bmacwilliam

I didn't write they were not victims, " All those people who lost their money in the finance crisis aren't vicitims. They are idiots."

But that's not what you wrote. You said that they were idiots and NOT victims. If Madoff indeed deserves to go to prison, then there damn well needs to be victims right? Can't have it both ways. I think your principle needs clarification... Bob

Or payable with a $20 fine as the case may be. Or death, whatever... same principle. Bob

Yeah Brant, Shayne's 'Principles' of civility for incompetent perverted dishonest moronic fascists.

I made a longer post previously, but let me cut to the chase. Not only would I point the gun, I'd pull the trigger. What if the one of the parties is about to fraudulently steal the other's life savings? Oh, but that's not consensual anymore? What if the fraud is a little more well concealed? Maybe he sells you 75% of the equity in his company, then turns around and sells 75% to someone else? That shit's been done. Shouldn't he be able to make any financial instrument he wants? Well, yes. Of course. If someone wants to give his life savings to a guy (Madoff, for example) and believes that this is a good idea, he *deserves* to lose it. Clearly the honest banker doesn't deserve to be punished with regulations just because other people are guilty (aka stupid, irrational). Really? I mean Really? What if your Gramma got hoodwinked by this guy? Now her retirement savings are gone. Her fault? Perhaps somewhat but 100%? Really? It sounds like something a teenager would say. If so, don't worry, you'll probably grow up. What about Lehman Brothers? And besides Shayne would whine that the government prevents small banks from starting up if everyone only invested in the big ones. There are a couple points in there, and this is an oversimplification. You are correct, lack of regulation is not the problem anymore than lack of regulation is responsible for somebody committing some other, violent crime. But it does not excuse the perpetrators. Idiots? I'm guessing 16? 17?

Shayne, pal...um... the stuff that's written is stored in a database... "That wasn't the scenario." Uh... yeah...it was. "What if the one of the parties is about to fraudulently steal the other's life savings?" I'm the perverted and/or incompetent one? Really??? Well, perverted maybe (it's a gray area sometimes), but I can read! Can you? Bob

Nope, not rhetorical at all. They're directly related to your assertion - and reality. They have to be answered or your principle is just another 'floating abstraction'. Bob

Not only would I point the gun, I'd pull the trigger. Brant, what more evidence do you need? Shayne So, you're disagreeing with pulling the trigger on a thief?

And the absurdity of your rejection is eclipsed only by its immaturity. "Innocent" individual. Well, who decides on his innocence? Or is this 'principled' philosophical innocence that is axiomatic and self-evident? Peaceful? In words or in actions? Can he libel you? Who decides what is libelous? Can he call you a dishonest moron with impunity? Bob

I made a longer post previously, but let me cut to the chase. Not only would I point the gun, I'd pull the trigger. What if the one of the parties is about to fraudulently steal the other's life savings? Oh, but that's not consensual anymore? What if the fraud is a little more well concealed? Maybe he sells you 75% of the equity in his company, then turns around and sells 75% to someone else? That shit's been done. Shouldn't he be able to make any financial instrument he wants? What if there's accounting info that he isn't required to disclose, or deliberately concealed, or "accidentally" forgot? The bottom line is we need rules AND GUNS to back them up. Consent just is one part of a much larger picture when people can cheat/mislead/defraud. Your ideas only work when people don't cheat (or, iin other words, n the real world, they are useless). Bob

Well which one is the real problem? Politeness or deadly force? Both simultaneously so it appears... You are so blinded by some kind of pathological anti-authoritarian bias that you fail to see discern even the blatantly obvious. Any kind of enforced rule of any sort you haven't agreed to, to you is a fascist gun to your head. Every law, a spiteful deliberate attempt to rob you of your freedom. Not a healthy outlook. The problem (one possible problem) with totally free markets is cheaters. Sure, sometimes cheaters naturally get weeded out as they fail and in some markets this is no big deal. Somebody buys a crappy pair of shoes that fall apart in a week, no biggie. Don't buy them again and the company fails maybe. Other times, cheaters wipe out others life savings and leave them financially devastated. Sometimes people can be physically hurt, maimed or killed even as the result of fraud and related crimes. This alone is justification for a great deal of your business-related legal so-called fascism. Some imaginary utopian voluntary fantasy world where all the individuals sign a voluntary rule set and enforcement policy is simply not possible nor desirable. We generally know some at least of what the basic rules should be as learned through history, trial and error, and hopefully some common sense. Do the rules sometimes become onerous and counter productive? Sure they do, and some laws are really bad, but the answer isn't that laws in principle have no philosophical validity unless everyone voluntarily agrees, or that only the laws that can be traced back to some natural law are valid. We've gone far beyond this. Can we connect Moody's AAA rating of obvious worthless ( or crazy high-risk at best) mortgage-backed securities paper to a natural rights violation? Well, maybe you can but that's quite a stretch. Hey, people bought the paper willingly, so screw them right? That's bullshit and I think you (and Brant) know it. Your kneejerk fascism reactions are curious. You behave like you're 14 years old. Bob

Honestly, I probably should be more sensitive to this. I mean that sincerely, but I am not one of the 'we' on the train. I'm not American. My country would certainly suffer in a global crisis, no-one is immune, but we seem to be weathering the storm much better and the future doesn't look bleak at all. In fact, we have a right-wing majority government with an Economist as the leader that seems to be moving (albeit slowly) in a good direction. We have in some ways always been more free (and in some ways less) than the US. Even in the midst of a financial mess elsewhere, I've never felt more optimistic about my country Truth. That's what I seek, nothing more, nothing less. Bob

Brant, I have no problem 'manning up' to anything. Wherever I may fall onto the label spectrum, so be it. But what I try to do is let reason and reality discover my positions and fall where they may, with as much of an open mind as possible. What seems to be adding up to "noxious intellectual stew" for you is the fact that there's obvious clashes with reality between whatever exalted political label you wish to uphold, and the obvious real world. What's ironic is that my take on Rand is that she was so blinded by her politics (hatred of her communist origins) that she consciously or unconsciously worked backwards from politics into philosophy. Your offense to my political positions, real or imagined, is just throwing you into emotional state where you won't admit to obvious facts "in principal". Very Randian. "Rand stated was unstable likely degenerating into fascism" I don't care what Rand stated about a mixed economy. Her economics are nonsense. She also said something like " there can be no conflict between one person's rational interests and another's" I mean, c'mon, this is laughable. But a better question is why she said this. I think that if she didn't, then her politics falls apart. Couldn't have that! Maybe this is the difference between reading her as an adult vs youth? Bob There are all kinds of criticisms Rand is open to, but not for advocating freedom in all matters of human social being. That that is the objective is there for clarity. We're never going to get there but that's not the purpose of a "city on a hill." Please focus on the fact that the freedom train is rolling backwards down that hill and we are deteriorating into a fascist economic-political crash. All your ad hoc representations are trivial to that. You talk as if you've no philosophy at all and advocate whatever you feel like or pragmatism of some sort. Philosophy needs empiricism and empiricism needs philosophy, but not by your lights. Ba'al denigrates philosophy too, but he's up front about it. Didn't Shayne accuse you of being a troll here? Are you? Absent representing a philosophy of some sort up front, you are just that. --Brant Penn Jillette said it well. Something like "I agree with a lot of Rands ideas, but she was a fucking whackjob." Presumably, he doesn't agree with her completely, neither do I. "Absent representing a philosophy of some sort up front, you are just that." Really? Without a label, I'm only a troll? Bob

Fine. Except in the real world.

Brant, I have no problem 'manning up' to anything. Wherever I may fall onto the label spectrum, so be it. But what I try to do is let reason and reality discover my positions and fall where they may, with as much of an open mind as possible. What seems to be adding up to "noxious intellectual stew" for you is the fact that there's obvious clashes with reality between whatever exalted political label you wish to uphold, and the obvious real world. What's ironic is that my take on Rand is that she was so blinded by her politics (hatred of her communist origins) that she consciously or unconsciously worked backwards from politics into philosophy. Your offense to my political positions, real or imagined, is just throwing you into emotional state where you won't admit to obvious facts "in principal". Very Randian. "Rand stated was unstable likely degenerating into fascism" I don't care what Rand stated about a mixed economy. Her economics are nonsense. She also said something like " there can be no conflict between one person's rational interests and another's" I mean, c'mon, this is laughable. But a better question is why she said this. I think that if she didn't, then her politics falls apart. Couldn't have that! Maybe this is the difference between reading her as an adult vs youth? Bob

Sure, perhaps, but not for the reasons Shayne argues. The worst fallacious argument in the world still might be true. Bob

Brant, I have no problem 'manning up' to anything. Wherever I may fall onto the label spectrum, so be it. But what I try to do is let reason and reality discover my positions and fall where they may, with as much of an open mind as possible. What seems to be adding up to "noxious intellectual stew" for you is the fact that there's obvious clashes with reality between whatever exalted political label you wish to uphold, and the obvious real world. What's ironic is that my take on Rand is that she was so blinded by her politics (hatred of her communist origins) that she consciously or unconsciously worked backwards from politics into philosophy. Your offense to my political positions, real or imagined, is just throwing you into emotional state where you won't admit to obvious facts "in principal". "Rand stated was unstable likely degenerating into fascism" I don't care what Rand stated about a mixed economy. Her economics are nonsense. She also said something like " there can be no conflict between one person's rational interests and another's" I mean, c'mon, this is laughable. But a better question is why she said this. I think that if she didn't, then her politics falls apart. Couldn't have that! Maybe this is the difference between reading her as an adult vs youth? Bob

Yup, if anyone in this thread is advocating "fascism", it is Shayne. He proposes ownership with no control for outside shareholders. How ironic. I don't get this. If there is no control for outside shareholders and that is a value to them who made them invest? --Brant Yes, good question. And there's tons of good questions. Perhaps caveat emptor on this one...perhaps. But what about corporations that dilute their equity, essentially selling more than 100% of their equity over multiple sales (been done many times) and screwing the initial investors? Illegal? Who cares? Caveat emptor? Let "freedom" reign? Bob

Yes, but now that's leading into another discussion area - worthy and interesting as it may be. My biggest problems are with Shayne's categorical 'principled' and wild proclamations that you/we/small business can't do this and that because of the illegal fascist oppressive government laws. The problem is that while indeed I agree to a large extent with many of the very real and troublesome government impediments to free(er) markets, Shayne's very specific assertions are just plain false. The more fundamental question is if markets should be left completely free or not. What is optimum? Who decides? Difficult questions and simply not well addressed with a one-size-fits-all principle. Should markets have rules? Enforcement? How much? I think, as often is the case where you need to look at reality AND principles and not exclude one or the other. The answer then becomes "it depends". I think some markets should be left essentially or even entirely free, whereas others should not. There are some very compelling arguments against free markets for some segments of the economy. Bob

On the first point above... Small business can indeed hire a professional accountant. I'm doing so at this very moment, and a very, very good one I might add. However, I don't need, nor pay for his full time services. The first point is clearly in the poop pile. Bob

Class A and Class B common stock is a perfect example of this. The original owners can hold Class B shares and maintain voting majority rights whilst actually selling a majority of their equity in Class A shares to new investors (if that in and of itself isn't a oxymoron), but this is possible in an IPO. But yes, still you'd have other owners who may whine about the the direction of the company and "mess it up". Tough shit, they're owners now too. To say that Valve cannot do an IPO, raise money, and keep creative control is simply false. If the owners don't want other investors legitimately raising their voices and causing a hassle for them, then fine, don't take their money. Or, like Merlin said, get a loan. From http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/04/092204.asp#axzz1cYFLPzmd " When the Internet company Google went public, a lot of investors were upset that it issued a second class of shares to ensure that the firm's founders and top executives maintained control." "Ford's dual-class stock structure, for instance, allows the Ford family to control 40% of shareholder voting power with only about 4% of the total equity in the company. Berkshire Hathaway Inc., which has Warren Buffett as a majority shareholder, offers a B share with 1/30th the interest of its A-class shares, but 1/200th of the voting power. Echostar Communications demonstrates the extreme power that can be had through dual-class shares: founder and CEO Charlie Ergen has about 5% of the company's stock, but his super-voting class-A shares give him a whopping 90% of the vote." It's such a fascist hardship not to have the "freedom" to invent any type of financial instrument one can dream up and sell it to the "free" people. We've never seen a problem with this, have we?? Bob

You are correct, it is not for me to decide and I never said it was. You made the claim that the market doesn't exist because it's illegal. This is false and misleading. Bob

Bob's whole rambling and misleading post was aimed at sneaking in this dishonest premise. There is no market? True. Why? Because it's illegal. Bob and Merlin are just morons who lack imagination about what is possible in a free market. Either that or they are closet fascists. In any case, they have no actual argument, so they use ad hominem and rambling verbiage instead. Notice how you cry about ad hominem after calling me a dishonest moron. However, your point that it is illegal only matters if: a) There is no principled justification for it. or b) It actually impairs viable legitimate economic activity. There is no significant legal barrier to seeking funds for, or investing in, small business - in the real world at least, and that's the bottom line. Your argument is like complaining that your rights are being violated because there's a 200km/h speed limit but your car can only go 100. We can argue that (a) is a problem and that in principle the law is a violation, but it's rather weak because there's no connection to reality. Wrong as it is, it does not impede your 'freedom' in any real way. In the small business example neither condition is met. We DO need financial laws and law enforcement and most of them are justified. Fine, probably not all. But secondly, the next largest market struggles with liquidity, so it is not logical to conclude that the legal status of the smaller market is why it doesn't exist. That doesn't make sense. It's pretty clear the legal status is a minor impediment to small business investment at worst. I know, I have lived both sides of this equation. Equity markets are like hockey games - players split up into teams but also working for themselves trying to win the game and reach personal goals too. Flood the ice with too many referees and really stupid rules and you have a poorly functioning market/game. Remove all the rules and referees and you have your "free market" but the entire game falls apart very quickly. Play the "game" with money, and the incentive to cheat is even greater. Free markets need referees and enforcement. Call me fascist, but speak to Madoff investors and see what they have to say. Bob

Once again you're just plain wrong. From your link to a post: "There are some exceptions to these rules, ("friends and family shares"), but, generally, you are inviting a lot of legal headaches if you try this." This is incorrect. Why do I say this? Because I've done it - several times. Purchased and sold shares, in part and whole, in several small startups. You fail to understand these important points: 1) As an investor, I can investigate and purchase shares in ANY small company I'd like as long as the owner agrees too of course. As a practical matter, I would always know the owner and operation well, because otherwise the investment would be foolishly risky. Investing in a start-up without being close (a 'friend') is just stupid. 2) As a business owner, I pay to have a shareholder's agreement drawn up at the inception of the corporation and I can sell shares to anyone I please. Strange, but nobody from the other side of the country that knows nothing about my business has ever expressed dismay about all the government red tape preventing them from buying my stock. They don't know about it, they don't care, and they'd never invest in a million years. 3) Your obsession with a 'public offering' prohibition is a non-starter. There is no market for this. The rules for the big markets are indeed required to minimize fraud, and yet there's still too much. 'Buyer beware' solves everything is extreme naivete. There basically is not enough information available for investors to make investment decisions on small companies unless they are very close to the source. 4) Investment generally follows a logical and natural pattern. - The originator invests his time and money in a concept he believes in. - An angel investor generally needs to see this commitment (at a minimum) and also believe in the concept and person before he may invest - A bank likes to see these types of commitment and a track record (and collateral) before they offer debt. - A Venture cap operation will need to see some or all of the above before they invest - All of the above and more need to happen before they go public (and realistically before there is even a market) Remember, liquidity is almost always a problem with OTC securities. This is not the fascist evil government's fault. This is a natural outcome of limited demand. This little reality problem doesn't fit with your 'principles'... Bob

Then ignore me, but why don't you answer Merlin then? Bob