed.The change was brought abut during the administration of Bill Clinton here in the US. Think of it as the business cartels strike back. The WTO which is based in Geneva at Centre William Rappard, replacing the ILO which used to occupy that space. The WTO which is generally against labor standards, claiming the rules most take for granted are barriers to free trade, is an international organization that has set up an entirely new international rules based regime that applies whenever anything is being bought or sold internationally. Products or Services. It took effect January 1, 1995. It really is a huge and vastly more significant change than most people realize. Especially for financial services like banking and insurance. Nations domestic regulations are now what is regulated by the WTO.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2022, 01:31:08 am
content: Quote from: tooki on March 30, 2022, 03:47:04 amIts simply unthinkable that the United States would allow expanion of laws limiting what finanmcial institutions do when we've put sop much effort into deregulating them, becioming the new City of London, Delaware is perhaps the wporld's fastest growing tax haven. As I understand it this keeps the American oligarchs out of the news.There are still credit unions for Federal government employees, but all those kinds of jobs ae being privatized and globalized. So they wont be around much longer. Instead they will be subcontractors. This is the big trade for IP rights that the rich countries set up in the 90s. We get patents that get extended again and again, they get the jobs which arent profitable enough for the rich countries any more. Unless they are somehow kept in some high margin niche.. Like national security. They want the tech jobs to go to propping up the ruling class in a belt of "authoritarian bargain" and resource rich countries around the expanding waistline of the globe.. Laundering their cash and their epidemic of fake diplomas and similar. Its very very profitable reselling the labor of these subcontractors. These fake degrees are "costly screens" that keep the poor people out. Bribery is nothing new. Nicholas Shaxson has a good bok about the African oil countries and the looting of their wealth, a systematic theft on a massive scale with that loot going to the ever growing tax havens.. Read his book "Treasure Islands" also. Its a system set up for the insiders and for the rich players.. To protect their wealth from those who would tax it. Roughly half of the money in the world is now in these tax havens. They are very very popular with Australians, I hear. These island nations have carved out a niche where they get paid lots of money for helping the rich evade taxation. It started with the dismantling of the British Empire in a way that allowed the elites to keep their wealth and protect it from governments. Much of itin many cases had to murder and more for it. had been stolen and they didnt want to have to give it back. Look at the various despots of the world. They stole it fair and square, they dont want to give any of it back.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 08:37:02 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on April 02, 2022, 01:18:49 amCredit unions arenotgovernment entities!!!A credit union is a bank-like member-owned cooperative. In USA at least, the charter must restrict membership (it cannot be open to the public at large). So a state employees credit union isn’t a credit union runbythe state, it’s a credit union originally runforstate employees. But it’s self-governing, and it’s owned by its members, the (current or former) state employees*. This is why opening an account requires you to buy a share, the price of which you get back if you close your accounts and end your membership.Any organization can start a credit union, so most of them are started by employers (or a workers’ union), but not all.Credit unions are regulated by the financial regulators, but under a completely different set of rules, IIRC. Similarly, depositor insurance is provided by a separate government backer distinct from the depositor insurance for commercial banks.*Many state credit unions allow other organizations, like companies, universities, clubs, etc. to request to be added to the scope of eligible people. So they often exceed their namesake, but are still not open to the general public. Once you’re a member, you remain a member even if circumstances change and you wouldn’t be eligible to join now.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 08:59:50 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on April 02, 2022, 01:31:08 am1. Please fix your post above so that you aren’t putting words in my mouth. I think you inserted a reply into my quote without actually dividing the quote.2. Re: the “unthinkable” expansion of regulation: I don’t really care what you think is or isn’t “thinkable”. The fact is, some regulation did get added in recentish years, and some of your claims of deregulation were simply not true.3. There are indeed credit unions for federal employees. But a) any account holder (member) can keep their account, and b) the membership rules may even expressly permitformeremployees to join. And their family members. And possibly other groups.4. You think those government contractors don’t have their own credit unions? I assure you, they do, and they’re also eligible for multiple other credit unions, like the Navy one. (The “federal” they may or may not have in their name means only that they’re chartered under a specific piece of federal law, as opposed to being chartered within a specific state.)5. Blah blah blah jobs and tax havens and elites… what does this have to do with anything? I still haven’t seenanyevidence that WTO rules have any say over ordinary consumer banking. If they did, consumer banking would work exactly the same everywhere, and it doesn’t, it varies wildly from country to country.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2022, 10:15:54 pm
content: I'm just passing on what Ive been told, which is pretty clear. WTO rules allegedly make it impossible for the US to properly regulate "too big to fail" banks. This got worse, when, to please the WTO, in the end of the US February 26, 1998 filing, the US promised to 'reform' the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which vanished the next year in 1999, setting the stage for the financial disaster of 2008. The relevant "Schedule of Specific Commitments" supplemental document provides proof that the (I think it may have been the subsequent Graham Leech Bliley Act but it came a few months later, poof) was prompted by the WTO. So WTO can be blamed for the 2008 GFC. But in a videoed interview with Lori Wallach, on YouTube no less, shegives them every chanceto admit to what happened, and stop lying to the nation like the politicians keep doing, even telling them where the proof is, and they repeatedly deny it. Shamelessly. Every ten years iike clockwork, or so they do this, as if its some kind of entitlement! There were previous scandals in both the US and UK, the big facilitator of tax haven spiders webs.. Half the dirty money in the world lives in them.That makes me think we're being set up to have it happen again, even bigger than before. The hands off approach to a number of recent financial services 'crises" makes me suspect thats a fairly sure thing. And the US's hands will be tied as far as prosecution of foreign banks that commit fraud because we did not prosecute US banks that did, largely.We cant discriminateagainst foreign banks, nomatter what.. which thank to the WTO we are bound to treat them equally. In exchange they pump our currency's value up by keeping their money in the world's two biggest tax havens.. the UK's spiders web, and the US's. The US is rapidly becoming a similar tax haven. .To see what the WTO criticizes you need to read the Trade Policy Review reports for countries. Generally they are critical of governmental banking and insurance services, or activities that reduce trade in, them of various kinds. Those are WTO documents giving the state of compliance for member countries. Note that US politics (non economics) is out of the scope of WTO laws. Only regulations that effect money or business are covered. So politicians who accuse Biden of being able to institute - for example, a 'socialized medicine" system are dangerously wrong, as that would be forbidden by WTO once we joined and may even be part of a disinformation campaign attempting to get desperate uninsurables to keep voting and ignore the facts which are that politicians no longer possess the power to make such changes, because we gave the jurisdiction over a great many areas to the WTO. Similarly, misguided Britons keep accusing various British politicians of "selling" the NHS to the US. The fact is the UK decided in the 90s to sign the GATS agreement and like the US that is supposed to be permanent. And health insurance in both countries is supposed to be and remain purely commercial, in perpetuity. Similarly, the industry is supposed to have standstilled, on the date they signed the Understanding. So the policies of both British and American health insurance was locked to the policy on that date. In perpetuity. By design. Similarly with banking. Government provision of "public utilities" was granbdfathered inside of the European Union by means of carve out for "public utilities" fired with the WTO for as long as a country is in the EU, "public utilities" might be exempt from WTO rules which otherwise might frame certain activities as non-compliant monopoly services, if they interfered with trade in financial services or were not in existence already on the standstill date and were not changed. Frankly I dont know. I suspect a few things, and a reading of a Note published by the WTO Secretariat in 1998 makes me think that the position on social services might be fairly Draconian but that is what the people voted for in the 1990s..Government is not supposed to interfere with the trade in these services which likely are supposed to become international if the customers can barely afford it. After all profit is healthcare job number one. Services may be delivered somewhere else where it remains profitable, if its subsidized in any way.Banking and insurance, being financial services are under WTO jurisdiction it's indisputable by US and UK as we wanted it so very badly. Some dont like to discuss it because many Americans don't like to realize the WTO are in charge. Read the debate between Elizabeth Warren and President Obama from several years ago in the Washington Post and the Posts fact checking of the two afterward's discussion.Also there is a short pub on Financial Services treatment in the Uruguay Round negotiations written by an Indian journalist- Chakravarthi Raghavan you might want to read it. You could likely find it with a short search on Google, it is at an organization of the smaller nations web site..

author: SpacedCowboy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2022, 11:02:14 pm
content: shrug. If a company insists on a name, I just put "Me, Myself, and I". Can't remember a time that didn't work.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2022, 12:57:47 am
content: Tooki, it doesnt matter what it calls itself, its what it does, its effect, and if its at all related to government at state, federal or local level and if it "affects" trade in services.So anything that impeded profits or the movement of international services and money flows in any way has to be ended if it inhibits the flow of money and/or workers. Even the most sacrosanct anything, it doesn't matter what the intent was either, if it "affects" trade in services, like banking or insurance. Say by inhibiting profits or the establishment of business which is one of the most sacred rights in the EU. Even.UNCTAD has a document,COURSE ON DISPUTE SETTLEMENT - Module 3.13which tries to clarify the scope of GATS, It's very wide. I suggest you read it.Britons were also told a bunch of things that were totally fabricated in order to give them an excuse to make a bunch of changes, but as far as I can tell the important things were never disclosed. They certainly were not here in the US because they would make people go nuts.Anything that impacted peoples buying habits adversely would be against the rules. Ive never seen laws that required that government officials and politicians and indeed anybody or anything controlled by government at all three levels,lie for such crappy reasons before.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2022, 04:10:52 pm
content: cdev, you’re literally a poster child for the myth repeaters called out inhttps://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/gatsfacts1004_e.pdfNothing I’ve seen supports your claims, and there are too many counterexamples that disprove them. But you haven’t actually reacted to my responses, you’ve just piled on more walls of text that has no bearing on the matter. (I mean, you came back a day later to write asecondwall of text addressed to me, without me even having responded to the prior one…)I think it’s hilarious that you think these rules obligate countries to liberalize things, while ignoring that countless member countries have regulations far stricter than what USA has. By your logic that’s illegal. Guess what? It ain’t.Please don’t dig in your heels with more walls of text. I couldn’t be bothered to read the last two walls in detail anyway, I just skimmed them to ascertain that it’s more irrelevant rambling.

author: bc888
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 01:31:27 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on March 24, 2022, 05:14:16 pmI'm left wondering what the product and company are. Were we playing 20 questions before the EU/USA discourse started? I missed something. Whats the big secret that you can't state what it is, what you paid, who you bought it from and what you have tried so far to get what you want?

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 01:58:13 pm
content: To answer the original question, if all that's needed is a company name, then make up a company name. If you make it YourOwnName Research, then you don't even have to do a fictitious name search. That's pretty much all there is to it in the US to create a sole proprietorship, which is legally identical to YOU in every way that matters. Other details are on a need-to basis, which probably doesn't apply to this situation.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 02:45:11 pm
content: California has implied warantee of suitability, its very strong. If you accept money for something.

author: bc888
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2022, 05:31:40 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on March 24, 2022, 05:14:16 pmHI Cdev, specifically, what company and product are you asking about?

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2022, 09:02:34 pm
content: Quote from: bc888 on April 27, 2022, 05:31:40 pmI bought a piece of enterprise networking equipment, specifically a large switch with POE. I'd prefer to not be more specific. It was still currently sold last I looked. It may be past its prime, but thats my personal opinion only..

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 29, 2022, 06:02:17 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on April 27, 2022, 09:02:34 pmThen why waste others’ time with a pure rant thread? What do you stand to gain with the secrecy?