True, but that doesn't make me much happier
The legal constraints on behaviour that used to provide protection have been lifted. Many disasters have been rescued in a series of spectacular bail-outs. There is a moral hazard involved in repeatedly rescuing investors - it encourages them to take even bigger risks. But if the risks become too much larger, a bailout may become impossible.
Furthermore the USA as a whole has a whole series of structural economic problems, for instance the persistent large current trade deficits that add to (what I think is) the unsustainable debt levels that we'll have to pay eventually.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]