dmarc117 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2008/34-58166.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 lol....how is this socialistic....making it illegal...which it already was...to manipulate the market. You can't pump and dump either...is that ban socialistic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Seriously, what's the issue here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) lol....how is this socialistic....making it illegal...which it already was...to manipulate the market. You can't pump and dump either...is that ban socialistic? so when you short a stock, you are manipulating it?? explain that please. you are taking a position that you think that stock is crap. how is that any different taking a long position? every short seller is a crook? Edited July 17, 2008 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 You mean when employers have to grant maternity/pregnancy rights to contract workers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 so when you short a stock, you are manipulating it?? explain that please. you are taking a position that you think that stock is crap. how is that any different taking a long position? every short seller is a crook? A very rough reading of your link suggests nothing of the like. What it suggests is that there are those who would short the stock to cause a price fluctuation that would benefit them....that is not the same as an investor making a speculative move....there is a difference between market manipulation and investing and speculating. The link you posted suggested that on trades the SEC feels are manipulative, they will investigate and start to actually prosecute...kudos....markets are free and should be free from manipulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 markets are free and should be free from manipulation. Shhhh, don't tell the Federal Reserve that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Shhhh, don't tell the Federal Reserve that. Markets are free to make money but not free to lose it. Capitalist profit, socialist loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Shhhh, don't tell the Federal Reserve that. LOL...how true! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Ahh, we've had a socialist state ever since FDR started his alphabet-soup and then packed the supreme court to ensure the "constitutionality" of it. I didn't even read the link... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Ahh, we've had a socialist state ever since FDR started his alphabet-soup and then packed the supreme court to ensure the "constitutionality" of it. I didn't even read the link... Why wouldn't socialism be constitutional....why would capitalism be constitutional? Please explain how our constitution picks one over the other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Why wouldn't socialism be constitutional....why would capitalism be constitutional? Please explain how our constitution picks one over the other? Because the constitution only grants limited, specific powers to the federal government? And those not granted are limited to the states or the people? I'm arguing with the guy that expects us to take his word for it that the Japs surrendered before we bombed them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 History would've been so much better if we dropped the bomb, they surrendered, we dropped another one, they surrendered again, and we dropped yet another one. They were so full of pride and vowed to fight until the last man and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Because the constitution only grants limited, specific powers to the federal government? And those not granted are limited to the states or the people? I'm arguing with the guy that expects us to take his word for it that the Japs surrendered before we bombed them. What does that have to do with anything...believe what you will. Actually, the power of taxation and regulation of interstate commerce is distinctly a federal issue....and the constitution is not clear on whether it should be treated with socialistic gloves or capitalistic gloves. Seems to me the constitution leaves open any and all choices...NO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 What does that have to do with anything...believe what you will. Actually, the power of taxation and regulation of interstate commerce is distinctly a federal issue....and the constitution is not clear on whether it should be treated with socialistic gloves or capitalistic gloves. Seems to me the constitution leaves open any and all choices...NO? No - the constitution is set up to expressly forbid getting involved in the employee-employer relationship if it occurs within a single state. You might want to read some federalist and anti-federalist papers before spouting your devils advocate crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 No - the constitution is set up to expressly forbid getting involved in the employee-employer relationship if it occurs within a single state. You might want to read some federalist and anti-federalist papers before spouting your devils advocate crap. Actually...i will stick to reading Article One, Two and Three....you can read papers that really present nothing but some peoples feelings on the subject...the document is question was the one ratified...not the federalist papers. But you knew that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Ahh, we've had a socialist state ever since FDR started his alphabet-soup and then packed the supreme court to ensure the "constitutionality" of it. I didn't even read the link... Roosevelt did eventually appoint eight Supreme Court justices as a result of his being in office for 13 years but his "court packing" bill itself failed. The effect, however, was to make the Supreme Court as it was constituted at the time, less political - they had been routinely destroying New Deal legislation designed to pull the country out of the Depression and make the life of Joe Worker better in the name of "supporting the Constitution". What the conservatives on the Court actually were was political puppets of those favoring the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 July 17 (Bloomberg) -- Stock and options exchanges plan to seek an exemption for market makers in a U.S. rule aimed at preventing manipulation in shares of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and 17 Wall Street firms, people familiar with the matter said. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting conference calls with brokerages and exchanges to discuss the rule that will limit the ability of traders to bet on a drop in share prices using abusive tactics. Exchange officials told regulators yesterday that without an exemption, market makers responsible for pairing off investor orders will struggle to keep transactions flowing and may raise costs for investors. ``Without a market-maker exemption, I could see this having a profoundly negative impact on the liquidity that would be provided in stock and derivatives,'' said Steve Sosnick, an equity risk manager in Greenwich, Connecticut, for Timber Hill there is hope for us yet!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 You just git yer big titties over here, Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Oh, I thought this was gonna say that we now have universal health care, free post-secondary education, and stuff like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Oh, I thought this was gonna say that we now have universal health care, free post-secondary education, and stuff like that. Pop quiz...Which country spends more on health care per person than any other country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Pop quiz...Which country spends more on health care per person than any other country? Texas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Texas In Texas, they call it Estados De Unidos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Pop quiz...Which country spends more on health care per person than any other country? The US. I blame it on all of the pit bull attacks. Which country ranks the highest in quality of health care? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 The US. I blame it on all of the pit bull attacks. Which country ranks the highest in quality of health care? Nova Scotia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.