Richism: The Self-Righteous Bigotry of the Wall Street Protestors

[bmacwilliam]

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

[bmacwilliam]

Every regulation is ultimately backed up by a death threat, payable on your demand that your rights be respected.

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

Bob

[sjw]

By and large, I agree with this characterization, but I'm puzzled as to when you are shot. Do you mean literally shot?

It's just hyperbole.

It's not. If you exercise free speech and are shot, you call it fascism, but if you exercise property rights and are shot, you call it "hyperbole" to point it out.

Something is wrong with you.

Shayne

[sjw]

If people had as much concern for their right to property as they did for their right to freedom of speech, we'd all be free.

Shayne

[john42t]

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.

You mean if it happened to a person dear to me (or myself) I should better whine, shift blame on someone else and ask for the government to make this world more to my liking?

I don't want the government out of this because I think I'm smarter than everyone or because I don't have sympathy with people who make bad decisions.

I just believe in the principle that people are responsible for what they do.

Put your money on a savings account of a *reputable* bank, such as the Deutsche Bank, and you won't lose it, it's that simple.

What about Lehman Brothers?

According to wikipedia, Lehman Brothers was doing investment banking and the little guy's gradma wasn't likely to have her savings there.

But I could be mistaken. I'm German, and I have almost no knowledge about the reputation of American banks. Here in Germany, all people who lost money were gambling. Some had they money in Island!

And besides Shayne would whine that the government prevents small banks from starting up if everyone only invested in the big ones.

I'm way too fascist for that argument. :-)

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.

I don't excuse the perpetrators. Madoff deserves to go to prison. I just think that all the people who lost their money to him should be a bit humbled too. They have a lesson to learn.

Idiots? I'm guessing 16? 17?

Age? I'm 32 and not a native speaker. Is idiot not the right word for someone who gambles with his life savings? I wouldn't be so harsh in my choice of words when everybody around me wouldn't constantly excuse people who can't deal with money and demand more regulations to compensate. Having nicer words and feeling sorry for them is for when it's agreed that it's their fault.

[sjw]

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

GHS purposefully evades substantive discussion and instead dishes out insults with the sole purpose of provoking me (his words). Brant laps it all up. He positively loves it. I always engage ideas to the best of my ability, never trying to merely provoke, but to state the truth as best I can. Brant positively hates it.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I'm not getting much for being on this thread. In fact, it's less than nothing.

--Brant

should have known better

[bmacwilliam]

I don't excuse the perpetrators. Madoff deserves to go to prison. I just think that all the people who lost their money to him should be a bit humbled too. They have a lesson to learn.

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

[john42t]

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...

I didn't write they were not victims, but since I easily could have written something like that in the heat of the moment, let's assume I did.

Suppose a bum on the street tells you he knows how to duplicate all your savings with alien technology. But he needs *all* your money. And a bottle of wine.

You give him the money, he wastes it all. Is he guilty? Yes. Are you a victim? Well, yes, I was wrong. You're one hell of a victim then. :-)

One of the reasons I might appear a bit jerky on this topic is that I see people blaming bankers all the time, in the US and Germany alike. And they don't blame the criminals, they mean all bankers.

[9thdoctor]

Many of the people who were scammed by Madoff weren't idiots. He came highly recommended by their rich friends. Not everyone's a sophisticated investor, and he had a good reputation.

[john42t]

Many of the people who were scammed by Madoff weren't idiots. He came highly recommended by their rich friends. Not everyone's a sophisticated investor, and he had a good reputation.

If you're not a professional investor, why would you invest?

Life savings are not to be invested, but saved. No single person can have a reputation that warrants a trust with life savings.

Gold, real estate, currency in savings accounts with banks older than a hundred years.

I have a thousand times more sympathy with the old lady that stores her bucks in the cookie jar and it gets stolen than with people who invest their savings while not being investors. Investor is a profession.

[merjet]

I don't get this. If there is no control for outside shareholders and that is a value to them who made them invest?

Nobody "made them invest." My comment related to this:

It refuses to do an IPO because it (rightly) wants to retain control over its creative direction. I.e., their choice is: submit to the fascist SEC, or don't get "public" investment (or go to prison if they do proceed with their plan).

It's a hypothetical security that Shayne believes a company like Valve Software should be able to use to raise money and the insiders retain their "creative control." It would presumably be another class of publicly-traded common stock (else, the SEC would be irrelevant) with no voting rights to be sold to outsiders. The insiders would retain all voting rights. With their "creative control" they could ruin the company, but the outside shareholders would have no recourse -- like voting in a new board of directors -- except selling their shares at a great loss. Incidently, the SEC has no law against common stock with no voting rights.

I used fascism -- in quotes as an analogy -- because one of its main features is ownership in the hands of some (private individuals) but control by others (government). In the hypothetical it is ownership by outside shareholders but all control by insiders.

As I have amply pointed out, a company could raise money via preferred stock, bonds, or loans without diluting insider control, but Shayne is blind to that and has no response except red herrings, bluster, or ad hominem insults. The choices he gives above are far from exhaustive. All these types of securities and their design originated in markets before the SEC; the SEC did not design and impose them on the market. He also speaks of rights but is blind to the property rights of outside common stockholders. How ironic.

Valve Software's desire to not "go public" given in the link is interference from shareholders, period. Shayne recklessly substituted "the fascist SEC" for "shareholders" and provided zero evidence for it. It's very plausible that it is due to the listing requirements of exchanges (e.g. NASDAQ), not the SEC. Shayne's imagination derailed -- no surprise there.

Incidentally, this looks like a new platform for private companies to raise capital.

[bmacwilliam]

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...

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."

[bmacwilliam]

Many of the people who were scammed by Madoff weren't idiots. He came highly recommended by their rich friends. Not everyone's a sophisticated investor, and he had a good reputation.

If you're not a professional investor, why would you invest?

Life savings are not to be invested, but saved. No single person can have a reputation that warrants a trust with life savings.

Gold, real estate, currency in savings accounts with banks older than a hundred years.

I have a thousand times more sympathy with the old lady that stores her bucks in the cookie jar and it gets stolen than with people who invest their savings while not being investors. Investor is a profession.

"If you're not a professional investor, why would you invest?"

The vast majority of investors are not professional investors. Think pensions...

"Life savings are not to be invested, but saved."

False, nobody/very few could ever retire without investments.

"Gold, real estate, currency in savings accounts with banks older than a hundred years."

Real estate is a relatively risky investment. It is not savings. It is not safe. Trust me on this one...

"Investor is a profession."

No, not only does almost everyone invest, almost everyone NEEDS to invest.

If I had to choose one word to describe capitalism, it would probably be 'risk'. Risk is the cornerstone of capitalism. It is necessary.

Bob

[sjw]

I don't get this. If there is no control for outside shareholders and that is a value to them who made them invest?

Nobody "made them invest." My comment related to this:

It refuses to do an IPO because it (rightly) wants to retain control over its creative direction. I.e., their choice is: submit to the fascist SEC, or don't get "public" investment (or go to prison if they do proceed with their plan).

It's a hypothetical security that Shayne believes a company like Valve Software should be able to use to raise money and the insiders retain their "creative control." It would presumably be another class of publicly-traded common stock (else, the SEC would be irrelevant) with no voting rights to be sold to outsiders. The insiders would retain all voting rights. With their "creative control" they could ruin the company, but the outside shareholders would have no recourse -- like voting in a new board of directors -- except selling their shares at a great loss. Incidently, the SEC has no law against common stock with no voting rights.

I used fascism -- in quotes as an analogy -- because one of its main features is ownership in the hands of some (private individuals) but control by others (government). In the hypothetical it is ownership by outside shareholders but all control by insiders.

Doublespeak. The simple truth is that we have two willing parties, buyer and seller, and you argue for forcing them to comply with your twisted view of how the world should be. You use "fascist" in quotes to try to make it appear as if you're not the fascist when clearly you are. This is not an insult, it is a technical definition -- you argue for a kind of government that distorts free market decisions, that leaves a kind of pseudo-ownership in the hands of property holders, with the government determining how that property is to be used. You are a fascist. So is Bob.

As I have amply pointed out, a company could raise money via preferred stock, bonds, or loans without diluting insider control, but Shayne is blind to that and has no response except red herrings, bluster, or ad hominem insults.

A very dishonest reply. I've asked several times how Valve can legally offer the particular kind of security that they have expressed a desire for and Merlin has failed to answer. That is because there is no answer. It is illegal. So another epithet technically applies to Merlin. I don't know why Brant complains about calling things by their right names. Merlin is a fascist, and he is either dishonest or is completely incompetent at reading.

Shayne

[merjet]

#265 is exactly what I expected from the incorrigible Shayne -- more unfounded nonsense, bluster and ad hominem.

Point out some "counter-evidence" to Shayne and you get a biological equivalent of a blue screen; complete with the nonsensical stack dump and all.

[Brant Gaede]

Before I leave this thread altogether--I can't stand Shayne any more--this country is right now falling off the edge of a mixed economy into overt fascism. The next ten years will be incredibly disruptive and destructive. If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination and beat Obama then I don't want any of the other Republicans beating him or in 2016 things will be so bad the Democrats will take over Congress and the Presidency and that will be it. Romney is a twit, Perry is a war-monger--maybe--but doesn't understand economics, Cain is hopeless. The next President has to get it right domestically. Only Ron Paul does and I doubt he's going to be nominated.

Oh, yes, calling "things" by their right names is quite different than calling someone by a thing's name which may or may not be appropriate. The way Shayne's using it is stupid, disgusting, uneducational, unproductive and just wrong. I'm done even reading this thread. I don't think the other two main guys here are saying much worth my while or to my interest--what happened to Dennis?--either. Everybody is beating a dead horse.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

A very dishonest reply. I've asked several times how Valve can legally offer the particular kind of security that they have expressed a desire for and Merlin has failed to answer. That is because there is no answer. It is illegal. So another epithet technically applies to Merlin. I don't know why Brant complains about calling things by their right names. Merlin is a fascist, and he is either dishonest or is completely incompetent at reading.

Shayne

Pathology is the only word that comes to mind. Both Merlin and I have explained (and I have offered several concrete examples) of existing companies with concentrated disproportionate voting rights for founders and IPOs structured with different share classes (Google) to accomplish precisely what Valve seems to want to do (retain creative control). Yet you accuse Merlin of dishonesty and not being able to read.

Either we're not clear on Valve's reasoning (maybe they just don't want any other owners around them at all) or they couldn't get underwriting, or maybe something else. But, if all they want to do is retain creative control then there is clearly no legal barrier.

There's something wrong with you that you'd spew such accusations. Accusations of transgressions that you yourself commit not more than a few minutes previously. Don't think the obvious connection is a coincidence.

Is this opposite day or something?

Bob

[9thdoctor]

If you're not a professional investor, why would you invest?

If you’re not a health professional, why would you go to a doctor? Madoff was the finance equivalent of a fully credentialed, highly regarded doctor. But it turns out he was a quack and all his patients were killed in one fell swoop.

In general, what are your thoughts on division of labor and specialization?

[sjw]

Oh, yes, calling "things" by their right names is quite different than calling someone by a thing's name which may or may not be appropriate. The way Shayne's using it here is stupid, disgusting, uneducational, unproductive and just wrong.

Says you. Over and over again. I've told you I'm willing to hear why you think I should do such and such, but you expect me to change my behavior on your say so without providing reasons.

And at the same time, you cowardly stand with GHS who posts with the sole purpose of provoking me. Don't tell me about "stupid, disgusting, uneducational, unproductive and just wrong." Look at GHS, and then look in a mirror. Did you ever think to lecture at GHS the way you do at me? No. Never. Why? Because you're his little pet?

Shayne

- Brant is a "Rational individualist"?

[sjw]

Pathology is the only word that comes to mind. Both Merlin and I have explained (and I have offered several concrete examples) of existing companies with concentrated disproportionate voting rights for founders and IPOs structured with different share classes (Google) to accomplish precisely what Valve seems to want to do (retain creative control). Yet you accuse Merlin of dishonesty and not being able to read.

Because that is not what I asked for. I specifically asked for how they can fund individual games by directly and publicly selling individual stock in each one to individuals, and without submitting to SEC jurisdiction. So yes, either you are very dishonest, or you can't read.

Further, either you are for respecting the wishes of two consenting parties or you are not. If you are for respecting their wishes, then why are you arguing with me? If you are not, then clearly, you are both fascists in the technical sense of the term.

Brant bemoans fascism in the US, but when he meets two fascists, he doesn't have the stomach for the word anymore. Where does he think fascism comes from if not from fascists?

Shayne

[merjet]

A parody.

Shayne the Whistler discovers a youth baseball team that he believes is unbeatable and the team belongs in big leagues. Let's call them the Whistlers. He goes to Bud Selig and demands the Whistlers be allowed to play in the majors with special rules. The team doesn't have a suitable home park with 40,000 seats, so it must play all road games. The Whistlers will be paid half the gate receipts. Any ball that a Whistler player hits within 100 feet of the fence is a home run. The Whistlers get 5 outs when at bat. Any pitch that a Whistler pitcher throws within a foot of the usual strike zone shall be called a strike. The preceding rules do not apply to the opposing team.

[sjw]

A parody.

Shayne the Whistler discovers a youth baseball team that he believes is unbeatable and the team belongs in big leagues. Let's call them the Whistlers. He goes to Bud Selig and demands the Whistlers be allowed to play in the majors with special rules. The team doesn't have a suitable home park with 40,000 seats, so it must play all road games. The Whistlers will be paid half the gate receipts. Any ball that a Whistler player hits within 100 feet of the fence is a home run. The Whistlers get 5 outs when at bat. Any pitch that a Whistler pitcher throws within a foot of the usual strike zone shall be called a strike. The preceding rules do not apply to the opposing team.

Stunning.

In a free market, the rules are: don't violate anyone's rights. There are no other rules unless you've consented to those rules, e.g. by joining a voluntary association like the Majors. I don't object to your SEC-sanctioned stock market, what I object to is that we aren't free to create alternatives.

Shayne

[9thdoctor]

I don't object to your SEC-sanctioned stock market, what I object to is that we aren't free to create alternatives.

Such as Pink Sheets?

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Pink_sheets

A parody.

Spot on.

[sjw]

I don't object to your SEC-sanctioned stock market, what I object to is that we aren't free to create alternatives.

Such as Pink Sheets?

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Pink_sheets

"The company simply facilitates the exchange of securities between qualified independent brokers."

I.e., not open to the general public.

I continue to be amazed by incompetence/dishonesty of the posters here.

Shayne