Frank, I clearly explained my dislike of lawyers. My thesis remains that the average joe, fresh out of college, has to go to law school if he is not good at math and is squeamish around blood. I also argue that more lawyers creates the need for even more lawyers, just to keep them in cheque. I like how we gave Propanal a proper schooling. I predict he won’t have the gusto to post more of his doubletalk around here. Fancy words do little to hide the fact that he probably drives a large automobile or harley. His law degree doesn’t help when confronted with raw, brute force brainpower and common sense. I doubt any more lawyers will dare to chime in so this thread will likely die even though in my mind it has already gone on 20+ pages. Don’t ask me what kind of drugs I’m on.
JDV, your objections against economic theory (complete informaton and rationality/equal intelligence) are very common indeed. now we can’t discuss the model on here. but if you can come up with a better model depicting increase in efficiency/economic productivty without these compete agreemetns and find them on rational or reasonable assumptions, i’m pretty sure you can get a publication. i’ve tried to model unequal intelligence and choice, but failed. intelligence is hard to model in an economic setting and i think that is one of the things they’re diong in evolutionary economics.you’re smarter, you might be able to come up with that. if you can shed light…a nobel prize might be waiting, though it is only in economics.
Frank - That’s just dumb. Non-competes aren’t predicated on economic theory or anybody’s desire for optimal allocation of anything. They are manipulative devices used by employers to make it hard for employees to leave. Do you really think that you can be condescending to me about economic theory?
Is this fair? Employer hires Employee to manage money. Employer spends money training, paying for liability insurance, infrastructure, etc. Employee uses employer phone to call clients, make contacts, sign them up. Employer decides to leave. Employer calls up old clients and contacts and tells them to go with them. If you don’t want non-compete clauses, it’s going to be tough for any employer to hire anyone, or trust any employee. Also, is it not true that an employee has a freedom to accept employment from employer who has a non-compete? Can’t the employee go start their own firm? Or wait, if that employee starts their own firm, would they not want their employees to sign a non-compete? Non-competes are predicated on freedom to contract, period, and freedom to contract is predicated on economic theory and optimal allocation.
JDV, firstly, no one is trying to be condescending. i never try to be. if i wanted to insult you, it’ll be no problem. we can throw insults at each other for decades and nothing good will result from it. i honestly think you’re missing something here. all i’m saying is that according to economic logic (right or wrong) non competes increases efficiency similar to how patents increase economic efficiency. if you can prove with some real solid logic that non competes creates inefficiency, then go ahead and prove it to those who disagree (generally speaking, neoclassical economist). don’t come on here and talk about how this and that is the case by using basic intuition. i understand your point, but your point is filled with a set of assumptions that overlook the general nature of things. once again, if you can prove otherwise, go ahead and publish.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ChadD Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > To be honest Joey, you’re pulling a lot of arm > > chair legal knowledge out of your ass right > now. > > You are Monday morning QBing the legal world > with > > no real experience of the inner workings of law > > offices. You have friends of friends or one or > two > > run ins with the legal world and you’ve > formulated > > the same opinion of the legal profession that > we > > bash some of the general public for their > > understanding of the markets. And while my ears > > pick up when you start talking stats, math, FI > and > > derivatives, this really isn’t your area of > > expertise. > > And legal bills myself that are ocnsiderably above > your net worth. So?
Idiot lawyers had to pay zillions to go to law school & suffer through studying bs ethics type cases (imagine: the worst part of the CFA process… but times 1000), so when they go to work at a law firm they have to figure out how to screw over as many people as possible to get both a payback on their investment and for all the abuse they take.
virginCFAhooker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Idiot lawyers had to pay zillions to go to law > school & suffer through studying bs ethics type > cases (imagine: the worst part of the CFA > process… but times 1000), so when they go to > work at a law firm they have to figure out how to > screw over as many people as possible to get both > a payback on their investment and for all the > abuse they take. This called “Ad Hominem”. Never works in an argument, and is not a valid argument. It’s what teenagers do, actually. I think CFA should add a section of logic and common sense to its curriculum.
BosyBillups… I CALL BS. Just because you know a fancy word to describe what I wrote doesn’t mean it is not valid. How come lawyers and doctors, who suffer so much when they’re young, always have the most viscious mid-life crises? Answer: Because their job sucks and they realize that they pee’d away the best years of their life.
I just looked up ad hominem… I didn’t mean to attack anyone. I’m just trying to explain why lawyers are so devious and evil.
virginCFAhooker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BosyBillups… I CALL BS. Just because you know a > fancy word to describe what I wrote doesn’t mean > it is not valid. > > How come lawyers and doctors, who suffer so much > when they’re young, always have the most viscious > mid-life crises? > > Answer: Because their job sucks and they realize > that they pee’d away the best years of their life. Now doctors are to blame? Can’t the same be said about any profession. Generalizing about miners, lawyers, financial executives, gardeners. Can’t they all have a vicious mid-life crisis? Having job that sucks is probably in the eye of the beholder. There are many lawyers and doctors who love what they do. I’d stop generalizing and start thinking. Your logic: Premise: I got sued Premise: I had to pay a lot of money to defend the suit Premise: Everyone hates lawyers Premise: Lawyers hate their jobs, and Doctors. Premise: They use big fancy words Premise: Lawyer’s are stupid Conclusion: I hate lawyers Nothing in there leads me to believe that you understand exactly what lawyers do, or their role in business or society. It’s just sloppy thinking.
virgin, there is only 1 way to settle this.
virginCFAhooker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just looked up ad hominem… I didn’t mean to > attack anyone. I’m just trying to explain why > lawyers are so devious and evil. When you are calling lawyers devious and evil, you are certainly attacking someone.
Virgin, ps - I’m not trying to pick on you. You share a general consensus of the population. There are valid reasons not to like lawyers, especially that devious ones. But disliking lawyers for the sake of them being lawyers them is not a good reason. And I’m not going to change your mind, but at least I tried 
If you’re like so many other passionless college graduates who wants to move up in the world then you do what’s on TV, i.e. choose to be like Allie McBiel, because you can’t do algebra and blood makes you faint. You get trapped. You are now stuck reading case law and writing opinions for the rest of your life. You have $150k student loan. Your law firm expects you to put in 60 hours per week. Your dog is overweight.
i think there is a lack of rationality going on here. not all lawyers are bad and their profession is definitely needed. however, the world isn’t perfect and either is the practice of law. that’s just life.
I’m with JoeyDVivre here. Here is an example. If someone signs a contract to be another person’s slave since the lack of food that contract is not enforceable in the court of law. You can’t enforce any contract, which deprives another person of his/her basic “natural” (or God-given) rights. And working in his/her field of expertise to make a living is a “natural” right. You don’t have to be a Ph.D. to understand that. No surprise that some lawyers on this board as BosyBillups don’t understand simple logic
^^^ Yes, this is in course of normal actions. If there are extraordinary circumstances such as for example a war then another rules apply to the concept of “natural” rights.
non compete agreements is being another’s “slave”…???
torontosimpleguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’m with JoeyDVivre here. Here is an example. If > someone signs a contract to be another person’s > slave since the lack of food that contract is not > enforceable in the court of law. You can’t enforce > any contract, which deprives another person of > his/her basic “natural” (or God-given) rights. And > working in his/her field of expertise to make a > living is a “natural” right. You don’t have to be > a Ph.D. to understand that. No surprise that some > lawyers on this board as BosyBillups don’t > understand simple logic Absolutely correct. Can’t enter into a contract that is contra public policy, i.e., I promies to be your slave if… However, as stated, contracts that are “unreasonable”, i.e., you can’t work in finance ever again, will probably be unenforceable. Can you admit that if you voluntarily agree not to compete based upon some condition, that you will be bound by that? " You are speaking as though one who enters into a contract is entering it under durress, or coercion,. fraud, etc. If this is the case, the contract will be void. Did you know that, son?