Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Final Frontier - Online Remote Trading -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KymarFye who wrote (10064)	4/28/2002 12:55:16 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12617

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.