Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday April 12 2017, @06:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the bankruptcy-is-not-death dept.

Toshiba has reported another huge loss as it continues to try to recover from the bankruptcy of its Westinghouse nuclear unit:

Toshiba has filed its delayed financial results, warning that the company's survival is at risk. "There are material events and conditions that raise substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern," the company said in a statement.

The electronics-to-construction giant reported a loss of 532bn yen (£3.8bn; $4.8bn) for April to December. However, the results have not been approved by the firm's auditors. These latest financial results have already been delayed twice and raise the possibility that Toshiba could be delisted from the Tokyo Stock Exchange.

Previously: Toshiba Nuked Half its Assets
Huge Nuclear Cost Overruns Push Toshiba's Westinghouse Into Bankruptcy


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:06PM (24 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:06PM (#493027) Journal

    Question for ya: without some form of violence, whaddya do when someone welches on a contract?

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:11PM (21 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:11PM (#493031)

    The main problem is not that the monopoly is violent, but that it is imposed; the word "violently" is merely an emphasis.

    More to the point, the enforcement of a contract (as per the contract) is by definition voluntary; each party to the contract agreed to such enforcement before the game began. The whole point of contracts is to make the game reasonable (that is to say, the whole point is to make it possible for participants to reason about how the game will proceed).

    • (Score: 2) by julian on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:38PM (20 children)

      by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:38PM (#493054)

      Good thing nobody ever lies or cheats, and everyone always fairly reciprocates responsibilities. You've got some great ideas there, I'm sure they'll catch on

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:55PM (19 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:55PM (#493061)

        Nothing about what I've said depends upon angelic behavior—quite the contrary, in fact; what I've said embraces the fact that people are not angelic without the enforcement of clear agreements.

        It is in each party's self-interest to make sure that the beneficial aspects of a contract be enforced, so I'm not entirely sure what your point could be.

        Furthermore, acting outside of the bounds of a contract is dangerous and possibly very costly, because the ramifications are poorly defined; there is profit in agreement.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Wednesday April 12 2017, @09:54PM (17 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 12 2017, @09:54PM (#493092) Journal

          There is a market for enforcement.

          And what name do you call enforcers that become powerful enough to impose their contracts on the market?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 0, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 12 2017, @10:19PM (14 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 12 2017, @10:19PM (#493102) Journal

            Duck behind your blast shield before you ask him that; there's about to be a big explosion of brain matter :D

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @10:46PM (13 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @10:46PM (#493117)

              Contract enforcement is a service like any other; the industry of contract enforcement is not magical—it can and should co-evolve with the rest of the market of voluntary trade, like any other industry.

              The most robust form of separation of powers and of checks and balances is competition among service providers within a market of voluntary trade (where, again, "voluntary" is defined by the contracts to which parties agree in advance).

              You're trying to get me to realize that the enforcers are "government", but that is just not the case; there is no need for a "government": When does an organization become a "government"? When it allocates resources by imposition, rather than by the kind of enforced agreement defined here.

              Even if you insist on a government being an enforcer, this notion of interaction by contracts would set the cultural foundation for a government that is much more limited in scope than the nebulous do-as-we-say governments that exist today.

              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:03PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:03PM (#493126)

                You miss an important point!

                If enforcement is purely mercenary, then the biggest purse (and so the biggest merc stable) rules the land.

                Your definition of government as 'being governed by' == 'being controlled by' would mean that I'm governed by the mafioso who takes his monthly envelope, by the only grocer within 100km who effectively controls the food market prices (to within $20 of gas and maintenance and 3h of driving, which is a lot compared to convenience groceries. Weekly trips to town mitigate but don't remove his control), by the only telecom serving this area if you consider telecom an essential service. I could go on.

                Or perhaps you don't think that access to breathable air, drinkable water, (paid) energy, or (paid) telecom are appropriate easements to critical resources. Is clean air for those who can afford respirators?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:05AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:05AM (#493180)
                  • Your "biggest purse" problem is not solved by "government"; indeed, your "government" is simply that biggest purse.

                    Rather, it's solved by 2 things: (a) by separation of powers, and checks and balances (e.g., by competition within a market); (b) by a culture that respects a certain way of interaction (e.g., a culture of contracts).

                    A government like the United States provides a primitive, somewhat arbitrary separation of powers, as well as checks and balances—ones that are increasingly being consolidated under the executive branch; a government like the United States sits atop a culture of representative democracy, which is still founded on the principle that one group dictates to another.

                  • Those paying protection money to a mafioso would definitely agree that they are living under the governance of that mafioso.

                    Like it or not, a mafioso or a warlord or a dictator is just as much a government as a representative democracy; in a given jurisdiction, the one organization that is called "government" is just the one that has the most recognized monopoly on allocating resources by decree.

                  • Your mafioso is the only example that explicitly involves the governmental behavior of allocating resources by decree rather than agreement; the other examples are not manifestly governmental, and may well exist in a market of voluntary interaction—though it seems like such situations would indicate quite readily to the market that there is a great deal of opportunity for competing endeavors.

              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:06PM (1 child)

                by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:06PM (#493127)

                government [oxforddictionaries.com]

                noun
                1.
                The group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office.

                You are essentially saying that nobody, not even the people, have the authority to govern a country or state.

                You never explain how dispute resolution is supposed to work. I will even give you that private contract enforcement can work.

                What happens when we can not agree on an arbitrator? what if the arbitrator in a "well defined contract" has gone out of business? What happens if there is a dispute in the absence of a contract (because no consideration was exchanged)?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:42AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:42AM (#493174)
                  • Interacting with people outside of a well-defined contract is dangerous, precisely because there is no way to reason about the ramifications; there is profit in discovering an agreed way to interact, and that is what leads to inquiries before interaction, and then perhaps negotiation, followed by enforcement.

                    Now, that does not require that everything be encoded in some official document; after all, very much of everyday interaction is simply implicit in the local culture—when in Rome, do as the Romans do.

                  • As you imply, a dispute is the lack of a well-defined contract; indeed, consider one of your examples:

                    What if the arbitrator in a "well defined contract" has gone out of business?

                    Well, you'd think such a case would be specified in your contract; after all, it's a case about which you yourself have immediately worried! That is to say, you're essentially asking:

                    What if a "well defined contract" is not well defined?

                    So, as you can see, your question isn't even meaningful; it is a contradiction in terms.

                    Now, that does not mean that a contract must be perfectly well-defined from the very beginning: Contract negotiation, dispute resolution, and enforcement compose an iterative process that is intended to lead to ever more clarification about one's obligations according to the contract; this process itself co-evolves with the rest of the market, and is ultimately defined through its specification in contracts that are increasingly well-defined.

              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:55PM (8 children)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:55PM (#493142) Journal

                Gawwwwwwwwwd--*damn* are you stupid. So how does this work, do the mercenaries plead with people to follow contracts? Do they try and explain why this is to peoples' mutual benefit over tea and crumpets? Help me out here, because when you get right down to it, I don't see any way this WON'T end in "violent imposition."

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:23AM (7 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:23AM (#493157)

                  As explained already [soylentnews.org], it is not imposition to enforce a contract as per the contract; the participants have already agreed to such enforcement, violent or otherwise (as per the contract)—such enforcement is, by definition, voluntary.

                  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:29AM (6 children)

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:29AM (#493163) Journal

                    And if one of them suddenly un-agrees because it's in their perceived interest and/or because they're an asshole, wut nao, ese?

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:11AM (5 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:11AM (#493184)

                      "Get it yet?"

                      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:19AM (4 children)

                        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:19AM (#493219) Journal

                        So your answer to "What happens when someone decides to defect?" is "No one would defect so your question is moot" then? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt...

                        --
                        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                        • (Score: 2) by julian on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:40AM (3 children)

                          by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:40AM (#493226)

                          He's as deluded and ideological as an unreconstructed Maoist, and just as wrong.

                          The fact is, if what he's suggesting was at all possible there would have been at least one society in history that tried it. If it's such a great way to organize civilization they would have been big and successful and we would have heard about them. You can find more world-historically important civilizations that were Communist than AnCap or libertarian. The vast majority of all governments are mixed economies.

                          The state itself is inevitable because it provides irresistible advantages.

                          If you could wave a magic wand, dissolve the state, and institute a libertarian utopia people would immediately begin the process of reforming states. Eventually some warlords realize they can just assert their control over other people by force--asking nicely and waiving a contract at them doesn't work; the only private "police" work for him or other warlords. Civilized people in the next city over realize this is terrible and establish a government to prevent it and safeguard human rights. Laws are codified and everyone has to follow them, or else. They need money to protect themselves and enforce the law. Everyone has to pay in for it to work so they start taxing. If you don't pay they lock you up, or ask you to leave. Eventually "leaving" is impossible because every scrap of land is controlled by some other city-state or collections of cities that similarly demands taxes. Inter-state norms develop for diplomacy, communication, and travel. Sometimes there are irreconcilable differences between polities and they go to war, but slowly the trend is toward greater cooperation and tighter integration. And thus civilization as we know it is reconstituted.

                          That's basically a rough sketch of the actual history of humanity. The names and the places could have been different but any sentient creature with our biology would have followed essentially the same path.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:54AM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:54AM (#493232)

                            The fact is, if what he's suggesting was at all possible there would have been at least one society in history that tried it.

                            By that logic, you don't exist, certainly not as some random poster on the Internet. You're claiming that no technology exists because it would have obviously been done before it were possible if it were at all possible.

                            Social technologies are technologies nonetheless. Expect advances whether you like it or not.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:04AM (1 child)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:04AM (#493235)

                            These "libertarian" principles pervade society already; they are the very principles that make modern society so fantastically productive, even despite the parasitical existence of The State.

                            The vast majority of interactions in modern society occur according to such contracts, whether cultural or explicit. Most "private" business is conducted around these very ideas, and most disputes are resolved through private arbitration.

                            You want to know where the "libertarian" society is? Look around you!

                            There is just one snag: Nobody realizes it; it's a lot easier to see the flags, and hear the national hymns, and stand for the pledges of allegiance, and sit in awe of the domed capitol buildings, and thereby mistake such things as the foundations of success. Productivity knows no hand-drawn borders; it weaves and contorts its way around every distortion, perhaps raising its head every now and then as the evil "black" market wherever government got just a little to deluded by its own false sense of importance.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14 2017, @08:51AM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 14 2017, @08:51AM (#493881)

                              These "libertarian" principles pervade society already; they are the very principles that make modern society so fantastically productive, even despite the parasitical existence of The State.

                              You stupid, stupid, dumbfuck of a libertariantard Anonymous Coward! You actually believe this tripe? (Tripe, that is, cow's stomach. I know you are probably not all that literate, since you are a dumbfuck libertariantard, so I will help you out with some helpful notes as we go along.) No, it is the cooperation of well meaning fellow citizens that makes a society productive, the efforts of "Entrepreneurs", "investors", and "capitalists" generally just fuck over entire projects. Case in point: Donald John Trump, the only "businessman" in modern history that managed to bankrupt a Casino. Really, how stupid do you have to be to lose money on a rigged system like that? And then he turns to Electoral Politics? It is only the State that saves us from such parasitical bastards, what with their shorting payments that they have contracted, using to the courts to protect them from creditors, and any number of really immoral, selfish, nasty, illegal, Mafiosi, and dirty moves. Economies thrive in spite of their libertarians, not because of them. Now come back when you are twenty three, and you have stopped masturbating to the "Fountainhead".

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:36AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:36AM (#493171)

            And what name do you call enforcers that become powerful enough to impose their contracts on the market?

            "Sir."

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 13 2017, @10:03AM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 13 2017, @10:03AM (#493317) Journal

              Lord, maybe?

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:24PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:24PM (#493129)

          > It is in each party's self-interest to make sure that the beneficial aspects of a contract be enforced

          It is in each party's self-interest to make sure that the negative aspects of a contract be mitigated.

          > acting outside of the bounds of a contract is dangerous and possibly very costly, because the ramifications are poorly defined

          Especially if there is no authority to appeal to when the contract is breached, resulting in a dispute which can only be resolved by the strongest party winning.

          There is no "contract" if there is no way to constrain the strongest party to fulfill its terms.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:50PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @08:50PM (#493057)

    why rule out violence? a few overzealous punishments would be better than everybody getting screwed daily by government.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:04AM (#493234)

      why rule out violence? a few overzealous punishments would be better than everybody getting screwed daily by government.

      Different AC here, but: if violence becomes the rule, then the most violent will rule.

      As an anti-slaver, I recognize violence as a valid defensive tool to use against those who initiate attacks against my exclusively self-owned body or the property I acquired with said body. Using violence as a social tool will just result in the same situation we have now in the USA: neighbor too loud? stranger in the 'hood? McDonalds out of chicken nuggets? CALL IN THE ARMED THUGS!

      As one alternative to violence when faced with liars, you could form a social group based upon honesty. When others lie or break contracts with the members of your society, you merely note the liars in your records and no one in your society will do business with them until the liar makes right his wrong. If your society owns the filling stations, supermarkets, and rental housing - well, too bad for the liar. (This also sharply illustrates the evils of the many "Civil Rights Acts" in the USA insofar as they claim to apply to private individuals and their businesses, since the liars are apt to lie about why they are being "discriminated against".)