- riiiiight, and none of these complaints are coming for the big guys, only small firms.
No, they didn't.
- you are ignorant.
FINRA is experiencing decrease in revenues because of how many businesses it chased out of the market, so now they raised their fees for the businesses that are still alive, and they will cause more to shut down. You are ignorant as fuck.
By the FINRA rules there has to be a COMPLAINT, I am talking about companies being shaken down, don't you understand? They invade the main office, they come by the dozen, go over every single paper and trail, they want to see all personal information of every client and every detail about every transaction.
Then they go to the satellite offices everywhere else, in other cities. FINRA chased so many businesses out of the market that their revenues fell so much, they had to raise fees by a factor, which will eventually cause more shut downs.
All this is done to SMALL firms. You think GS gets this type of treatment? JPM Chase? Ha!
The small firms are at a huge disadvantage and they don't get bailed out either, they live by the word of mouth, but they can't legally advertise. Every card in the deck is stacked against them, this is done so that the main few firms stay in business, getting bail outs and stimulus and so that there is no choice for clients but to put their money with those few large too big to fail firms.
And what do they do with that money? Loan it to the government or use it to gamble, they are not investing in sound money or sound businesses. It's a huge disaster and it's done with inflation, regulations and taxes.
Wrong, you are wrong on the facts. USA had the freest market between its Civil war and WWI. That's when USA became largest producer, exporter, creditor nation, allowed most competition, which brought everybody's standard of living up, allowed people to innovate.
USA had almost no government at all at that time period, no income taxes, no departments, pretty much nothing, and economy actually turned to be first world economy, and only 100 years before USA was 3rd world.
But not only USA, China has allowed its people to be much freer economically speaking for the last 40 years and that's why it is the biggest growing economy.
In the old times it was the Roman empire that allowed free trade, that's what made it into a powerful nation.
The problem with wealthy states is that the government grows and eventually destroys the economy and society by promising free stuff to voters.
Intel is an economy of scale, they are not a monopoly until government steps in to prevent other companies from investing into microprocessor design and manufacturing.
Of-course I always argue that patents and copyrights DO provide a government created barrier to entry into any market, especially high tech stuff.
Now, if Intel is not providing you with a product you want and you think they are overcharging and you believe there is a FINANCIAL sense in having another designer and manufacturer company in the market and it would be profitable by being able to sell because of whatever efficiencies and better product, better business, then clearly you have an opportunity that you should approach investors with.
There are plenty of millionaires and billionaires that want to invest into a sound business idea and if they are not investing it's because they don't think the idea is sound (that's why the California plan for high speed rail is not done privately - nobody is stupid enough to believe they can make a profit there, only government doesn't care about losing all sorts of tax payer money on nonsense projects that market isn't willing to take on).
So you think you have a good idea? What is stopping you (except the shitty economy of-course, but again, that's gov't for you with all the inflation, laws, taxes). If you can make a better processor and it will be cheaper, don't you think you'd be able to SELL it?
You think you can make a processor better than Intel and sell it cheaper than Intel? You can be a billionaire yourself. Do it, I want a cheaper better processor, go ahead.
That's a myth, nobody does it in real life because nobody is stupid enough to run a loss for years not knowing if they themselves will be able to compete against somebody with similar resources or if there will be a development in this time that would cut costs for everybody anyway. Nobody runs a business to lose money, it's a myth that idiots like to tell themselves.
People who bitch about government regulation behing high barriers to entry are usually just whiny bitches who couldn't succeed in the first place.
- yeah, dumb ass, is that why there is not a single banking application in USA this year, this is first time since ever. Everybody is a 'whiny bitch' now. Or maybe that's why FINRA only collected 80 million last year, which is way down because so many brokerages closed down due to highest compliance costs ever, those brokerages are constantly harassed by the government, their compliance costs are growing, they are being audited nearly every year now. That's for small, not 'too big to fail' companies, they are driven out of business while the companies that are really destroying the economy because they are the same thing as the government and they live off bailouts and stimulus and inflation and gambling are doing fine, because they can succeed, right?
Yeah, anybody can "succeed" with government handing out cash to them all the time, but people are shutting down because of the government destroying the competition so that these 'too big to fail' get even bigger and everybody who wanted a sound financial advice is going to get fleeced.
It's not the ECONOMY that 'ends' in a free market when somebody stops making a profit, it's that specific business model that puts somebody out of business ends and the market actually LEARNS something from that mistake.
Now contrast with the government ran economies - the same stupid thing is done over and over and over, the money is printed, the inflation causes savings to be wiped out or moved out and asset bubbles form while productivity falls.
Then the recession hits, which is free market attempting to reset the problem by erasing the fake credit, the fake values of assets, restore interest rates so that savings can be made again.
Then the government steps in with more fake money and fake interest rates, trying to inflate another asset bubble and call it 'economic recovery'. This is done in a loop over and over until either the government gives up and economy restructures (fat chance) or the free market stops playing the game, nobody wants to trade for that destroyed currency and there is a real economic collapse, which forces the restructuring anyway.
This is exactly the same as what happens when people try to prevent small fires that happen in forests and clean up the underbrush and all the rotten and fallen wood. For a while people prevent small fires from burning through the woods, eventually there is so much fuel collected in the forest that a huge fire destroys the forest and everything around it.
I agree with you, everybody should stop paying taxes and supporting the blood thirsty tyrannical governments, but your argument does not apply at all in this case, the money in question is already in a bank, whatever it is, it was taxed long ago.
I'll care about that type of point of view when the new businesses start going to the poor for loans.
Of-course today it's impossible to get a business loan in all these countries that devalue their currencies, and you are right - banks and government are essentially one and the same (and military industrial complex, etc.), but that link doesn't have to exist, that is precisely why Government must be shackled by the chains of Constitution and prevented from meddling in the economy and money, prevented from printing cash and setting interest rates, etc. Of-course there are people now who say: I don't give a damn, I'd burn the Constitution myself if that meant I could get some free stuff. (6th paragraph down)
Well, with attitudes like that why is it a surprise that there is no limit, no law and government can do whatever it wants and it is the same thing as banks basically?
Right now the banks on their own volition hold the account open for a long time (actually in one of my banks the account will stay open for 99 years) until it's considered 'lost'. The bank doesn't care what's in the account individually, because the bank uses fractional lending to create counterfeit money anyway because of government insurance, it basically doesn't matter to the bank whether the money in it is your or 'banks', it treats the money in the same rotten manner with all these gov't moral hazards.
The money given to the bank, whether or not they are put into a new loan, becomes pure profit. Usually banks earn a couple cents for every dollar deposited, now they earn the whole dollar.
- and this is a problem how? The more profit the bank makes by loaning this money out, the more of this money can be reused as investment capital. Give it to government and watch no investment into productive uses, only waste. Sure, they can fund more wars and more welfare, but none of it creates new business. These are SAVINGS, not TAXES, the taxes were paid already, the government got what it wanted, using the money to grow business will also generate more taxes, just handing money to government for no reason will only grow government for no reason.
better than having it go to the profit of some private business.
- why? It would be better if this money was used by the bank to loan it to start a new business, maybe some form of VC, giving money to government is always the wrong way to go.
So you couldn't save money under your socialist system to carry you for a period of time you are unemployed? Besides, with EI provided by gov't, there is no free market in insuring unemployment.
As to your constant nazi references, you need to see somebody about that.
Now the judge should go for the jugular and rule that Apple can't ever sue anybody again because of form based on the 'coolness factor'. The judge should cite Fonzie as prior art.
The owner of this phone should immediately try it, it will help, here is the recipe: stick your fucking head in the microwave, turn it on, and then file a support complaint with your mother for giving birth to a defective unit.
For Congress to declare war, it must pass legislation of a specific format like this declaration. What 'authorisation' means is that the POTUS for example passes a law with justification for war and it normally asks for money and Congress then votes on basically providing funding for this, not declaring a war, but just saying: take this money for this non-war/war that you are running.
It's done so that the Congressmen don't have to face their constituents and explain why they thought the war had to be declared, instead they can just say: it was an expenditure bill, we authorised it for defence.
The federal government shouldn't be entangling in alliances, it should step away from the path of the businesses who actually do real trade.
Which side of the road to drive on shouldn't even be decided on federal level in any case.
As to war - having accords and treaties is all fine, but ones these treaties attempt to supersede the law of the nation, the nation must revolt against their government if their government tries to abide by such nonsense.
You know how you get respect? By not being a push over and by allowing people to have their individual freedom, not by caging them and placing a government employee to guard each person.
sure sure, but I did say: literally or figuratively.
Every religion hates competition, and it's competition that is burned (be it atheists or other religion followers or some other groups) of-course sometimes it's literal, sometimes it's done figuratively.
Do the Wicca followers try to use their perceived magic to have some advantage against other religions and groups?
Germany is getting nothing from the European Union, the problem with the Germans is that about half of them are now socialists, and they are not learning from their mistakes. They already paid to subsidise the Eastern part, they can't stop being masochistic.
When I first visited Germany maybe 5 years ago, I asked some of the gov't workers on a train from Belgium to Baden Baden: when are you going to get out of Euro, it's destroying your purchasing power and your standard of life?
They said: it's better to pay than to fight wars. I am on and off in Germany for 3 years now, I come and go, stay for a couple of months at a time, in Baden Baden right now. I see that the attitudes are shifting, now maybe half of the people are against the Euro (the currency itself, never mind the union) and Germans need to get livid about the common bonds that will end up costing Germany untold amounts of wealth and productivity.
I remember I was actually surprised to see just how poor Germans really were compared to their counterparts in USA or Canada and I figured it out - it's the credit. Germans do not live on credit, they spend cash, they don't extract equity from their mortgages (if they have mortgages, and getting a mortgage in Germany is something else altogether in terms of difficulty compared to USA and Canada).
Germany is a WEALTHY country because it produces so much, but it is feeding the European Union with its wealth instead of consuming it itself, and that is done with all the inflation, and from the very beginning my prediction was that Euro, as a currency, has a very limited lifespan, that there cannot be an equitable union among countries with such different economies - mostly producers and savers in Germany and mostly consumers and debtors in southern Europe (and Eastern Europe of-course).
Germany is not better off in this crisis because of unions or laws, as so many liberals are convinced of, they are totally wrong.
Germany is better off because the people are net savers, the country has so much production capacity that it feeds countries around it, it doesn't actually need them to exist.
As far as I understand by now Germany can supply about half of its energy needs from renewable sources - solar and wind power, of-course the Germans got the completely wrong idea from Fukishima, so they don't want any nuclear, which is a huge mistake of-course, but even without nuclear maybe they can manage to produce enough power to be totally independent in a couple of decades.
Germany would be much better off of-course without all these laws, without regulations and these insane taxes (the German tax police is something else, it's fierce and insane) and as far as I understand it is common occurrence among the Germans to snitch upon each other to the authorities, so Germany is not even close to being a free country from individual POV, but it has enough common sense here to keep production by lowering the regulations, to allow cheap immigrant labour into the country to prevent jobs from being outsourced to places with lower labour costs and the most important thing: people are savers.
Savers will save the day of-course, with their own savings, they will be gutted by the spenders, but that's how the economies of the world will restart, because everything will be stolen from the savers.
Slashdot Mirror
They're investigating complaints.
- riiiiight, and none of these complaints are coming for the big guys, only small firms.
No, they didn't.
- you are ignorant.
FINRA is experiencing decrease in revenues because of how many businesses it chased out of the market, so now they raised their fees for the businesses that are still alive, and they will cause more to shut down. You are ignorant as fuck.
By the FINRA rules there has to be a COMPLAINT, I am talking about companies being shaken down, don't you understand? They invade the main office, they come by the dozen, go over every single paper and trail, they want to see all personal information of every client and every detail about every transaction.
Then they go to the satellite offices everywhere else, in other cities. FINRA chased so many businesses out of the market that their revenues fell so much, they had to raise fees by a factor, which will eventually cause more shut downs.
All this is done to SMALL firms. You think GS gets this type of treatment? JPM Chase? Ha!
The small firms are at a huge disadvantage and they don't get bailed out either, they live by the word of mouth, but they can't legally advertise. Every card in the deck is stacked against them, this is done so that the main few firms stay in business, getting bail outs and stimulus and so that there is no choice for clients but to put their money with those few large too big to fail firms.
And what do they do with that money? Loan it to the government or use it to gamble, they are not investing in sound money or sound businesses. It's a huge disaster and it's done with inflation, regulations and taxes.
Wrong, you are wrong on the facts. USA had the freest market between its Civil war and WWI. That's when USA became largest producer, exporter, creditor nation, allowed most competition, which brought everybody's standard of living up, allowed people to innovate.
USA had almost no government at all at that time period, no income taxes, no departments, pretty much nothing, and economy actually turned to be first world economy, and only 100 years before USA was 3rd world.
But not only USA, China has allowed its people to be much freer economically speaking for the last 40 years and that's why it is the biggest growing economy.
In the old times it was the Roman empire that allowed free trade, that's what made it into a powerful nation.
The problem with wealthy states is that the government grows and eventually destroys the economy and society by promising free stuff to voters.
Intel is an economy of scale, they are not a monopoly until government steps in to prevent other companies from investing into microprocessor design and manufacturing.
Of-course I always argue that patents and copyrights DO provide a government created barrier to entry into any market, especially high tech stuff.
Now, if Intel is not providing you with a product you want and you think they are overcharging and you believe there is a FINANCIAL sense in having another designer and manufacturer company in the market and it would be profitable by being able to sell because of whatever efficiencies and better product, better business, then clearly you have an opportunity that you should approach investors with.
There are plenty of millionaires and billionaires that want to invest into a sound business idea and if they are not investing it's because they don't think the idea is sound (that's why the California plan for high speed rail is not done privately - nobody is stupid enough to believe they can make a profit there, only government doesn't care about losing all sorts of tax payer money on nonsense projects that market isn't willing to take on).
So you think you have a good idea? What is stopping you (except the shitty economy of-course, but again, that's gov't for you with all the inflation, laws, taxes). If you can make a better processor and it will be cheaper, don't you think you'd be able to SELL it?
You think you can make a processor better than Intel and sell it cheaper than Intel? You can be a billionaire yourself. Do it, I want a cheaper better processor, go ahead.
That's a myth, nobody does it in real life because nobody is stupid enough to run a loss for years not knowing if they themselves will be able to compete against somebody with similar resources or if there will be a development in this time that would cut costs for everybody anyway. Nobody runs a business to lose money, it's a myth that idiots like to tell themselves.
People who bitch about government regulation behing high barriers to entry are usually just whiny bitches who couldn't succeed in the first place.
- yeah, dumb ass, is that why there is not a single banking application in USA this year, this is first time since ever. Everybody is a 'whiny bitch' now. Or maybe that's why FINRA only collected 80 million last year, which is way down because so many brokerages closed down due to highest compliance costs ever, those brokerages are constantly harassed by the government, their compliance costs are growing, they are being audited nearly every year now. That's for small, not 'too big to fail' companies, they are driven out of business while the companies that are really destroying the economy because they are the same thing as the government and they live off bailouts and stimulus and inflation and gambling are doing fine, because they can succeed, right?
Yeah, anybody can "succeed" with government handing out cash to them all the time, but people are shutting down because of the government destroying the competition so that these 'too big to fail' get even bigger and everybody who wanted a sound financial advice is going to get fleeced.
Your comment is so stupid, it's beyond words.
It's not the ECONOMY that 'ends' in a free market when somebody stops making a profit, it's that specific business model that puts somebody out of business ends and the market actually LEARNS something from that mistake.
Now contrast with the government ran economies - the same stupid thing is done over and over and over, the money is printed, the inflation causes savings to be wiped out or moved out and asset bubbles form while productivity falls.
Then the recession hits, which is free market attempting to reset the problem by erasing the fake credit, the fake values of assets, restore interest rates so that savings can be made again.
Then the government steps in with more fake money and fake interest rates, trying to inflate another asset bubble and call it 'economic recovery'. This is done in a loop over and over until either the government gives up and economy restructures (fat chance) or the free market stops playing the game, nobody wants to trade for that destroyed currency and there is a real economic collapse, which forces the restructuring anyway.
This is exactly the same as what happens when people try to prevent small fires that happen in forests and clean up the underbrush and all the rotten and fallen wood. For a while people prevent small fires from burning through the woods, eventually there is so much fuel collected in the forest that a huge fire destroys the forest and everything around it.
I agree with you, everybody should stop paying taxes and supporting the blood thirsty tyrannical governments, but your argument does not apply at all in this case, the money in question is already in a bank, whatever it is, it was taxed long ago.
I'll care about that type of point of view when the new businesses start going to the poor for loans.
Of-course today it's impossible to get a business loan in all these countries that devalue their currencies, and you are right - banks and government are essentially one and the same (and military industrial complex, etc.), but that link doesn't have to exist, that is precisely why Government must be shackled by the chains of Constitution and prevented from meddling in the economy and money, prevented from printing cash and setting interest rates, etc. Of-course there are people now who say: I don't give a damn, I'd burn the Constitution myself if that meant I could get some free stuff. (6th paragraph down)
Well, with attitudes like that why is it a surprise that there is no limit, no law and government can do whatever it wants and it is the same thing as banks basically?
Right now the banks on their own volition hold the account open for a long time (actually in one of my banks the account will stay open for 99 years) until it's considered 'lost'. The bank doesn't care what's in the account individually, because the bank uses fractional lending to create counterfeit money anyway because of government insurance, it basically doesn't matter to the bank whether the money in it is your or 'banks', it treats the money in the same rotten manner with all these gov't moral hazards.
The money given to the bank, whether or not they are put into a new loan, becomes pure profit. Usually banks earn a couple cents for every dollar deposited, now they earn the whole dollar.
- and this is a problem how? The more profit the bank makes by loaning this money out, the more of this money can be reused as investment capital. Give it to government and watch no investment into productive uses, only waste. Sure, they can fund more wars and more welfare, but none of it creates new business. These are SAVINGS, not TAXES, the taxes were paid already, the government got what it wanted, using the money to grow business will also generate more taxes, just handing money to government for no reason will only grow government for no reason.
better than having it go to the profit of some private business.
- why? It would be better if this money was used by the bank to loan it to start a new business, maybe some form of VC, giving money to government is always the wrong way to go.
So you couldn't save money under your socialist system to carry you for a period of time you are unemployed? Besides, with EI provided by gov't, there is no free market in insuring unemployment.
As to your constant nazi references, you need to see somebody about that.
Now the judge should go for the jugular and rule that Apple can't ever sue anybody again because of form based on the 'coolness factor'. The judge should cite Fonzie as prior art.
sure you can, use a knife or a screw driver to push the safety button in, or break the glass with the head and don't even open the door, should work.
And I suggest an EASY REPAIR to this problem.
The owner of this phone should immediately try it, it will help, here is the recipe: stick your fucking head in the microwave, turn it on, and then file a support complaint with your mother for giving birth to a defective unit.
For Congress to declare war, it must pass legislation of a specific format like this declaration. What 'authorisation' means is that the POTUS for example passes a law with justification for war and it normally asks for money and Congress then votes on basically providing funding for this, not declaring a war, but just saying: take this money for this non-war/war that you are running.
It's done so that the Congressmen don't have to face their constituents and explain why they thought the war had to be declared, instead they can just say: it was an expenditure bill, we authorised it for defence.
Difference? Purely Orwellian.
GodwinInvocationException: the comment is an unreasonable logical fallacy, the commenter has dumped core.
it was 'authorised', never declared.
The federal government shouldn't be entangling in alliances, it should step away from the path of the businesses who actually do real trade.
Which side of the road to drive on shouldn't even be decided on federal level in any case.
As to war - having accords and treaties is all fine, but ones these treaties attempt to supersede the law of the nation, the nation must revolt against their government if their government tries to abide by such nonsense.
You know how you get respect? By not being a push over and by allowing people to have their individual freedom, not by caging them and placing a government employee to guard each person.
yes
sure sure, but I did say: literally or figuratively.
Every religion hates competition, and it's competition that is burned (be it atheists or other religion followers or some other groups) of-course sometimes it's literal, sometimes it's done figuratively.
Do the Wicca followers try to use their perceived magic to have some advantage against other religions and groups?
Germany is getting nothing from the European Union, the problem with the Germans is that about half of them are now socialists, and they are not learning from their mistakes. They already paid to subsidise the Eastern part, they can't stop being masochistic.
When I first visited Germany maybe 5 years ago, I asked some of the gov't workers on a train from Belgium to Baden Baden: when are you going to get out of Euro, it's destroying your purchasing power and your standard of life?
They said: it's better to pay than to fight wars. I am on and off in Germany for 3 years now, I come and go, stay for a couple of months at a time, in Baden Baden right now. I see that the attitudes are shifting, now maybe half of the people are against the Euro (the currency itself, never mind the union) and Germans need to get livid about the common bonds that will end up costing Germany untold amounts of wealth and productivity.
I remember I was actually surprised to see just how poor Germans really were compared to their counterparts in USA or Canada and I figured it out - it's the credit. Germans do not live on credit, they spend cash, they don't extract equity from their mortgages (if they have mortgages, and getting a mortgage in Germany is something else altogether in terms of difficulty compared to USA and Canada).
Germany is a WEALTHY country because it produces so much, but it is feeding the European Union with its wealth instead of consuming it itself, and that is done with all the inflation, and from the very beginning my prediction was that Euro, as a currency, has a very limited lifespan, that there cannot be an equitable union among countries with such different economies - mostly producers and savers in Germany and mostly consumers and debtors in southern Europe (and Eastern Europe of-course).
Germany is not better off in this crisis because of unions or laws, as so many liberals are convinced of, they are totally wrong.
Germany is better off because the people are net savers, the country has so much production capacity that it feeds countries around it, it doesn't actually need them to exist.
As far as I understand by now Germany can supply about half of its energy needs from renewable sources - solar and wind power, of-course the Germans got the completely wrong idea from Fukishima, so they don't want any nuclear, which is a huge mistake of-course, but even without nuclear maybe they can manage to produce enough power to be totally independent in a couple of decades.
Germany would be much better off of-course without all these laws, without regulations and these insane taxes (the German tax police is something else, it's fierce and insane) and as far as I understand it is common occurrence among the Germans to snitch upon each other to the authorities, so Germany is not even close to being a free country from individual POV, but it has enough common sense here to keep production by lowering the regulations, to allow cheap immigrant labour into the country to prevent jobs from being outsourced to places with lower labour costs and the most important thing: people are savers.
Savers will save the day of-course, with their own savings, they will be gutted by the spenders, but that's how the economies of the world will restart, because everything will be stolen from the savers.
all religions need witches to burn and people still burn witches today, literally and figuratively.
You tried to claim the fantasy world of people arbitrarily dropping insurance until the last minute and picking it back up with no penalty.
- definitely, and it's what ACA does.
It bars insurance companies from denying coverage or increasing premiums based on pre-existing conditions, and seeks to expand coverage to include 30 million uninsured Americans. - what, you can't actually READ English?
It's second paragraph from the top, dumb shit, learn to scroll.