How about this for "entitlement"?
Rich Lemert
> As there is one guy (maybe one or two others) here on src who thinks
> we PhDs are not supposed to think we are entitled to anything, I thought
> I'd pass along the following for you all to mull over:
>
> Wall Street Journal, Thurs, July 9, 1998, page C1 (I just got it today):
>
> [big snip]
> So... here we are... with a nice group of real "honest" people who did not
> have any hesitation at all to think they were entitled to some salary
> enhancement, by helping themselves to a little cutting some corners and
> doing a little dipping into clients pockets for a little comission
> enhancement. Such trust!
>
> I nominate RL to go over to those guys and given them his lecture.
>
Why not, other than the fact that I'd be wasting my time. They'd probably
believe about as much as Art has. I've never argued that people don't _feel_
that they are entitled to something just because of a magic credential or the
nature of the job. All I've argued is that this makes no difference as to
whether
or not they really do deserve this 'entitlement'. Or are you arguing that
these
guys actually are entitled to the extra revenue and were therefore justified
in
using illegal means to obtain it?
Rich Lemert
Arthur E. Sowers
As there is one guy (maybe one or two others) here on src who thinks
we PhDs are not supposed to think we are entitled to anything, I thought
I'd pass along the following for you all to mull over:
Wall Street Journal, Thurs, July 9, 1998, page C1 (I just got it today):
"Nasdaq Dealers and 100 Traders Face SEC Case"
(SEC is the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FBI of the financial
industry)
by Anita Raghavan and Michael Schroeder
first paragraph:
"Nearly three dozen WS securities firms have begun preliminary settlement
discussions with the SEC [these are the guys who put banks, etc., in jail
for cheating on their customers, by the way] over alleged trading
violations...."
second para:
"The SEC has already been telling the firms and more than 100 traders--a
higher number than origianlly expected-- that it is preparing civil
charges against them."
fifth para:
"The settlement talks, if successful, are likely to result in WS [=Wall
Street] forking over its first set of fines to settle regulators'
allegations of trading violations on the Nasdaq market. The firms have,
however, agreed to pony up more than $1 billion [that's one billion] in
total in a settlement made in December of class-action litigation on
behalf of investors who said they were overcharged in the Nasdaq market."
seventh para:
"Among the firms...
Merrill Lynch [the biggest]
Dean Witter
PainWebber
Warburg Dillon Read
Charles Schwab
...."
Any of you guys not hear of these outfits? I've heard of all of them.
Several more paras down:
"The SEC is seeking 30-day, 90-day and, in some cases, lifetime
suspensions for individual traders...."
That last one is kinda like getting denied tenure, your grant revenue
stream shut down, etc., eh?
"But Wall Street firms have been battling such suspensions, arguing that
it would be career-killing, these people say."
And, when was it that any chair or dean would come to your rescue if you
didn't get that grant? Or the tenure review committee didn't "think" you
were "up to snuff"?
"In addition, it appears that Wall Street firms would hold out for the SEC
no to name any individual traders as part of an accord with the
commission, these people say."
So... here we are... with a nice group of real "honest" people who did not
have any hesitation at all to think they were entitled to some salary
enhancement, by helping themselves to a little cutting some corners and
doing a little dipping into clients pockets for a little comission
enhancement. Such trust!
I nominate RL to go over to those guys and given them his lecture.
Art Sowers
-------------------------------------------------------
Written in the public interest, the essays on
"Contemporary Problems in Science Jobs" are located at:
http://www.access.digex.net/~arthures/homepage.htm
hit stats: http://www.access.digex.net/~arthures/.stats
Snail mail adr to me: P.O.Box 489, Georgetown, DE 19947
Email: arth...@access.digex.net
My "home" newsgroup: sci.research.careers
-------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Halpern
: As there is one guy (maybe one or two others) here on src who thinks
: we PhDs are not supposed to think we are entitled to anything, I thought
: I'd pass along the following for you all to mull over:
: Wall Street Journal, Thurs, July 9, 1998, page C1 (I just got it today):
Art, you really don't have a clue. The SEC regulates the securities
industry and has nothing to do with regulating banks. These are
civil actions, which are usually (as in almost always) settled by
the firms paying money and saying that they admit nothing and will
never do it again. The SEC is NOT the FBI of the financial industry.
It is the regulator of the securities industry. It has rule making,
licensing and enforcement powers. (Or in ARTWORLD does the FBI make the
laws too).
Of course, you did manage to leave out the cause of action...without
which none of what you wrote makes sense.
But you did sound smug and important.
josh halpern
: "Nasdaq Dealers and 100 Traders Face SEC Case"
Arthur E. Sowers
On 10 Jul 1998, Joshua Halpern wrote:
> Arthur E. Sowers <arth...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>
> : As there is one guy (maybe one or two others) here on src who thinks
> : we PhDs are not supposed to think we are entitled to anything, I thought
> : I'd pass along the following for you all to mull over:
>
> : Wall Street Journal, Thurs, July 9, 1998, page C1 (I just got it today):
>
> Art, you really don't have a clue.
josh, you are very fond of that phrase. Is it because you can't think, or
you have a rubber stamp in your head that "knee jerks" whenever it sees
something it doesnt understand. Or is it because you think you are the
only guy who is permitted to be professorial on src?
> The SEC regulates the securities
> industry and has nothing to do with regulating banks.
OK, so I used "bank" imprecisely.
These are
> civil actions, which are usually (as in almost always) settled by
> the firms paying money and saying that they admit nothing and will
> never do it again. The SEC is NOT the FBI of the financial industry.
> It is the regulator of the securities industry. It has rule making,
> licensing and enforcement powers.
So, therefore, its more than the FBI of the (OK) securities industry.
> (Or in ARTWORLD does the FBI make the
> laws too).
Actually, the FBI does carry out its enforcement practices in a manner
that gives it almost rulemaking power. There are books on this.
> Of course, you did manage to leave out the cause of action...without
> which none of what you wrote makes sense.
>
> But you did sound smug and important.
Oh, and I see you missed the point altogether. Again.
Thanks for nothing.
Art Sowers
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
Arthur E. Sowers
On Thu, 9 Jul 1998, Rich Lemert wrote:
> Arthur E. Sowers wrote:
>
> > As there is one guy (maybe one or two others) here on src who thinks
> > we PhDs are not supposed to think we are entitled to anything, I thought
> > I'd pass along the following for you all to mull over:
> >
> > Wall Street Journal, Thurs, July 9, 1998, page C1 (I just got it today):
> >
> > [big snip]
> > So... here we are... with a nice group of real "honest" people who did not
> > have any hesitation at all to think they were entitled to some salary
> > enhancement, by helping themselves to a little cutting some corners and
> > doing a little dipping into clients pockets for a little comission
> > enhancement. Such trust!
> >
> > I nominate RL to go over to those guys and given them his lecture.
> >
>
> Why not, other than the fact that I'd be wasting my time. They'd probably
> believe about as much as Art has. I've never argued that people don't _feel_
> that they are entitled to something just because of a magic credential or the
>
> nature of the job. All I've argued is that this makes no difference as to
> whether
> or not they really do deserve this 'entitlement'. Or are you arguing that
> these
> guys actually are entitled to the extra revenue
*I* am not arguing that, *they* are.
Art
Joshua Halpern
: > Arthur E. Sowers <arth...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
: > : As there is one guy (maybe one or two others) here on src who thinks
: > : we PhDs are not supposed to think we are entitled to anything, I thought
: > : I'd pass along the following for you all to mull over:
: > : Wall Street Journal, Thurs, July 9, 1998, page C1 (I just got it today):
: josh, you are very fond of that phrase. Is it because you can't think, or
: you have a rubber stamp in your head that "knee jerks" whenever it sees
: something it doesnt understand. Or is it because you think you are the
: only guy who is permitted to be professorial on src?
No, it's because you constantly try to come on as an expert about
things where you don't have a clue. It's a part of your src persona.
SRC, A Sowers, Director of Compliance.
: > The SEC regulates the securities
: > industry and has nothing to do with regulating banks.
: OK, so I used "bank" imprecisely.
OH, of course, how silly of me, we must be precise in all we
say, lest his Artship take umbridge, on the other hand he
can talk in riddles and set out the broad themes upon which
discussion shall be allowed, twist any statement any way
he wishes and chase all riff-raff away.
: These are
: > civil actions, which are usually (as in almost always) settled by
: > the firms paying money and saying that they admit nothing and will
: > never do it again. The SEC is NOT the FBI of the financial industry.
: > It is the regulator of the securities industry. It has rule making,
: > licensing and enforcement powers.
: So, therefore, its more than the FBI of the (OK) securities industry.
No. It is in no way like the FBI. It has, for example, the power
to bar brokers on it's own authority. It can levy fines. It makes
the rules for the securities industry. It is more like the FDA or
the CFTC, an independent, regulatory agency.
: > (Or in ARTWORLD does the FBI make the laws too).
: Actually, the FBI does carry out its enforcement practices in a manner
: that gives it almost rulemaking power. There are books on this.
The SEC publishes its rules.
: > Of course, you did manage to leave out the cause of action...without
: > which none of what you wrote makes sense.
: >
: > But you did sound smug and important.
: Oh, and I see you missed the point altogether. Again.
No, but I did see what this was about today. The NASDAQ market
was run directly by the National Association of Securities
Dealers (who also enforce a great deal of the SEC rules
for trading). The SEC allowed them to set up an electronic
market many years ago. Stocks were quoted on the market
as trading in 1/8ths or less. The brokers only bought
and sold in units of 1/4, meaning they would take the
breakage on any trade.(They would buy from you at say
25.25 and sell to me at 25.50 when the stock was selling
at 25.375) This added up to a LOT of money in a multi-billion
dollar market. The justice department brought a suit
years ago which was settled. There was a private
suit which was also settled. This is the last piece
of the puzzle.
As part of the settlement ( and this is really the
important part) NASDAQ has set up a separate unit
to administer the market and make sure it is fair.
: Thanks for nothing.
You are quite welcome
josh halpern
Arthur E. Sowers
This is for anyone who cares to focus on the distinctions between what my
point was in the topic I brought up, and the manner in which josh
presented his counter view. Besides josh's hot air distractions in the
beginning, he presents (from that which is way at the bottom) "the really
important part" what completely hides the theivery that was going on and
papers it over with what appears to be some kind of action on the part of
the Nasdaq & etc that falls under the "lets all just shake hands, kiss &
makeup, and get this behind us." I don't know the details enough to pick
appart his 1/4 vs 1/8 buy-sell spreads, but I'll call attention back to
the main part of my post. The companies were stealing. Lots of them. Big
ones. The brokers were doing it and the companies were looking the other
way. THEY not only considered themselves "entitled" to enhancing their
wallets, but they participated in actions (legal or not) to actually
enhance their wallets. This is MY version of what I was trying to say and
why I was saying it. I also don't like theivery.
Our dear josh casts this all away in the ambience of "nothing really wrong
here" but I'd like to refer everyone to another Wall Street Journal
article which appeared on page C21, of the January 31, 1990 issue. The
title on the first page is "Agents depicts widespread crime at Merc" and
the first paragraph is: "CHICAGO-An undercover federal agent testfied that
he witnessed widespread illegal activity in the more than a year that he
acted as a trader on the Chicago Mercatile Exchange." Two paragraphs down
it is written: "Forty-eight people at the Merc and the Board of Trade were
charged last year with stealing from customers. More indictments are
expected." The article goes on.
Regarding the details that josh gave us (see below, and ...thanks josh),
it is a glimmer into ways that you as an investor can have some of your
money skimmed off. I have read a few articles in the WSJ which went into
considerable detail on how this all works and I never bothered to
understand, memorize, or otherwise become a student of this activity. Our
dear josh's pronoucement that his explanation is somehow the "last piece
of the puzzle" leaves out the broader details I have read about but am not
in a position to further explain.
But the point is, there are a lot of people out there who are _in_ this
business and they not only consider themselves entitled to grabbing some
money, but they actually do the grabbing as well. The articles I read
indicate to me that, unfortunately, these behaviors will probably be with
us as long as the human race exists and they only way to fight it is to
fight it continuously and have some moral sense of what is right and try
to pass it along.
As far as the rest of josh's material regarding his opinion of my
presentations is concerned, I could give a similar opinion about his
presentations. They are as much heat as light.
Art Sowers
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
Arthur E. Sowers
This post (below) did not get out onto many other servers, so I am
relaunching it.
Art
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
Joshua Halpern
: relaunching it.
Gee another Sowers service to mankind. Forgive me for not being impressed
but it showed up four times at my server....I might note here that a few
weeks back Art dissed my server for being non-U. However, in doing so
he did invent a new type of flame, which went to number one on the
charts of stupidity, displacing the spelling flame, and the grammar
flame: The Art Sowers memorial server flame. i am honored.
As far as business goes, Art resembles the guy who wanders into a
big city and says: "Gee there is crime here." The things he talks
about are old news and mostly he does not pick up on the significant
parts because of his naivety.
SNIP....
: > papers it over with what appears to be some kind of action on the part of
: > the Nasdaq & etc that falls under the "lets all just shake hands, kiss &
: > makeup, and get this behind us."
No, they fundamentally changed the way the market is administered
some time ago so this would not happen again, they lost a big
damages suit and this is the last stage. To understand what happened
and why you have to understand how the NASDAQ worked and how the
various market tiers work. This will also tell you why the SEC
cannot ban the accused firms without destroying the NASDAQ, but
that discussion belongs in other groups.
: >I don't know the details enough to pick
: > appart his 1/4 vs 1/8 buy-sell spreads, but I'll call attention back to
: > the main part of my post.
Then you don't understand about breakage, and how narrow margins
are on stock trades. Basically, an extra $0.25/share profit on
every trade amounts to billions of dollars a year, especially if
you don't pay it when trading for your own account.
: > The companies were stealing. Lots of them. Big
: > ones. The brokers were doing it and the companies were looking the other
: > way. THEY not only considered themselves "entitled" to enhancing their
: > wallets, but they participated in actions (legal or not) to actually
: > enhance their wallets. This is MY version of what I was trying to say and
: > why I was saying it. I also don't like theivery.
Not obeying the rules of the market to their own advantage, yes.
Stealing, no. That's why the cases/charges are all civil and SEC
proceedings. The only possibility (IMHO) for criminal charges
would be conspiracy. Basically customers did not get the market
price. No one forced anyone else to buy or sell their stock
on the NASDAQ.
: > Our dear josh casts this all away in the ambience of "nothing really wrong
: > here"
Since you are clearly clueless please do not comment on what
I said. I pointed out what the violation of the market rule was.
I did not cast it away.
: but I'd like to refer everyone to another Wall Street Journal
: > article which appeared on page C21, of the January 31, 1990 issue. The
: > title on the first page is "Agents depicts widespread crime at Merc" and
: > the first paragraph is: "CHICAGO-An undercover federal agent testfied that
: > he witnessed widespread illegal activity in the more than a year that he
:
Gee, commodity traders skate on the thin edge, some skate way on
the other side. BIG NEWS. What rock have you been hiding under
for the last fifty years......
Art, you have my sympathy. I don't know how you manage to stay as
close as you do to reality after that long daily commute to Mars.
It's a really good effort, but you don't have to educate us
about things many of us know better than you.
You are aware that securities firms operate an insurance scheme to
cover investors who suffer from fraud?
josh halpern
Arthur E. Sowers
On 15 Jul 1998, Joshua Halpern wrote:
> Arthur E. Sowers <arth...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
> : This post (below) did not get out onto many other servers, so I am
> : relaunching it.
>
> Gee another Sowers service to mankind.
You haven't seen anything yet.
> Forgive me for not being impressed
> but it showed up four times at my server
Well, thanks for the report. I was waiting for the retort and was
wondering why I didn't get any.
....I might note here that a few
> weeks back Art dissed my server for being non-U.
Some servers just don't "get their messages out."
However, in doing so
> he did invent a new type of flame, which went to number one on the
> charts of stupidity, displacing the spelling flame, and the grammar
> flame: The Art Sowers memorial server flame. i am honored.
Flames, shmames. Dave Jensen always called anything I directed at him as a
flame, even if it was just a counter-argument, different point of view, or
a comment pointing out something missing or wrong in his arguments. But,
he (and I), as far as I recall, never stooped to namecalling like you.
But, that does not bother me.
> As far as business goes, Art resembles the guy who wanders into a
> big city and says: "Gee there is crime here." The things he talks
> about are old news and mostly he does not pick up on the significant
> parts because of his naivety.
And, josh, just wanders into a big city and largely ignores the crime.
> SNIP....
> : > papers it over with what appears to be some kind of action on the part of
> : > the Nasdaq & etc that falls under the "lets all just shake hands, kiss &
> : > makeup, and get this behind us."
>
> No, they fundamentally changed the way the market is administered
> some time ago so this would not happen again, they lost a big
> damages suit and this is the last stage. To understand what happened
> and why you have to understand how the NASDAQ worked and how the
> various market tiers work. This will also tell you why the SEC
> cannot ban the accused firms without destroying the NASDAQ, but
> that discussion belongs in other groups.
Actually I'm a little bit interested.
> : >I don't know the details enough to pick
> : > appart his 1/4 vs 1/8 buy-sell spreads, but I'll call attention back to
> : > the main part of my post.
>
> Then you don't understand about breakage, and how narrow margins
> are on stock trades. Basically, an extra $0.25/share profit on
> every trade amounts to billions of dollars a year, especially if
> you don't pay it when trading for your own account.
josh, I'm not that interested. But you fail to acknowledge that I
mentioned reading a number of articles that went into substantial details
and I just was not interested. I am interested in effects that result in
the transfer of large sums of money from unsuspecting people, by economies
of scale, to "money harvesters."
> : > The companies were stealing. Lots of them. Big
> : > ones. The brokers were doing it and the companies were looking the other
> : > way. THEY not only considered themselves "entitled" to enhancing their
> : > wallets, but they participated in actions (legal or not) to actually
> : > enhance their wallets. This is MY version of what I was trying to say and
> : > why I was saying it. I also don't like theivery.
>
> Not obeying the rules of the market to their own advantage, yes.
> Stealing, no.
This is the part about josh that is reprehensible; he sides, effectively,
with the forces which say something that is not right is just legal. So we
should not get excited about it.
That's why the cases/charges are all civil and SEC
> proceedings. The only possibility (IMHO) for criminal charges
> would be conspiracy. Basically customers did not get the market
> price. No one forced anyone else to buy or sell their stock
> on the NASDAQ.
Once things go into court, there are enough lawyer routines that make
court cases go on for years, sometimes, and an issue just gets burried in
paperwork and the only winners are the wealthy and/or lawyers.
> : > Our dear josh casts this all away in the ambience of "nothing really wrong
> : > here"
>
> Since you are clearly clueless please do not comment on what
> I said. I pointed out what the violation of the market rule was.
> I did not cast it away.
Nowhere in your posts did you react in terms of what is ethical, moral, or
distinguish between what should be done vs. what was done.
As far as the "clueless" part is concernd, I'd say you are full of clues,
but often not much more. That bit about your 3.5 year PhD followed by the
"(OK, so its more like 4-5 years) is an example of your constant hedging
then retreating.
> : but I'd like to refer everyone to another Wall Street Journal
> : > article which appeared on page C21, of the January 31, 1990 issue. The
> : > title on the first page is "Agents depicts widespread crime at Merc" and
> : > the first paragraph is: "CHICAGO-An undercover federal agent testfied that
> : > he witnessed widespread illegal activity in the more than a year that he
> :
> Gee, commodity traders skate on the thin edge, some skate way on
> the other side. BIG NEWS. What rock have you been hiding under
> for the last fifty years......
And, none of that bothers you, huh? And, you were all full of this "trust"
stuff in another post way back when I pointed out that probably most of
our economy is based on pure or implied contracts. No..you are the one
that is clueless.
> Art, you have my sympathy.
Thanks.
> I don't know how you manage to stay as
> close as you do to reality
All I need is reference points like yours; they show which direction not
to go in.
> after that long daily commute to Mars.
Literally, it not true. Another made-up "joshism."
> It's a really good effort, but you don't have to educate us
> about things many of us know better than you.
An amazing proclamation from His Highness King josh, who knows all, hears
all, sees all, and blabs all.
> You are aware that securities firms operate an insurance scheme to
> cover investors who suffer from fraud?
Yes, but it is not functional in the manner you describe it in that
sentence. Another example of the inaccuracy in the content of your
explanations.
> josh halpern
>
>
Art Sowers
Joshua Halpern
: josh, I'm not that interested. But you fail to acknowledge that I
: mentioned reading a number of articles that went into substantial details
: and I just was not interested. I am interested in effects that result in
: the transfer of large sums of money from unsuspecting people, by economies
: of scale, to "money harvesters."
You went into substantial length moralizing without understanding
what you were moralizing about. Clueless is too kind to describe
what you did.
: > : > The companies were stealing. Lots of them. Big
: > : > ones. The brokers were doing it and the companies were looking the other
: > : > way. THEY not only considered themselves "entitled" to enhancing their
: > : > wallets, but they participated in actions (legal or not) to actually
: > : > enhance their wallets. This is MY version of what I was trying to say and
: > : > why I was saying it. I also don't like theivery.
: >
: > Not obeying the rules of the market to their own advantage, yes.
: > Stealing, no.
: This is the part about josh that is reprehensible; he sides, effectively,
: with the forces which say something that is not right is just legal. So we
: should not get excited about it.
Ever mis-step is not first degree murder, nor are they all worth the
death penalty. This was a serious breach of market rules. For
markets to operate they must be seen as honest. Serious actions
were and will be taken. Right now the issue is whether certain
traders will be barred (permanently, maybe). Billions of dollars
have been paid in penalties and restitution. There will be more
fines. What it was not is stealing.
Is the market totally fair? Well, it's a lot fairer if you're
Warren Buffet than if you're Josh Halpern. Sorry Art you get
a worse deal than me:)
: That's why the cases/charges are all civil and SEC
: > proceedings. The only possibility (IMHO) for criminal charges
: > would be conspiracy. Basically customers did not get the market
: > price. No one forced anyone else to buy or sell their stock
: > on the NASDAQ.
: Once things go into court, there are enough lawyer routines that make
: court cases go on for years, sometimes, and an issue just gets burried in
: paperwork and the only winners are the wealthy and/or lawyers.
DOLT...The original civil case has already been decided. NASDAQ
has been forced to reorganize the market and give up direct
control. What is left is the SEC actions.
SNIP...
: Nowhere in your posts did you react in terms of what is ethical, moral, or
: distinguish between what should be done vs. what was done.
Well, the last gun has not been fired but what has happened up
to now appears reasonable. Remember the take no prisoners option
was to close up the NASDAQ. That is cutting off your nose to
punish your face.
: As far as the "clueless" part is concernd, I'd say you are full of clues,
: but often not much more. That bit about your 3.5 year PhD followed by the
: "(OK, so its more like 4-5 years) is an example of your constant hedging
: then retreating.
You are a dishonest bastard. The original sentence was
*********************
I know people who have gotten their Ph.D. in 3.5 years(OK, its
more like 4-5 years on average).
*********************
3.5 years is clearly stated as a possibility and 4-5 as the
average. IN THE SAME SENTENCE. Somewhere else in the thread
I said that I know people who took 10 years also.
Let me make a clear statement
As demonstrated by your ego driven performance in this group, I
know a lot of stockbrockers who are more ethical and moral
than Art Sowers. Hell, I know a lot of commodity brokers who
have better ethics and morals than Art Sowers.
SNIP...
: > Gee, commodity traders skate on the thin edge, some skate way on
: > the other side. BIG NEWS. What rock have you been hiding under
: > for the last fifty years......
: And, none of that bothers you, huh? And, you were all full of this "trust"
: stuff in another post way back when I pointed out that probably most of
: our economy is based on pure or implied contracts. No..you are the one
: that is clueless.
It bothers me, I know it is wide-spread, and I protect myself
against it as best I can. Much like I protect myself against
pickpockets in Italy. I didn't wake up at 50 and stare wide-
eyed and ignorant at the world around me.
josh halpern
Arthur E. Sowers
From time to time people on the NG get into endless arguments with each
other, including me. josh has been an interesting case for me. This began
with an exchange I had with him back about 6 months ago when I was talking
about grants being essentially free money for institutions and josh's
response was all over the map (grants are really loans, then according to
him they were receivables, and at least 2-3 other things besides what they
really were), and it all looked to me like: i) josh was trying to picture
grants as some evil and distasteful medicine that institutions take very
bitterly. All of my experience is that institutions really love grants.
99% of the time they will bend over backwards to get even small ones.
The next issue was simple. josh stated that Delaware has no state income
tax. Big untruth. He knows that now.
Then there was his declaration that there have been revolutionary advances
in plain old homebuilding, and then, this is important, a statement
something like "(OK nails are nails)" and examples of high tech nail guns.
My view is that most homebuilding is still done with nails, wood,
cement & bricks, and shingles, and that with relatively minor changes
(buiding codes, regulatory issues, etc, have changed a lot). Homebuilding
has really not changed that much. We certainly have no sea change to
Buckminster Fuller domes and circular homes. Rarely is a building,
residential or commercial, built with really new angles, curves, etc. I
spoke of houses I've seen in my neighborhood where regular old fashioned
hammers, and all other traditional tools were used.
Then he presents something like his "... 3.5 years (OK, 4-5 more usual)",
and later throws in a "10 year" example, maybe to ballance off, and
again its a declaration as if the 3.5 is the "predominant" followed up by
a qualification, like "(OK nails are nails). Its really kind of funny.
I think josh knows some things, but I also think he doesn't know some
things and doesn't know that he doesn't know. Moreover, he sometimes
misses the forest for the trees (all the details on the securities issues
without recognizing, until finally below, that there is a moral-ethical
component which is what I was trying to get some recognition on). There
are responses from him that are based on a knee-jerk misinterpretation of
what I said (and at least one example exists in the quoted material below
the dotted line).
As far as what is stealing or not stealing (see his comments below),
with the introduction (by semantics, laws, lawyer manuverings, etc.) of
enough complexities in human interactions, paper procedures, and gray
areas (which exist in the tax code, as well), it can easily be claimed or
explained that
something which benefitted the wallet of one entity (usually a
commercial one) at the expense of another entity (usually a person) is not
stealing. And, after all, there are a lot of things which are not nice (to
put it simply and politely) but are totally legal. And, in todays world,
all that matters is whether something is legal or not. And, sometimes even
if it is legal, you can argue around the issue, plead no contest without
admitting guilt, pay a sum of money (which usually ends up coming out of
someone else's wallet anyway), etc., and thus lots of crimes (=the legal
ones) and wrongs (=things that are not nice, but are legal) go unpunished.
Furthermore, he, josh, has a low tollerance for people who disagree with
him, and then pours on the profuse and innaccurate namecalling,
obfuscation, and a rather general unwillingness to be collegial about
resolving differences of opinion unless those resolutions are in his
favor. And, this has been demonstrated many times here in the last few
months. I believe josh is a real tenured professor at a university and
with a personality that is not all that uncommon. Undergraduates thinking
about grad school need to be aware of what it could be like working with
such personalities. I've had my share of unpleasant experiences. And, my
recommendation is to chose faculty to be your mentor who you can get along
with and you can expect, realistically, to get your degree in a
reasonable amount of time (way less than ten years). If you can't get
along with them, then getting a PhD may be delayed, or worse, may be
impossible, but will surely be far more unpleasant than necessary.
I am not perfect, like josh, so I'll appologize for my shortcomings,
habits, viewpoints, and tendencies. I just wonder if josh has ANY
humility or reservations that acknowledge his own limitations.
Art Sowers
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
On 16 Jul 1998, Joshua Halpern wrote:
> Arthur E. Sowers <arth...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
> SNIP....
> : josh, I'm not that interested. But you fail to acknowledge that I
> : mentioned reading a number of articles that went into substantial details
> : and I just was not interested. I am interested in effects that result in
> : the transfer of large sums of money from unsuspecting people, by economies
> : of scale, to "money harvesters."
>
> You went into substantial length moralizing without understanding
> what you were moralizing about. Clueless is too kind to describe
> what you did.
>
> : > : > The companies were stealing. Lots of them. Big
> : > : > ones. The brokers were doing it and the companies were looking the other
> : > : > way. THEY not only considered themselves "entitled" to enhancing their
> : > : > wallets, but they participated in actions (legal or not) to actually
> : > : > enhance their wallets. This is MY version of what I was trying to say and
> : > : > why I was saying it. I also don't like theivery.
> : >
> : > Not obeying the rules of the market to their own advantage, yes.
> : > Stealing, no.
>
> : This is the part about josh that is reprehensible; he sides, effectively,
> : with the forces which say something that is not right is just legal. So we
> : should not get excited about it.
>
> Ever mis-step is not first degree murder, nor are they all worth the
> death penalty. This was a serious breach of market rules. For
> markets to operate they must be seen as honest. Serious actions
> were and will be taken. Right now the issue is whether certain
> traders will be barred (permanently, maybe). Billions of dollars
> have been paid in penalties and restitution. There will be more
> fines. What it was not is stealing.
>
> Is the market totally fair? Well, it's a lot fairer if you're
> Warren Buffet than if you're Josh Halpern. Sorry Art you get
> a worse deal than me:)
>
> : That's why the cases/charges are all civil and SEC
> : > proceedings. The only possibility (IMHO) for criminal charges
> : > would be conspiracy. Basically customers did not get the market
> : > price. No one forced anyone else to buy or sell their stock
> : > on the NASDAQ.
>
> : Once things go into court, there are enough lawyer routines that make
> : court cases go on for years, sometimes, and an issue just gets burried in
> : paperwork and the only winners are the wealthy and/or lawyers.
>
> DOLT...The original civil case has already been decided. NASDAQ
> has been forced to reorganize the market and give up direct
> control. What is left is the SEC actions.
>
> SNIP...
> : Nowhere in your posts did you react in terms of what is ethical, moral, or
> : distinguish between what should be done vs. what was done.
>
> Well, the last gun has not been fired but what has happened up
> to now appears reasonable. Remember the take no prisoners option
> was to close up the NASDAQ. That is cutting off your nose to
> punish your face.
>
> : As far as the "clueless" part is concernd, I'd say you are full of clues,
> : but often not much more. That bit about your 3.5 year PhD followed by the
> : "(OK, so its more like 4-5 years) is an example of your constant hedging
> : then retreating.
>
> You are a dishonest bastard. The original sentence was
> *********************
> I know people who have gotten their Ph.D. in 3.5 years(OK, its
> more like 4-5 years on average).
> *********************
>
> 3.5 years is clearly stated as a possibility and 4-5 as the
> average. IN THE SAME SENTENCE. Somewhere else in the thread
> I said that I know people who took 10 years also.
>
> Let me make a clear statement
>
> As demonstrated by your ego driven performance in this group, I
> know a lot of stockbrockers who are more ethical and moral
> than Art Sowers. Hell, I know a lot of commodity brokers who
> have better ethics and morals than Art Sowers.
>
> SNIP...
> : > Gee, commodity traders skate on the thin edge, some skate way on
> : > the other side. BIG NEWS. What rock have you been hiding under
> : > for the last fifty years......
>
> : And, none of that bothers you, huh? And, you were all full of this "trust"
> : stuff in another post way back when I pointed out that probably most of
> : our economy is based on pure or implied contracts. No..you are the one
> : that is clueless.
>
Joshua Halpern
I know Art feels persecuted by me, but as a list of particulars
this is really silly. I could go over this stuff again, but
unless someone else asks for information on any of the points
let me say that it consists of mis-reading, mis-statements and
just plain mis-sing the point. If you are really interested,
deja-news will do, and if that doesn't satisfy you send me
e-mail.
However, let me point out that in the one case I was wrong,
(thinking Deleware was a low tax state), after it was challenged,
I looked it up, saw that I was mistaken and quickly retracted.
<Moreover it didn't make much difference to the argument, which
was one could live in a low tax state and save money. Turned
out that VA was a low tax state as was surprisingly MD).
josh halpern
Arthur E. Sowers <arth...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
: From time to time people on the NG get into endless arguments with each
: other, including me. josh has been an interesting case for me. This began
: with an exchange I had with him back about 6 months ago when I was talking
: about grants being essentially free money for institutions and josh's
: response was all over the map (grants are really loans, then according to
: him they were receivables, and at least 2-3 other things besides what they
: really were), and it all looked to me like: i) josh was trying to picture
: grants as some evil and distasteful medicine that institutions take very
: bitterly. All of my experience is that institutions really love grants.
: 99% of the time they will bend over backwards to get even small ones.
SNIP....
mark
> No, they fundamentally changed the way the market is administered
> some time ago so this would not happen again, they lost a big
> damages suit and this is the last stage. To understand what happened
> and why you have to understand how the NASDAQ worked and how the
> various market tiers work. This will also tell you why the SEC
> cannot ban the accused firms without destroying the NASDAQ, but
> that discussion belongs in other groups.
> are on stock trades. Basically, an extra $0.25/share profit on
> every trade amounts to billions of dollars a year, especially if
> you don't pay it when trading for your own account.
> Not obeying the rules of the market to their own advantage, yes.
> Stealing, no. That's why the cases/charges are all civil and SEC
> proceedings. The only possibility (IMHO) for criminal charges
> would be conspiracy. Basically customers did not get the market
> price. No one forced anyone else to buy or sell their stock
> on the NASDAQ.
> Since you are clearly clueless please do not comment on what
> I said. I pointed out what the violation of the market rule was.
> I did not cast it away.
>
>
> You are aware that securities firms operate an insurance scheme to
> cover investors who suffer from fraud?
>
> josh halpern
Josh, i seem to recall some news of this last year, was it brokers who were
not accepting 1/32 increments in sales prices from buyers but they were
taking them on the floor (ie a 1/32 per share per sale)? that would add up to
alot quikly is my guess.
but your last question stumped me, i don't know what you mean about the
insurance scheme--i think options are a kind of insurance for losses aren't
they-but your not talking about that are you?
markH
Frank
>
>I know Art feels persecuted by me, but as a list of particulars
>this is really silly.
(snip)
. . . and Art shouldn't feel singled out. As most of us know, Josh is
an equal opportunity persecutor.
Frank
Joshua Halpern
: (snip)
Just call me Ken.......
: Frank
Arthur E. Sowers
On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Frank wrote:
> On 16 Jul 1998 15:11:24 GMT, Joshua Halpern <j...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>
> >
> >I know Art feels persecuted by me, but as a list of particulars
> >this is really silly.
>
> (snip)
>
> . . . and Art shouldn't feel singled out. As most of us know, Josh is
> an equal opportunity persecutor.
>
> Frank
>
>
post and private email to Frank:
I've noticed that, too, Frank.
Art
Joshua Halpern
: Joshua Halpern wrote:
: > josh halpern
SNIP...
: Josh, i seem to recall some news of this last year, was it brokers who were
: not accepting 1/32 increments in sales prices from buyers but they were
: taking them on the floor (ie a 1/32 per share per sale)? that would add up to
: alot quikly is my guess.
The good news is that the markets are going decimal :)
: but your last question stumped me, i don't know what you mean about the
: insurance scheme--i think options are a kind of insurance for losses aren't
: they-but your not talking about that are you?
You are not insured against market risk, but you are insured against
you firm failing or fraud (many people have brokerage account. The
downside (?) is that to have an account you have to agree to
binding arbitration.
josh halpern
Frank
>Frank <DrHe...@Chemistry.com> wrote:
>: On 16 Jul 1998 15:11:24 GMT, Joshua Halpern <j...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>
>: >
>: >I know Art feels persecuted by me, but as a list of particulars
>: >this is really silly.
>
>: (snip)
>
>: . . . and Art shouldn't feel singled out. As most of us know, Josh is
>: an equal opportunity persecutor.
>
>Just call me Ken.......
>
Nah, that would be a real insult. Besides, he's an obsessed zealot,
not an equal opportunity persecutor.
Frank
Arthur E. Sowers
Well, I'll take it back a little. He went to some trouble to get that
stuff together on apprenticeships for a whole slew of jobs that I'll bet
will be far easier to find work in (probably pay as much, have better job
security, and more lateral mobility) than the PhD job crap I've been
talking about since I started on the NG in 1991-92.
Art.