This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Update: Zero Hedge's own 1-2 has found an earlier copy:
- advertisements -
Contact Information:
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Suggested Reading:
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer, our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure. Here's our Cookie Policy.
Token black guy in the middle of clip for .25 seconds.
Also they showed some happy asians to make it look like Chinese are happy with our banksters.
I was laughing my ass off when I saw that ad. I think they forgot to mention the ad was sponsored by Goldman Sachs so they can pilfer more money from mom and pop investors.
exactly. GS got rich stealing from people who have nothing. I buy that.
Yeah, good luck with that whole "trust" thing. Maybe once we get rid of flash trading, high-frequency trading, program trading, frontrunning, and Goldman Sachs stuffing their servers onto the floor of the NYSE and stuffing the Obama administration with their alumni to ensure the administration's regulations favor them ... maybe then we'll have some "trust."
Duncan is a Goldman white shoe boy. Leave my FLASH alone!
Markets still aren't regulated. Unregulated markets can still take down regulated markets.
See post below. I would say that it is the other way around. Poorly regulated markets kill free markets. Most regulated markets are poorly regulated because legislation inevitably leads to favoring special interest groups. This process is knowing as regulatory capture. Essentially, the guys writing the legislation and the guy supervising cannot resist the temptation for special considerations from the industry they should be regulated (they have to work somewhere when you vote them out of office)
That is why I am a convinced minarchist.
So, what would a minarchist do with Goldman Sachs, or the NYSE? Do you believe those entities infringe on the liberty of their competitors?
It's not so much that they infringe on the liberty of their competitors, because I think they only do that by proxy: They are supported unduly by the government, so they infringe on the rights of everyone who pays taxes. The government, in the literal sense, is who would be infringing on the liberty of goldman and nyse's competitors by allowing fraud and waste to continue on (often indirect, sometimes via favorable legislation, etc) tax dollar funding. Now, I'm not saying they should limit size of companies, or amount of profits, but they sure as shit should shoot the companies that not only benefit from a fixed market, but fix the market, right under their own noses.
I don't buy the doing by proxy argument. The entities are responsible for their own actions, whether the actions are illegal or not. So in the case that their actions are legal but are still infringing on the liberty of their competitors, do we change the laws (regulations) or let the competitors fend for themselves? Or do we strongly suggest that they abide by a self-imposed code of conduct (the stuff that usually doesn't work)?
Before I start, I want to make it known that I think regulation in the sense that you have legal consequences for fraud and theft are great things, and government should define and enforce the transgressions in those cases. More on this later.
The thing I don't agree with is 'protective' regulation, or regulation that behaves in loco parentis.
Many forms of such regulation seek to provide a false sense of security. It implies that all 'regulated' entities that are still standing have been given a tacit stamp of approval by the regulators, encouraging the children who would need to buy from them not to think about the real value of doing business with said entities on their own merits.
"If this were bad it would be illegal," seems to be a reasonable proposition, and we know how true that isn't.
"These guys wouldn't be able to sell this to me if what they say weren't true, after all they do have regulators who would check on this..."
See where I'm going with this?
In a world without tacit stamps of approval, we have companies that can only use their reputations and past customer anecdotes, their own performance numbers, and some other kinds of data as their advertisements. They would not be able to rely on the fact that 'protective' regulators artificially flatten the playing field. They would have to do whatever they could to honestly protect their own name and brand via quality of product and service. They would have no other choice. They don't get such a thing as a 'minimum standard' that everyone assumes they meet.
Now, consumers, (retail investors, whomever) assume that firms most likely implement some minimum regulatory standard, and thus aren't likely to be a ponzi or quick kill model. (Not even getting into the fact that minimum standards eventually become maximum standards, rinse lather repeat.)
No matter what the laws are increased to be or relaxed to be, this idea that there is a minimum standard at all will anesthetize people both sides of the buyer-seller table. The number one reason for this is that it is impossible to create a rule for every case. You cannot encapsulate all behaviors that would fall into the categories sought to be regulated adequately enough, nor could you afford enough regulators to check and enforce it all. You'd virtually need to have just as many regulators as market participants.
As I briefly said above, I think making it illegal to sell stuff you don't have, illegal to steal things, and illegal to lie about the quality of your products or services (With respect to an established standard,) is great. I agree that the government should identify and punish fraud (though not pre-emptively.) I don't like the idea that people assume that government will not let them "do anything stupid" when really they should just "punish them if they are caught breaking the law," i.e. perpetrating fraud or theft.
Caveat Emptor.
My good Sir,
You've gone to a better school than me.
My Cognitive Dissonance
After taking a quick look at the still and before running the video, I wondered why Joe Theismann would be doing promo for the NYSE. Then I watched the clip and realized it wasn't Joe... but I still wished LT would take Duncan down. On second thought, maybe Terry Tate would be a more modern Market Linebacker.
Love the Terry tate reference...Top 5 All Time Super Bowl commercial. Terry Tate: Office Linebacker. I want Terry Tate to light up Geithner for not paying his taxes.
I'm pretty confident that guy is full of crap, so it was definitely a confidence building ad.
Apocalypse Now - Translation: Sorry we robbed you blind in the last ten years when government looked the other way as we co-opted regulators and converted the exchanges from non-profits into super-profit companies where we all shared in the loot. We want to make sure we are a part of the solution so we can direct and write new regulations with plenty of loopholes for lawmakers as they try to re-regulate us again - that is the path we need to be on.
Seriously. The exchanges were not-for-profits for like a thousand years, and then insiders at those places wanted to ring the register and enrich themselves personally by claiming 'ownership' of what were really American institutiions by going public. I wish we could dig up all the past Presidents and Boards of those exchanges and tell them that after the turn of century a few greedy fucks took the places public for their own benefit. BTW, who the hell would buy stock in NYX and NDAQ? Their business model is now screwing the retail investor for profit.
Yes. And why are we all still stuck on the earth when I know gravity pulls up.
Unregulated markets are not really the problem. The problem is selectively unregulated markets (eg. deregulation/regulation that caters to special interests).
A basic premise of game theory is that investors can adjust for unfairness biases when known. The problem only arises when it is not easy to detect the cheating behavior as happens when special interests receive subtely special treatment (eg. flash trading as a scandalous example) or when the rules of the game are suddenly altered to benefit a player (FASB fair value adjustments, FED buying into the market, acceptance of coordinated short squeezes, etc)
Let me finish by saying that whoever says the financial industry is not regulated knows absolutely nothing about the industry. It is the most regulated industry after Pharma. As stated above the problem is the regulation has been setup so that it can be gamed. Simple things like reinstating Glass-Seagall, establishing 1 second validity for trades and returning to the investment bank partnership model would do wonders to mitigate future crises.
I'm sure he believes all of it. Only if by chance his net worth would drop to zero or below would he believe something else. Such is the nature of belief.
I just threw up in my mouth.
Speaking about flash trades. Direct Edge is fighting back.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/039fc8f6-7a11-11de-b86f-00144feabdc0.html
I love the stupidity of the reply. "If we ban them, it will create a two-tier system - if we keep them, it could create a two-tier system". Which one is it then O'Brien? (any relation to Conan?)
---------
End dark pools now. They are only a heaven for bad institutional traders that don't want to be judged on execution and for investment banks that are happy to charge a fee to provide the opacity.
He should have added that by the time this commercial ended - 347,678,913 shares traded ahead of your order..
I love your icon.
That's really an exhausted Pac-Man... he fell into a coma after gobbling up all the liquidity rebates.
Asian stocks are flying tonight.
Shanghai just debuted another IPO, this time "Shenzen Freeway". As usual, it was about 50x oversubscribed.
Never underestimate the gambling fever in China.
Watch the overnight action here:
http://clearstation.etrade.com/cgi-bin/bbs?post_id=9095743
Robo, please email me. (Marla @ zero hedge dot com)
Will you guys put a lot of heat on the feds paying GS via AIG. I would like to see this done a lot more so the main media willl pick up and only then the congress and main street will revolt.
YOu guys do terrific services to main street. I plan to post our web site on message boads eveywhere.
i love your icon
i love you long time robotrader... and those charts.
Marla, what is the background music in the NYSE ad? That was the only interesting part of it, and it's pretty effective. Who did that?
Tyler, Marla - check out the new CNBC home page at bottom of this post
http://www.fundmymutualfund.com/2009/07/short-interview-at-wall-st-cheat...
yeah, barry borrowed from ZH
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/we-are-not-ungrateful
damn your good
p.s. I love the math question at the bottom of the commenting section. Can you imagine how many mortgages would not happen if those who wanted to borrow had to answer said question WITHOUT calculator? And they were only given 3 chances to get it right?
we are so fat and comfortable, it is certain that the revolution is at hand
haha, yeah, yeah, and jesus is coming tomorrow.
Have you seen the old BBC series version of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, where everyone's at Milliways, and the MC says :
"Still waiting for the second coming. Well, fellas, let's hope he hurries. He's got eight minutes left! But seriously, though, no offence meant. I know one shouldn't make fun of deeply held beliefs, so I think a great big hand for the Great Prophet Zarquon ..."
This is kinda like that.