It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reaching well beyond what?
that's what a patent is, its a licensed monopoly.
that is the definition of a patent.
pat·ent (ptnt)
n.
1.
a. A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time.
Originally posted by lordtyp0
So the SEC which had long been crippled by Bush at the time Maddof came about, is worthless because they didn't do anything... which proves Regulations are a huge benefit for companies becoming Monopolies?
You realize I hope: That Fraud is Fraud BECAUSE of a regulation? ie: A law that regulates behavior and defines legal from not.
But,,, still not seeing any proof or even a single actual regulation that is some how beneficial to a company and/or halting legit growth in any sector of business.
Any specific regulation that facilitates unfair advantage to a company? (the healthcare bill: not a regulation.). Something that backs up your thesis statement of "Deregulation is needed to allow companies to prosper in a fair free-market"?
Anything at all to show regulations as being beneficial?
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Regulations are supposedly designed to prevent and detect fraud.
However, we see that regulations don't work in preventing and detecting fraud.
But,,, still not seeing any proof or even a single actual regulation that is some how beneficial to a company and/or halting legit growth in any sector of business.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by lordtyp0
So the SEC which had long been crippled by Bush at the time Maddof came about, is worthless because they didn't do anything... which proves Regulations are a huge benefit for companies becoming Monopolies?
You realize I hope: That Fraud is Fraud BECAUSE of a regulation? ie: A law that regulates behavior and defines legal from not.
But,,, still not seeing any proof or even a single actual regulation that is some how beneficial to a company and/or halting legit growth in any sector of business.
Any specific regulation that facilitates unfair advantage to a company? (the healthcare bill: not a regulation.). Something that backs up your thesis statement of "Deregulation is needed to allow companies to prosper in a fair free-market"?
Anything at all to show regulations as being beneficial?
Fraud is not fraud because of regulations.
Regulations define what companies must do in terms of their reporting requirements, auditing requirements, reserve requirements, how they deal with commercial paper, what they have to pay their employees etc.. etc.. etc...
Those are regulations.
Fraud has nothing to do with regulation of business.
Regulations are supposedly designed to prevent and detect fraud.
However, we see that regulations don't work in preventing and detecting fraud.
In fact, they do the opposite!
They create moral hazard instead.
People assume the government is monitoring these investment houses to ensure they are operating on the up-and-up, yet the SEC is run by a bunch of clueless morons. Bush or no Bush, the SEC is full of idiots.
Madoff was sniffed out by other investors that knew his profits were too large and the fact his ponzi scheme came crashing down.
The SEC played no role at all.
[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]
So which is it? Regulations are worthless and ignored thus should be done away with? Or: Regulations give unfair competition benefits to certain companies at the cost of the free-market?
Originally posted by mnemeth1
But,,, still not seeing any proof or even a single actual regulation that is some how beneficial to a company and/or halting legit growth in any sector of business.
OK, lets look at teen unemployment and the minimum wage.
If I start news paper stand and I want to hire a highschool kid for 4 bucks an hour, because that's all i can afford, to run my news stand, I can't do that.
Even if the kid agrees to work for 4 bucks an hour, I can't hire him.
So what's better?
A kid with no job, or a kid making 4 bucks an hour peddling news papers?
This is just one example.
Lets look at another.
Sarbanes Oxley - a total massive farce of regulatory overhead that does absolutely nothing to prevent fraud.
All these reporting requirements costing billions upon billions of dollars in business expenses to comply with, yet the instances of fraud have not decreased in the slightest. That is a MASSIVE waste of productive business capital that could be used elsewhere.
Its just like gun laws. They do NOTHING to reduce crime and murders. Why? Because murders don't give a flying crap about gun laws!
You punish people for murder, you punish people for fraud, but all this regulation isn't going to prevent fraud.
[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]
Originally posted by mnemeth1
So which is it? Regulations are worthless and ignored thus should be done away with? Or: Regulations give unfair competition benefits to certain companies at the cost of the free-market?
They do both.
Sarbanes for example creates massive overhead that creates an enormous barrier to entry for new startups when competing against established businesses.
At the same time, Sarbanes is absolutely worthless at its intended function of preventing and detecting fraud.
Originally posted by Janky Red
Originally posted by mnemeth1
But,,, still not seeing any proof or even a single actual regulation that is some how beneficial to a company and/or halting legit growth in any sector of business.
OK, lets look at teen unemployment and the minimum wage.
If I start news paper stand and I want to hire a highschool kid for 4 bucks an hour, because that's all i can afford, to run my news stand, I can't do that.
Even if the kid agrees to work for 4 bucks an hour, I can't hire him.
So what's better?
A kid with no job, or a kid making 4 bucks an hour peddling news papers?
This is just one example.
Lets look at another.
Sarbanes Oxley - a total massive farce of regulatory overhead that does absolutely nothing to prevent fraud.
All these reporting requirements costing billions upon billions of dollars in business expenses to comply with, yet the instances of fraud have not decreased in the slightest. That is a MASSIVE waste of productive business capital that could be used elsewhere.
Its just like gun laws. They do NOTHING to reduce crime and murders. Why? Because murders don't give a flying crap about gun laws!
You punish people for murder, you punish people for fraud, but all this regulation isn't going to prevent fraud.
[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]
Well mr modern man if you lived in the days where everything was geared to give advantage to capital you might not see it that way. In a mining town, where mining might be the only source of work, what would keep you from getting woefully underpaid or indentured to the boss man? But you can't really experience that now can you, maybe you might move to a country that produces our goods and then report back.
If you cannot meet a basic capital output you have no business in business.
Turn on TV buddy, you see that business is alive and well in the era on minimum wage go figure.
Sarbanes Oxley worked fine until free marketeers, your type of folk wrote this abomination, coupled with a certain regim that shared, these Randian ideals.
gramm leach bliley act of 1999
Note S&L occurred in a state that loves this stuff
Note the consequence of the ideology that gave birth to GLB and the president who did not like regulation just the same
and the producers, sunk the economy with less restriction and oversight
You are peddling an extremist fairy tale IMO
Originally posted by Janky Red
and only after modifying and disarming Sarbanes with less restrictions and regulations do we see the largest fraud in modern history. Are you trying to prove our point or what?
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by Janky Red
Originally posted by mnemeth1
But,,, still not seeing any proof or even a single actual regulation that is some how beneficial to a company and/or halting legit growth in any sector of business.
OK, lets look at teen unemployment and the minimum wage.
If I start news paper stand and I want to hire a highschool kid for 4 bucks an hour, because that's all i can afford, to run my news stand, I can't do that.
Even if the kid agrees to work for 4 bucks an hour, I can't hire him.
So what's better?
A kid with no job, or a kid making 4 bucks an hour peddling news papers?
This is just one example.
Lets look at another.
Sarbanes Oxley - a total massive farce of regulatory overhead that does absolutely nothing to prevent fraud.
All these reporting requirements costing billions upon billions of dollars in business expenses to comply with, yet the instances of fraud have not decreased in the slightest. That is a MASSIVE waste of productive business capital that could be used elsewhere.
Its just like gun laws. They do NOTHING to reduce crime and murders. Why? Because murders don't give a flying crap about gun laws!
You punish people for murder, you punish people for fraud, but all this regulation isn't going to prevent fraud.
[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]
Well mr modern man if you lived in the days where everything was geared to give advantage to capital you might not see it that way. In a mining town, where mining might be the only source of work, what would keep you from getting woefully underpaid or indentured to the boss man? But you can't really experience that now can you, maybe you might move to a country that produces our goods and then report back.
If you cannot meet a basic capital output you have no business in business.
Turn on TV buddy, you see that business is alive and well in the era on minimum wage go figure.
Sarbanes Oxley worked fine until free marketeers, your type of folk wrote this abomination, coupled with a certain regim that shared, these Randian ideals.
gramm leach bliley act of 1999
Note S&L occurred in a state that loves this stuff
Note the consequence of the ideology that gave birth to GLB and the president who did not like regulation just the same
and the producers, sunk the economy with less restriction and oversight
You are peddling an extremist fairy tale IMO
The fairy tale is a socialist utopia.
Its always just one more regulation away.
Originally posted by Janky Red
I am not that hard core - I am not a communist or a free marketeer either way.
They are both fairy tales, both extreme
I believe in moderation myself
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by Janky Red
and only after modifying and disarming Sarbanes with less restrictions and regulations do we see the largest fraud in modern history. Are you trying to prove our point or what?
So you think Sarbanes would have detected the Madoff fraud?
LOL
Do have any idea how much fraud is going on right now in the markets?
We got a quadrillion dollar derivatives market.
We got a central bank handing out trillions with absolutely no oversight what-so-ever.
We got banks operating a massive carry trade with the fed's outrageous zero percent interest rates.
ALL FRAUD!
The banks are re-capitalizing themselves right now with phony money!
Sarbanes is a complete joke.
It didn't stop madoff, more requirements wouldn't have stopped madoff, nothing would have prevented it.
What ultimately sniffed him out was other investors questioning his massive profits and the fact his ponzi collapsed.
The entire god damn monetary system is a fraud!
Fraud is fraud, you don't need regulations to prevent and detect it. You need to change the monetary system and get rid of regulations that create moral hazard to prevent it.
[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]
Originally posted by Phedreus
"The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church" Ayn Rand
The women knows what she is talking about.
while in this case monopolies can and will come into existence, the market , left to its own devices will see these monopolies limited by economic forces until such time as market pressure results in competitive alternatives or even a total change in the technology