SEC Says New FinReg Law Exempts It From Public Disclosure

reply to post by mordant1


Wahine.

And Im not asking you what I should think, Im trying to figure out what YOU think.

I actually do care about and take on board the thoughts and thought processes of others. But not so that I dont have to think myself. I do so because there is always the possibility someone else has thought of something I missed.

Cryptic messages make it difficult to do so, for me, anyway. Mean what you say, and say what you mean, seems a good policy to me.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Yep your right, but i'm the howlie (hooked on phonics), not my partner, (just for fun google Dr mossman hawaii) so dont push me off the pali lookout over it.

I do mean what I say, and in deadly earnest. It's not cryptic, it's sooo simple. You and most just want a comfortable, easy answer and that's the problem, there isnt one. We sharae at least one thing in common, that we will recognize we could have done something more but didnt do enough.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Next president? Funny. Do you think they do what they do if they were afraid of a vote by a responsible public?
Not gonna be one, at least not like you think.
But you probly think there's gonna be a normal election in november, dont you?

It's been awhile for me but this is exactly what Ihave come to expect. Seriously WTF is a secret, why is anything secret. If everybody knew what everybody was doing there would be no secrets. This is why I live in Alaska, I feel sooooooooooooooo disconnected from the "real" world. You would have to live here to understand but Iam sure ther are manyother places similar. If who said buys "A" who the heck cares, I bought "B" whos gonna look this ish up anyway, seriously.

Originally posted by coldfiremx
It's been awhile for me but this is exactly what Ihave come to expect. Seriously WTF is a secret, why is anything secret. If everybody knew what everybody was doing there would be no secrets. This is why I live in Alaska, I feel sooooooooooooooo disconnected from the "real" world. You would have to live here to understand but Iam sure ther are manyother places similar. If who said buys "A" who the heck cares, I bought "B" whos gonna look this ish up anyway, seriously.

The secret? Easy
1 They are spending your money on themselves and supporters and locking honest people out of the benefits stream.
2 the taxpayer is being given all the debt and business associated with govt cooperation is being let off of it's obligations either for service or responsibility. Friendly biz cannot lose, taxpayers cannot win.
3 The taxpayer will be imprisoned or destroyed if he choses to stop feeding the system or makes any attempt to preserve himself

reply to post by mordant1


I do think unless something big happens between now and then that there will be a "normal" election.

The illusion of freedom is important to the scam they are running, and despite what it may seem like with all the posts that "people are waking up" MOST Americans are happily choking down their programming. Even here, on ATS. At this point there is no reason for them to lose the illusion. And no real benefit in their doing so.

And no, I dont want "easy" answers. Unlike some on here, I like intricate and complicated logical thought. I enjoy it. I majored in it.

However, terms you used in the original post, "redistribution of wealth" for instance, are used by both sides of the wealth divide. Its a rallying cry for conservatives when railing against the "socialist" policies, and it is used by the other side as well. Likewise the idea of "value adders." The wealthy claim they are the ones adding value to society, the working class likewise asserts that.

I dont see anything wrong with asking how YOU were using the term, since both sides often use the exact same words.

Is its too difficult for you, or morally repugnant for you to clarify, then fine. No problem.

And its "haole." Hawaiian is a phonetic language, but you have to know how the letters of that alphabet are pronounced to make it work.





[edit on 29-7-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


All discussions are predicated on using the same language. anything less, is a fraud.
I prefer to use self explanatory terminology.
Value adders, ones who produce and valued service or product that feed the population and culture. It is somewhat inclusive and somewhat dependent on interpretation as well as need as some will try to ride that train that dont belong at some or even any point in time.
In any respect like the family that successful society mirrors, a product or variety of needed items must be produced to sustain the family/nation.
This is in contradistinction to those that offer investment or cashflow philosophies that in essense raise the price/cost of the services of others through manipulation of supply without adding functional value or fulfilling a general need. All pure investment income is based buying cheap and selling high, the product service or other issues not of any functional significance.
Just because someone is wealthy or poor doesnt make them a value adder, basically if they take care of their own needs productively that's most of it.
Redistribution of wealth is easy, it is taking by force or intimidation from one and giving to others.
Redistribution is always theft so the 'good' of it is usually raised only by those intending to take it and reward their constituencies (and themselves) and defund their adversaries.

Look this is all fairly simple : Eveyone has a functional and social duty to take care of their own needs, and if they make a surplus so much the better. and in doing so it gives them the freedom to have a range of choices for themselves. Evil starts when people make demands upon others for their own maintainance while they offer nothing in return. ( and please, lets not go into babies, they are fairly a voluntary proposition and outside the scope of human adult behavior re economics)
And yes you are correct in your hawaiian spelling so see, I'm not always pedantic, only when I have to be.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by mordant1]

[edit on 29-7-2010 by mordant1]

[edit on 29-7-2010 by mordant1]

reply to post by mordant1


I think you must have an inflated sense of self if you think that someone must necessarily know how you are intending to use a word, Mordant. I asked a simple question. Not complicated. Those terms are used in many ways, not one way, by various peoples pushing various agendas. Although I have read posts of yours before, I do not pretend to know your ideology, nor you preferred way of using those terms. I also read widely on this board and I hear many other people complain about "redistribution of wealth" much differently than you seem to be, often for those who are for the "redistribution of wealth" I now gather you oppose. The dont call what they are doing "redistributing wealth" they call it "making a profit."

It is nice that you recognize that understanding the meaning someone is intending to impart requires agreement upon what words stand for. Words do not have inherent meaning. They are agreements between people that this marking or utterance will act as a stand in for this concept. I most often hear the terms you used associated with the supporters of what you appear to be decrying. "Free marketeers" whose free market doesnt mean anything close to how Smith used the word, but rather a market skewed in their favor.

Im just not sure what your glitch is, about explaining a simple thing, you position. Especially since you did a little numbered explanation for someone else.

I will just avoid replying to you in the future, so as to save us both grief.

I advise contributors to this thread to focus on the OP and not each other.

Ultimately, despite disparaging references, I'm sure you can realize that this topic is far more important than the sparring in which you are currently engaged.

Should the SEC be taken to task, is there an avenue of redress that people can take to challenge the absurdity of government coddling of private financiers? Or does the fact that we are their debtors render the people 'resources' for their exploitation?

Work on those questions. You are both smart enough to come up with some significant answers, no?

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I gather that my attempts to clarify even 2 simple concepts of basic economic principles either threaten your beliefs in a socioeconomic santa claus or fall on intrinsically infertile soil.
Enjoy whatever concepts you'd prefer to accept blindly from other more popular sources for success is surely to be your reward.
Toodles