and equality and fairness
Equality and fairness must always skew towards the consumer. Suppliers know the risk of doing business, a customer is not doing business, a customer IS the business. To let a company take money for nothing is a crime, and should be outlawed, creditors be damned.
When a consumer walks into a store, they are a walking wallet, looking at price tags, not an investor. Capitalism by definition is based on deception and antagonism. Consumer protection exists to try to achieve parity, or as close to as possible, by limiting the ways a business can deceive consumers.
I can't imagine how anyone aside from a creditor of said business could support this atrocity. Either businesses selling gift cards should be forced to pay out interest on the "loan", funds should have to be retained to pay them out before any and all other debt considerations, or merchants selling them should be forced to make all internal communication regarding financial health public.
There is no other way. For anyone to accept that taking someone's money and giving nothing in return is just is to accept that we all exist to serve business interests, as opposed to the other way around.
WE the people ALLOW corporations to form. Their charters are validated by the governments WE elect. They survive because WE vote for them with our money.
To allow something like this to happen, where merchandise is available, and gift cards are not being accepted is ludicrous. What, are we supposed to check financial insiders before buying a gift card, or consult our investment advisor? Give me a fucking break.
It is certainly incorrect to suggest a supplier would have more financial information than a consumer, but I can understand why you would think that.
Also, it is VERY fucking correct that a supplier would have more financial information regarding a partners financial health than a consumer, but I can understand why a capitalist pig like you would think otherwise.
I am sorry if I have upset you. I guess firstly, having called me a capitalist pig, I should clarify my political views. I certainly live in a capitalist country, I may well be a pig. On the political compass I am left and liberal/anarchist. I am a member of the Australian Greens Party, which is the most left leaning and liberal of any of the mainstream and semi-mainstream political parties in my country (although many would accuse it of being anything but mainstream).
Consumer has a broad definition. I company can be a consumer. In my view, equality and fairness must skew to those who are less powerful and disadvantaged. In my view that means, individuals or natural persons. But those individuals must also be aware of their rights. Ignorant consumers do not help anyone.
Suppliers do know the risk of doing business. Consumers should also know the risks of consuming. I know that whenever I order something to be delivered there is a possibility that the company supplying it will go under before it arrives and I will be included in the pool of creditors with all other creditors. It happens more often than you might realise. It is not particularly difficult to understand. Any consumer who goes into a transaction ignorant of the risks, can really only blame themselves. It's not rocket surgery.
A consumer is a vital part of a capitalist economy. The consumers who purchased HMV vouchers didn't do so because the needed the goods that HMV supplied, they did it because they wanted to purchase a luxury item or give a gift that would allow another person to purchase a luxury item. Those consumers are a cog in the capitalist machine and to suggest otherwise is absurd.
It should be clarified that if, for example, consumers who purchase gift cards are given priority to other creditors, it is not to the detriment of the company, but to the detriment of other creditors. That includes, for example, other consumers who may have purchased goods on lay-by/lay away or people who have paid for goods yet to be delivered, or a person running a small business who has supplied some goods and not been paid. They miss out because their share of the funds from the liquidation would be returned to the gift card holder, in goods or in cash.
In my view, all of those persons are victims of the liquidation. I don't feel that one should be advantaged to the detriment of others, but that is exactly what you are advocating. I just can't see how you can suggest a person who buys a gift card should benefit at the cost of a consumer who has ordered goods and not received them.
You say that it shouldn't be accepted that people should take someone's money and give them nothing in return, yet you take no issue with doing that in the examples I have mentioned above. You also don't seem to have an issue with a corporation taking something someone may have spent days making and giving them nothing in return. These are all consequences of a company going into liquidation. Now if you are suggesting a company should not be permitted to go into liquidation, that is an entirely different discussion. All I am speaking to is whether one creditor should have priorities over others.
I don't know why you keep referring to the person that is supplying goods as a "partner". They are not partners. There can be as much inequality in that relationship as in a consumer relationship. I don't know how you can suggest that an individual who may supply home made products to a large multinational corporation can somehow get access to that corporation's financial information.