Who knows what they paid Rich to smear?

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 06 Nov 2009 17:12:42 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Nov 4, 11:04*pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
One reason (amongst many) that I've hated Intel for ages. *I haven't
used one of their processors since the 386.

Intel in threats and bribery suit

Intel is facing a federal lawsuit that accuses it of using "illegal
threats" to dominate microchip sales.

And?

Do you also show any outrage for corrupt Republican politicians who
protect and abet corporate monopolies?

Of course not.

Well, it wasn't the Republicans who caused the banking crisis

Yes it is. Rightards are opposed to regulation. Lack of regulation
left the banks free to screw over the US.

The problem lies (pun intended) in lack of moral scruples and you
can't regulate for this.

You can, actually It's called "prison".

I hope you are not trying to argue that if it's not illegal then it
must be moral. That attitude is part of the problem.

More along the lines of "enforce 'moral' behavior with the threat of
prison."

--
Ray Fischer

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:07:00 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:16:44 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

The problem lies (pun intended) in lack of moral scruples and you
can't regulate for this. The banks were only part of the problem. The
hedge funds played a bigger part.
A larger part coupled to the derivatives market where everyone is
backing everyone else and, most importantly, there are, for practical
reasons, no reserve requirements. It is this last area that needs
regulation most because it dangles at the sharp edge of risk all of the
time. Play 1000:1 odds long enough and it will come up. (aka: "The
Black Swan").

And then there is 'naked' shorting. Many good companies were pulled
down by speculators gambling with shares that did not exist.

Naked shorts is an aberration and should be banned, but I don't think
there was that much volume being shorted.

Naked shorting has been banned several times but the ban has not been
enforced - there is too much money to be made from the practice. There
have been a number of companies where on occasions the quantitity of
naked shorts exceeded the issued stock. If my memory serves me
correctly, naked shorts were a significant factor in pulling down
Lehman Brothers.

Much more evil is the privileged info stream that some of the trading
houses have allowing them about 30 milliseconds advantage in seeing
market bids, giving them time to place buy and sell orders ahead of
orders from the rest of us. It doesn't "really" affect our portfolio
performance, but it gives them billions of trades per month where they
get a price advantage of pennies.

This should be outright banned as a gamed system. It is sucking cash
out of the system like a death of a million mosquito bites.

example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/bu...24trading.html
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...ing.ready.html

In sum, where the financial markets are "creative" it is creative about
sucking money out of the system to be reinvested way out of reach of the
markets from whence it was taken. Regulation needs to be "just right"
but it has to be everywhere in the system.



Eric Stevens

On 07 Nov 2009 18:30:42 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 06 Nov 2009 17:12:42 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Nov 4, 11:04*pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
One reason (amongst many) that I've hated Intel for ages. *I haven't
used one of their processors since the 386.

Intel in threats and bribery suit

Intel is facing a federal lawsuit that accuses it of using "illegal
threats" to dominate microchip sales.

And?

Do you also show any outrage for corrupt Republican politicians who
protect and abet corporate monopolies?

Of course not.

Well, it wasn't the Republicans who caused the banking crisis

Yes it is. Rightards are opposed to regulation. Lack of regulation
left the banks free to screw over the US.

The problem lies (pun intended) in lack of moral scruples and you
can't regulate for this.

You can, actually It's called "prison".

I hope you are not trying to argue that if it's not illegal then it
must be moral. That attitude is part of the problem.

More along the lines of "enforce 'moral' behavior with the threat of
prison."

And what do you do with the new form of immoral behaviour for which a
rule has not been invented yet? It's what's called a 'loop hole'.



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:07:00 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:16:44 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

The problem lies (pun intended) in lack of moral scruples and you
can't regulate for this. The banks were only part of the problem. The
hedge funds played a bigger part.
A larger part coupled to the derivatives market where everyone is
backing everyone else and, most importantly, there are, for practical
reasons, no reserve requirements. It is this last area that needs
regulation most because it dangles at the sharp edge of risk all of the
time. Play 1000:1 odds long enough and it will come up. (aka: "The
Black Swan").
And then there is 'naked' shorting. Many good companies were pulled
down by speculators gambling with shares that did not exist.
Naked shorts is an aberration and should be banned, but I don't think
there was that much volume being shorted.

Naked shorting has been banned several times but the ban has not been
enforced - there is too much money to be made from the practice. There
have been a number of companies where on occasions the quantitity of
naked shorts exceeded the issued stock. If my memory serves me
correctly, naked shorts were a significant factor in pulling down
Lehman Brothers.

They were not banned before the current crisis and only banned briefly -
I'd have to check but they may be allowed again. However I've not seen
any claim that they were material in doing serious harm to anyone.
Lehman Brothers will killed with toxic bubble stock and they were the
company pretty much selected to be sacrificed.

Naked shorts should be banned as should the practice below which leaches
money out of the system based on privileged information access, not
investment prowess. This has much more effect on the market than naked
shorts. Both share the trait of not reflecting the real value of trades.


Much more evil is the privileged info stream that some of the trading
houses have allowing them about 30 milliseconds advantage in seeing
market bids, giving them time to place buy and sell orders ahead of
orders from the rest of us. It doesn't "really" affect our portfolio
performance, but it gives them billions of trades per month where they
get a price advantage of pennies.

This should be outright banned as a gamed system. It is sucking cash
out of the system like a death of a million mosquito bites.

example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/bu...24trading.html
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...ing.ready.html

In sum, where the financial markets are "creative" it is creative about
sucking money out of the system to be reinvested way out of reach of the
markets from whence it was taken. Regulation needs to be "just right"
but it has to be everywhere in the system.



Eric Stevens