MMM Receives Legal Threats

Not as plaintiff, where there own legal costs are less than the amount at issue.

As a defendant, maybe, or a plaintiff in a case where the costs of prosecution outweigh the potential recovery, yes. (The former is clearly undesirable, the latter less clearly so.)

OTOH, with this change, it makes the position of the (largely mythical) certain-to-win party (plaintiff or defendant) somewhat better, while making a significantly less wealthy party worse off in pretty much every other case.

The outline of the current system, where awards of costs have a higher standard than just "whoever wins also gets costs". That's not to say that there aren't tweaks to the details of when costs and/or additional sanctions for abuses are awarded that would make the current system better, but switching to loser pays as a rule isn't one of them.

"Frivolous" is not an objective descriptor and, therefore, this is not a statement which can be made empirically. At any rate, a higher rate of meritless lawsuits is an intentionally-accepted cost of minimizing the disincentive to pursue potentially meritorious lawsuits.

This is a value difference between the USA and countries that use loser pays.

> If I do a lawsuit against Google and they spend $10 billion on it then I don't need to pay then $10 billion.

Unless the lawyers Google spends billions on can convince the judge that those expenses were reasonably necessary to effectively prosecute the case -- and, incidentally, lawyers that are more proficient at convincing judges that their fees are reasonable will, have higher fees.

> There is a reason why virtually all modern democracies except the US use loser pays.

Yes, becaue most modern democracies value avoidance of private legal action more and effective venue of redress of legitimate disputes less than the US. Loser pays is a method of disincentivizing filing suits in general (it increases the expected costs for the plaintiff, particularly) as well as tilting the balance toward deeper-pockets litigants generally.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/08/mr-money-mustaches... http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/10/post-4-what-am-i-s... http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/11/getting-started-2-...

Just the first few, it goes on.

To specifically answer your questions, you will find the answers in various posts on that site, but you will have to put in the time to read them.

And I agree with the sentiment expressed in one of these above links that the boilerplate of the advice will be found in many personal finance/retire early books. To me, this is a confirmation of what I would consider basic elements or basic truths. And much of it can be common sense, like paying off a high interest rate loan before lower interest rate loans. Or making due with the car/house I currently have, rather than saddling myself with a newer/bigger car/house. I have heard someone refer to this as the process of "striving," rather than the process of "arriving:" It can seem like we never have enough.

I am very fortunate to be male and in the United States, as I have read repeatedly that the world is not fair and I have it far better than many other humans. For this, I am thankful. But I also put in the work.

My wife and I are using the methods we learned from Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad/Poor Dad series (which also has it's fans and detractors) and doing quite well. A four-plex we bought two years ago allowed us to pocket US$8000.00 last year, and yet legally claim a loss of $800 due to IRS rules for deferred taxes.

But the same core lessons can be found (for free) at http://www.financialintegrity.org. And as I said, when I see the same basic guidelines being repeated by so many different people, I conclude that there is likely to be some basic truths buried therein.

Good reading to you!