I Wear Pants;1010054 wrote:A perfect free market could never work because the theoretical free market is based upon people making rational decisions. Which doesn't fucking happen.

What? What does that even mean? Tell me how the irrational decisions people make have anything to do with a free market.

Cleveland Buck;1010347 wrote:What? What does that even mean? Tell me how the irrational decisions people make have anything to do with a free market.

Ummm, it's a fundamental bedrock of the theory. A direct result, or perhaps a necessary requirement, of perfect information if you want to be technical. You want to argue that the market will punish excessive risk or prevent "too big to fail", but that requires the assumption that people recognize the risk and act accordingly. This has been shown time and again to not be correct.

Also, what about SEC requirements? Can't one argue that those sort of requirements are actions a free market takes as necessary to remove information asymmetries? But what to do, then, with all the private companies for which listing on the exchange doesn't make sense?

I Wear Pants;1009965 wrote:Oh my god! Protesters were sitting on the ground making it so that the police were trapped, trapped I say! They cannot step over the protesters as surely those violent bastards would harm them....

Oh wait, yes they could step over the protesters like the pepper spray man did and nothing happened because these people were peaceful.

And the police calling themselves "peace officers" is hilarious.

You know NOTHING if you truly believe your post.

As a safety measure a police officer will NOT do as you tried to state, all it takes is one protestor (maybe one who understand wrestling) to get the officer on the ground and steal a gun/taser/etc and it gets REAL bad REAL quick.

I don't think I've ever said this on these forums, but you are plain retarded if you believe the police should have just "stepped over them". The police officers job in that situation is to make sure EVERYONE, including all officers and protestors, make it out alive and relatively unharmed. Climbing over with physical contact possibilities, protestors who ALREADY said they were not going to let the police go peacefully, is NOT how that gets done.

You just hate police in general (as I've seen on many of your posts), I'm sorry, but the pepper spray sounded bad originally, but with that video it was by far warranted and the best option.

Oh, and a mob surrounding the police and telling the police that they will NOT let them leave is 100% an aggressive move threatening the officers. You have NO idea what can and does happen in a mob mentality.

I Wear Pants;1009965 wrote:Oh my god! Protesters were sitting on the ground making it so that the police were trapped, trapped I say! They cannot step over the protesters as surely those violent bastards would harm them....

Oh wait, yes they could step over the protesters like the pepper spray man did and nothing happened because these people were peaceful.

And the police calling themselves "peace officers" is hilarious.

You really need to let this go. You're not doing yourself any favors by continuing to double down on it.

gut;1010377 wrote:Also, what about SEC requirements? Can't one argue that those sort of requirements are actions a free market takes as necessary to remove information asymmetries? But what to do, then, with all the private companies for which listing on the exchange doesn't make sense?

Here's my take on SEC requirements and feel free to criticize.

Get rid of the SEC. Why? Companies used equity as a means to raise capital. If the perception of your company is shady and can't be trusted, then investors will simply not invest money into your company. If the reality is that your company is cooking the books, ultimately this company will fail.

Now your going to counter with "The SEC exists to provide fair and accurate information to all investors". I agree, but give companies the incentive to compete for investment dollars by allowing said companies to show that they are worthy of your investment. If the market demands transparency, companies will be forced into being way more transparent and forthcoming now if they want to have equity as a source of capital. I feel like the SEC provides a framework that companies just manipulate because they know the rules very well and they know how to manipulate those rules. The power of the free market will dictate which fair transparent companies get the capital they need; the ones that don't will ultimately be left in the dust.

fish82;1010669 wrote:You really need to let this go. You're not doing yourself any favors by continuing to double down on it.

Agreed. IWP just hates cops and wants to help the protestors play the victim. I mean watching that video is proof enough these students are threatening action and then claiming they are peaceful protestors. I'm all for peaceful lawful protest, but if you're a dumbass and ignore multiple warnings from police(who FFS took the time to point out the law you were violating) then you deserve to be clubbed, sprayed, tased, shot(rubber), punched, kick, etc. Don't be a dumbass and pretend you are above the law. I applaud these policeman.

With that said of course, there are some bad apples out there in the police force but in this case, A+ job.

sleeper;1010710 wrote:Here's my take on SEC requirements and feel free to criticize.

Get rid of the SEC. Why? Companies used equity as a means to raise capital. If the perception of your company is shady and can't be trusted, then investors will simply not invest money into your company. If the reality is that your company is cooking the books, ultimately this company will fail.

Now your going to counter with "The SEC exists to provide fair and accurate information to all investors". I agree, but give companies the incentive to compete for investment dollars by allowing said companies to show that they are worthy of your investment. If the market demands transparency, companies will be forced into being way more transparent and forthcoming now if they want to have equity as a source of capital. I feel like the SEC provides a framework that companies just manipulate because they know the rules very well and they know how to manipulate those rules. The power of the free market will dictate which fair transparent companies get the capital they need; the ones that don't will ultimately be left in the dust.

Only with the SEC

sleeper;1010710 wrote:Here's my take on SEC requirements and feel free to criticize.

All that you said is really why the SEC exists. Investors demand it, just as SOX was really an outgrowth of Enron, Worldcomm and Adelphia "cooking the books". Without legal repercussions, you create the incentive for cheating and stealing at the officer level because punishing the stock after-the-fact would do nothing to take away the ill-gotten gains of those responsible. Also, no reason to punish a perfectly viable going concern because of a few crooked officers.

What it comes down to is a rather fuzzy concept, but it's the cost of regulation vs. the value it adds because the market isn't happy taking the risk that a crooked company ultimately fails - they'll haircut EVERYONE for that risk that is hard to identify or predict.

You have to address the agency risk. The market just can't do it as effectively as they would like. I'll buy arguments that you could eliminate the SEC and the various exchanges pick-up the slack with added requirements, but again ultimately you need some sort of criminal penalties. There's also the issue of companies doing business together, one which might be private. Due diligence and other kicking of the tires would be cost prohibitive for many transactions, so there again SEC and other regulatory bodies are greasing the wheels of capitalism. But there's always a balance and trade-off with too much regulation or ineffective regulation. No regulation is just as bad as too much regulation.

Not to mention consumers. We need to know certain standards are being followed and have recourse when they are not. It's not practical to expect the consumer to maintain perfect information or even be capable of it.

gut;1010377 wrote:Ummm, it's a fundamental bedrock of the theory. A direct result, or perhaps a necessary requirement, of perfect information if you want to be technical. You want to argue that the market will punish excessive risk or prevent "too big to fail", but that requires the assumption that people recognize the risk and act accordingly. This has been shown time and again to not be correct.

When? They have always been bailed out. They always knew they would be bailed out. Even in the 19th century when banks would fail from lending out more money than had in their possession the government would bail them out by allowing them continue operating without redeeming their depositors notes with money (gold). We have no idea what decisions would be made if there was no one with the power to bail out failed companies.

That said, even if people still made the wrong decisions and we had companies going bankrupt every so often as a result, you would still never have the widespread economic disruptions like we have had over the past 100 years.

Cleveland Buck;1010871 wrote:We have no idea what decisions would be made if there was no one with the power to bail out failed companies.

We've got a pretty good idea that the decisions would not change. You're not understanding the scenarios very well. The bailout does nothing to recoup the millions these people made while the bubble was forming. It certainly does not restore the hundreds of millions executives and shareholders lost, losing everything at Lehman and Bear. You are mistaken if you think the executive boards of Lehman and Bear, along with other banks, knowingly put those tens and hundreds of million in equity value at risk because "the govt will bail me out".

The banks are really an agent of economic policy. The "boots on the ground", so to speak. Fed and govt actions don't work to stimulate the economy without the banks/capital markets reacting predictably to the stimulus/incentive. In some cases, banks are even "prodded" to carry out that agenda - you don't have the turning of mortgage backs and home loans without BOTH Freddie/Fannie and the banks (and the Fed). The govt contributed significantly to the financial crisis and has a responsibility to help fix it. The wealth those execs and shareholders lost was destroyed - the bailout doesn't refund that in any way but it DOES help the economy to get on a stable foundation to start recovering.

I've seen my share of greed, but I have not seen people who would recklessly risk their company (the company they founded or run in many cases) and the hundreds/thousands of jobs that go with it, just to make a few extra bucks. Also, the people at Bear and Lehman, perhaps even Chrysler, would like to challenge your assertion that "the govt will just bail them out".

Again, the banks were not insolvent, save perhaps AIG, they had a liquidity crisis, driven by mark-to-market issues compounded by a market overreaction and the failure of cross-guarantees triggered in a domino effect by AIG. They weren't given a handout, a more accurate term would be a bridge loan to ride out the liquidity crisis. The govt will make money on TARP, they'll make money on all the "toxic" assets they bought at steep discounts as they wait out more reasonable valuations when the dust settles. If that's a "bailout" where can I sign-up to bail someone out?

jmog;1010640 wrote:You know NOTHING if you truly believe your post.

As a safety measure a police officer will NOT do as you tried to state, all it takes is one protestor (maybe one who understand wrestling) to get the officer on the ground and steal a gun/taser/etc and it gets REAL bad REAL quick.

I don't think I've ever said this on these forums, but you are plain retarded if you believe the police should have just "stepped over them". The police officers job in that situation is to make sure EVERYONE, including all officers and protestors, make it out alive and relatively unharmed. Climbing over with physical contact possibilities, protestors who ALREADY said they were not going to let the police go peacefully, is NOT how that gets done.

You just hate police in general (as I've seen on many of your posts), I'm sorry, but the pepper spray sounded bad originally, but with that video it was by far warranted and the best option.

Oh, and a mob surrounding the police and telling the police that they will NOT let them leave is 100% an aggressive move threatening the officers. You have NO idea what can and does happen in a mob mentality.

No, what I'm saying is the video showed at least one officer doing exactly what I said and stepping over the protesters. They didn't move or do anything and nobody got killed.

And yeah I hate cops because I don't like seeing citizens assaulted by the state. You're probably one of those "well they must have been doing something wrong to even get arrested/stopped/hit" people.

As for getting rid of the SEC...lol.

That would be awful. Yeah, we need companies to be able to lie on their financial statements. That's what's really been killing the economy.

I Wear Pants;1011176 wrote:No, what I'm saying is the video showed at least one officer doing exactly what I said and stepping over the protesters. They didn't move or do anything and nobody got killed.

And yeah I hate cops because I don't like seeing citizens assaulted by the state. You're probably one of those "well they must have been doing something wrong to even get arrested/stopped/hit" people.

so cops have to be in danger of being killed to take action?

No.

Here's a story about cops protecting and serving - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/witness-says-hollywood-shooter-yelled-allahu-akbar/

It's just a shame that it took so long for them to put the terrorist on a 1-way trip to meet his virgins.

And those cops did a fine job.

gut;1010846 wrote:All that you said is really why the SEC exists. Investors demand it

This point really hit home to me because it follows what I was trying to say anyway. Thank you for your post, I don't really have much else to add or counter with.

Yeah I mean, imagine if when you were looking at company filings (assuming they'd still have them available to you if the SEC didn't legally require them) and not knowing how they calculated them, if they followed GAAP, etc. It would be an absolute mess.

I Wear Pants;1011176 wrote:No, what I'm saying is the video showed at least one officer doing exactly what I said and stepping over the protesters. They didn't move or do anything and nobody got killed.

And yeah I hate cops because I don't like seeing citizens assaulted by the state. You're probably one of those "well they must have been doing something wrong to even get arrested/stopped/hit" people.

Every police officer has gone through specific training that keeps actual physical contact down to a minimum due to things I described being possible outcomes.

I showed that video to a friend of mine who is a police officer and paused it a few minutes before any spraying. I asked his opinion of what his training said to do to get the detainees out of there. His first words were pepper spray. He said half a thought would be to arrest all those sitting in the way but that would require physical contact with people whose charges wouldn't even stick anyway so a risk without any actual consequences administered. He said he would avoid the risk and use pepper spray.

Whether the police think charges will stick is not a consideration. That has nothing to do with their actions and if they're basing decisions on that we've got a problem. They are not the administrators of punitive measures.

Now if it's really a consideration of risk then it's a matter of me disagreeing with the risk assessment but obviously the police are the ones in the moment and with the training so I couldn't argue that too much.

I Wear Pants;1012608 wrote:Whether the police think charges will stick is not a consideration. That has nothing to do with their actions and if they're basing decisions on that we've got a problem. They are not the administrators of punitive measures.

Now if it's really a consideration of risk then it's a matter of me disagreeing with the risk assessment but obviously the police are the ones in the moment and with the training so I couldn't argue that too much.

I believe risk is what I said from the beginning and you have done nothing but argue .

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE THE DAMN HIPPY SOCIALIST BLAH BLAH BLAH is too fun to resist.

gut;1010846 wrote:All that you said is really why the SEC exists. Investors demand it, just as SOX was really an outgrowth of Enron, Worldcomm and Adelphia "cooking the books". Without legal repercussions, you create the incentive for cheating and stealing at the officer level because punishing the stock after-the-fact would do nothing to take away the ill-gotten gains of those responsible. Also, no reason to punish a perfectly viable going concern because of a few crooked officers.

This all may be true, but the sad and ironic thing is the clowns in Congress who concoct regulatory nightmares like SOX in order to monitor "book cooking" can't even balance their own checkbook. The inmates are running the asylum.

believer;1013225 wrote:This all may be true, but the sad and ironic thing is the clowns in Congress who concoct regulatory nightmares like SOX in order to monitor "book cooking" can't even balance their own checkbook. The inmates are running the asylum.

Executives shouldn't be liable for the fraud of their companies?

59 pages about the Wall Street protesters? Your heads about ready to explode! The Tea baggers never got this much publicity. What ever happen to those guys anyway