SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor
GDXJ 98.59-2.8%Nov 13 4:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Rarebird who wrote (57824)9/3/2000 11:06:44 AM
From: long-gone  Read Replies (3) of 116762
 
You have written , here-in, that it is not outside the law for the shorts to maintain a short position or use the power of their recommendation to prevent investment in precious metals. To this I must now, in retrospect, agree & disagree.

Before we can fully know the answer to the above issue, perhaps we must first know the outcome of the manipulation and the answer to the qestions:
"Which of these operations is insured by the FDIC?"
"Should any banking operation whose rules and base fall outside the US & is thereby not fully bound by US Banking Regulstion be directly or inderectly insured by the US?"
"Is it possible is is really 'Different this time', and manipulation will not in the end in subline failure and thus these are not excessive risks?" - A part of this is already known as we have seen the Internet issues did not "Grow to the sky".

Perhaps, though, we need not wait for the failure of the manipulation for there to be a finding of fault.
There are laws against taking excessive risk with an institution secured against failure in the greater public interest through the greater pubilc insurance. Perhaps as all manipulation has always failed through history, the law against excessive risk has already been broken?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext