Convince me that lawyers, bankers, and accountants aren't swine

convince me that lawyers, bankers, and accountants aren't swine

they can't keep getting away with this

what the h*ck

Other urls found in this thread:

law.cornell.edu/wex/obscenity
srr.com/article/electricity-good-or-service-debate-charges
weltman.com/?t=40&an=40203&format=xml&p=7735
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_legal_terms
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

you mean jews right

Getting away with what? You know that most recent law grads are in a shitload of student debt, right?

Believe me, I know...

get away with what?

getting away with living and not justifying their existence by being in anyway useful to society

What do you define as useful to society?

Are you useful to society? What do you produce?

Is helping people understand and exercise their legal rights not useful to society? Rule of law is pretty useless if people don't have the ability to enforce those rights when necessary. There's a good argument that our legal regime is too complex, but regardless lawyers seem pretty necessary in any society that claims to have functioning laws.

Lawyers, bankers, and accountants can be extremely useful if you care about your financial situation. You obviously don't.

no, it's not useful.

How about the judge can just use words that aren't purposely confusing and you can just explain to the jury why you didn't do it or whatever? And it's obvious that lawyers always act in their own best interest anyway

as for accountants: how the fuck is moving invisible numbers around a job?

I work at a greenhouse and we produce food (albeit niche food for hipsters) and plants and shit

>How about the judge can just use words that aren't purposely confusing and you can just explain to the jury why you didn't do it or whatever?

Nobody's being "purposely confusing." Legal terms are very precise, so that you know whether you've actually broken laws or not. If laws used basic, simple words, they wouldn't have enough precision, which would allow the government/plaintiffs/etc. to manipulate them. Laws are complex and specific out of necessity, for the protection of people's rights. Yes, it means that experts are necessary to help understand them, but overall it makes the system more fair.

>And it's obvious that lawyers always act in their own best interest anyway
So this is obviously anecdotal evidence, but I've been a lawyer for some time now, and I and everybody I work with genuinely acts in the interests of our clients. Feel free to disbelieve me, but that's my experience. I'm not saying there are lawyers out there who prioritize their own interests over their clients, there definitely are. But by and large, lawyers do what they're supposed to, which is act in their client's best interest. Unfortunately those who don't give the rest of us a bad name.

>Also how is it fair to get money doing shit with no value while other people do shit with actual value?

H-how do you decide what has value?

If it's the CEO trying to get money through methods that don't have any actual value by hiring accountants, both the CEO and the accountants are swine.

What you don't seem to understand is that I don't think that you should be able to live off the things that accountants do openly, like squeeze tax returns for every last cent.

The numbers are movable because the government allows it and encourages flexibility with assets and depredations. The only truly "magic" number is goodwill, which any investor worth his salt will look at twice before making any decisions.

>I don't think that you should be able to live off the things that accountants do openly

>I don't think ...

Who the fuck cares what you think? You work in a greenhouse fag, your opinion literally matters to no one, never has and never will

I guess I use "value" for lack of a better word

I suppose that what they produce does have value because it gets money, but it doesn't produce anything.

Isn't that the definition of "stealing"? What if I was a professional insurance scam artist? What I do would have value but it wouldn't produce anything so that's why it's illegal.

The extra money comes from bonus systems for doing good as a CEO that the company itself has implemented. Which technically has nothing to do with accounting itself.

Most bonus plans have restrictions to stop people from trying to squeeze out those percentages through questionable accounting strategies.

You have to understand that this isn't illegal in any way. Accountants just write down that the company has done by the numbers, retarded business decisions or not.

I studied law. In criminal law you will be up against a criminal prosecutor who will rip you a new asshole. In tax law you will be up against the IRS who will rip you a new asshole. In civil law you will be up against big corporations who will rip you a new asshole. But you're free to do it yourself and tell the judge you really mean well, while a 250 pound boxer is swinging at you..

And how do they do it? they deliberately use really dirty fucking tactics like using words nobody has ever heard of and talking really fast. It's honestly childish. What a fucking joke this country can be.

It isn't illegal but it should be

> 4 year degree in greenhouse engineering
> 400k starting
> can fuck any plant I want
> mfw

No, law is very methodical. To get the law at your side you need to argue certain points. And people who don't understand law tend to talk about irrelevant shit. While a legal expert can just asses what's going on, knows what to argue and easily refer to what judges said in other cases or what the intend of a certain law is and so on.

How about instead of letting professional arguers who are overqualified to get a really poor verdict to get pushed through, we just force the parties involved to explain themselves

>we just force the parties involved to explain themselves

what could possibly go wrong

Plus there is a lot of arguing about technicalities.

For example: let's say the law states building sites fall in a different tax bracket. Then the next day you will have people who will put a shovel into the ground in their garden and then claim it's a building site.
Or if books fall under a different tax category then you will get comic books, three page books, empty books claiming it falls under that tax category.

The same thing happens in murder cases for example. There is a case for example where some guy died after his wife threw a slipper to his head. You have doctors who make mistakes that could have been prevented, but it's also the risk you take when undergoing surgery. You have cops who have to make a split second decision when a reportedly armed man grabs something out of his jacket after being warned not to. It just goes on and on.

To bluntly say it should be illegal is naive. Hiring a CEO is walking on barbed wire thanks to a concept called agency costs. You're basically trusting your company to a complete stranger.

What if he's not that dedicated and slacks off? Hence the bonus system to keep him focused on results.

What if he just thinks short term and fucks off in a year? That's where 3 year plans and that kind of stuff comes in.

>"But why did that CEO get 100 million for ruining this and that company? Fucking corporations down with the system!!1!"

Failing as a CEO can be very destructive for your career. A company getting bad results can't be avoided in some cases. If they can't get ensured a safety net for doing potential career suicide or public defamation, then nobody would apply as CEO.

Doing short term strategies isn't against the law. Even if the company didn't have the best intentions with it. It's very hard to accurately fingerpoint moral standpoints in those situations.

>actual value
That's what I was missing.
I actually thought that term was subjective.

I mean, just look at this shit. People arguing if electricity is a good or not and under which laws it should fall. Good luck.

srr.com/article/electricity-good-or-service-debate-charges
weltman.com/?t=40&an=40203&format=xml&p=7735

>dirty fucking tactics like using words nobody has ever heard of and talking really fast.

So... dirty tactics like having a good vocabulary and being able to think on one's feet. How terrible.

If laws changed, then expectations of people who were CEOs would change as well

The parties involved do explain themselves. Most people just aren't very good at it.

Is that really an excuse?

> right now I'm in prison because I'm literally incapable of explaining myself

Lawyers are there to give both parties a fair chance. So they don't drown in the technicalities of law.

Laws shouldn't be that complicated.

The only reason we need lawyers is because after hundreds of years of lawyers who try to fuck with them as hard as they can, it has become complicated

Besides, it's only logical.

If X makes a good case and Y makes a bad case. Obviously people are going to agree with X.

Making laws stricter would just mean more paperwork in the end. If you wanna see truly demonic accounting, look up Enron and all the sick shit they did before they got caught.

After the shitshow ended, lawmakers came up with the Sarbanes Oxley act. A new set of heavy regulations of public accounting. You'd probably orgasm over how it fucks over companies. However it's a cruel joke outside of the US and has led to less international companies setting foot in America. Basically an international company has to file 10 times the accounting paperwork if they want to conduct business in the US.

>Failing as a CEO can be very destructive for your career.
I know one who literally can't get a job.
No companies will hire him for the management positions below CEO, as they consider him overqualified.
At the same time, none of them will hire him as a CEO, because he dropped the ball the first time.
This has been the case for years.

They're not purposely complicated, they're precise (which often requires complicated language). And they should be precise. Vague, broad laws can be taken advantage of.

If you simplify laws then chances are they will become unfair in a lot of situations. They are complicated to address the complexity of the situations you encounter in real life.

In the middle east you have a couple countries with simple laws. Where people explain themselves to a judge without a lawyer and then simple laws from the Quran dictate what should happen to them. It can be done, but it isn't pretty.

So how about they just make them simpler and harder to avoid? They would be harder to avoid because they would be simpler. What I would want is not for every company to get fucked up the ass, I want every accountant to be working the corners turning tricks were they belong.

But they aren't precise. They are famously vague. read this:The only reason it isn't pretty is because they take them out of the Quaran.

>The only reason it isn't pretty is because they take them out of the Quaran.
No, they aren't pretty because all cases get treated uniformly based on simple laws. So people get unfitting sentences for unfitting situations.

The exact opposite situation where each case would be treated independently of each other based on simple laws would lead to just as much injustice, as people in similar cases would end up being treated differently.

That's why precise laws and case law are so important.

Fuck this thread
Go back to /b/ op. Faggot

Doesn't that Quaran cite specific punishments, so that they only have 1 option for the sentence of a specific crime?

Our laws would have a minimum and maximum sentence. It would be the judges job to decide how much of a punishment is reasonable.

>But they aren't precise. They are famously vague. read this

That's a very, very unusual example, which is exactly why it's so famous. For the most part, the point of the complicated language that lawyers use is to be precise.

The IFRS foundation is trying to create a global set of accounting rules that exist solely for simplicity and looking beautiful in the eye of investors. They've come a long way and have considerations depending on industry and etc.

However accounting isn't an exact science when it boils down. And the truth is that trying to get the perfect results is a waste of time and resources. The general idea of a company's status is the realistic goal.

Auditors know this and constantly consider an accounting errors impact on the big picture. If it has no impact, then it's ignored.

>But how do they know what numbers have impact or not?

A lot of accounting research is about trying to find what makes investors tickle. How different accounts correlate with the market value.

I literally had that tab open because I happened to find something about obscenity laws on /pol/ and I wanted to get the definition. In my experience most laws are like that.

For example, why do they insist on using random latin phrases instead of just using english that people can understand?

>In my experience most laws are like that.

In my experience, most aren't. And with all due respect, I bet I have a lot more experience in this area than you do.

There are a lot of law terms that are English and have no counterparts in other languages. In accounting the English language is king.

>why doesn't the law just say it as it is like in 4000BC
>why do number magicians get paid a good living for doing nothing
>why be a useless fuck when you can do something that matters
>why not work a blue collar job, those people are ALWAYS honest and friendly
top kek

Not really. All of these words could be expressed in simple english. Many of them can even be replaced by their literal translation directly.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_legal_terms

I'm not saying they aren't friendly, I'm saying they shouldn't be employed and are often greedy fucks

Legal terms have a long history to them. Which often have to be looked up to truly understand what is meant by them. And every time a judge does a verdict the terms get more loaded.

I mean, when we are having a simple conversation we constantly interpret words and make assumptions. When you and I talk about "insist" "law" "people" "understand" "just using english" and "random" phrases we might not even be talking about the same thing.

You said you work at a greenhouse, right? Do you never use technical words there that a layperson might not be aware of? Terms of art? Specific names for plants, or chemicals, or devices? Just because a discipline has phrases specific to it doesn't make it intentionally opaque. They're just terms that have developed over time, and the people who work in the industry know what they mean. It's a weird thing to judge an entire field on.

They dont insist on anything, they dont use random phrases, they just use English and people understand it.

Simple English for general terms can be misunderstood out of context, especially in a field such as law.

I'll give you an accounting example: a cost and an expense are different things. People not familiar with accounting wouldn't know the difference or even know there's a difference.

>shouldn't be employed and are often greedy fucks

As opposed to what? There can be a demand for an Accountant, or a demand for a Lawyer. Just because we or you might not like what or how they get paid doesn't mean it should change, that's up to the market and the consumers. I don't think LeBron James should get paid 100 million dollars to play basketball, but when people pay tickets and pay cable networks to watch him, he gets paid for it.

Of course we are talking about the same thing. You can look words up in the dictionary just like normal people can. And if you suspected we weren't talking about the same thing (which happens almost never) you would ask "are we talking about the same thing?"

The only reason lawyers use latin is to confuse people and justify their existence. It makes the other lawyer's job harder. It gains them respect in the court room. like "damn, he really knows his shit look at his next level jargon"

We don't really have any words I didn't know before I worked there. My job is not a good example.

In electric engineering they have a legit reason to use strange words. Think of the concept of voltage: it's totally unique. So that's why voltage is it's own word.

Lawyers can use "plaintiff" and maybe a couple other jargon words but that fucking wikipedia article is like 200 phrases long, which is ridiculous

Accountant here. Your paycheck is just numbers to me. Though maybe you should fire me and get someone who doesn't know how to convert a decimal to a percent. When your paycheck is off 2 decimals don't come crying to me.

Well, people disagree with you. So i dont understand why you insist on changing the laws. Instead of just accepting the verdict.

In fact, according to a judge you ought to know the law so you have no excuse to be so much in denial. And we both agree judges have the final authority on legal matters.

>everybody falling for this b8
I mean, this is bait.. right?

When you use real money (not numbers on a screen, paper from a printer) this isn't an issue

I'd assume so, but fuck it why not, its a good laugh.

Okay, so I looked at that long list of Latin phrases you cited. I've been practicing law for a few years now, and many of those are totally archaic and out of use. I'd say that maybe 20 of them are relevant to my practice, and of those, some of them are just Latin-derived words that are basically normal English now (e.g. "subpoena," "pro bono," or "et cetera.").

I think you're placing much more weight on "obscure legal terms" than is really warranted.

You do realize over half of the worlds money doesn't really exist outside of electronic numbers, right?

Of course people disagree with me that's why I'm arguing

I insist on changing the laws because they are deliberately hard to understand, probably because lawyers made them that way through endless decades of petty arguing.

You can't reasonably expect anybody to actually know the laws by the books, be able to talk in latin tounges and toungefuck the judge just right.

Yet everybody who isn't a fucking harvard lawyer knows how to stay out of prison.

So how about instead of conforming to the archaic legal system we fix it so we don't even need lawyers?

yes, what's your point?

>So how about instead of conforming to the archaic legal system we fix it so we don't even need lawyers?

Brilliant. Let's have a system where when the government accuses you of a crime and wants to put you in jail for 20 years, you don't have the right to have an expert defend you, because who needs that?

Lawyers exist because in countries where the rule of law is strong (which I'd hope you agree is unambiguously a good thing), we like to have experts do their best to make sure that the correct outcome is reached under the law. A system where someone with no training in the law can do as well as someone with years of training is probably a system with a pretty shitty, vague, unfair legal system.

How do you propose to make new laws without people knowing what laws are about?

A lot of legal cases aren't about sending people to prison for crimes they've done. But instead conflicts of interest, like arguing neighbours. Making the law fit every single scenario would be impossible. What if one of the neighbours didn't know his rights? What if one of them was retarded or otherwise incapable of defending themselves? What if it's two corporations arguing? You need lawyers to act as representatives.

My point is don't have too much faith in physical money. They're slowly becoming more and more inconvenient.

As I said before, cut lawyers off because they aren't necessary. Also it's not good to have professional arguers try to spin your case with all their dirty tactics. If you end up in court both parties involved will have to explain themselves.

If you end up in court why shouldn't you be expected to just explain yourself? I don't believe any law you aren't able to understand/didn't legitimately know about is fair. If the laws/court isn't fair you will be fucked either way

>I don't believe any law you aren't able to understand/didn't legitimately know about is fair.

So ignorant people are immune from laws that knowledgable people are liable under. Different people are subject to different laws, solely based on their personal knowledge, a factor entirely within their control. It's in your best interest to remain as ignorant as you possible can.

Not a great system, I'd argue.

I don't really care to explain every single scenario. My point is that lawyers are dumb as fuck for various reasons stated in this thread.

And the only reason money is slowly declining in popularity is because bankers have been trying to make themselves the middleman in every transaction by pushing credit cards. This has all kinds of benefits for them. I typically use cash because I hate that idea.

No. They are common sense. I've never actually looked into what the actual laws are. I know you can't rob people and sell drugs.

Anything that isn't obvious, is a problem. Before making it your fault for being ignorant of the law, the government should try to inform you of this law so that it actually would be your fault

This whole thread is bait and one big meme. OP is literally a retard who sells shit to hipsters, no dignified response needed.
/thread

Next week lets argue about why Karl Marx is the greatest economists in history.

I hope this has been a bait thread tbqh. I hope OP finds peace one day in his law of the jungle style utopia.

He didn't even mention the true slimy devils. Consultants and marketers

MLM, telemarketing, certain sales, that's far fucking worse than just a lawyer. fuck.

>CEO trying to make money
The objective of a corporation is to raise shareholders' value. It's how capitalism efficiently functions.
Accountants serve to manage costs and benefits effectively to maximize profits. They also choose the best methods for taxpaying, work to comply with federal regulations, and work to assure investors that data is accurate, real, and reliable.
In addition to this, accountants report the information on which essentially all financial markets are based.
The real question is this: what the fuck would you do without accountants?

No, it's illegal because it's a scam. Not because "it doesn't produce anything".

>use specific legal terms that have been in use for hundreds of years
>we should getbrid of that so its just two plebs screeching at each other instead

And how, pray tell, do you prevent that happening in your utopia

>yer honer, I say date Pete dun kilt muh wife
>nuh huh, I wer no wer nayer
>yer honer, der cops dun say they dun founded some o Peter D un A on the shovel wot kilt her
>I dun no ow dat got dere
>DNA evidence huh? That always proves them guilty on CSI! Your honor, the jury finds the defendant guilty!

>as for accountants: how the fuck is moving invisible numbers around a job?

confirmed for not knowing shit about accountants.

Pic related, might as well be you.

>I work at a greenhouse and we produce food (albeit niche food for hipsters) and plants and shit
(You) don't produce food. (You) don't produce anything of value. (You) provide labour hours to your employer. All (You) do is set up and care for the actual organism that is responsible for the product, unless you're a manager or serve some other function to the business, in which case you're just a parasite on the backs of the Juans and Pajeets actually tending the greenhouse.

Either way, why is it always the retards on the bottom that bitch about people who do things they never could?

You're describing what is known as "creative accounting", which is a view popularized in the media. In reality, accounting is very boring work. If you have ever been responsible for taking inventory at your workplace, that's basically what an accountant does, except they take inventory of all the money coming in to the business from clients and all the money going out and being spent on purchasing/repair/taxes/etc. Quit being a fucking retard.

Then who the fuck does produce food?

In a greenhouse? The plants.

And who produces the plans?