LP, it sounds like you are arguing just to argue.
Well, I have a point to make, as you do - and I think I've made it, which isn't contingent on making someone agree with it. As for "arguing just to argue," well, that's pretty much all SI is, isn't it? A cauldron of (typically) dissenting opinions?
Either that or you are a pretty scary guy.
Don't be afraid, Dave. If what I say scares you - whether or not you agree with it - then you've at least considered what I've said, which is good.
You are pretty naive if you think personal responsibility is enough to prevent criminals from committing criminal acts.
After all these posts, you think I'm advocating personal responsibility on the part of criminals? ROFL!!!!!!
You've got it entirely backwards...can't say I'm surprised, though.
I find that many people like you tend to see almost everything in extremes, instead of shades of gray.
I think that advocating additional layers of regulation on top of piles of such (Act of 33, Act of 34, et al) which haven't worked terribly well is pretty extreme. Arguing for an about face via a new approach (really, a return to Constitutionality) seems a bit progressive, don't you think?
Your shades of gray can only achieved via forced social and commercial engineering. You may classify my worldview as being 'black and white,' but I see a world in which the major forces of making and breaking people, businesses, and nations are hard work, luck, and interaction - not, as your bemoaning of some imperative, manufactured "fairness" and "equality" in the business world would apparently have it - of spasmodic, politically engineered redistribution.
Your shades of gray are tinged with red.
You also draw conclusiong [sic] that are biased and way out there.
That's an opinion, which you are of course welcome to. If my conclusions are biased, then that's because I have a perspective that has been molded by my personal experiences. Would you, conversely, represent yourself as a selfless hero, working for the "little guy" by starting this thread, or are you, too, a product of your experiences?
That's part of the problem leading to your unwittingly socialist inclination. You apparently see "bias" - a pejorative term, but we'll use it here - as unnatural, bad, or somehow wrong - both from the previous statement and your continuing insistence that equality in the markets is somehow, or somewhere, guaranteed.
In fact, inequality of access, unevenness of advantage, and disproportionate performance are the only guarantees in most businesses - financial, entertainment, professional sports, and all others.
Prove me wrong, Dave. Show me where you, or anyone, are legitimately, legally, guaranteed 100% equal access and "fairness" in financial markets.
Quite the contrary, I don't think many, except you apparently, are against more regulation if it makes sense and brings a bit more fairness to the Markets.
LOL. I'm not alone, certainly not in the grand scope of political and social philosophies endorsing a move toward responsibility and away from larger government and less intervention in personal and business affairs.
By the way, Dave, why do you capitalize the word "market[s]"?
Do you think the majority is against...[recently failed energy firm]...officials being punished...
When you say "the majority," do you mean the majority of the the American public, the investment community, Silicon Investor participants, or who?
And regardless of that, your point is laughable in focus: do you, Dave, think that the number of people endorsing a certain viewpoint, by virtue of numbers or percentage alone, lends credence to that particular viewpoint?
...or those MM's who were involved in a massive price fixing a couple years back, and the resultant regulations that have been put in place by the NASD?
I've seen no evidence of price fixing which wasn't, or couldn't be, explained by competing academic theories based upon economics - as opposed to suspicions and the actions of a few.
As for the regulations put in place following the "price fixing" settlement - you're referring to the Order Handling Rules (1997). As for what the majority thinks about those regulations, well, the very fact that you started this thread ("MANIPULATION IS RAMPANT") hints to me that the meaty part of the bell curve isn't too secure in those regulations.
So what do they do? Cry out for more regulation.
Do you think that many investors are upset at Eliot Spitzer for going after analysts and the resultant regs that are likley going to be placed on analysts?
I'm sure that most investors are pleased with that action. Again, though - where did I say that my opinions are representative of the masses?
I gotta tell ya...you're sounding a bit collectivist, pal.
Do you think it is a bad idea to help standardize the way accounting is presented to investors? To eliminate the "Pro Forma" loopholes that hide how a company is really peforming?
No, I think those initiatives are worthwhole. I've said many times now that, as I see it, fraud is a legitimate legal target. To the extent that information in balance sheet is materially fabricated or omitted, it could very well be fraudulent.
Another problem is that even beside your apparent promotion of wealth for the masses and permitting the widespread mitigation of personal responsibility, you fail to separate the legal and commercial implications of fraud vs. "price fixing."
Do you believe, as you seem to be implying, that there is no one in our government that is capable of passing sound regulations or enforcing them?
Yup, that's what I believe. Outside of physical/property protection, the pursuit of fraud, and the reduction of coercion - the government has between little and no skill, wisdom, or right to burden the people with inherently arbitrary, unconstitutional regulations.
I don't believe in antitrust, I don't believe in helmet laws, I don't believe in making dying people wait years for experimental drugs to be made available, and I don't believe in
Your following statement is pretty scary stuff and dangerous stereotypical thought that I hear from time to time.
My statements are "dangerous"?
Congratulations. You've made the cut.
So you think that many individual investors are fools
who will fritter away their money anyway, so regulations to protect them are worthless?
Yes, I think many individual investors will find a way to lose their money no matter what regulations are put in place.
And, as that is the case - and so long as people additionally buy lottery tickets, gamble in casinos, play the ponies, bet on sports, take out ridiculous insurance policies, and start businesses (about 95% of which fail within 5 years) - and have for thousands of years: why should my freedoms suffer for what is a fundamental human condition?
Not only are those regulations worthless, but they do more harm than good. Enter, as I always say, the Law of Unintended Consequences - as so often at the behest of ill-conceived, kneejerk regulations.
That's sad and shows your true colors.
If anything is sad, it's that such a fundamental concept - freedom from an overreaching government via personal, local responsibility - is rapidly becoming the exception to the rule. But I'll take my true colors over what seems increasingly apparent is your true <font color=red>color</font>.
Have a great weekend,
L. |
