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 Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (257573)	6/30/2010 1:44:56 AM
From: grusum	Respond to of 306849

"Legalize it, tax it, sell it like booze or tobacco. Turn a liability into an asset (especially since we grow the best weed in the world in the US). Save billions on enforcement, make billions in taxes, create new legitimate jobs that will also create tax revenues." another positive aspect is that it would shrink the power of the drug lords and lessen crime. as a matter of fact, the drug lords would be the first ones to put out a hit on any politician that tried to legalize drugs. they wouldn't stand for being put out of business.

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (257573)	6/30/2010 2:15:37 AM
From: Lazarus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

then - hopefully - poor old guys like me... ... if we cant succeed at trading can at least be employed as walmart greeters. huffingtonpost.com

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (257573)	6/30/2010 3:20:38 AM
From: NOW	Respond to of 306849

you kiddin? Law enforcement and organized crime would both be up in arms

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (257573)	6/30/2010 7:58:17 AM
From: Smiling Bob	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

create new legitimate jobs ---- Head doobie roller? Resin removal and restoration Screen cleaner Dorito delivery man Seed screeder

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (257573)	6/30/2010 9:12:21 AM
From: DebtBomb	Respond to of 306849

They're not that smart patron. Not only that but those that would get hurt seek job security (DEA, ATF, etc..) and will try to line congress's pocket to keep anything like that from happening. It's like a flat tax and the IRS. And congress writes all of these crazy tax laws to keep CPA's and others in job security. IMO, the IRS, Dept. of Energy, and The Dept. of Education should be dismantled. But....the gov't is more interested in showing more gov't employees hired in the employment report than anything else. No one will do the right thing. Look at frivolous lawsuits....what a waste....only lawyers and insurance companies win....everyone wants something for nothing. Fuk it....we collapse.

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (257573)	6/30/2010 1:02:56 PM
From: JBTFD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

The only thing in the way is that way too much money is being made with things as they are.

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (257573)	6/30/2010 2:45:37 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

Volcker Said to Be Unhappy With New Version of Rule (Update1) By Yalman Onaran June 30 (Bloomberg) -- Paul Volcker is disappointed with the final version of the rule that bears his name. As first envisioned, the Volcker rule would have banned banks from running private-equity and hedge funds, an attempt to curb risk-taking that fueled the financial crisis. Last-minute congressional negotiations aimed at winning Republican support led to a compromise that allows banks to invest up to 3 percent of their capital in such funds. Volcker, the 82-year-old former Federal Reserve chairman, didn’t expect the proposal to be diluted so much, said a person with knowledge of his views. He’s content with language that bans banks from trading with their own capital, the person said. “The Volcker rule started out as a hard-and-fast rule on risky trades and investments,” said Anthony Sanders, a finance professor at George Mason University School of Management in Fairfax, Virginia. “But through negotiations, it was weakened and ended up with many loopholes.” Democratic Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Jeff Merkley of Oregon were also dissatisfied with the result, for the same reasons as Volcker, according to two people with knowledge of negotiations, speaking anonymously because they weren’t authorized to comment to the press. The two lawmakers introduced language that decreased the ability of regulators to water down a final version of the rule and provisions to prevent banks from bailing out failed hedge funds. ‘Particular Interest’ Lobbying by banks and congressmen sympathetic to Wall Street’s views, as well as some administration members in the banks’ defense, trampled the views of Volcker and others who favored a stronger proposal, the people said. President Barack Obama introduced the rule in January with Volcker, now one of his economic advisers, standing beside him. That was after the House had already passed its version of the financial reform bill, and so the rule was only included at first in the Senate package. In the final version, U.S. banks including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Citigroup Inc. may have as long as a dozen years to reduce stakes in hedge funds and private-equity units, lawyers say. Volcker said in a statement released June 28 that the bill agreed upon by congressional negotiators “provides a constructive legal framework for reform of the financial system.” Among its provisions “are strong restraints on proprietary trading by commercial banking organizations, a point that has been of particular interest to me,” Volcker said, without mentioning the hedge-fund side of the rule. He declined to comment beyond the statement. Brown’s Request Scott Brown, the Massachusetts senator who was among four Republicans voting in favor of the Senate bill, demanded some of the changes to the Volcker rule. Lawmakers yesterday reconvened the House-Senate conference on the financial-overhaul bill to eliminate a $19 billion bank fee that drew objections from Brown and other Republicans. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the second-largest U.S. bank by assets, operates the world’s biggest hedge fund, according to the 2009 rankings of AR magazine, an industry trade publication. The New York-based firm’s hedge funds had $50 billion of assets under management as of Jan. 1, the magazine reported in March. Goldman Sachs’s hedge funds, which ranked ninth on the list, had $21 billion. To contact the reporters on this story: Yalman Onaran in New York at yonaran@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: June 30, 2010 12:31 EDT

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (257573)	6/30/2010 3:52:23 PM
From: NOW	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

THE REAL REASON THAT LEGALIZATION WONT HAPPEN? " “It’s the banks laundering money for the cartels that finances the tragedy,” says Martin Woods, director of Wachovia’s anti-money-laundering unit in London from 2006 to 2009. Woods says he quit the bank in disgust after executives ignored his documentation that drug dealers were funneling money through Wachovia’s branch network. “If you don’t see the correlation between the money laundering by banks and the 22,000 people killed in Mexico, you’re missing the point,” Woods says. Cleansing Dirty Cash Wachovia is just one of the U.S. and European banks that have been used for drug money laundering. For the past two decades, Latin American drug traffickers have gone to U.S. banks to cleanse their dirty cash, says Paul Campo, head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s financial crimes unit. " bloomberg.com