We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: ftth who wrote (31009)8/17/2009 12:35:47 AM
From: axial  Read Replies (1) of 46820
When you consider the degree of capture, and the regulator's historical failure to enforce regulations already on the books, I think it's fair to say the regulator's decisions favor the companies.

That is, the regulator acts for the companies - to the even when companies are clearly in violation the law, and defrauding taxpayers of billions.

Intentionally vague language is merely part of s duplicitous strategy, designed to make regulations opaque and infinitely arguable. That's how the regulators disguise the extent of capture.

Hair-splitting distinctions are merely part of the game. Clear, intelligible regulations are the last thing status quo players want, in the same way the financial sector wants maximum obfuscation in credit-card agreements: to increase the likelihood of end-user ripoffs, and the probability that challenges will be accompanied by protracted and costly litigation.

Does anybody seriously believe promises, if made, cannot be enforced? That clear agreements, demonstrably upheld, are beyond our ability?

Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext