NY Stock Exchange Bought Buy German Stock Exchange....

[revelarts]

There's a lot of ways to take this,

I guess the thing the bugs me at the top of the list is that Germany's not completely friendly player. There's more i could say but i won't cause it would take me a while to back it up. Hint old Bormann $$.

And if it's owned by German who regulates it Germany... the EU?

but it's a very interesting development. New world, not quite sure about the order

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1Git-HLSc_Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[revelarts]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hJdl6X1pElI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[logroller]

Wow, talk about free trade, we're selling our whole exchange.

[fj1200]

Meh, it's a global world.

[revelarts]

See FJ that's where I get Ron Paul Bus.
I think nationalism calls for a bit of protectionism.
Having a large part of our economy controled by Foreigners with nothing but a financial stake in the game at best and negative intentions towrds our soveriegnty as a goal at worse. makes me uneasy.

In a perfect world sure.

But
ya know.

[fj1200]

See FJ that's where I get Ron Paul Bus.
I think nationalism calls for a bit of protectionism.
Having a large part of our economy controled by Foreigners with nothing but a financial stake in the game at best and negative intentions towrds our soveriegnty as a goal at worse. makes me uneasy.

In a perfect world sure.

But
ya know.

Our economy is not "controlled" by foreigners, they bought the NYSE and cash flow, nothing more than that. It's regulated by the SEC and the exchange isn't beholden to the EU or Germany. This is the same thing as getting our panties in a wad because some Japanese were buying Pebble Beach.

Nationalism does not call for protectionism, we had protectionism swell up preceding the Great Depression and was a major cause of it. Protectionism is just another way to buy some votes, whether it's ethanol producers from Brazilian ethanol or sugar producers from foreign sugar, misguided policy costs consumers in higher prices.

We keep wanting to blame others because of our crappy corporate tax and regulatory policies. It's not the German's fault that Congress is a bunch of collective idiots it's our own fault. China should not be a scary new competitor, we shouldn't be squandering our own advantages in the world by forcing businesses to provide the social engineering that Congress and POTUS thinks they need to provide.

[revelarts]

I didn't say All of our economy , but a "large part".
Stock Exchange is a large part esp now a days,
not exactly peeple beach.

and the SECs control/regulation (such as it is) is still up the air, it may go under euro regs.

Technically it may mean nothing, my xtra cynical side agrees,
saying yeah all of the corporate controllers are international anyway so what's the difference.

As far as protectionism goes, yeah it can and has been used as a carrot or gift by politicians but I can't think of another way to cover the people of an area from full bore exploitation there.
there's no perfect solution but I think foreign countries draining an areas resources based solely on dollar values is a bad option as well. Capitalism has no moral brake.

[fj1200]

I didn't say All of our economy , but a "large part".
Stock Exchange is a large part esp now a days,
not exactly peeple beach.

BS, they bought cash flow not control of the economy.


and the SECs control/regulation (such as it is) is still up the air, it may go under euro regs.

Now you're just making S' up.


Technically it may mean nothing, my xtra cynical side agrees,
saying yeah all of the corporate controllers are international anyway so what's the difference.

Do you have a NON-cynical side? :rolleyes:


As far as protectionism goes, yeah it can and has been used as a carrot or gift by politicians but I can't think of another way to cover the people of an area from full bore exploitation there.

Who's being exploited?


there's no perfect solution but I think foreign countries draining an areas resources based solely on dollar values is a bad option as well. Capitalism has no moral brake.

Nobody is "draining resources." So you're all for freedom except for economic freedom when you think it doesn't suit us, is that right?

[logroller]

I didn't say All of our economy , but a "large part".
Stock Exchange is a large part esp now a days,
not exactly peeple beach.

and the SECs control/regulation (such as it is) is still up the air, it may go under euro regs.

Technically it may mean nothing, my xtra cynical side agrees,
saying yeah all of the corporate controllers are international anyway so what's the difference.

As far as protectionism goes, yeah it can and has been used as a carrot or gift by politicians but I can't think of another way to cover the people of an area from full bore exploitation there.
there's no perfect solution but I think foreign countries draining an areas resources based solely on dollar values is a bad option as well. Capitalism has no moral brake.

Rev, I think we all agree on the pitfalls of faithful worship of market capitalism, but protectionism makes things worse. Protectionist policies serve well to encourage investment, well beyond what is sensible. When markets tank, politicians rush to blame it on lack of protection, rather than the policies which stimulate excessive faith in the market. The old saying about putting all you eggs in basket seems applicable here. We're "assured" by the government that the "basket"(market) is so secure that, even when it falls, controls will prevent our egg$ from loss. Thus we need not remain dilligent about management of risk, only the reward. That's how guys like Madoff are allowed to prosper as long as they do; people think that year after year of profit is normal, without any downs. Market downturns are normal, it doesn't indicate a failure. What fails are the policies which try to subvert this normal activity; only amplified from overzealous investment strategies. Failures aren't cause for alarm; that's how man learns, from his failures. It's time we learn that protectionist policies have failed.

[revelarts]

Rev, I think we all agree on the pitfalls of faithful worship of market capitalism, but protectionism makes things worse. Protectionist policies serve well to encourage investment, well beyond what is sensible. When markets tank, politicians rush to blame it on lack of protection, rather than the policies which stimulate excessive faith in the market. The old saying about putting all you eggs in basket seems applicable here. We're "assured" by the government that the "basket"(market) is so secure that, even when it falls, controls will prevent our egg$ from loss. Thus we need not remain dilligent about management of risk, only the reward. That's how guys like Madoff are allowed to prosper as long as they do; people think that year after year of profit is normal, without any downs. Market downturns are normal, it doesn't indicate a failure. What fails are the policies which try to subvert this normal activity; only amplified from overzealous investment strategies. Failures aren't cause for alarm; that's how man learns, from his failures. It's time we learn that protectionist policies have failed.

Yeah, I hear you,
I agree that should be default position.

I agree that protectionism as it's been applied has been more negative than positive.

HOWEVER,
I think 3 or 4 controls should be used in gov't on commerce.
1st, we'd all agree on, and that's the criminalization of fraud.
A product needs to be what it says it is. and do what it says it will do , within reason.

2nd Reasonable liability for products and services. 10 million for burns and such is crazy unless you can prove gross negligence or prior knowledge of defects or something.

3 ...Reasonable safety standards (ha)


and last is the protectionism part with some Trust busting mixed in there too. I do say it with caution, i really don't like it much but i don't of another way to beat back lying greedy mega corps from raping countries and moving on.
China is dumping tons of crap here and we don't make it and don't get the benefits of huge profits outside of low level sales and management jobs. That's 1st among my issues with mega monoplolistic trans national corps just doing what they want to do and calling it free market. they have such scale that no one can really compet, throw in there mega Corporation with collusion/price fixing/buy outs and you don't have a free market really do you?

you've got a market controlled by a company(s) that have no incentive to please the customer beyond the point they lose a bit of profit. Not becuase there's a real threat to their position from "market forces" and "competition".

But I really have no good mechanism or formula to administer protections so that it wouldn't just turn rotten after just a few years, It's a problem.


My Druthers is that i think the US should focus on building self sufficient local economies. less than 30% of anything should come form outside of the region if possible. You still might have similar Boss hogg corporate issues but those responsible would be close at hand as would be the officials that needed to deal with the issue. But Hey that's a dream at this point.

[revelarts]

Do you have a NON-cynical side? :rolleyes:


Yeah I wondered if Anyone would let me slide with that.



Nobody is "draining resources." So you're all for freedom except for economic freedom when you think it doesn't suit us, is that right?

Sputter but sputter Um
Yes I'm all for Freedom until corporations can practically make us large swaths of people slaves to their products or services.
Then they are not allowing others freedoms and sadley the only tools i know to shut them down if the market can't is the gov't.
that's my take on it Log.
I love to here another out.
I've got one but people would probably like it less than protectionism and gov't monopoly busting

[fj1200]

Yes I'm all for Freedom until corporations can practically make us large swaths of people slaves to their products or services.
Then they are not allowing others freedoms and sadley the only tools i know to shut them down if the market can't is the gov't.

An example of that would be???


I've got one but people would probably like it less than protectionism and gov't monopoly busting

I can't wait for that one. ;)

[fj1200]

My Druthers is that i think the US should focus on building self sufficient local economies. less than 30% of anything should come form outside of the region if possible. You still might have similar Boss hogg corporate issues but those responsible would be close at hand as would be the officials that needed to deal with the issue. But Hey that's a dream at this point.

Globalism is good for a reason. To institute your scheme would be shooting ourselves in the foot for no other reason than to spite the Chinese or whomever is the next target. The US is the leader in high-profit innovation and other countries are good at low-profit making stuff. For us to keep them from using their comparative advantages keeps us from using our comparative advantages.

[revelarts]

I can't wait for that one. ;)

Well since you mention it.
to start
No corporation or foundation, person etc etc could own or tie up more than 5 square miles or land for more than 25 yrs. Tax incintives if the give that up earlier.

Along with that there would be a general cap on the time of corporate ownership and life.
Every corporation that has over XXX in assess( however they may be hidden or shell corped or invested ) MUST COMPLETELY dissolve and distribute to the shareholders AND employees after 40-50 yrs. the company must be completely dissolved. and assets sold put into private -peoples- hands. not other companies So there would no cola cola after a 50 yr run. There would be no FORD etc. etc.
No GE, No Disney.
rotating Clean slate. There um a few kinks to work out ,, a few -cough- but If I were the king,
yeah something like that

[revelarts]

Globalism is good for a reason. To institute your scheme would be shooting ourselves in the foot for no other reason than to spite the Chinese or whomever is the next target. The US is the leader in high-profit innovation and other countries are good at low-profit making stuff. For us to keep them from using their comparative advantages keeps us from using our comparative advantages.

I Very well could be wrong here but , seriously ,

I just think that Profit is not the most important issue. Innovation and health, education and growth can and do spring out of smaller, hot house, type economoies.
scale is good down the line, to a point, but the initial drivers of innovation don't come from scale most of the time it seems.

[fj1200]

I Very well could be wrong here but , seriously ,

I just think that Profit is not the most important issue. Innovation and health, education and growth can and do spring out of smaller, hot house, type economoies.

I don't disagree but overall that is a major strength of our economic system. We reward innovation to an extent not seen in most other countries. Having said that I think we are pursuing policies which are contrary to that.


scale is good down the line, to a point, but the initial drivers of innovation don't come from scale most of the time it seems.

I'm not sure who argued otherwise. Scale is fine for manufacturing purposes but I wouldn't say it leads to innovation.

[fj1200]

Well since you mention it.
to start
No corporation or foundation, person etc etc could own or tie up more than 5 square miles or land for more than 25 yrs. Tax incintives if the give that up earlier.

Along with that there would be a general cap on the time of corporate ownership and life.
Every corporation that has over XXX in assess( however they may be hidden or shell corped or invested ) MUST COMPLETELY dissolve and distribute to the shareholders AND employees after 40-50 yrs. the company must be completely dissolved. and assets sold put into private -peoples- hands. not other companies So there would no cola cola after a 50 yr run. There would be no FORD etc. etc.
No GE, No Disney.
rotating Clean slate. There um a few kinks to work out ,, a few -cough- but If I were the king,
yeah something like that

So to hell with economic freedoms then? You'd do better to attack corporate personhood than what you've got going there. You would also see a mass exodus of capital and enterprises from mainland US.

My benevolent dictatorship would crush your little monarchy. :laugh:

[logroller]

Rev I totally know where you're coming from, so does FJ; the solution however is less govt involvment, not more. We have grown so infatuated with profits and low prices that the external social costs you, and many others including myself, are concerned with have been overlooked, in favor of the economies of scale brought on by larger markets and players. Were markets allowed to implode from such negligent behavior the people, both consumers and producers, would make decisions that are best all-around, with more diversity within each segment--- however, with current and ever-growing protections and bailouts in place, that won't happen.

[revelarts]

So to hell with economic freedoms then? You'd do better to attack corporate personhood than what you've got going there. You would also see a mass exodus of capital and enterprises from mainland US.

My benevolent dictatorship would crush your little monarchy. :laugh:

You'd have all the economic freedom you want ...for 50 yrs.

None of this corporate this ownership forever and ever BS trapping resources from the market for generations. Cornering markets dragging old processes into the future just becuase you've been there long enough.

There's no cap on "personal" wealth.
And Corporation might have some aspects personhood one for sure,
they all DIE.
And have a known date for it.

And why does corp need to have more than 5 square miles of land tied up for 80yrs. no.

Thus says the king.

You better believe my country would have some fast moving and innovative hot dogs making stuff happen before the times up and they have to cash out. people would join them as employees knowing that they get a bit of the cash out process. And work harder for it. With there cash outs they can start there own biz's.

OH Yeah i forgot, One other thing. Every 45-50 years there's debt forgiveness for everyone under certain conditions.

Makes the banks kept short counts and not get to risky
and gives most a clean slate.

Give me you tired and HUNGRY and those yearning to be free.

You can keep all you derivative making fat casino bankers, I'll have none of that in my country. Log Keep all your status quo 75 yr plan running, rotate the same corporate thugs, playing financial games and held up by fat accounts, inertia, graft and bullying.

No central bank either.

[revelarts]

Rev I totally know where you're coming from, so does FJ; the solution however is less govt involvment, not more. We have grown so infatuated with profits and low prices that the external social costs you, and many others including myself, are concerned with have been overlooked, in favor of the economies of scale brought on by larger markets and players. Were markets allowed to implode from such negligent behavior the people, both consumers and producers, would make decisions that are best all-around, with more diversity within each segment--- however, with current and ever-growing protections and bailouts in place, that won't happen.


I'd really like to believe that a "free market" could accomplish the goals.
And frankly I've really got no reasonable alternative. But i just don't see the inevitable monopolies and cartels offering much real market freedom after their initial growth in ever industry.

[logroller]

I'd really like to believe that a "free market" could accomplish the goals.
And frankly I've really got no reasonable alternative. But i just don't see the inevitable monopolies and cartels offering much real market freedom after their initial growth in ever industry.

You ever told a child "dont do that, you'll get hurt" and they do it and get hurt-- lesson learned. Whereas if you would have stopped them, they will have learned nothing. Ideally they take heed of the warning, perhaps asking why; but this too is a learning lesson. Free-will prevails, rather we forbid it or not!

[LuvRPgrl]

You'd have all the economic freedom you want ...for 50 yrs.

None of this corporate this ownership forever and ever BS trapping resources from the market for generations. Cornering markets dragging old processes into the future just becuase you've been there long enough.

There's no cap on "personal" wealth.
And Corporation might have some aspects personhood one for sure,
they all DIE.
And have a known date for it.

And why does corp need to have more than 5 square miles of land tied up for 80yrs. no.

Thus says the king.

You better believe my country would have some fast moving and innovative hot dogs making stuff happen before the times up and they have to cash out. people would join them as employees knowing that they get a bit of the cash out process. And work harder for it. With there cash outs they can start there own biz's.

OH Yeah i forgot, One other thing. Every 45-50 years there's debt forgiveness for everyone under certain conditions.

Makes the banks kept short counts and not get to risky
and gives most a clean slate.

Give me you tired and HUNGRY and those yearning to be free.

You can keep all you derivative making fat casino bankers, I'll have none of that in my country. Log Keep all your status quo 75 yr plan running, rotate the same corporate thugs, playing financial games and held up by fat accounts, inertia, graft and bullying.

No central bank either.

Corps don't own as much of the economy as most of us think.

You don't seem to consider the downside of your proposal. Just for starters, KNOWING that their existence is going to end in 10 years, the last 10 years of a corps life will be listless at best. NO reason for R & D.
That's just for starters.

Ending illegal, immoral & uneffective copyright laws as they are exercised today, would elimate a lot of the problems.

[DragonStryk72]

Well since you mention it.
to start
No corporation or foundation, person etc etc could own or tie up more than 5 square miles or land for more than 25 yrs. Tax incintives if the give that up earlier.

Along with that there would be a general cap on the time of corporate ownership and life.
Every corporation that has over XXX in assess( however they may be hidden or shell corped or invested ) MUST COMPLETELY dissolve and distribute to the shareholders AND employees after 40-50 yrs. the company must be completely dissolved. and assets sold put into private -peoples- hands. not other companies So there would no cola cola after a 50 yr run. There would be no FORD etc. etc.
No GE, No Disney.
rotating Clean slate. There um a few kinks to work out ,, a few -cough- but If I were the king,
yeah something like that

Glaring hole in that is that there would be no reason to form a corporation, and no reason for people to really invest in them, since they'll likely dissolve long before the individual stocks achieve any real degree of value over what was paid for them in the first place. And with the cap, you can forget the mom & pop chains as well, since those are eventually going to fall across that line as well.

Another problem with it is that would be the end of free enterprise. You're telling businesses that they have to stop being businesses, not because of any foul on their part, but because they simply did too well, or have done enough well enough for long enough that they have to be completely destroyed.

The better solution is to take those businesses that are "too big to fail", and break them down into several companies under anti-trust laws. The whole idea of anti-trust laws is to make it so that bigger companies are not able to get away with things that no smaller company would, or exert undue influence on the market and government. It's more or less an enforcement problem.

[logroller]

Glaring hole in that is that there would be no reason to form a corporation, and no reason for people to really invest in them, since they'll likely dissolve long before the individual stocks achieve any real degree of value over what was paid for them in the first place. And with the cap, you can forget the mom & pop chains as well, since those are eventually going to fall across that line as well.

Another problem with it is that would be the end of free enterprise. You're telling businesses that they have to stop being businesses, not because of any foul on their part, but because they simply did too well, or have done enough well enough for long enough that they have to be completely destroyed.

The better solution is to take those businesses that are "too big to fail", and break them down into several companies under anti-trust laws. The whole idea of anti-trust laws is to make it so that bigger companies are not able to get away with things that no smaller company would, or exert undue influence on the market and government. It's more or less an enforcement problem.

I like how you put this in quotes, because you know its false. My question is why not let it fail? The govt doesn't want this because if such things were allowed to fail, while the public perceives the govt watchdogging, the people would blame the govt. But wouldn't this too solve the trust issue, people wouldnt trust those companies anymore than we should trust the govt to make our decisions for us.

[LuvRPgrl]

Why would you invest in any of the stock of the company, when the ONLY guarantee you have is the company & your stock will eventually become worthless.



Glaring hole in that is that there would be no reason to form a corporation, and no reason for people to really invest in them, since they'll likely dissolve long before the individual stocks achieve any real degree of value over what was paid for them in the first place. And with the cap, you can forget the mom & pop chains as well, since those are eventually going to fall across that line as well.

Another problem with it is that would be the end of free enterprise. You're telling businesses that they have to stop being businesses, not because of any foul on their part, but because they simply did too well, or have done enough well enough for long enough that they have to be completely destroyed.

The better solution is to take those businesses that are "too big to fail", and break them down into several companies under anti-trust laws. The whole idea of anti-trust laws is to make it so that bigger companies are not able to get away with things that no smaller company would, or exert undue influence on the market and government. It's more or less an enforcement problem.

[logroller]

Well since you mention it.
to start
No corporation or foundation, person etc etc could own or tie up more than 5 square miles or land for more than 25 yrs. Tax incintives if the give that up earlier.

Along with that there would be a general cap on the time of corporate ownership and life.
Every corporation that has over XXX in assess( however they may be hidden or shell corped or invested ) MUST COMPLETELY dissolve and distribute to the shareholders AND employees after 40-50 yrs. the company must be completely dissolved. and assets sold put into private -peoples- hands. not other companies So there would no cola cola after a 50 yr run. There would be no FORD etc. etc.
No GE, No Disney.
rotating Clean slate. There um a few kinks to work out ,, a few -cough- but If I were the king,
yeah something like that

You know the govt tried this with logging and mining industries, and guess what; they raped the land with even greater fervor. Put yourself in their shoes, if they know their days are numbered, they're gonna get all they can while they can. What has actually been extremely effective are renewing their leases well before they expired. This really stems from a debate upon ownership. WHen a person feels they have a vested long-term interest in preservation of a resource asset, including public perception, they tend to make more broadly respectful decisions. So too would megacorps, when faced with public scrutiny, instead of the status quo of political lobbies for loopholes and special interests. If you take govt out of the market loop, megacorp would cater to the people.

[logroller]

Why would you invest in any of the stock of the company, when the ONLY guarantee you have is the company & your stock will eventually become worthless.

With $60k in BP before the gulfspill, I asked myself that same question.

You ever seen Airplane! ? Classic line, goes something like this: "They knew what the risks were when they got on that plane. I say, LET 'EM CRASH!"

[DragonStryk72]

I like how you put this in quotes, because you know its false. My question is why not let it fail? The govt doesn't want this because if such things were allowed to fail, while the public perceives the govt watchdogging, the people would blame the govt. But wouldn't this too solve the trust issue, people wouldnt trust those companies anymore than we should trust the govt to make our decisions for us.

They should have let them fail, but at the same time, the reason they were given that label was because they were so huge that literally millions would be out of work, and that means that they can exert pressure on the govt, and no business should have that capability. By breaking them down a bit, such as when Ma Bell was broken up, we can ensure not only that businesses are not beyond the rules, but that competition increases at the same time.

People are pretty much always going to blame government, no matter what they do. If they allow the businesses to just fail, then the government gets blamed for inaction, for basically just sitting on the sidelines while millions of workers lose their jobs. On the other side of the spectrum, people blamed the government for the bailout, handing the companies essentially blank checks to continue their existing bad practices. The break-up idea allows the government to take action that can be clearly seen, while reducing the power of such oversized corporation, while still retaining folks jobs. Yeah, people will still hem and haw at the government a bit, but more along the lines of just grumbling about the inconvenience of it.

[DragonStryk72]

Why would you invest in any of the stock of the company, when the ONLY guarantee you have is the company & your stock will eventually become worthless.

Actually, the stocks would simply change hands, splitting between the different splinter companies, so it would not be worthless. Other options are to have the stocks pay out, but with preferential stock options for buying into the new entities.This means that your resulting percentage of ownership could very well increase, as you would be investing the same amount of money, but in a company that is 1/5 the size of the previous larger company.

[logroller]

They should have let them fail, but at the same time, the reason they were given that label was because they were so huge that literally millions would be out of work, and that means that they can exert pressure on the govt, and no business should have that capability. By breaking them down a bit, such as when Ma Bell was broken up, we can ensure not only that businesses are not beyond the rules, but that competition increases at the same time.

People are pretty much always going to blame government, no matter what they do. If they allow the businesses to just fail, then the government gets blamed for inaction, for basically just sitting on the sidelines while millions of workers lose their jobs. On the other side of the spectrum, people blamed the government for the bailout, handing the companies essentially blank checks to continue their existing bad practices. The break-up idea allows the government to take action that can be clearly seen, while reducing the power of such oversized corporation, while still retaining folks jobs. Yeah, people will still hem and haw at the government a bit, but more along the lines of just grumbling about the inconvenience of it.

Clearly busting utilities has done more good than bad. Not to say there hasnt been probs though, ie ENRON. Utilities are unique though, as they are a natural monopoly. Banks aren't monopolies, with the exception of the FRB, which is a legal monopoly. I don't see how regulating trade markets is beneficial. Oversight to guarantee transparency and punishing fraud are necessary; but govt saying who can buy whom and what one company can do seems to present more problems than it solves. It creates a mechanism whereby businesses stand to benefit more from greasing the perverse govt regulation-campaign lobby so I can get a million dollar a year job after I push this legislation machine, rather than respect the economic 101 lessons on the producer/consumer relationship. I understand how regs should work, I'm just saying they have had unforeseen results that put us in a position worse than before. As I've said, some policies have to stay, you can't just let a bunch of Madoffs run around selling snake oil, but you don't need govt legislating investment patterns either.

So far as people out of work, my heart goes out to them, I'm one of them. But I rode the wave that was the real estate boom. I probably could of stuck it out through hard times, but I had my fun, time to reinvest my energy into a different sector which is more stable-- that's how markets correct themselves without gov interference, with free choice.

[fj1200]

You can keep all you derivative making fat casino bankers, I'll have none of that in my country. Log Keep all your status quo 75 yr plan running, rotate the same corporate thugs, playing financial games and held up by fat accounts, inertia, graft and bullying.

I don't know if any of that post was worth responding to when the same person wrote \/ And why you think I'm in favor of "financial games" I'll never know, those are supported by excess government intervention which supports monopolies and entrenched interests.


And frankly I've really got no reasonable alternative. But i just don't see the inevitable monopolies and cartels offering much real market freedom after their initial growth in ever industry.

Nevertheless, you mentioned in a previous post that there would be "no Fords." Well, you're probably right but we'd all be riding in horsed, instead of horseless, carriages... or we'd all be riding in foreign horseless carriages.

[revelarts]

DragonS,

Thanks for your feed back, i'd love to work out all the kinks and details in my plan.
But
Bailouts are not included in my plan, ZERO. Biz's Under a 50-100 million a year can be generational. My real issue is with mega-corps multi-billion dollar market share dominators.
AS afar as Investors buying stock. who buys stock and expects to keep it for over 50 years. most don't. those that are are more concerned about dividends. Investors stock won't become worth less the assest are sold and dispersed. If people are concerned in the last 10 years that there investment isn't going to work, sure sell, but other seeing the end also can capitalize on the back end.
But it's fantasy football.

Not sure if I'll be here much beyond today, I've got some serious projects coming up that are going to keep me away from debate policy for a long time,

so it been fun folks
all my regards and respect to everyone
till next time...

Peace and God blessings on all the Good things in your lives and may he keep ya safe in the evil day.


Avery

[fj1200]

... Investors stock won't become worth less the assest are sold and dispersed...

Stock values are determined by valuations of future cash flows and/or expected investment performance. If you limit the a concerns time horizon, you limit its value.


Not sure if I'll be here much beyond today, I've got some serious projects coming up that are going to keep me away from debate policy for a long time,

so it been fun folks
all my regards and respect to everyone
till next time...

Peace and God blessings on all the Good things in your lives and may he keep ya safe in the evil day.

Avery

It's a shame you won't be around much. Good luck with your projects.

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually, the stocks would simply change hands, splitting between the different splinter companies, so it would not be worthless. Other options are to have the stocks pay out, but with preferential stock options for buying into the new entities.This means that your resulting percentage of ownership could very well increase, as you would be investing the same amount of money, but in a company that is 1/5 the size of the previous larger company.

People would be bailing like rats on a sinking ship. Stock prices ultimately are determined by supply and demand. All the bailing would depreciate the stock alot, nobody is going to want to have $50 a share investment in a new, untested, unproven, untried fledging corp.
Hence, the stock price would plummet.

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually, the stocks would simply change hands, splitting between the different splinter companies, so it would not be worthless. Other options are to have the stocks pay out, but with preferential stock options for buying into the new entities.This means that your resulting percentage of ownership could very well increase, as you would be investing the same amount of money, but in a company that is 1/5 the size of the previous larger company.

In addition, to whom would the stock go to, and who exactly would make that determination. I personally will be the first to apply for the next ownership role of MSFT

[DragonStryk72]

Clearly busting utilities has done more good than bad. Not to say there hasnt been probs though, ie ENRON. Utilities are unique though, as they are a natural monopoly. Banks aren't monopolies, with the exception of the FRB, which is a legal monopoly. I don't see how regulating trade markets is beneficial. Oversight to guarantee transparency and punishing fraud are necessary; but govt saying who can buy whom and what one company can do seems to present more problems than it solves. It creates a mechanism whereby businesses stand to benefit more from greasing the perverse govt regulation-campaign lobby so I can get a million dollar a year job after I push this legislation machine, rather than respect the economic 101 lessons on the producer/consumer relationship. I understand how regs should work, I'm just saying they have had unforeseen results that put us in a position worse than before. As I've said, some policies have to stay, you can't just let a bunch of Madoffs run around selling snake oil, but you don't need govt legislating investment patterns either.

So far as people out of work, my heart goes out to them, I'm one of them. But I rode the wave that was the real estate boom. I probably could of stuck it out through hard times, but I had my fun, time to reinvest my energy into a different sector which is more stable-- that's how markets correct themselves without gov interference, with free choice.

Again, however, at a certain point, when a company becomes so huge that it can effect government, and exert real pressure, such as with the Big 3 Automakers, then it's time for them to be broken down into smaller units. This isn't telling the people what to buy, or stopping the largest of companies, and even with them, it's really only a stopgap measure.

The real estate boom though, was built to fall in on itself. There aren't an infinite number of people in need of homes, and lots were taking loans they couldn't repay, thinking they could just flip the house, but the market became oversaturated, and those mortgages catch up quickly.

[DragonStryk72]

People would be bailing like rats on a sinking ship. Stock prices ultimately are determined by supply and demand. All the bailing would depreciate the stock alot, nobody is going to want to have $50 a share investment in a new, untested, unproven, untried fledging corp.
Hence, the stock price would plummet.

Okay, I'm not a CPA, but here's one: You lock the stock price, sell it out, then you allow preferred buy-in to the new, but certainly not untested, unproven, and untried (Seeing as how its the same employees just with more and different logos for the most part).

An alternate scenario would be to move the stocks between the companies, setting up a method for dispersal. Again, not a CPA, or a CEO, but I'm pretty sure you can work out a pretty simple method.

Actually, since the production, manufacturing, and such would be split as well, being a part of the company, even most of the laborers would be in the same place, simply changing their uniforms a bit.

[logroller]

Again, however, at a certain point, when a company becomes so huge that it can effect government, and exert real pressure, such as with the Big 3 Automakers, then it's time for them to be broken down into smaller units. This isn't telling the people what to buy, or stopping the largest of companies, and even with them, it's really only a stopgap measure.

The real estate boom though, was built to fall in on itself. There aren't an infinite number of people in need of homes, and lots were taking loans they couldn't repay, thinking they could just flip the house, but the market became oversaturated, and those mortgages catch up quickly.

So the market corrected itself, why interfere?