As is your self-appointment to Minister of Appropriateness on top of Most Worthy Viceroy of Spread Width (et al).
Man, get a hold of yourself.
Isn't it the same old story: whenever any private individuals dare question the practices of large, powerful brokerage firms, name-calling almost immediately enters the discussion in aid of the defense against any scrutiny. Those of you who continue questioning Wall Street practices, I can all-but guarantee that within a few more posts you will be alternatively called any of the following:
- sick
- sociopathic
- demented
- crazed
- paranoid
- in need of help
- deranged
- unbalanced
- psychotic
It never fails...
I don't think anyone is above the law. In fact, your paternal, knee-jerking, interventionist approach is far more likely to provide exceptions to and loopholes around the administration of justice than mine would.
Come again? Where did I express an "interventionist approach"? I simply pointed out that the Nasdaq Price Fixing Scandal was not some isolated events in back offices. Those who steal should be punished. Simple. Or do you disagree? Do you think artificially manipulating stock prices is acceptable? I am sure the brokerage firms feel it is.
The equity dealing desks of 30 firms indicate a "street-wide" phenomenon? LOL.
Let's see who was charged:
+ Alex Brown
+ Bear, Stearns
+ Cantor, Fitzgerald
+ Cowen
+ CS First Boston
+ Dean Witter
+ DLJ
+ Goldman Sachs
+ Herzog
+ Jeffries
+ J.P. Morgan
+ Kemper
+ Kidder, Peabody
+ Legg, Mason
+ Lehman
+ Mayer & Schweitzer
+ Merrill Lynch
+ Montgomery
+ Morgan Stanley
+ Oppenheimer
+ Paine Webber
+ Piper
+ Prudential
+ Robertson Stephens
+ Salomon Brothers
+ Smith Barney
+ UBS
That sounds like just about every famous name on Wall Street to me. What do you think?
And that save for those meant to protect against fraud or physical harm/coercion - I'm saying that the former two are exceptions to the rule - virtually all that regulatory bodies focusing on markets, businesses and social orders really offer is a bureaucratic hole for taxpayers' dollars and a constantly grinding shellgame of individual liberties.
So basically what you would do is toss out our entire legal system with the "exceptions" - a bow to civilization, lest we return to the Dark Ages, no doubt - of laws pertaining to fraud and violence? Well, it is the dream of some in our society isn't it? That the laws constraining their immoral pursuits simply would just disappear. Not likely.
For thoe of you who are interested, here is the complaint, "IN RE: NASDAQ MARKET-MAKERS ANTITRUST LITIGATION":
www-snde.rutgers.edu |
