Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[bripat9643]

Someone needs to explain to you the concept and consequences of a power vacuum, and I don't mean that thing that cleans your rug.

Someone needs to explain to you the concept and consequences of socialism/fascism and central planning.

Good point.

Liberal policies never have negative consequences, do they?

 

[g5000]

How is it theft? I'd really love to see that explanation.

Ask any Enron employee.

Enron execs were convicted of outright fraud, not insider trading.

They were also convicted of insider trading.


]

I can give you an example. If a CEO knows his company's SPV's are going to blow up in his face in the near future, and he decides to start off-loading his company stock, he is stealing from everyone who buys that stock since they do not have the same information he does. He has perverted the price discovery process of a free market system.

Before I can respond to that, you'll have to explain what SPV's are.

Special Purpose Vehicle/Entity (SPV/SPE) Definition | Investopedia

They are what made Enron the zombie corporation it became.

.

 

[occupied]

I did not read anything about eliminating "police."

I read a post about markets and industry.

The following is the Libertarian platform statement about




By "cops clocking out" the reference is clearly about the Libertarian platform wishing to "divest government" of the regulatory functions that prevent market monopolies.

Yes I thought my use of metaphor was fairly obvious. Wall Street has shown again and again how willing they are to exploit loopholes in the law to commit fraud or more precisely it would be considered fraud if we were on top of the many aspects of their daily operations that benefit no one except the glorified used car salesmen who push their worthless paper as sound financial securities.

DC has shown again and again how willing they are to exploit or create loopholes in the law to become a gargantuan continuing criminal enterprise.

Yeah, that goes along with my continuing contention that we live in a plutocratic paradise already, no need to strip us of even the tenuous power we have to counter them.

 

[Contumacious]

a monopoly is a state granted privilege that would not exist in a free market.

It makes me sad to discover such remarkable ignorance:

MONOPOLY = exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action

A monopoly can be a state granted privilage, but there is nothing preventing a monopoly from existing in a free market whether or not the state grants any privilage. The only thing preventing a monopoly is a MARKET REGULATED BY THE STATE.

A free market is one without state regulation (thus the word "free" and not "regulated")

Libertarians believe in free markets.


Monopolies exist without state regulation (see Standard Oil, late 19th century)


Libertarians believe in monopolies.

Talk to us about Standard Oil of New Jersey

Who the fuck was complaining?

How did the Standard Oil of New Jersey become a monopoly when at its peak it only controlled 85% of the market?

If a corporation is able to control 85% of the market, WITHOUT STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS MANDATING THE SAME, then the corporation is doing the hell of a good job serving the marketplace, right?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
.

 

[bripat9643]

Enron execs were convicted of outright fraud, not insider trading.

They were also convicted of insider trading.

When the feds go after you, they throw every conceivable charge at you. That proves nothing. Let's take a more clear cut case: the conviction of Martha Stewart, for example. What "fraud" did she commit?

I can give you an example. If a CEO knows his company's SPV's are going to blow up in his face in the near future, and he decides to start off-loading his company stock, he is stealing from everyone who buys that stock since they do not have the same information he does. He has perverted the price discovery process of a free market system.

Before I can respond to that, you'll have to explain what SPV's are.

Special Purpose Vehicle/Entity (SPV/SPE) Definition | Investopedia

They are what made Enron the zombie corporation it became.

So if the executives are committing fraud by using gimmicks to hide losses, and then making trades based on their fraudulent activities, that proves insider trading is a form of fraud?

Nope, all that proves is that fraud is fraud.

 

[occupied]

Someone needs to explain to you the concept and consequences of a power vacuum, and I don't mean that thing that cleans your rug.

Someone needs to explain to you the concept and consequences of socialism/fascism and central planning.

Good point.

Liberal policies never have negative consequences, do they?

Sure they do, so does any kind of government policy, but nothing compares with the consequences of abandoning the citizenry to the questionable mercies of unprincipled opportunists as you suggest, insider fraudsters for example.

 

[g5000]

Enron execs were convicted of outright fraud, not insider trading.

They were also convicted of insider trading.

When the feds go after you, they throw every conceivable charge at you. That proves nothing. Let's take a more clear cut case: the conviction of Martha Stewart, for example. What "fraud" did she commit?

Before I can respond to that, you'll have to explain what SPV's are.

Special Purpose Vehicle/Entity (SPV/SPE) Definition | Investopedia

They are what made Enron the zombie corporation it became.

So if the executives are committing fraud by using gimmicks to hide losses, and then making trades based on their fraudulent activities, that proves insider trading is a form of fraud?

Nope, all that proves is that fraud is fraud.

I said that was one example. And the underlying concept has escaped you. There are many examples where insiders are privy to information not available to the people to whom they are buying from or selling stocks to.

If you know your company just won a big contract with the government and quickly buy stocks based on that knowlege, you know the stock is worth more than the asking price. The converse is also true. If you know something that makes the stock worth less than the current asking price and you sell your stock before that becomes known, you are stealing.

Insider trading is stealing.

.

 

[Contumacious]

I have heard many a Libertarian claim that insider trading is not fraud and should be legal

INSIDER TRADING

The SEC prohibits insider trading. Insider trading is defined as making a profit based on information that is not available to all the owners of publicly traded shares. The inside trader buys or sells in advance of a public announcement regarding information that will affect the price of the shares. The assumption underlying this definition is simple:

Accurate information should be treated as if it were a free resource. Everyone with ownership, no matter how small, in a publicly traded firm must have access to the same information at the same time, if this information can measurably affect the price of the shares.

This assumption is nuts. I mean it is off-the-wall ridiculous. It assumes that a business, which operates in terms of privately purchased and privately monitored information, must share this information with the public as soon as it becomes available. Can you imagine running any organization this way? Does any civil government operate this way? Of course not. But the regulators insist that publicly traded firms must not allow any shareholder with inside information to profit personally from this information until they all can."


Why didn't Obama share the insider information about the whereabouts of Osama with Pakistani authorities?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.STFU

.

 

[occupied]

I have heard many a Libertarian claim that insider trading is not fraud and should be legal

INSIDER TRADING

The SEC prohibits insider trading. Insider trading is defined as making a profit based on information that is not available to all the owners of publicly traded shares. The inside trader buys or sells in advance of a public announcement regarding information that will affect the price of the shares. The assumption underlying this definition is simple:

Accurate information should be treated as if it were a free resource. Everyone with ownership, no matter how small, in a publicly traded firm must have access to the same information at the same time, if this information can measurably affect the price of the shares.

This assumption is nuts. I mean it is off-the-wall ridiculous. It assumes that a business, which operates in terms of privately purchased and privately monitored information, must share this information with the public as soon as it becomes available. Can you imagine running any organization this way? Does any civil government operate this way? Of course not. But the regulators insist that publicly traded firms must not allow any shareholder with inside information to profit personally from this information until they all can."


Why didn't Obama share the insider information about the whereabouts of Osama with Pakistani authorities?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.STFU

.

Lol you are trying to assert that ripping people off with stock swindles is just fine, if the investment business ran entirely on buyer beware rules, no one would have a dime left in their retirement accounts and there is nothing you could do about it other than develop a taste for cat food in outdoor locations.

 

[Contumacious]

I certainly am not going to spend all evening explaining Standard Oil's predatory pricing to anyone: Look it the fuck up.

Here are a couple of educational video's to help you enlighten yourself as to why a Monoploy is not good:

Let me explain the difference between NATURAL AND COERCED MONOPOLIES

"John D. Rockefeller was able to reduce the price of kerosene from one dollar per gallon to ten cents per gallon. People could finally afford to illuminate their homes. Rockefeller also developed 300 products out of the waste that remained after the oil was refined. Claims that Rockefeller was an "unfair" competitor (whatever that means), the usual gripe of those who cannot deliver a product at prices that sufficiently please consumers, were laid to rest half a century ago in John S. McGee's study for the Journal of Law and Economics. (John S. McGee, "Predatory Price Cutting: The Standard Oil (N.J.) Case," Journal of Law and Economics 1 [October 1958]: 137—69.)"



Let me know if that was too complicated, and I'll try to find something with cartoons.



.

 

[Contumacious]

There certainly is something preventing monopolies from occurring in an unregulated market: the ability of competitors to enter that market and compete with any companies currently doing business in it.

It is this level of astonishing naivete that makes reading discussion boards so entertaining.

A monopolist creates something called "barriers to market entry."


Be a big boy: Look it up all by yourself.

You are right.

Providing great goods or services at a reasonable price is definitely a "barrier to market entry."

.

 

[Contumacious]

Insider trading is theft but they know that, no such thing as white collar crime to some of these plutocrat suck-ups.

How is it theft? I'd really love to see that explanation.

Ask any Enron employee.


I can give you an example. If a CEO knows his company's SPV's are going to blow up in his face in the near future, and he decides to start off-loading his company stock, he is stealing from everyone who buys that stock since they do not have the same information he does. He has perverted the price discovery process of a free market system.


.

Enron Whiners

by Tony Kondaks

Baloney About Employees Losses

Many commentators in the media have wailed on the observation that many Enron employees have seen their 401(k) plans go from $1,000,000+ down to a small fraction of that amount. What is NOT pointed out by these commentators is that those plans which experienced such large values were, of course, as a result of highly inflated stock prices which were run up as a result of a very real irrational exuberance that no one was complaining about when it was happening (and, I would add, reflected a 500 to 1 price/earnings ratio at one point).

Indeed, how much did these 401(k) plan owners ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE? If one were to examine the total amount of contributions an employee could have possibly put into the plan, I suggest to you that the figure is going to be much, much closer to what the current post-crash value of Enron stock is now compared to what the high point value was."

.

 

[Contumacious]

Someone needs to explain to you the concept and consequences of socialism/fascism and central planning.

Good point.

Liberal policies never have negative consequences, do they?

Sure they do, so does any kind of government policy, but nothing compares with the consequences of abandoning the citizenry to the questionable mercies of unprincipled opportunists as you suggest, insider fraudsters for example.

But you have no problem with abandoning he citizenry to the questionable mercies of unprincipled bureaucrats opportunists as you suggest, insider fraudsters for example.

May I remind you that Adolf Hitler was an elected bureaucrat . Does the number 6,000,000 murders upset you?

Has Microsoft or Bill Gates ever been accused of killing anyone?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[Contumacious]

I have heard many a Libertarian claim that insider trading is not fraud and should be legal

INSIDER TRADING

The SEC prohibits insider trading. Insider trading is defined as making a profit based on information that is not available to all the owners of publicly traded shares. The inside trader buys or sells in advance of a public announcement regarding information that will affect the price of the shares. The assumption underlying this definition is simple:

Accurate information should be treated as if it were a free resource. Everyone with ownership, no matter how small, in a publicly traded firm must have access to the same information at the same time, if this information can measurably affect the price of the shares.

This assumption is nuts. I mean it is off-the-wall ridiculous. It assumes that a business, which operates in terms of privately purchased and privately monitored information, must share this information with the public as soon as it becomes available. Can you imagine running any organization this way? Does any civil government operate this way? Of course not. But the regulators insist that publicly traded firms must not allow any shareholder with inside information to profit personally from this information until they all can."


Why didn't Obama share the insider information about the whereabouts of Osama with Pakistani authorities?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.STFU

.

Lol you are trying to assert that ripping people off with stock swindles is just fine, if the investment business ran entirely on buyer beware rules, no one would have a dime left in their retirement accounts and there is nothing you could do about it other than develop a taste for cat food in outdoor locations.

"Investors are the people with "skin" – their own money – in the game. Investors, not SEC lawyers, are the people who should vote to elect the board members who set the rules, approve internal policies, and hire agents to enforce the rules. Investors can sell the shares if they think the rules are being violated at their expense.

Do we really want to reduce sharp practices that inflict needless losses on investors? Then we should let investors decide how to police the firms whose shares they own.

Do most of the investors not care? Then why should the government care?

Do most of the investors think that setting up such rules and enforcement arrangements is not worth the money? Then why should Congress care?

Congress passed a law against insider training. Fine, says senior management. But to be fair, senior management insists, the government needs to pass a similar law to restrict predatory speculators from buying control. Congress complies. Not only is this law seen as fair, it increases Control by the government.

Who wins? Existing corporate management. By consenting to rules against insider trading by individual members of senior management, they all get protection from corporate raiders who might swoop in and buy up control."

.

 

[Rocko]

They were also convicted of insider trading.

When the feds go after you, they throw every conceivable charge at you. That proves nothing. Let's take a more clear cut case: the conviction of Martha Stewart, for example. What "fraud" did she commit?

Special Purpose Vehicle/Entity (SPV/SPE) Definition | Investopedia

They are what made Enron the zombie corporation it became.

So if the executives are committing fraud by using gimmicks to hide losses, and then making trades based on their fraudulent activities, that proves insider trading is a form of fraud?

Nope, all that proves is that fraud is fraud.

I said that was one example. And the underlying concept has escaped you. There are many examples where insiders are privy to information not available to the people to whom they are buying from or selling stocks to.

If you know your company just won a big contract with the government and quickly buy stocks based on that knowlege, you know the stock is worth more than the asking price. The converse is also true. If you know something that makes the stock worth less than the current asking price and you sell your stock before that becomes known, you are stealing.

Insider trading is stealing.

.

Every example of insider tradding is stealing. Even Martha Stewart wasn't a victimless crime.

 

[occupied]

Good point.

Liberal policies never have negative consequences, do they?

Sure they do, so does any kind of government policy, but nothing compares with the consequences of abandoning the citizenry to the questionable mercies of unprincipled opportunists as you suggest, insider fraudsters for example.

But you have no problem with abandoning he citizenry to the questionable mercies of unprincipled bureaucrats opportunists as you suggest, insider fraudsters for example.

May I remind you that Adolf Hitler was an elected bureaucrat . Does the number 6,000,000 murders upset you?

Has Microsoft or Bill Gates ever been accused of killing anyone?!?!?!?!?

.

Jeeze, you are even nuttier than the other ones, are you actually tying financial regulation to Hitler?

 

[bripat9643]

Every example of insider tradding is stealing. Even Martha Stewart wasn't a victimless crime.

Martha Stewart was the only victim. Who was harmed by what she did?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan would tell you that you are full of shit.

I did not read anything about eliminating "police."

I read a post about markets and industry.

The following is the Libertarian platform statement about

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets

By "cops clocking out" the reference is clearly about the Libertarian platform wishing to "divest government" of the regulatory functions that prevent market monopolies.

First you claimed not read anything about eliminating "police." Then you quoted the text that mentions eliminating the police. Occupied clearly stated he believes libertarians want to make fraud legal. Regulators are not cops. They are third parties imposing their rules on market participants whether the later find those rules useful or not.

Regulators have never prevented a monopoly and they never will. In fact, government regulations often enforce monopolies. Monopolies simply can't exist in a market where capital is free to enter. Competition cannot be prevented except by law.

 

[bripat9643]

You are right.

Providing great goods or services at a reasonable price is definitely a "barrier to market entry."

.

Sampson isn't playing anymore. He ran home to mommy because the other boys play don't play fair.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Contumacious is fascinated by the dark sides of Hitler and his buds.

Sure they do, so does any kind of government policy, but nothing compares with the consequences of abandoning the citizenry to the questionable mercies of unprincipled opportunists as you suggest, insider fraudsters for example.

But you have no problem with abandoning he citizenry to the questionable mercies of unprincipled bureaucrats opportunists as you suggest, insider fraudsters for example.

May I remind you that Adolf Hitler was an elected bureaucrat . Does the number 6,000,000 murders upset you?

Has Microsoft or Bill Gates ever been accused of killing anyone?!?!?!?!?

.

Jeeze, you are even nuttier than the other ones, are you actually tying financial regulation to Hitler?