|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
All those buyers who didn't beware good enough went bleating to their
Congreessmen,
state representatives and city councilmen, and got laws passed.
You guys warping and woofing about free speech crack me up. Free speech
does not
exist in a commercial context. There are regulations galore restricting
commercial
speech too numerous to count, let alone list, and all of them perfectly
legal. If you
want to rattle on about overthrowing the government, or some political
change or
another, fine, you're free to prattle about it all you want. If you
want to foist
something off on the public for money, you can be restained either
before or after.
That is the existing law and has been for decades, and in all likelihood
will so
continue. Doctors, lawyers, insurance salesmen, dry cleaners, used car
sales,
building contractors, pharmacists, food handlers, the list is almost
endless.
Either registered, licensed, permitted, inspected.
Why should trading systems vendors, of all people, be immune from what
every other
occupation has had to endure? Judging by what shows up in my mailbox
day after day,
these people need regulating more than just about anyone, except maybe
cocaine
smugglers.
What is really needed is an FDA type approach, where, before marketing a
system,
the vendor has to show by clinical scientific studies that not only does
his system
do no harm, it actually has a valid chance of doing what it is
supposed/claimed to
do. Omega could use this sort of discipline.
Jim Allen
Sentinel Trading wrote:
> What I don't understand is why the CFTC even exists, it seems to just
provide
> another layer of government regulations. I can sell anything I want
claim or no
> if it concerns equities, with no regulation what so ever. I can even
trade other
> peoples money without a series 7, I just can't be a commercial broker.
>
> Why the distinction between the Futures Market and the Equities
Markets? Isn't
> that an implication that the futures market is crooked, in it's very
need for
> such a layer of regulation.
>
> Seems to me that it's just another layer of government, and a way to
take funds
> to regulate something that is not in need of regulation.
>
> What ever happened to buyer beware. Or do we all need uncle Sam to be
or
> shepherd.
>
> ____________________Reply Separator____________________
> Subject: Re: CFTC Case Update
> Author: Alan Myers
> Date: 5/10/99 6:15 PM
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tj
> Subject: Re: CFTC Case Update
>
> >an educated public is the best first line of defense in the
prevention
> >of fraud and purveyors of false hopes and dreams.
>
> I agree with this. I think that the purveyors can be counted upon to
help
> educate the public without violation of their right to free speech.
If the
> CFTC exists to protect the public, then the legislation needs to be
about
> what you can't omit. You should be able to make any claims that you
want
> (satisfying free speech). If you are being compensated directly, then
you
> should have to back them up with something more substantial than "R.X.
in
> Idaho made $50,000 last month with this system/newsletter/method."
>
> It seems to me that the CFTC has incredibly restrictive regulations
that
> don't accomplish their worthy objectives. Hopefully, losing the case
would
> cause them to re-examine their raison d'etre and look at the
efficiency of
> the regulations now on the books.
>
> They (the CFTC) can't claim to be doing a very good job of protecting
the
> public. Just look at one issue of "Futures" or TASC. The lack of
> enforcement of the existing regulations are a widespread joke.
They've made
> it too difficult to convict someone deserving, which is not a lot
different
> than no regulation at all. It's even worse than no regulation if they
are
> fighting difficult, costly marginal cases with big penalty payoffs to
> maximize publicity. They need to shut down all of the vermin, not
just the
> big ones. Volume counts.
>
> ~Alan
|