Bimmerpost
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BIMMERPOST Universal Forums Off-Topic Discussions Board Politics/Religion Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act of 2009

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      08-31-2009, 11:26 AM   #1
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
454
Rep
4,760
Posts

Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act of 2009

Probably going nowhere, but it came up in a trading room.

H.R. 1068: Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act of 2009

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a tax on certain securities transactions to the extent required to recoup the net cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

2/13/2009--Introduced.
Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act of 2009 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to require securities trading facilities to pay an excise tax on a specified percentage of the value of securities and commodities transactions sufficient to recoup the net cost of carrying out the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
Appreciate 0
      08-31-2009, 11:33 AM   #2
Nixon
Banned
46
Rep
1,396
Posts

Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

iTrader: (0)

TARP was done mostly through loans that are to be repaid with interest.

The US tax payers will already get back the money given to the banks as loans - with interest.
Appreciate 0
      08-31-2009, 11:36 AM   #3
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
454
Rep
4,760
Posts

Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixon View Post
TARP was done mostly through loans that are to be repaid with interest.

The US tax payers will already get back the money given to the banks as loans - with interest.
When you say "mostly", is the amount that will not be paid back as loans in the billions (with a "B")? How would that money be recovered?
Appreciate 0
      08-31-2009, 03:28 PM   #4
lyndon_h
Lieutenant Colonel
lyndon_h's Avatar
37
Rep
1,919
Posts

Drives: e90
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Madagascar

iTrader: (2)

CNBC had a story on their homepage (today, oddly enough) about some banks who have already paid back their loans http://www.cnbc.com/id/32625465
Appreciate 0
      08-31-2009, 06:59 PM   #5
Nixon
Banned
46
Rep
1,396
Posts

Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
When you say "mostly", is the amount that will not be paid back as loans in the billions (with a "B")? How would that money be recovered?

Why do you ask? According to you, all of these companies should have been allowed to go out of business, and let the entire US banking system collapse. We would be right in the middle of a global depression unlike anything seen before had TARP and other actions not been taken. Are you ever going to admit these programs staved off a much, much bigger crisis?

So forgive me if I don't take you seriously when you whine about something that hasn't happened yet, and may very well never happen.

Because until we start from a level of understanding that the actions of global governments stepped in and saved the free market from itself, there really is no point in quibbling about the potential future details of winding down successful programs.
Appreciate 0
      08-31-2009, 09:23 PM   #6
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
454
Rep
4,760
Posts

Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixon View Post
Why do you ask? According to you, all of these companies should have been allowed to go out of business, and let the entire US banking system collapse. We would be right in the middle of a global depression unlike anything seen before had TARP and other actions not been taken. Are you ever going to admit these programs staved off a much, much bigger crisis?

So forgive me if I don't take you seriously when you whine about something that hasn't happened yet, and may very well never happen.

Because until we start from a level of understanding that the actions of global governments stepped in and saved the free market from itself, there really is no point in quibbling about the potential future details of winding down successful programs.
All you have done is sidestep the question. You have no answer, though you are Mr. Know-it-all.

We'll see how it ends when this bubble bursts. I certainly don't want the American people to have to pay for the errors of government and business. That is robbing from the everyone to give to the powerful. This is not better than robbing from the rich to give to the poor.
Appreciate 0
      08-31-2009, 10:38 PM   #7
Nixon
Banned
46
Rep
1,396
Posts

Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
All you have done is sidestep the question. You have no answer, though you are Mr. Know-it-all.

We'll see how it ends when this bubble bursts. I certainly don't want the American people to have to pay for the errors of government and business. That is robbing from the everyone to give to the powerful. This is not better than robbing from the rich to give to the poor.

No, I addressed your question by defeating your premise. You haven't offered ANY convincing evidence that you are correct that overall, money will be lost. I've rejected the premise of your question that anyone can absolutely predict that there will be overall losses. And I've shown that your opinion has had a lousy track record on this topic, so it would be foolhardy to simply accept your opinion and agree with your premise. How much more clearer do I have to make it for you?

We are making proven profit from individual banks (as lyndon_h documented that you have completely ignored) that will help offset losses from other banks.

And while we make 15% profits on some investments (proven fact) and may lose on some other investments (hasn't happened yet) even if we don't come out exactly dollar-for-dollar equal, we still successfully bought ourselves out of a MASSIVE economic collapse.

So until you recognize the following facts, there is nothing to discuss with you:

1) That the money spent saved the free market from massive collapse due to the market's inability to avoid collapse itself.
2) That there is a VALUE of keeping our banking system from collapsing that is just as much a part of the equation as dollar-for-dollar returns.

It is all very clear in my last post. Do I have to type slower so you can keep up?

So either address these two points, or go back to forwarding fact-free emails with your yes-man buddies.

Last edited by Nixon; 08-31-2009 at 11:28 PM..
Appreciate 0
      08-31-2009, 11:33 PM   #8
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
454
Rep
4,760
Posts

Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
What does the sponsor of the bill have to say?

Rep. Peter DeFazio [D-OR4]

And the Cosponsors:

Bruce Braley [D-IA1]
Michael Capuano [D-MA8]
Rosa DeLauro [D-CT3]
Donna Edwards [D-MD4]
Marcy Kaptur [D-OH9]
Barbara Lee [D-CA9]
Michael Michaud [D-ME2]
Louise Slaughter [D-NY28]
Fortney Stark [D-CA13]
Betty Sutton [D-OH13]
Peter Welch [D-VT]
Lynn Woolsey [D-CA6]

My point is perhaps different than all the sponsors of the bill. My view is that government should not be using taxpayer money to bailout any businesses. Obviously somebody who thinks he knows everything has a different view than me and a different view than that of the sponsors of this bill.

The public will likely be paying off the trillions of dollars in bailouts for many decades to come. I object to this. Government is a huge moneypit. What money is worth today will be much less in the not too distant future. I do not necessarily support this bill.
Appreciate 0
      09-01-2009, 12:31 AM   #9
Nixon
Banned
46
Rep
1,396
Posts

Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
What does the sponsor of the bill have to say?

My point is perhaps different than all the sponsors of the bill. My view is that government should not be using taxpayer money to bailout any businesses. Obviously somebody who thinks he knows everything has a different view than me and a different view than that of the sponsors of this bill.

The public will likely be paying off the trillions of dollars in bailouts for many decades to come. I object to this. Government is a huge moneypit. What money is worth today will be much less in the not too distant future. I do not necessarily support this bill.
I take it you are completely unable to address the two points I put to you directly. No surprise.

I'll try again, in simple yes/no questions that you can comprehend.

1) Did the banking system collapse? Yes or no?
2) Was there a positive monetary impact for avoiding the collapse of the banking system? Yes or no?

Easy yes or no questions. If you can't answer these, you are a hopeless tool.



-------------------------------------------------

The sponsors of the bill, which was submitted when everything was still getting worse and worse, is clearly that they are waiting to see what happens. Because they have had plenty of time to push the bill, yet they have not. Seems like they are much more aligned with my wait-and-see attitude then your whine and cry attitude.


Come back when you actually have a position for or against the bill, instead of trying to just use it as yet another excuse to bitch and moan.

Last edited by Nixon; 09-01-2009 at 09:58 AM..
Appreciate 0
      09-01-2009, 06:34 PM   #10
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
454
Rep
4,760
Posts

Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixon View Post
I take it you are completely unable to address the two points I put to you directly. No surprise.

I'll try again, in simple yes/no questions that you can comprehend.

1) Did the banking system collapse? Yes or no?
2) Was there a positive monetary impact for avoiding the collapse of the banking system? Yes or no?

Easy yes or no questions. If you can't answer these, you are a hopeless tool.



-------------------------------------------------

The sponsors of the bill, which was submitted when everything was still getting worse and worse, is clearly that they are waiting to see what happens. Because they have had plenty of time to push the bill, yet they have not. Seems like they are much more aligned with my wait-and-see attitude then your whine and cry attitude.


Come back when you actually have a position for or against the bill, instead of trying to just use it as yet another excuse to bitch and moan.
You are a hopeless tool. Look at my words. The government should not be committing taxpayer money to bail out banks (or any business for that matter). With the opportunity to succeed there is also the risk of failure. Let em fall. Contemplate that.

BTW: Because you are so abrassive and condescending, it is doubtful that anyone benefits from your posts. You drive people away from these forums if you do anything at all. You constantly cut down those e90post members with whom you disagree. So far, I have not seen a worthwhile post with your name on it. Maybe you would do well to level your attacks at public figures rather than individual folks. You might find the conversation more beneficial for yourself and others.

But then Acorn wouldn't pay you for that. To you, government is the solution. To me, government is much of the problem.

Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.
Appreciate 0
      09-01-2009, 06:35 PM   #11
Septro
Banned
56
Rep
1,649
Posts

Drives: '08 e90 335xi
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: C-Bus, OH

iTrader: (1)

Yea for more ephemeral questions no one can answer!!

1. Would the banking system have collapsed if no bailouts were provided? Yes or No.
2. Would have the negative monetary impact of the market correcting itself be less than the cost government intervention? Yes or No.

The answers to these and other life questions can be answered by the Magic 8 ball Nixon uses.

On a serious tip - I actually endorse the early government action to stem the institutional losses to provide stability. I wish it had been more consistent; applied equitably or with clear definition for what qualified versus selectively. It wasn't for the pure financial aspect but rather to instill the much needed confidence the economy or specifically wall street needed to avoid a panic.

None of that justifies the spendulus, budget busting budget, cap&strap, Obamacare and so on. But what does it matter, the original TALF and now TARP are being abused. Instead of taking those profits that Nixon loves to claim and send them back to the taxpayers or pay down the debt, they want to keep bailing out more industries now that the market hasn't collapsed (just like Nixon noted)..

Oh and thanks for pointing out that Bush saved us from the Depression since all the key interventions happened on his watch...

BooyAH BITCHES!!
Appreciate 0
      09-01-2009, 06:48 PM   #12
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
454
Rep
4,760
Posts

Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Now, back to the actual point of the original post. The question is whether the bill has merit. Here is a brief portion of another person's concern that I share:

"As you can see the bill proposes a tax of 0.25% on all trades. One of the findings listed in the bill is that such a tax would have “a negligible impact on the average investor.” Clearly increasing the cost of a roundtrip trade of $10,000 by $50 is not negligible and will greatly impact trading and liquidity in the stock market. In their zeal to punish Wall Street for their wrongdoings lawmakers are overlooking the fact that many innocent, hard working individual investors will suffer tremendously from such a tax. Indeed, such a tax will be felt by any American who wants to save their money." link

These taxes would harm the public and the markets in general. This would not be the institutions paying for their bailout. This is a bad idea. The title of the bill itself is deceptive.

BooyAH!!
Appreciate 0
      09-01-2009, 09:32 PM   #13
TMNT
Captain
127
Rep
873
Posts

Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Septro View Post

Oh and thanks for pointing out that Bush saved us from the Depression since all the key interventions happened on his watch...

BooyAH BITCHES!!
Did you hear about the guy who lit a house on fire only to realize that there were kids in the house? He then rushed into the burning fire to save the kids. He later asked for forgiveness because he helped save the kids lives...even though the kids would have never been in that situation had he not purposely set the place on fire.

Kinda sounds like your lil statement
Appreciate 0
      09-01-2009, 11:51 PM   #14
Nixon
Banned
46
Rep
1,396
Posts

Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Septro View Post
Yea for more ephemeral questions no one can answer!!

1. Would the banking system have collapsed if no bailouts were provided? Yes or No.
2. Would have the negative monetary impact of the market correcting itself be less than the cost government intervention? Yes or No.

The answers to these and other life questions can be answered by the Magic 8 ball Nixon uses.

On a serious tip - I actually endorse the early government action to stem the institutional losses to provide stability. I wish it had been more consistent; applied equitably or with clear definition for what qualified versus selectively. It wasn't for the pure financial aspect but rather to instill the much needed confidence the economy or specifically wall street needed to avoid a panic.

None of that justifies the spendulus, budget busting budget, cap&strap, Obamacare and so on. But what does it matter, the original TALF and now TARP are being abused. Instead of taking those profits that Nixon loves to claim and send them back to the taxpayers or pay down the debt, they want to keep bailing out more industries now that the market hasn't collapsed (just like Nixon noted)..

Oh and thanks for pointing out that Bush saved us from the Depression since all the key interventions happened on his watch...

BooyAH BITCHES!!
Yet another Booo-shit post from yAH BITCH-ass

1) Yes.
2) No.

I love it when you guys say the gov't shouldn't be in the business of protecting businesses when they fail. And then turn around and say the best thing to happen would be for businesses to hide behind the skirts of gov't protection under the Federal (As in US Government) bankruptcy laws to evade personal responsibility for the huge debts they piled up.

It would be interesting if for once you guys called for REAL independence from government, not just selecting what laws you like, and pretending that you want gov't completely out of business once you get the laws you want. No bankruptcy protections. No gov't protections allowing personal business failures to hide behind the gov't provided corportate veil.

Just 100% PERSONAL accountablility for business failures without ANY gov't protections. If they lose billions of dollars due to their business failures, make them personally responsible to pay back those debts.

Now THAT is gov't not getting involved with business!

Otherwise you are just quibbling over how and when the gov't should protect business owners.
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2009, 01:29 AM   #15
Nixon
Banned
46
Rep
1,396
Posts

Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
You are a hopeless tool. Look at my words. The government should not be committing taxpayer money to bail out banks (or any business for that matter). With the opportunity to succeed there is also the risk of failure. Let em fall. Contemplate that.

BTW: Because you are so abrassive and condescending, it is doubtful that anyone benefits from your posts. You drive people away from these forums if you do anything at all. You constantly cut down those e90post members with whom you disagree. So far, I have not seen a worthwhile post with your name on it. Maybe you would do well to level your attacks at public figures rather than individual folks. You might find the conversation more beneficial for yourself and others.

But then Acorn wouldn't pay you for that. To you, government is the solution. To me, government is much of the problem.

Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.
Just one of my snide comments brings more value to the board then all the fact-free, brainless, easlily debunked, forwarded chain-letter emails you folks cut and paste to this board like mindless zombies.

-------------------------------------------------------

I've contemplated complete bank failure. And you seem to completely forget that it is PEOPLE'S MONEY that is in these banks that disappears if they all fail catastrophically. Money that small businesses need to function or they will have to shut down. Money that old folks need to retire. Money for regular folks need to pay the bills. That includes my money and your money. Do you somehow thing the Bankruptcy Fairy will pay all these folks back? That the FDIC reserve can handle much more than it is currently handling?

Get your political mantras away from my money. It is you who needs to think through what complete catastrophic bank failure really means, instead of just repeating your anti-gov't mantras without actually examining the consequences.
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2009, 01:40 AM   #16
Nixon
Banned
46
Rep
1,396
Posts

Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
Now, back to the actual point of the original post. The question is whether the bill has merit.
I don't know how many times, and with how much more specificity I can repeat this:

NOBODY thinks this bill has merit.

It simply isn't needed because things have changed massively since Feb. when this bill was submitted. It is a dead bill. The authors aren't even pushing it. No one here thinks it is needed, because we're actually up to date with the issue instead of regurgitating 6 month old talking points from some chain email that has been making the rounds for the last half a year.
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2009, 02:03 AM   #17
sayemthree
Major General
sayemthree's Avatar
480
Rep
5,310
Posts

Drives: 2020 X3m, 2004 X3 6mt
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa so cal , AZ

iTrader: (0)

sounds like government interference to me!?!?!?
__________________
2014 BMW X1 xDrive2.8i 64k miles, Le Mans Blue Sand Beige Leather, warranty until 4/2022 or 94,800 miles. Los Angeles area. PM me
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2009, 02:05 AM   #18
sayemthree
Major General
sayemthree's Avatar
480
Rep
5,310
Posts

Drives: 2020 X3m, 2004 X3 6mt
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa so cal , AZ

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixon View Post
Yet another Booo-shit post from yAH BITCH-ass

1) Yes.
2) No.

I love it when you guys say the gov't shouldn't be in the business of protecting businesses when they fail. And then turn around and say the best thing to happen would be for businesses to hide behind the skirts of gov't protection under the Federal (As in US Government) bankruptcy laws to evade personal responsibility for the huge debts they piled up.

It would be interesting if for once you guys called for REAL independence from government, not just selecting what laws you like, and pretending that you want gov't completely out of business once you get the laws you want. No bankruptcy protections. No gov't protections allowing personal business failures to hide behind the gov't provided corportate veil.

Just 100% PERSONAL accountablility for business failures without ANY gov't protections. If they lose billions of dollars due to their business failures, make them personally responsible to pay back those debts.

Now THAT is gov't not getting involved with business!

Otherwise you are just quibbling over how and when the gov't should protect business owners.

Nixon - you dont even own a BMW you are just an Acorn loving blog hugging liberal union luvin post hater. go away.
__________________
2014 BMW X1 xDrive2.8i 64k miles, Le Mans Blue Sand Beige Leather, warranty until 4/2022 or 94,800 miles. Los Angeles area. PM me
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2009, 07:44 AM   #19
Septro
Banned
56
Rep
1,649
Posts

Drives: '08 e90 335xi
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: C-Bus, OH

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMNT View Post
Did you hear about the guy who lit a house on fire only to realize that there were kids in the house? He then rushed into the burning fire to save the kids. He later asked for forgiveness because he helped save the kids lives...even though the kids would have never been in that situation had he not purposely set the place on fire.

Kinda sounds like your lil statement
I have, yes. I was being facetious to show how silly it is to claim Obama saved the planet with his Stimulus/Bailouts. But it is endearing to see you have now equated Bush to be the most prescient and intelligent human being since Sir Isaac Newton for putting in all the right motions towards economic collapse, halting us just before the brink and then taking us out of it and on to the road towards recovery.

You sir are one quacky conservative with that line of thinking..
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2009, 07:47 AM   #20
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
454
Rep
4,760
Posts

Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixon View Post
I don't know how many times, and with how much more specificity I can repeat this:

NOBODY thinks this bill has merit.

It simply isn't needed because things have changed massively since Feb. when this bill was submitted. It is a dead bill. The authors aren't even pushing it. No one here thinks it is needed, because we're actually up to date with the issue instead of regurgitating 6 month old talking points from some chain email that has been making the rounds for the last half a year.
What chain email is that? Where I first heard of the bill was from one of my European trading friends the day of the first post. He had asked about the effect on the market such a tax would have. In having looked at a little information on the bill itself, I thought it interesting enough to make a post here to see what others thought, though I had nothing to offer my comrade at the time.

Your personal attacks and belligerence are not warranted and should not be welcome in these forums. You should go away.

BAN

Last edited by scottwww; 09-02-2009 at 08:06 AM..
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2009, 08:03 AM   #21
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
454
Rep
4,760
Posts

Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
The bigger question is, what is the role of government?

Here are a few related questions that come to mind:
  • Is the government your saviour?
  • Does the government operate within the framework of the U.S. Constitution?
  • Do you want the government to make even more of your decisions for you?
  • Should the government prop up every failing business? Or just those that have friends in Washington?
There are many more, and some better questions than these. This is just to get started.

The attached file is an excerpt from A Conservative Manifesto. This could be an interesting read.
Attached Images
File Type: pdf epilogue.pdf (466.8 KB, 1014 views)
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2009, 11:00 AM   #22
Nixon
Banned
46
Rep
1,396
Posts

Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
The bigger question is, what is the role of government?

Here are a few related questions that come to mind:
  • Is the government your saviour?
  • Does the government operate within the framework of the U.S. Constitution?
  • Do you want the government to make even more of your decisions for you?
  • Should the government prop up every failing business? Or just those that have friends in Washington?
There are many more, and some better questions than these. This is just to get started.

The attached file is an excerpt from A Conservative Manifesto. This could be an interesting read.

In the context of the financial sector, the government operates in a similar role as the NFL, or the NHL, or the NBA does in sports. (Before you get stupid, it is NOT an exact analogy, it is just a tool for explanation.) The gov't provides the rules and the refs to provide a playing field where anyone joining the game can compete to the best of their abilities. This ENABLES players to CHOOSE to compete, each to their own abilities.

If you don't want to play in an organized league, you can play street ball if you want. You just can never be a champion, or be part of the big leagues (or even minor leagues). You can't play against players who have CHOSEN to play by the rules in any of these leagues. And if you are fouled, tough luck. If being fouled involves a 2X4 or a tire iron, even tougher luck. If you don't like it, you could have CHOSEN to play in a local league where that sort of thing is regulated.

The US government provides a set of rules and refs that ENABLES the free market to operate for those who CHOOSE to compete in that market, each to their own abilities. The gov't provides structures such as the ability to incorporate, courts for settling disputes, a monetary unit for trade, and rules and regulations for those who CHOOSE to participate on this playing field.

If you don't like the rules, you are perfectly welcome not to participate. Don't seek gov't protection under the laws of incorporation. Don't use the court systems for settling disputes. Don't trade in exchanges where all the rest of the participants have CHOSEN to trade under a set of rules. Don't trade in other companies or products who have CHOSEN to offer their company shares and financial products for sale in these regulated exchanges.

You can conduct your business as an unincorporated individual, with all your agreements being conducted through private contracts with arbitration clauses that specify a private arbitrator instead of the courts. You can work as far off the reservation as you choose.

If you really want to play in a league without any rules at all, move to Nigeria. Because it is a perfect example of the relative success of nations that do not provide these gov't regulated financial structures where businesses can participate. Nations like these are all failures.

Last edited by Nixon; 09-02-2009 at 11:34 AM..
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33 AM.




g20
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST