guru1000
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 5,362
- Reaction score
- 4,403
Many years ago, my ex-business partner stole my business. True story. And he was a "good" guy, from a good family, with "good" values.Vet all you want, there are no guarantees.
Thus, according to you, having "good" values and from a good family does not mean anything, correct? This is the fallacy.
Since then, I vetted nine other business partners, and we had lucrative relationships.
If a portfolio lender vetted their debtors and had a 92% success rate and an 8% default rate, does the lender state "vetting is useless" because we had a 8% default rate?
You backwards-rationalize based on a default, and ascribe it partially to vetting. This doesn't change the premise that vetting is absolutely necessary in any endeavor to mitigate--not eliminate--your risk.
The court system operates by its case law or by prenup. No one in this thread promotes being subject to the current family laws without a contract a/k/a prenup of your own, and how to navigate the prenup as well as corporate structures, thus steering the court system to your advantage.Howiestern said:For man, marriage is a legal contract on a depreciating asset that has about a 50% chance of failure with a court system acting in the woman's favor when it does fail.
Unfortunately, you were a statistic of default with no protective umbrella (prenup, corporate structures) just as I was many years ago when my business partner who I vetted screwed me over (as I also had no protective umbrella). Neither default encompasses the argument we are making here.
Last edited: