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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?