If your implicit point is all that the financial world has left to say for itself[...]
I speak for myself, not for any element of the financial world.
[...]then we've seen only the beginning of its descent both in public esteem and in "real" terms, and the bear market's vicious circle - a lack of faith and a lack of returns feeding each other - may remain unbreakable for a very long time to come.
That may certainly be the case. It's part of the cycle, so why should this time be any different than those which followed other large market rises and subsequent, often rapid, declines?
As for the specific issue, I'm no lawyer, but some monomaniacally suicidal attorney general could probably make the behavior[...]in legitimizing and profiting from the great parabolic fraud, look a lot like racketeering if they were so disposed.
For the reasons I stated in the previous message, that's very unlikely. Why risk litigating an uncertain case (not only in outcome but in time to realization and costs) when the ability to impose a fine quickly is readily available?
My question is: (1) Is it a crime, let alone "fraud," when a car salesman talks up the virtues of a car to a customer on his lot, locks in a sale, and then walks into his breakroom blabbering about the car he just sold - which he personally (and openly, to his workmates, family, friends, and anyone but customers) hates the look and feel of?
Is it a crime, let alone "fraud," when a customer service representative - paid to be intolerably cheery, ebullient, and positive in her phone disposition - takes a break to script a caustic email to her spouse telling him in no uncertain terms how much she hates her job, wishes the damned customers would keel over, and disparages the lousy products she's supporting?
More importantly, (2) how consistent is it with the principles of liberty and freedom of speech to mandate, via regulatory initiative or law, that a business and its' agents "like," or "love," their offered products or services?
LP. |
