NYSE Specialist - Stay or Go - vote here

[jimrockford]

Quote from Hamlet:

In the last four years, about 70 companies decided to switch their listing from Nasdaq to the NYSE. You claim that companies have no choice, when in fact they do. Many choose the NYSE. Many others choose the NASDAQ or AMEX (mostly because they are not capitalized enough to list on the NYSE). Still others choose foreign exchanges. How many exchanges do you propose we need?

You are once again giving a false description of my statements. I never said companies have no choice. I said that they have much less choice than they should have, and much less choice than they would have if the government reformed rules and laws so as to end government protection of the specialist monopoly.

I think you should be banned from the website, because of this persistent behaviour of making false statements as to what other people said. You did this much more extensively in the thread entitled "Observations on the NYSE Specialist". I'm not going to respond to the substance of your post, because the material has already been covered in this thread.

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:

You are once again giving a false description of my statements. I never said companies have no choice. I said that they have much less choice than they should have, and much less choice than they would have if the government reformed rules and laws so as to end government protection of the specialist monopoly.

I think you should be banned from the website, because of this persistent behaviour of making false statements as to what other people said. You did this much more extensively in the thread entitled "Observations on the NYSE Specialist". I'm not going to respond to the substance of your post, because the material has already been covered in this thread.

My use of the term "no choice" was meant to convey just what you said, which you now clarify as "much less choice". There could be no confusion because I quoted you! Open your eyes! I asked you then how much choice do they need? How many exchanges do you propose we need for companies to choose from? This is a simple question. You did not answer so you in fact lie when you say that the material has been covered. Semantics games are childish.

It seems we will get no substance from you, but only more of the same losing side defensive tactics of obfuscation and ignoring counter-arguments and additionally now whining about semantics.

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:

I'm not going to respond to the substance of your post, because the material has already been covered in this thread.

More of the same.

We ought to have a running counter of the number of times that you "refuse" to answer a question because your arguments are weak and easily ripped apart. At least that would be good for a laugh.

 

[jimrockford]

Quote from Hamlet:

My use of the term "no choice" was meant to convey just what you said, which you now clarify as "much less choice". There could be no confusion because I quoted you!

No, you didn't quote me. I didn't say "no choice". I said there was less choice than there should be.

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:

No, you didn't quote me. I didn't say "no choice". I said there was less choice than there should be.

I said that your quote was in my post, so that there should be no confusion. Your whining about semantics is pointless. "No choice" is a figure of speech for "little choice" or "less choice"... just as when you referred to the "mob" or "mafia" at the NYSE. Got it?

I asked you then four times how many exchanges do you propose we need? Why?

 

[jimrockford]

Please be informed that Hamlet has engaged in a pattern of harassing me, in this thread, and in one other thread, by giving false descriptions of my statements. My attempts to correct him do not stop him from repeating the same false information. I am weary of making specific responses to his lies about what I said. I therefore ask that readers disregard any claims he may make as to what I said or what I didn't say.

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from jimrockford:

Please be informed that Hamlet has engaged in a pattern of harassing me, in this thread, and in one other thread, by giving false descriptions of my statements. My attempts to correct him do not stop him from repeating the same false information. I am weary of making specific responses to his lies about what I said. I therefore ask that readers disregard any claims he may make as to what I said or what I didn't say.

LOL - You sound completely whacked, son.

More of the same pitiful obfuscation defense tactics used when losing.

You have been exposed and your argument ripped to shreds.

Thanks anyway... for the laughs.

 

[zdreg]

Quote from Hamlet:

In the last four years, about 70 companies decided to switch their listing from Nasdaq to the NYSE. You claim that companies have no choice, when in fact they do. Many choose the NYSE. Many others choose the NASDAQ or AMEX (mostly because they are not capitalized enough to list on the NYSE). Still others choose foreign exchanges. How many exchanges do you propose we need?

we need as many exchanges as there are investors who are willing to support them.

you and rockford might consider living together under the same roof. you seem to enjoy alot each other's company.

 

[1000]

Quote from jimrockford:

I think, after seeing your previous posts in this thread, that it's ludicrous for you to describe your disagreement with me as "respectful". Primitive and demented would be more accurate. I will now respond to some of your questions.

Your statement that laws and government rules do not interfere with NYSE competitors is similarly demented.

Yes, there are competitors to NYSE, but there would be more competition if anti-competitive government rules and laws were abolished. It is just demented to argue that the existence of competition implies the absence of anti-competitive rules and laws. It is also demented to argue that anti-competitive rules and laws and a monopoly do not reduce choice.

Your theory that free market competition cannot be tolerated, because it will inevitably result in mergers and concentration and a new monopoly contrary to the public interest, comes to us from Karl Marx. You are spouting Marxist economic theory, without even knowing it is Marxist, and yet your previous postings falsely accuse me of communism. Government policy should break monopolies, not protect them. If monopoly is bad, which you seem to be saying here, then this contradicts your belief that government should support the specialist monopoly.

Doing a better job means executing orders at lower cost, and more immediately when they are marketable and of small enough size to be suitable for electronic trading; and also processing cancellations more quickly. It means displaying executable quotes instead of bogus quotes.

One of the rules that favors specialists is the old trade-thru rule. How could you not know about the trade-thru rule? Do you even trade?

Government support of the specialist system reduces choices for companies seeking capital, and for traders and investors and speculators seeking to trade.

An example of the government's gradual reduction in support for the specialist system is its change to the trade-thru rule, soon to be effective, which will free electronic markets to trade thru non-electronic specialist quotes. This change deprives the specialist of the ability he previously enjoyed, by which he could temporarily block other market centers from trading, simply by posting a bogus and effectively unexecutable specialist quote.

We should demand that the Government accelerate its withdrawal of support from the specialist system. We should demand laws which help, rather than hinder, competition against the specialists.

I would again like to respectfully disagree with you.

1. I am a trader, and probably an active one. Probably whipping your rats' ass on most days.

2. If you say Marxist, than probably an aristocratic Marxist, in which case extreme capitalism = communism.

3. There is a bridge for sale, I think, as you drive over from NJ to Manhattan. How do you propose to fund it. Maintenance cost is about $100m per annum, or rebuild at about $14b. Would you like to sell it to Saudi Arabia. (This is an analogous e.g. to equate to the exchange and specialist system, which you call an unfair monopoly).

4. How would you categorize MSFT (another analogous e.g. to refute your argument against the current system). PS. No childishness please, you know what I am talking about.

5. I may not be familiar with the governing rules, which are there to suit the situation (ever heard of executive orders?). An analogous e.g. is a driver drives the vehicle, the mechanic mends and maintains the vehicle. This is in direct contrast to you calling me communistic.

6. More competition thwarts capitalism, because it undercuts the system. The focus should be on the direct and adequate function of the system, and not the rate of functionality. An analogous e.g. is over revving a engine, eventually you will fry the pistons. You are purporting to run a macro engine on micro pistons.

7. With you jimrockford its a case of ignorance breads love.

 

[Hamlet]

Quote from zdreg:

we need as many exchanges as there are investors who are willing to support them.

Well put. That certainly would be capitalism operating at it's finest. It's nice to actually get a mature response on this thread, or any response at all.

Are you saying then that there is a demand (or need) for more exchanges than we currently have, as Rockford was implying? If so, what do you think is keeping this demand from leading to the creation of more exchanges?