This is the most blatantly wrong statement that you have made here. You say companies list on NYSE because they have little choice? The fact is that the listing requirements are much more stringent for the NYSE than NASDAQ or AMEX, yet companies continue to list on the NYSE by CHOICE. Many others choose to list on the NASDAQ (or because they cannot meet the NYSE listing requirements), yet you say they have little choice in the matter due to protective laws. You have no way to defend your embarrassing statements on this, so I expect zero substance in your reply, and only another personal attack or obfuscation of the argument consistent with all of the losing side tactics you have engaged in throughout this thread, or perhaps a total argument shift or for a change of pace perhaps an 'ignore and hope it goes away'. Which will it be ?
This is a contender for the most ludicrous statement on the thread. Can you elaborate on why you think that one who would prefer that the NYSE to remain is promoting an anti-capitalist, socialistic agenda by feeling this way? I look forward to a meaningful reply with some substance for once (if you can), instead of personal attacks and obfuscation.
And while you are in your rusty old T34 think tank, could you factor in the non-profit, and, for-profit change.
Government laws and rules give NYSE an unfair advantage over competitors. This, in turn, reduces the level of choice available to companies in deciding whether or not to list on NYSE. If the laws and rules protecting NYSE are eliminated, then companies will have the full degree of choice that they should have, and this will be one of the factors which will help the specialist system to wither and to die. This would benefit our entire economy. This process appears to be occurring, and it is a good process.
The specialists depend upon government laws and rules to protect then from competition. Competition is the essence of capitalism. Centralized government control, to prevent competition, is the essence of socialism. You are advocating a system which unfairly suppresses competitors. I am advocating the elimination of the government rules and laws protecting specialists, so that full competition can occur on a level playing field. Specialists cannot survive on a level playing field. The trend is for our government to allow more competition, so it appears that the specialist system will perish with time.
First, I appreciate your concise and direct response. I am not certain what you mean by the reduced level of choice that you say companies have in choosing a listing exchange. Are you saying that the choice between NYSE, NASDAQ and AMEX is too limited? If so, why is this choice not sufficient? How many exchanges do you think there should be from which to choose? How does your ideal compare with the number of exchanges in the rest of the countries of the world? Your statement seems hypocritical, correct me if I misunderstand. You argue for more choice, but at the same time want to see the NYSE wither and die, leaving less choice (at that point only only the NASDAQ and AMEX, if that could even be considered a choice). Why do you argue for more choice and at the same time wish for less?
Again, I thank you for the direct and succinct response. The specialist system was devised as a facilitator of trading for stocks. The purpose was not to suppress competition. In some instances during certain times due to lack of viable alternatives, a monopoly is the only solution in allowing the provision of a needed service. The utility companies are prime examples, the specialist system was of course another. Of course time and technology changes things, and we are now in a different age. Hence we now have electronic trading, fully electronic exchanges and ecns, and we have seen many changes recently at the NYSE to accommodate those wanting instant fills. I fail to see where wanting to keep the specialists as part of the equation is anti-capitalistic or socialistic.
How can this ("Government laws and rules" statement) be true when 60% of NYX traded shares at IPO, traded on the Nasdaq.
You still do not understand. The government laws and rules artificially suppress the creation and development of competitors to the specialist system. This reduces choice for everybody. This reduces choices for companies seeking to list their shares. This reduces choice for traders and investors seeking to trade. If the government abolishes laws and rules giving specialists an unfair advantage, then this would increase opportunities for competitors to take the place of the specialists. If competitors do a better job than the specialists, then market forces will reward those competitors who do a better job. This would cause the specialist system to wither and die, so that it can be replaced by competitors who will do a better job for everybody. I am arguing for more choice, which will require that the government abolish laws and rules favoring the specialists. Laws and rules favoring specialists reduce choice for everybody. The government has been gradually reducing its support for the specialist system, which is losing its advantages, and giving strength to the competitors. This is a good process and we should demand that the government accelerate it.
If you know the difference between capitalism and socialism, then you should know that government laws and rules, protecting a monopoly from competition, are a socialist policy, not a capitalist policy. I am advocating for a mixture of capitalist and socialist policies. I am explaining why it was so ludicrous for 1000 to equate the specialist system with capitalism, and its critics with communism. I am advocating a pro-capitalist position for withdrawal of government laws and rules which unfairly protect the specialists from competition. It seems you are having difficulty understanding me because you don't know the differences between capitalism, socialism, and communism. Please don't ask me to explain the differences. Go get a high school diploma first, and then maybe you will be in a position to contribute something to this discussion.