[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.mobile

Page not found with mobile application..

mihabib

6/13/2008 11:12:00 PM

I have a very simple mobile app that has a text box and object list.
Apps seems to be working OK, however time to time when we try to go
back from details page, it takes to:

The page cannot be found

The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name
changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

If we start search again, it works OK for few times until dies again.

Following is the code. Any help with be appreciated.

Imports System.Data
Imports System.Data.Sql
Imports System.Data.SqlClient

Partial Class _Default

Inherits System.Web.UI.MobileControls.MobilePage
Private objCnn As New
SqlConnection(System.Configuration.ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings("cnnAMP_DEV"))

'splits the domain\user and returns the user
Private Function RequestLogon_User() As String

Dim LogonId As String() =
Request.ServerVariables("Logon_User").Split("\")
Return LogonId(1)

End Function

'Protected Sub frmMain_Activate(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As
System.EventArgs) Handles frmMain.Activate
' lblWelcome.Text = "Welcome user: " + RequestLogon_User()
'End Sub

Private Function PermissionChecking(ByVal LogonID As String) As
Boolean

Dim objCmd As SqlCommand = New SqlCommand
Dim objDR As SqlDataReader
Dim bln As Boolean

If Not (objCnn.State = ConnectionState.Open) Then
objCnn.Open() '--dh

With objCmd
.CommandText = "Donor_Mobile_CheckPermission_ssp"
.Connection = objCnn
.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure
.Parameters.Add("@LogonId", SqlDbType.VarChar, 100).Value
= RequestLogon_User()
End With

objDR =
objCmd.ExecuteReader(System.Data.CommandBehavior.CloseConnection)
objDR.Read()

With objDR
If .HasRows Then
bln = .GetValue(0)
'bln = .Item(0) Another way of checking the result.
End If

End With

'--dh
objDR.Close()
If Not (objCnn.State = ConnectionState.Closed) Then
objCnn.Close()

Return bln

End Function

Private Sub Donor_Mobile_SearchList_Test_ssp()

Dim objCmd As New SqlCommand
Dim objDA As New SqlDataAdapter
Dim objDS As New DataSet

If Not (objCnn.State = ConnectionState.Open) Then
objCnn.Open()

With objCmd
.CommandText = "Donor_Mobile_SearchList_Test_ssp"
.Connection = objCnn
.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure
.Parameters.Add("@SearchText", SqlDbType.VarChar,
50).Value = txtSearch.Text

objDA.SelectCommand = objCmd
objDA.Fill(objDS, RTrim(txtSearch.Text))
End With

With objListUser
.DataSource = objDS
.TableFields = "LastName;FirstName"
.DataBind()
End With

End Sub

Protected Sub btnSearch_Click(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As
System.EventArgs) Handles btnSearch.Click

If Len(txtSearch.Text) > 0 Then

If PermissionChecking(RequestLogon_User) Then
Donor_Mobile_SearchList_Test_ssp()

Else
Me.ActiveForm = frmDenied

End If
End If

End Sub

Protected Sub frmMain_Load(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As
System.EventArgs) Handles frmMain.Load
lblWelcome.Text = "Welcome user: " + RequestLogon_User()
End Sub
End Class
11 Answers

Nickname unavailable

5/22/2008 3:12:00 AM

0

On May 21, 9:36 pm, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:44:02 -0700, Video61 wrote:
> > On May 21, 6:52 pm, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> Free markets are mostly a very good thing. But when the concept is
> >> applied to life supporting less elastic essential resources, the problem
> >> of the ego and the desire for power overcomes the good that would
> >> otherwise flow from such unfettered pursuit of "happiness"/"property".
>
> >> Nowhere is this more obvious than in the current fiasco of oil prices.
> >> Having compiled wealth into the hands of the few, the few are now waging
> >> a feudal war for control of the life's blood of the planet:
>
> >> "'free trade' -- despite the well meaning wishes of the idealists --
> >> ends up concentrating wealth and power into the hands of the greedy-
> >> selfish" says retrogrouch.....
>
> >>http://newsbusters.org/node/6858----------------...
>
> >> Media Ignore Enron Connection to Higher Oil and Gas Prices
> >> Photo of Noel Sheppard.
> >> By Noel Sheppard | August 9, 2006 - 09:58 ET
>
> >> (...)
>
> >> On June 26, Senators Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota) and Carl Levin
> >> (D-Michigan) released a comprehensive report detailing how speculation on
> >> various commodities exchanges around the world is impacting energy
> >> prices. Six weeks later, virtually no media coverage has been given to
> >> this bipartisan, 60-page study that should have been of great interest to
> >> Americans with gasoline over three dollars a gallon.
>
> >> Even more curious than the lack of media attention to this report was its
> >> continued reference to Enron, a regular target of the press in the past
> >> five years. The Senate study strongly pointed an accusatory finger at
> >> "The Enron Loophole," a part of the Commodity Futures Modernization
> >> Act of 2000, approved by Congress and signed into law by former President
> >> Clinton on December 21, 2000.
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> (The foregoing phraseology is in need of attention and correction: The
> >> Newt Gingrich deregulation crazed Congress CREATED this legislation and
> >> then dared Clinton to veto it. It was not created by Bill Clinton and the
> >> Democrats and then "approved by the Congress". Bill Clinton, at the time,
> >> was under heavy assault:
>
> >>http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Cl......
> >> On January 12, 1998, Ms. Tripp also provided the tapes of her
> >> conversations with Ms. Lewinsky to Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr,
> >> who had been appointed to investigate charges relating to the Whitewater
> >> real estate venture in Arkansas of the President and Mrs. Clinton.
>
> >> (...)
>
> >> On January 15, Starr obtained approval from Attorney General Janet Reno,
> >> who in turn sought and received an order from the United States Court of
> >> Appeals, to expand the scope of the Whitewater probe into the new
> >> allegations.
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Clinton had less power than a wet noodle.
>
> >>http://newsbusters.org/node/6858----------------...
>
> >> First, some background: in 1936, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> >> signed into law the Commodity Exchange Act, which was designed to create
> >> greater government oversight of commodities markets after the collapse of
> >> grain prices in 1933. This Act has been regularly amended by Congress as
> >> these markets have grown and evolved, and was set for reauthorization on
> >> September 30, 2000.
>
> >> CFMA not only extended this 70-year old Act, but also detailed new
> >> regulatory authorities for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the
> >> government agency responsible for overseeing all futures trading in the
> >> United States. At the same time, various exemptions were either created
> >> or renewed that reduced CFTC's jurisdiction over certain transactions.
> >> In particular, according to this Senate report:
>
> >> The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic
> >> exchanges was exempted from CFTC oversight by a provision inserted at
> >> the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity
> >> Futures Modernization Act of 2000 in the waning hours of the 106th
> >> Congress.
>
> >> (...)
>
> >> The summary of CFMA from the Library of Congress also supported the
> >> Senate's contentions:
>
> >> (Sec. 103) Excludes from coverage under the Act a transaction in an
> >> excluded commodity: (1) entered into between eligible contract
> >> participants and not executed on a trading facility; or (2) executed
> >> on electronic trading facilities as long as the transaction is
> >> entered into on a principal-to-principal basis by eligible contract
> >> participants trading for themselves.
>
> >> (Sec. 104) Excludes from coverage under the Act electronic trading of
> >> excluded and exempt commodities. States that a board of trade
> >> designated as a contract market or derivatives transaction execution
> >> facility may establish and operate an electronic trading facility.
>
> >> (...)
>
> >> Without getting overly complex, on every commodities exchange in America,
> >> futures and options contracts carry a finite limit as to how many an
> >> investor may hold. This is specifically designed to prevent anyone from
> >> cornering the market on a particular commodity, much as what the Hunt
> >> brothers did with silver in 1980.
>
> >> Unfortunately, electronic exchanges do not have position limits on their
> >> contracts. This allows large investors and billion-dollar hedge funds to
> >> acquire a number of energy contracts significantly greater than what they
> >> could purchase on conventional exchanges, thereby creating an added
> >> demand on oil and oil-related products that, frankly, the system can't
> >> handle.
>
> >> Furthermore, these electronic exchanges require no Large Trader Reports
> >> from its participants. This means that there is no routine auditing of
> >> larger transactions that occur. The Senate report quoted CFTC Chairman
> >> Reuben Jeffrey specifically about this issue.
>
> >> "The Commission's Large Trader information system is one of the
> >> cornerstones of our surveillance program and enables detection of
> >> concentrated and coordinated positions that might be used by one or
> >> more traders to attempt manipulation."
>
> >> The absence of such reporting on electronic exchanges makes it easy for
> >> large speculators to carry positions significantly greater than what
> >> decades of commodities regulations in America have deemed appropriate for
> >> the best interest of consumers. Moreover, it allows investors to hide
> >> their true position in a particular commodity from regulators.
>
> >> Bigger Isn't Always Better
>
> >> Adding insult to injury, this condition was further exacerbated in
> >> January of this year when the CFTC decided to allow the largest
> >> electronic energy exchange, the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), to use
> >> its terminals to trade U.S. crude oil futures. Three months later, this
> >> was amended to also allow ICE trading of U.S. gasoline and heating oil
> >> contracts. As such, investors from all over the world can trade U.S.
> >> energy contracts without any oversight by an American regulatory body.
> >> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> Inelastic commodity markets must be regulated to disallow "cornering of
> >> the markets".
>
> > thank you for posting this trucker. its the smoking gun i have been
> > looking for. although, clinton was weak, but if he would have vetoed
> > this stuff, regardless of the over ride, his legacy today would be
> > viewed in a much more positive way today. and the cons would have been
> > exposed for what they are.
>
> And Al Gore would have ACTUALLY lost the election and the Democrats would
> not have regained a foothold in the Senate.
>
> > to bad that clintons economic team are also free market libertarians
> > who poorly advised bill to support, or sign these abominations to
> > democracy. its why hillary is losing. she has the same team. and the
> > same tendency to vote the way bill did.
>
> We are both assuming a lot of stuff into existence here that may or may
> not be true. But the mood of the country at that time was still pro
> deregulation and lower taxes and the Republicans had the full court press
> on the "cut taxes" and "economic growth" meme. I do not believe that Al
> Gore would have come close or that minimal control of the Senate would
> have been possible if Clinton had attempted a veto. Political realities
> are a bitch.
>

you cannot educate people by going along with the terrible polices of
your opposition. later on they get to say, if you were against it, why
did you vote for it. and the public understands that. that is why the
elections have been so razor thin, the cons can cheat. people see
little difference. its why obama, and edwards got so much traction,
and why hillary just cannot overcome them.

> --
> "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
> of society but the people themselves; and
> if we think them not enlightened enough to
> exercise their control with a wholesome
> discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
> them, but to inform their discretion by
> education." - Thomas Jeffersonhttp://GreaterVoice....

The Trucker

5/22/2008 3:26:00 AM

0

On Wed, 21 May 2008 20:12:11 -0700, Video61 wrote:

> On May 21, 9:36 pm, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:44:02 -0700, Video61 wrote:
>> > On May 21, 6:52 pm, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> Free markets are mostly a very good thing. But when the concept is
>> >> applied to life supporting less elastic essential resources, the problem
>> >> of the ego and the desire for power overcomes the good that would
>> >> otherwise flow from such unfettered pursuit of "happiness"/"property".
>>
>> >> Nowhere is this more obvious than in the current fiasco of oil prices.
>> >> Having compiled wealth into the hands of the few, the few are now waging
>> >> a feudal war for control of the life's blood of the planet:
>>
>> >> "'free trade' -- despite the well meaning wishes of the idealists --
>> >> ends up concentrating wealth and power into the hands of the greedy-
>> >> selfish" says retrogrouch.....
>>
>> >>http://newsbusters.org/node/6858----------------...
>>
>> >> Media Ignore Enron Connection to Higher Oil and Gas Prices
>> >> Photo of Noel Sheppard.
>> >> By Noel Sheppard | August 9, 2006 - 09:58 ET
>>
>> >> (...)
>>
>> >> On June 26, Senators Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota) and Carl Levin
>> >> (D-Michigan) released a comprehensive report detailing how speculation on
>> >> various commodities exchanges around the world is impacting energy
>> >> prices. Six weeks later, virtually no media coverage has been given to
>> >> this bipartisan, 60-page study that should have been of great interest to
>> >> Americans with gasoline over three dollars a gallon.
>>
>> >> Even more curious than the lack of media attention to this report was its
>> >> continued reference to Enron, a regular target of the press in the past
>> >> five years. The Senate study strongly pointed an accusatory finger at
>> >> "The Enron Loophole," a part of the Commodity Futures Modernization
>> >> Act of 2000, approved by Congress and signed into law by former President
>> >> Clinton on December 21, 2000.
>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >> (The foregoing phraseology is in need of attention and correction: The
>> >> Newt Gingrich deregulation crazed Congress CREATED this legislation and
>> >> then dared Clinton to veto it. It was not created by Bill Clinton and the
>> >> Democrats and then "approved by the Congress". Bill Clinton, at the time,
>> >> was under heavy assault:
>>
>> >>http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Cl......
>> >> On January 12, 1998, Ms. Tripp also provided the tapes of her
>> >> conversations with Ms. Lewinsky to Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr,
>> >> who had been appointed to investigate charges relating to the Whitewater
>> >> real estate venture in Arkansas of the President and Mrs. Clinton.
>>
>> >> (...)
>>
>> >> On January 15, Starr obtained approval from Attorney General Janet Reno,
>> >> who in turn sought and received an order from the United States Court of
>> >> Appeals, to expand the scope of the Whitewater probe into the new
>> >> allegations.
>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Clinton had less power than a wet noodle.
>>
>> >>http://newsbusters.org/node/6858----------------...
>>
>> >> First, some background: in 1936, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
>> >> signed into law the Commodity Exchange Act, which was designed to create
>> >> greater government oversight of commodities markets after the collapse of
>> >> grain prices in 1933. This Act has been regularly amended by Congress as
>> >> these markets have grown and evolved, and was set for reauthorization on
>> >> September 30, 2000.
>>
>> >> CFMA not only extended this 70-year old Act, but also detailed new
>> >> regulatory authorities for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the
>> >> government agency responsible for overseeing all futures trading in the
>> >> United States. At the same time, various exemptions were either created
>> >> or renewed that reduced CFTC's jurisdiction over certain transactions.
>> >> In particular, according to this Senate report:
>>
>> >> The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic
>> >> exchanges was exempted from CFTC oversight by a provision inserted at
>> >> the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity
>> >> Futures Modernization Act of 2000 in the waning hours of the 106th
>> >> Congress.
>>
>> >> (...)
>>
>> >> The summary of CFMA from the Library of Congress also supported the
>> >> Senate's contentions:
>>
>> >> (Sec. 103) Excludes from coverage under the Act a transaction in an
>> >> excluded commodity: (1) entered into between eligible contract
>> >> participants and not executed on a trading facility; or (2) executed
>> >> on electronic trading facilities as long as the transaction is
>> >> entered into on a principal-to-principal basis by eligible contract
>> >> participants trading for themselves.
>>
>> >> (Sec. 104) Excludes from coverage under the Act electronic trading of
>> >> excluded and exempt commodities. States that a board of trade
>> >> designated as a contract market or derivatives transaction execution
>> >> facility may establish and operate an electronic trading facility.
>>
>> >> (...)
>>
>> >> Without getting overly complex, on every commodities exchange in America,
>> >> futures and options contracts carry a finite limit as to how many an
>> >> investor may hold. This is specifically designed to prevent anyone from
>> >> cornering the market on a particular commodity, much as what the Hunt
>> >> brothers did with silver in 1980.
>>
>> >> Unfortunately, electronic exchanges do not have position limits on their
>> >> contracts. This allows large investors and billion-dollar hedge funds to
>> >> acquire a number of energy contracts significantly greater than what they
>> >> could purchase on conventional exchanges, thereby creating an added
>> >> demand on oil and oil-related products that, frankly, the system can't
>> >> handle.
>>
>> >> Furthermore, these electronic exchanges require no Large Trader Reports
>> >> from its participants. This means that there is no routine auditing of
>> >> larger transactions that occur. The Senate report quoted CFTC Chairman
>> >> Reuben Jeffrey specifically about this issue.
>>
>> >> "The Commission's Large Trader information system is one of the
>> >> cornerstones of our surveillance program and enables detection of
>> >> concentrated and coordinated positions that might be used by one or
>> >> more traders to attempt manipulation."
>>
>> >> The absence of such reporting on electronic exchanges makes it easy for
>> >> large speculators to carry positions significantly greater than what
>> >> decades of commodities regulations in America have deemed appropriate for
>> >> the best interest of consumers. Moreover, it allows investors to hide
>> >> their true position in a particular commodity from regulators.
>>
>> >> Bigger Isn't Always Better
>>
>> >> Adding insult to injury, this condition was further exacerbated in
>> >> January of this year when the CFTC decided to allow the largest
>> >> electronic energy exchange, the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), to use
>> >> its terminals to trade U.S. crude oil futures. Three months later, this
>> >> was amended to also allow ICE trading of U.S. gasoline and heating oil
>> >> contracts. As such, investors from all over the world can trade U.S.
>> >> energy contracts without any oversight by an American regulatory body.
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >> Inelastic commodity markets must be regulated to disallow "cornering of
>> >> the markets".
>>
>> > thank you for posting this trucker. its the smoking gun i have been
>> > looking for. although, clinton was weak, but if he would have vetoed
>> > this stuff, regardless of the over ride, his legacy today would be
>> > viewed in a much more positive way today. and the cons would have been
>> > exposed for what they are.
>>
>> And Al Gore would have ACTUALLY lost the election and the Democrats would
>> not have regained a foothold in the Senate.
>>
>> > to bad that clintons economic team are also free market libertarians
>> > who poorly advised bill to support, or sign these abominations to
>> > democracy. its why hillary is losing. she has the same team. and the
>> > same tendency to vote the way bill did.
>>
>> We are both assuming a lot of stuff into existence here that may or may
>> not be true. But the mood of the country at that time was still pro
>> deregulation and lower taxes and the Republicans had the full court press
>> on the "cut taxes" and "economic growth" meme. I do not believe that Al
>> Gore would have come close or that minimal control of the Senate would
>> have been possible if Clinton had attempted a veto. Political realities
>> are a bitch.
>>
>
> you cannot educate people by going along with the terrible polices of
> your opposition. later on they get to say, if you were against it, why
> did you vote for it. and the public understands that. that is why the
> elections have been so razor thin, the cons can cheat. people see
> little difference. its why obama, and edwards got so much traction,
> and why hillary just cannot overcome them.

The political climate is MUCH, MUCH, different now. Back then the
Republicans were riding high and forecasting marvelous things and they had
no recent history to judge them. That is very different now and Hillary
is being painted with the same brush as the Republicans. Some small part
of that may be justified, but not to the extent that the far left is doing
it. The extremes on either side of the spectrum are rightarded. That
word would seem to be specific to the right wing but it is not. It simply
describes someone who has become so convinced of the "righteousness" of a
particular ideology that they lose the ability to reason. This loss of
rationality is called "rightardedness". I am pretty sure that I am or am
among the creators of that word.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice....

Nickname unavailable

5/22/2008 3:45:00 AM

0

On May 21, 10:26 pm, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 20:12:11 -0700, Video61 wrote:
> > On May 21, 9:36 pm, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:44:02 -0700, Video61 wrote:
> >> > On May 21, 6:52 pm, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >> Free markets are mostly a very good thing. But when the concept is
> >> >> applied to life supporting less elastic essential resources, the problem
> >> >> of the ego and the desire for power overcomes the good that would
> >> >> otherwise flow from such unfettered pursuit of "happiness"/"property".
>
> >> >> Nowhere is this more obvious than in the current fiasco of oil prices.
> >> >> Having compiled wealth into the hands of the few, the few are now waging
> >> >> a feudal war for control of the life's blood of the planet:
>
> >> >> "'free trade' -- despite the well meaning wishes of the idealists --
> >> >> ends up concentrating wealth and power into the hands of the greedy-
> >> >> selfish" says retrogrouch.....
>
> >> >>http://newsbusters.org/node/6858----------------...
>
> >> >> Media Ignore Enron Connection to Higher Oil and Gas Prices
> >> >> Photo of Noel Sheppard.
> >> >> By Noel Sheppard | August 9, 2006 - 09:58 ET
>
> >> >> (...)
>
> >> >> On June 26, Senators Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota) and Carl Levin
> >> >> (D-Michigan) released a comprehensive report detailing how speculation on
> >> >> various commodities exchanges around the world is impacting energy
> >> >> prices. Six weeks later, virtually no media coverage has been given to
> >> >> this bipartisan, 60-page study that should have been of great interest to
> >> >> Americans with gasoline over three dollars a gallon.
>
> >> >> Even more curious than the lack of media attention to this report was its
> >> >> continued reference to Enron, a regular target of the press in the past
> >> >> five years. The Senate study strongly pointed an accusatory finger at
> >> >> "The Enron Loophole," a part of the Commodity Futures Modernization
> >> >> Act of 2000, approved by Congress and signed into law by former President
> >> >> Clinton on December 21, 2000.
> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> >> (The foregoing phraseology is in need of attention and correction: The
> >> >> Newt Gingrich deregulation crazed Congress CREATED this legislation and
> >> >> then dared Clinton to veto it. It was not created by Bill Clinton and the
> >> >> Democrats and then "approved by the Congress". Bill Clinton, at the time,
> >> >> was under heavy assault:
>
> >> >>http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Cl......
> >> >> On January 12, 1998, Ms. Tripp also provided the tapes of her
> >> >> conversations with Ms. Lewinsky to Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr,
> >> >> who had been appointed to investigate charges relating to the Whitewater
> >> >> real estate venture in Arkansas of the President and Mrs. Clinton.
>
> >> >> (...)
>
> >> >> On January 15, Starr obtained approval from Attorney General Janet Reno,
> >> >> who in turn sought and received an order from the United States Court of
> >> >> Appeals, to expand the scope of the Whitewater probe into the new
> >> >> allegations.
> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> Clinton had less power than a wet noodle.
>
> >> >>http://newsbusters.org/node/6858----------------...
>
> >> >> First, some background: in 1936, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> >> >> signed into law the Commodity Exchange Act, which was designed to create
> >> >> greater government oversight of commodities markets after the collapse of
> >> >> grain prices in 1933. This Act has been regularly amended by Congress as
> >> >> these markets have grown and evolved, and was set for reauthorization on
> >> >> September 30, 2000.
>
> >> >> CFMA not only extended this 70-year old Act, but also detailed new
> >> >> regulatory authorities for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the
> >> >> government agency responsible for overseeing all futures trading in the
> >> >> United States. At the same time, various exemptions were either created
> >> >> or renewed that reduced CFTC's jurisdiction over certain transactions.
> >> >> In particular, according to this Senate report:
>
> >> >> The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic
> >> >> exchanges was exempted from CFTC oversight by a provision inserted at
> >> >> the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity
> >> >> Futures Modernization Act of 2000 in the waning hours of the 106th
> >> >> Congress.
>
> >> >> (...)
>
> >> >> The summary of CFMA from the Library of Congress also supported the
> >> >> Senate's contentions:
>
> >> >> (Sec. 103) Excludes from coverage under the Act a transaction in an
> >> >> excluded commodity: (1) entered into between eligible contract
> >> >> participants and not executed on a trading facility; or (2) executed
> >> >> on electronic trading facilities as long as the transaction is
> >> >> entered into on a principal-to-principal basis by eligible contract
> >> >> participants trading for themselves.
>
> >> >> (Sec. 104) Excludes from coverage under the Act electronic trading of
> >> >> excluded and exempt commodities. States that a board of trade
> >> >> designated as a contract market or derivatives transaction execution
> >> >> facility may establish and operate an electronic trading facility.
>
> >> >> (...)
>
> >> >> Without getting overly complex, on every commodities exchange in America,
> >> >> futures and options contracts carry a finite limit as to how many an
> >> >> investor may hold. This is specifically designed to prevent anyone from
> >> >> cornering the market on a particular commodity, much as what the Hunt
> >> >> brothers did with silver in 1980.
>
> >> >> Unfortunately, electronic exchanges do not have position limits on their
> >> >> contracts. This allows large investors and billion-dollar hedge funds to
> >> >> acquire a number of energy contracts significantly greater than what they
> >> >> could purchase on conventional exchanges, thereby creating an added
> >> >> demand on oil and oil-related products that, frankly, the system can't
> >> >> handle.
>
> >> >> Furthermore, these electronic exchanges require no Large Trader Reports
> >> >> from its participants. This means that there is no routine auditing of
> >> >> larger transactions that occur. The Senate report quoted CFTC Chairman
> >> >> Reuben Jeffrey specifically about this issue.
>
> >> >> "The Commission's Large Trader information system is one of the
> >> >> cornerstones of our surveillance program and enables detection of
> >> >> concentrated and coordinated positions that might be used by one or
> >> >> more traders to attempt manipulation."
>
> >> >> The absence of such reporting on electronic exchanges makes it easy for
> >> >> large speculators to carry positions significantly greater than what
> >> >> decades of commodities regulations in America have deemed appropriate for
> >> >> the best interest of consumers. Moreover, it allows investors to hide
> >> >> their true position in a particular commodity from regulators.
>
> >> >> Bigger Isn't Always Better
>
> >> >> Adding insult to injury, this condition was further exacerbated in
> >> >> January of this year when the CFTC decided to allow the largest
> >> >> electronic energy exchange, the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), to use
> >> >> its terminals to trade U.S. crude oil futures. Three months later, this
> >> >> was amended to also allow ICE trading of U.S. gasoline and heating oil
> >> >> contracts. As such, investors from all over the world can trade U.S.
> >> >> energy contracts without any oversight by an American regulatory body.
> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> >> Inelastic commodity markets must be regulated to disallow "cornering of
> >> >> the markets".
>
> >> > thank you for posting this trucker. its the smoking gun i have been
> >> > looking for. although, clinton was weak, but if he would have vetoed
> >> > this stuff, regardless of the over ride, his legacy today would be
> >> > viewed in a much more positive way today. and the cons would have been
> >> > exposed for what they are.
>
> >> And Al Gore would have ACTUALLY lost the election and the Democrats would
> >> not have regained a foothold in the Senate.
>
> >> > to bad that clintons economic team are also free market libertarians
> >> > who poorly advised bill to support, or sign these abominations to
> >> > democracy. its why hillary is losing. she has the same team. and the
> >> > same tendency to vote the way bill did.
>
> >> We are both assuming a lot of stuff into existence here that may or may
> >> not be true. But the mood of the country at that time was still pro
> >> deregulation and lower taxes and the Republicans had the full court press
> >> on the "cut taxes" and "economic growth" meme. I do not believe that Al
> >> Gore would have come close or that minimal control of the Senate would
> >> have been possible if Clinton had attempted a veto. Political realities
> >> are a bitch.
>
> > you cannot educate people by going along with the terrible polices of
> > your opposition. later on they get to say, if you were against it, why
> > did you vote for it. and the public understands that. that is why the
> > elections have been so razor thin, the cons can cheat. people see
> > little difference. its why obama, and edwards got so much traction,
> > and why hillary just cannot overcome them.
>
> The political climate is MUCH, MUCH, different now. Back then the
> Republicans were riding high and forecasting marvelous things and they had
> no recent history to judge them. That is very different now and Hillary
> is being painted with the same brush as the Republicans. Some small part
> of that may be justified, but not to the extent that the far left is doing
> it. The extremes on either side of the spectrum are rightarded. That
> word would seem to be specific to the right wing but it is not. It simply
> describes someone who has become so convinced of the "righteousness" of a
> particular ideology that they lose the ability to reason. This loss of
> rationality is called "rightardedness". I am pretty sure that I am or am
> among the creators of that word.
>

all we can do is judge history. hillary is being judged because she
is using bills team. if i was her, and really believed in change. i
would dump bills economic team. they are a very big drag. its hard to
say you are different, than vote with the democratic leadership
council, and use their advisers. its why bill gets no traction on the
stump. people remember.


> --
> "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
> of society but the people themselves; and
> if we think them not enlightened enough to
> exercise their control with a wholesome
> discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
> them, but to inform their discretion by
> education." - Thomas Jeffersonhttp://GreaterVoice....

Michael Price

5/22/2008 3:49:00 AM

0

On May 22, 10:44 am, Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
> On May 21, 6:52 pm, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Free markets are mostly a very good thing.  But when the concept is
> > applied to life supporting less elastic essential resources, the problem
> > of the ego and the desire for power overcomes the good that would
> > otherwise flow from such unfettered pursuit of "happiness"/"property".

Since when has govenrment control made the problem of ego and the
desire for power LESS of a problem?
>
> > Nowhere is this more obvious than in the current fiasco of oil prices.
> > Having compiled wealth into the hands of the few, the few are now waging
> > a feudal war for control of the life's blood of the planet:
>
This is true, but it has nothing to do with the free market and
everything to do with government control.

> > "'free trade' -- despite the well meaning wishes of the idealists --
> > ends up concentrating wealth and power into the hands of the greedy-
> > selfish" says retrogrouch.....
>

And he says it despite decades of evidence showing that regulation
concentrates wealth and power in the hands of the "greedy selfish".

> >http://newsbusters.org/node/6858----------------...
>
> >  Media Ignore Enron Connection to Higher Oil and Gas Prices
> >  Photo of Noel Sheppard.
> >  By Noel Sheppard | August 9, 2006 - 09:58 ET
>
> >  (...)
>
> >  On June 26, Senators Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota) and Carl Levin
> >  (D-Michigan) released a comprehensive report detailing how speculation on
> >  various commodities exchanges around the world is impacting energy
> >  prices. Six weeks later, virtually no media coverage has been given to
> >  this bipartisan, 60-page study that should have been of great interest to
> >  Americans with gasoline over three dollars a gallon.

Well good, the fact that a pair of politicians said something hardly
makes it
credible.
>
> > Even more curious than the lack of media attention to this report was its
> > continued reference to Enron, a regular target of the press in the past
> > five years. The Senate study strongly pointed an accusatory finger at
> > "The Enron Loophole," a part of the Commodity Futures Modernization
> > Act of 2000, approved by Congress and signed into law by former President
> > Clinton on December 21, 2000.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > (The foregoing phraseology is in need of attention and correction:  The
> > Newt Gingrich deregulation crazed Congress CREATED this legislation and
> > then dared Clinton to veto it.  It was not created by Bill Clinton and the
> > Democrats and then "approved by the Congress".  Bill Clinton, at the time,
> > was under heavy assault:
>
In other words the foregoing phraseology was entirely correct and
The
Trucker just wants to give Clinton an excuse for not vetoing what The
Trucker
claims is a very bad piece of legislation.

> >http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Cl......
> > On January 12, 1998, Ms. Tripp also provided the tapes of her
> > conversations with Ms. Lewinsky to Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr,
> > who had been appointed to investigate charges relating to the Whitewater
> > real estate venture in Arkansas of the President and Mrs. Clinton.
>
> > (...)
>
> > On January 15, Starr obtained approval from Attorney General Janet Reno,
> > who in turn sought and received an order from the United States Court of
> > Appeals, to expand the scope of the Whitewater probe into the new
> > allegations.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Clinton had less power than a wet noodle.
>
This is a complete lie, Clinton had the power to veto and
realistically was
never in danger of losing it.

> >http://newsbusters.org/node/6858----------------...
>
> >  First, some background: in 1936, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> >  signed into law the Commodity Exchange Act, which was designed to create
> >  greater government oversight of commodities markets after the collapse of
> >  grain prices in 1933. This Act has been regularly amended by Congress as
> >  these markets have grown and evolved, and was set for reauthorization on
> >  September 30, 2000.
>
> >  CFMA not only extended this 70-year old Act, but also detailed new
> >  regulatory authorities for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the
> >  government agency responsible for overseeing all futures trading in the
> >  United States. At the same time, various exemptions were either created
> >  or renewed that reduced CFTC's jurisdiction over certain transactions.
> >  In particular, according to this Senate report:
>
> >      The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic
> >      exchanges was exempted from CFTC oversight by a provision inserted at
> >      the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity
> >      Futures Modernization Act of 2000 in the waning hours of the 106th
> >      Congress.
>
> >         (...)
>
> >  The summary of CFMA from the Library of Congress also supported the
> >  Senate's contentions:
>
> >     (Sec. 103) Excludes from coverage under the Act a transaction in an
> >      excluded commodity: (1) entered into between eligible contract
> >      participants and not executed on a trading facility; or (2) executed
> >      on electronic trading facilities as long as the transaction is
> >      entered into on a principal-to-principal basis by eligible contract
> >      participants trading for themselves.
>
> >     (Sec. 104) Excludes from coverage under the Act electronic trading of
> >      excluded and exempt commodities. States that a board of trade
> >      designated as a contract market or derivatives transaction execution
> >      facility may establish and operate an electronic trading facility.
>
> >         (...)
>
> >   Without getting overly complex, on every commodities exchange in
> > America,
> >   futures and options contracts carry a finite limit as to how many an
> >   investor may hold. This is specifically designed to prevent anyone from
> >   cornering the market on a particular commodity, much as what the Hunt
> >   brothers did with silver in 1980.

Cornering the market is a bad strategy that generally loses the
"cornerer's" shirt.
>
> >    Unfortunately, electronic exchanges do not have position limits on their
> >    contracts. This allows large investors and billion-dollar hedge funds to
> >    acquire a number of energy contracts significantly greater than what they
> >    could purchase on conventional exchanges, thereby creating an added
> >    demand on oil and oil-related products that, frankly, the system can't
> >    handle.
>
This is exteremly unlikely given that to do this speculators would
have to
spend an enormous amount buying something at high prices and nobody
would have to bet against them. The system clearly can handle
whatever
"billion dollar" hedge funds can throw at them, since a billion
dollars is not
much.

> >  Furthermore, these electronic exchanges require no Large Trader Reports
> >  from its participants. This means that there is no routine auditing of
> >  larger transactions that occur. The Senate report quoted CFTC Chairman
> >  Reuben Jeffrey specifically about this issue.
>
> >  "The Commission's Large Trader information system is one of the
> >  cornerstones of our surveillance program and enables detection of
> >  concentrated and coordinated positions that might be used by one or
> >  more traders to attempt manipulation."
>
> >  The absence of such reporting on electronic exchanges makes it easy for
> >  large speculators to carry positions significantly greater than what
> >  decades of commodities regulations in America have deemed appropriate for
> >  the best interest of consumers. Moreover, it allows investors to hide
> >  their true position in a particular commodity from regulators.
>
So? Why should we believe that what decades of commodities
regulations
in America have deemed appropriate is? Why is it any business of
regulators
what I do with my money?

> > Bigger Isn't Always Better
>
> > Adding insult to injury, this condition was further exacerbated in
> > January of this year when the CFTC decided to allow the largest
> > electronic energy exchange, the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), to use
> > its terminals to trade U.S. crude oil futures. Three months later, this
> > was amended to also allow ICE trading of U.S. gasoline and heating oil
> > contracts. As such, investors from all over the world can trade U.S.
> > energy contracts without any oversight by an American regulatory body.
> > ------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Inelastic commodity markets must be regulated to disallow "cornering of
> > the markets".

Ahh... yes, blame the speculators, it's not the government or war or
blantant
corruption and inefficiency or anything to do with the politicians.
We know
that because two politicians tell us.
>
>  thank you for posting this trucker. its the smoking gun i have been
> looking for.

What a report by two politicians is a smoking gun? Bullshit.

> although, clinton was weak, but if he would have vetoed
> this stuff, regardless of the over ride, his legacy today would be
> viewed in a much more positive way today. and the cons would have been
> exposed for what they are.
>  to bad that clintons economic team are also free market libertarians

Anyone to the right of Stalin is a free market libertarian to you.
If there is
so many free market libertarians in power why is there a Federal
Reserve?

> who poorly advised bill to support, or sign these abominations to
> democracy. its why hillary is losing. she has the same team. and the
> same tendency to vote the way bill did.

Which was almost never for free markets.
>
> > --
> > "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
> > of society but the people themselves; and
> > if we think them not enlightened enough to
> > exercise their control with a wholesome
> > discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
> > them, but to inform their discretion by
> > education." - Thomas Jeffersonhttp://GreaterVoice.o... Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The Trucker

5/22/2008 4:35:00 AM

0

On Wed, 21 May 2008 20:45:12 -0700, Video61 wrote:

> On May 21, 10:26 pm, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 20:12:11 -0700, Video61 wrote:
>> > On May 21, 9:36 pm, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:44:02 -0700, Video61 wrote:
>> >> > On May 21, 6:52 pm, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> >> Free markets are mostly a very good thing. But when the concept is
>> >> >> applied to life supporting less elastic essential resources, the problem
>> >> >> of the ego and the desire for power overcomes the good that would
>> >> >> otherwise flow from such unfettered pursuit of "happiness"/"property".
>>
>> >> >> Nowhere is this more obvious than in the current fiasco of oil prices.
>> >> >> Having compiled wealth into the hands of the few, the few are now waging
>> >> >> a feudal war for control of the life's blood of the planet:
>>
>> >> >> "'free trade' -- despite the well meaning wishes of the idealists --
>> >> >> ends up concentrating wealth and power into the hands of the greedy-
>> >> >> selfish" says retrogrouch.....
>>
>> >> >>http://newsbusters.org/node/6858----------------...
>>
>> >> >> Media Ignore Enron Connection to Higher Oil and Gas Prices
>> >> >> Photo of Noel Sheppard.
>> >> >> By Noel Sheppard | August 9, 2006 - 09:58 ET
>>
>> >> >> (...)
>>
>> >> >> On June 26, Senators Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota) and Carl Levin
>> >> >> (D-Michigan) released a comprehensive report detailing how speculation on
>> >> >> various commodities exchanges around the world is impacting energy
>> >> >> prices. Six weeks later, virtually no media coverage has been given to
>> >> >> this bipartisan, 60-page study that should have been of great interest to
>> >> >> Americans with gasoline over three dollars a gallon.
>>
>> >> >> Even more curious than the lack of media attention to this report was its
>> >> >> continued reference to Enron, a regular target of the press in the past
>> >> >> five years. The Senate study strongly pointed an accusatory finger at
>> >> >> "The Enron Loophole," a part of the Commodity Futures Modernization
>> >> >> Act of 2000, approved by Congress and signed into law by former President
>> >> >> Clinton on December 21, 2000.
>> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >> >> (The foregoing phraseology is in need of attention and correction: The
>> >> >> Newt Gingrich deregulation crazed Congress CREATED this legislation and
>> >> >> then dared Clinton to veto it. It was not created by Bill Clinton and the
>> >> >> Democrats and then "approved by the Congress". Bill Clinton, at the time,
>> >> >> was under heavy assault:
>>
>> >> >>http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Cl......
>> >> >> On January 12, 1998, Ms. Tripp also provided the tapes of her
>> >> >> conversations with Ms. Lewinsky to Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr,
>> >> >> who had been appointed to investigate charges relating to the Whitewater
>> >> >> real estate venture in Arkansas of the President and Mrs. Clinton.
>>
>> >> >> (...)
>>
>> >> >> On January 15, Starr obtained approval from Attorney General Janet Reno,
>> >> >> who in turn sought and received an order from the United States Court of
>> >> >> Appeals, to expand the scope of the Whitewater probe into the new
>> >> >> allegations.
>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> Clinton had less power than a wet noodle.
>>
>> >> >>http://newsbusters.org/node/6858----------------...
>>
>> >> >> First, some background: in 1936, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
>> >> >> signed into law the Commodity Exchange Act, which was designed to create
>> >> >> greater government oversight of commodities markets after the collapse of
>> >> >> grain prices in 1933. This Act has been regularly amended by Congress as
>> >> >> these markets have grown and evolved, and was set for reauthorization on
>> >> >> September 30, 2000.
>>
>> >> >> CFMA not only extended this 70-year old Act, but also detailed new
>> >> >> regulatory authorities for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the
>> >> >> government agency responsible for overseeing all futures trading in the
>> >> >> United States. At the same time, various exemptions were either created
>> >> >> or renewed that reduced CFTC's jurisdiction over certain transactions.
>> >> >> In particular, according to this Senate report:
>>
>> >> >> The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic
>> >> >> exchanges was exempted from CFTC oversight by a provision inserted at
>> >> >> the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity
>> >> >> Futures Modernization Act of 2000 in the waning hours of the 106th
>> >> >> Congress.
>>
>> >> >> (...)
>>
>> >> >> The summary of CFMA from the Library of Congress also supported the
>> >> >> Senate's contentions:
>>
>> >> >> (Sec. 103) Excludes from coverage under the Act a transaction in an
>> >> >> excluded commodity: (1) entered into between eligible contract
>> >> >> participants and not executed on a trading facility; or (2) executed
>> >> >> on electronic trading facilities as long as the transaction is
>> >> >> entered into on a principal-to-principal basis by eligible contract
>> >> >> participants trading for themselves.
>>
>> >> >> (Sec. 104) Excludes from coverage under the Act electronic trading of
>> >> >> excluded and exempt commodities. States that a board of trade
>> >> >> designated as a contract market or derivatives transaction execution
>> >> >> facility may establish and operate an electronic trading facility.
>>
>> >> >> (...)
>>
>> >> >> Without getting overly complex, on every commodities exchange in America,
>> >> >> futures and options contracts carry a finite limit as to how many an
>> >> >> investor may hold. This is specifically designed to prevent anyone from
>> >> >> cornering the market on a particular commodity, much as what the Hunt
>> >> >> brothers did with silver in 1980.
>>
>> >> >> Unfortunately, electronic exchanges do not have position limits on their
>> >> >> contracts. This allows large investors and billion-dollar hedge funds to
>> >> >> acquire a number of energy contracts significantly greater than what they
>> >> >> could purchase on conventional exchanges, thereby creating an added
>> >> >> demand on oil and oil-related products that, frankly, the system can't
>> >> >> handle.
>>
>> >> >> Furthermore, these electronic exchanges require no Large Trader Reports
>> >> >> from its participants. This means that there is no routine auditing of
>> >> >> larger transactions that occur. The Senate report quoted CFTC Chairman
>> >> >> Reuben Jeffrey specifically about this issue.
>>
>> >> >> "The Commission's Large Trader information system is one of the
>> >> >> cornerstones of our surveillance program and enables detection of
>> >> >> concentrated and coordinated positions that might be used by one or
>> >> >> more traders to attempt manipulation."
>>
>> >> >> The absence of such reporting on electronic exchanges makes it easy for
>> >> >> large speculators to carry positions significantly greater than what
>> >> >> decades of commodities regulations in America have deemed appropriate for
>> >> >> the best interest of consumers. Moreover, it allows investors to hide
>> >> >> their true position in a particular commodity from regulators.
>>
>> >> >> Bigger Isn't Always Better
>>
>> >> >> Adding insult to injury, this condition was further exacerbated in
>> >> >> January of this year when the CFTC decided to allow the largest
>> >> >> electronic energy exchange, the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), to use
>> >> >> its terminals to trade U.S. crude oil futures. Three months later, this
>> >> >> was amended to also allow ICE trading of U.S. gasoline and heating oil
>> >> >> contracts. As such, investors from all over the world can trade U.S.
>> >> >> energy contracts without any oversight by an American regulatory body.
>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >> >> Inelastic commodity markets must be regulated to disallow "cornering of
>> >> >> the markets".
>>
>> >> > thank you for posting this trucker. its the smoking gun i have been
>> >> > looking for. although, clinton was weak, but if he would have vetoed
>> >> > this stuff, regardless of the over ride, his legacy today would be
>> >> > viewed in a much more positive way today. and the cons would have been
>> >> > exposed for what they are.
>>
>> >> And Al Gore would have ACTUALLY lost the election and the Democrats would
>> >> not have regained a foothold in the Senate.
>>
>> >> > to bad that clintons economic team are also free market libertarians
>> >> > who poorly advised bill to support, or sign these abominations to
>> >> > democracy. its why hillary is losing. she has the same team. and the
>> >> > same tendency to vote the way bill did.
>>
>> >> We are both assuming a lot of stuff into existence here that may or may
>> >> not be true. But the mood of the country at that time was still pro
>> >> deregulation and lower taxes and the Republicans had the full court press
>> >> on the "cut taxes" and "economic growth" meme. I do not believe that Al
>> >> Gore would have come close or that minimal control of the Senate would
>> >> have been possible if Clinton had attempted a veto. Political realities
>> >> are a bitch.
>>
>> > you cannot educate people by going along with the terrible polices of
>> > your opposition. later on they get to say, if you were against it, why
>> > did you vote for it. and the public understands that. that is why the
>> > elections have been so razor thin, the cons can cheat. people see
>> > little difference. its why obama, and edwards got so much traction,
>> > and why hillary just cannot overcome them.
>>
>> The political climate is MUCH, MUCH, different now. Back then the
>> Republicans were riding high and forecasting marvelous things and they had
>> no recent history to judge them. That is very different now and Hillary
>> is being painted with the same brush as the Republicans. Some small part
>> of that may be justified, but not to the extent that the far left is doing
>> it. The extremes on either side of the spectrum are rightarded. That
>> word would seem to be specific to the right wing but it is not. It simply
>> describes someone who has become so convinced of the "righteousness" of a
>> particular ideology that they lose the ability to reason. This loss of
>> rationality is called "rightardedness". I am pretty sure that I am or am
>> among the creators of that word.
>>
>
> all we can do is judge history. hillary is being judged because she
> is using bills team. if i was her, and really believed in change. i
> would dump bills economic team. they are a very big drag. its hard to
> say you are different, than vote with the democratic leadership
> council, and use their advisers. its why bill gets no traction on the
> stump. people remember.

(sigh)... No, they don't. They are sucking on whatever the far left
tells them. I actually remember the 90's as being pretty damned good and
the part that was bad was the Republicans taking over the House of
Representatives, and the Ken Star prosecution, day after day after day.
Bill did pretty good under the circumstances.

>> --
>> "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
>> of society but the people themselves; and
>> if we think them not enlightened enough to
>> exercise their control with a wholesome
>> discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
>> them, but to inform their discretion by
>> education." - Thomas Jeffersonhttp://GreaterVoice....
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice....

Les Cargill

5/22/2008 4:37:00 AM

0

The Trucker wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:44:02 -0700, Video61 wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> We are both assuming a lot of stuff into existence here that may or may
> not be true. But the mood of the country at that time was still pro
> deregulation and lower taxes and the Republicans had the full court press
> on the "cut taxes" and "economic growth" meme.

This is true. We still need *real* economic growth, but what we have
had is bubbles, that pop and leave a layer of growth. It's *a* way, but
it's driven by how the Fed works.

FWIW, Libertarian Party candidate Ron Paul apparently submitted a bill
to scrap the Fed.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr0...

So we got that going for us... :)

> I do not believe that Al
> Gore would have come close or that minimal control of the Senate would
> have been possible if Clinton had attempted a veto. Political realities
> are a bitch.
>

That's probably true. *Lots* of regulation, the vast majority is
ham-handed, clumsy and poorly constructed. You've recently been
talking about "ego", well... legislatures have those too.

From 2006:
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/aug2006/pi20060830_...

"...the London-based Intercontinental Exchange, or ICE..."

"The upshot: U.S. speculators now can avoid all federal oversight or
reporting requirements by routing their trades through London's ICE
instead of the highly regulated New York Mercantile Exchange"

The article goes on to say this works against transparency, which
is very likely Bad. Regulations which encourage transparency are
generally the best sort.

--
Les Cargill

The Trucker

5/22/2008 3:51:00 PM

0

On Thu, 22 May 2008 00:37:22 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

> The Trucker wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:44:02 -0700, Video61 wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> We are both assuming a lot of stuff into existence here that may or may
>> not be true. But the mood of the country at that time was still pro
>> deregulation and lower taxes and the Republicans had the full court press
>> on the "cut taxes" and "economic growth" meme.
>
> This is true. We still need *real* economic growth, but what we have
> had is bubbles, that pop and leave a layer of growth. It's *a* way, but
> it's driven by how the Fed works.
>
> FWIW, Libertarian Party candidate Ron Paul apparently submitted a bill
> to scrap the Fed.
> http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr0...
>
> So we got that going for us... :)
>
>> I do not believe that Al
>> Gore would have come close or that minimal control of the Senate would
>> have been possible if Clinton had attempted a veto. Political realities
>> are a bitch.
>>
>
> That's probably true. *Lots* of regulation, the vast majority is
> ham-handed, clumsy and poorly constructed. You've recently been
> talking about "ego", well... legislatures have those too.
>
> From 2006:
> http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/aug2006/pi20060830_...
>
> "...the London-based Intercontinental Exchange, or ICE..."
>
> "The upshot: U.S. speculators now can avoid all federal oversight or
> reporting requirements by routing their trades through London's ICE
> instead of the highly regulated New York Mercantile Exchange"
>
> The article goes on to say this works against transparency, which
> is very likely Bad. Regulations which encourage transparency are
> generally the best sort.

After chewing on this for a few days I find myself wondering if it is even
possible to oversee these global markets and tell what the hell is going
on. I can't think of any way to do that unless there is a global cop. IOW
I see no way for the United States government to oversee the Korean
futures market trading center if that is where the big boys want to trade.
But then I come back to the fact that the contracts must be enforced
or the traders are not going to trade. Unenforced contracts are pretty
much worthless. That really leaves London and New York. The entity that
enforces the contracts sets the rules. It also implies a lot of
cooperation between the central banks. While tortuous interference in the
markets themselves by politicians is certainly off limits, these markets
must be enforced (Joe lost and he will pay) and that means they must have
rules and be regulated.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice....

Nickname unavailable

5/22/2008 4:10:00 PM

0

On May 22, 10:51 am, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 00:37:22 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
> > The Trucker wrote:
> >> On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:44:02 -0700, Video61 wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> We are both assuming a lot of stuff into existence here that may or may
> >> not be true. But the mood of the country at that time was still pro
> >> deregulation and lower taxes and the Republicans had the full court press
> >> on the "cut taxes" and "economic growth" meme.
>
> > This is true. We still need *real* economic growth, but what we have
> > had is bubbles, that pop and leave a layer of growth. It's *a* way, but
> > it's driven by how the Fed works.
>
> > FWIW, Libertarian Party candidate Ron Paul apparently submitted a bill
> > to scrap the Fed.
> >http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr0...
>
> > So we got that going for us... :)
>
> >> I do not believe that Al
> >> Gore would have come close or that minimal control of the Senate would
> >> have been possible if Clinton had attempted a veto. Political realities
> >> are a bitch.
>
> > That's probably true. *Lots* of regulation, the vast majority is
> > ham-handed, clumsy and poorly constructed. You've recently been
> > talking about "ego", well... legislatures have those too.
>
> > From 2006:
> >http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/aug2006/pi2006......
>
> > "...the London-based Intercontinental Exchange, or ICE..."
>
> > "The upshot: U.S. speculators now can avoid all federal oversight or
> > reporting requirements by routing their trades through London's ICE
> > instead of the highly regulated New York Mercantile Exchange"
>
> > The article goes on to say this works against transparency, which
> > is very likely Bad. Regulations which encourage transparency are
> > generally the best sort.
>
> After chewing on this for a few days I find myself wondering if it is even
> possible to oversee these global markets and tell what the hell is going
> on. I can't think of any way to do that unless there is a global cop. IOW
> I see no way for the United States government to oversee the Korean
> futures market trading center if that is where the big boys want to trade.
> But then I come back to the fact that the contracts must be enforced
> or the traders are not going to trade. Unenforced contracts are pretty
> much worthless. That really leaves London and New York. The entity that
> enforces the contracts sets the rules. It also implies a lot of
> cooperation between the central banks. While tortuous interference in the
> markets themselves by politicians is certainly off limits, these markets
> must be enforced (Joe lost and he will pay) and that means they must have
> rules and be regulated.
>

the only way globalization will work is with a world wide
dictatorship, something all free market cranks pine for. borders are
there for a reason, and purpose. to allow your country to be raped by
the high priests and their chanters who are so stupid, that they make
lemmings look logical, is insane.
the constitution is for all, not for a financial aristocracy, and
their crazy supporters.


> --
> "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
> of society but the people themselves; and
> if we think them not enlightened enough to
> exercise their control with a wholesome
> discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
> them, but to inform their discretion by
> education." - Thomas Jeffersonhttp://GreaterVoice....

Les Cargill

5/23/2008 1:34:00 AM

0

The Trucker wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 00:37:22 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> The Trucker wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:44:02 -0700, Video61 wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>> We are both assuming a lot of stuff into existence here that may or may
>>> not be true. But the mood of the country at that time was still pro
>>> deregulation and lower taxes and the Republicans had the full court press
>>> on the "cut taxes" and "economic growth" meme.
>> This is true. We still need *real* economic growth, but what we have
>> had is bubbles, that pop and leave a layer of growth. It's *a* way, but
>> it's driven by how the Fed works.
>>
>> FWIW, Libertarian Party candidate Ron Paul apparently submitted a bill
>> to scrap the Fed.
>> http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr0...
>>
>> So we got that going for us... :)
>>
>>> I do not believe that Al
>>> Gore would have come close or that minimal control of the Senate would
>>> have been possible if Clinton had attempted a veto. Political realities
>>> are a bitch.
>>>
>> That's probably true. *Lots* of regulation, the vast majority is
>> ham-handed, clumsy and poorly constructed. You've recently been
>> talking about "ego", well... legislatures have those too.
>>
>> From 2006:
>> http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/aug2006/pi20060830_...
>>
>> "...the London-based Intercontinental Exchange, or ICE..."
>>
>> "The upshot: U.S. speculators now can avoid all federal oversight or
>> reporting requirements by routing their trades through London's ICE
>> instead of the highly regulated New York Mercantile Exchange"
>>
>> The article goes on to say this works against transparency, which
>> is very likely Bad. Regulations which encourage transparency are
>> generally the best sort.
>
> After chewing on this for a few days I find myself wondering if it is even
> possible to oversee these global markets and tell what the hell is going
> on.

I dunno. Me too, by the way. Poke it over here, it pops out
over there. Perpetual whack-a-mole.

> I can't think of any way to do that unless there is a global cop. IOW
> I see no way for the United States government to oversee the Korean
> futures market trading center if that is where the big boys want to trade.

What do the Swiss do?

> But then I come back to the fact that the contracts must be enforced
> or the traders are not going to trade. Unenforced contracts are pretty
> much worthless. That really leaves London and New York.

Yup. When does it also man Beijing?

> The entity that
> enforces the contracts sets the rules. It also implies a lot of
> cooperation between the central banks. While tortuous interference in the
> markets themselves by politicians is certainly off limits, these markets
> must be enforced (Joe lost and he will pay) and that means they must have
> rules and be regulated.
>

Back to the Hasidic diamond merchants, I think. It's really
"honor" ( as in those markets) we are talking about, isn't it?

But that doesn't scale... We *have* that, to an extent....

--
Les Cargill

The Trucker

5/23/2008 5:03:00 AM

0

On Thu, 22 May 2008 09:09:56 -0700, Video61 wrote:

> On May 22, 10:51 am, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 00:37:22 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>> > The Trucker wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:44:02 -0700, Video61 wrote:
>>
>> > <snip>
>>
>> >> We are both assuming a lot of stuff into existence here that may or may
>> >> not be true. But the mood of the country at that time was still pro
>> >> deregulation and lower taxes and the Republicans had the full court press
>> >> on the "cut taxes" and "economic growth" meme.
>>
>> > This is true. We still need *real* economic growth, but what we have
>> > had is bubbles, that pop and leave a layer of growth. It's *a* way, but
>> > it's driven by how the Fed works.
>>
>> > FWIW, Libertarian Party candidate Ron Paul apparently submitted a bill
>> > to scrap the Fed.
>> >http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr0...
>>
>> > So we got that going for us... :)
>>
>> >> I do not believe that Al
>> >> Gore would have come close or that minimal control of the Senate would
>> >> have been possible if Clinton had attempted a veto. Political realities
>> >> are a bitch.
>>
>> > That's probably true. *Lots* of regulation, the vast majority is
>> > ham-handed, clumsy and poorly constructed. You've recently been
>> > talking about "ego", well... legislatures have those too.
>>
>> > From 2006:
>> >http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/aug2006/pi2006......
>>
>> > "...the London-based Intercontinental Exchange, or ICE..."
>>
>> > "The upshot: U.S. speculators now can avoid all federal oversight or
>> > reporting requirements by routing their trades through London's ICE
>> > instead of the highly regulated New York Mercantile Exchange"
>>
>> > The article goes on to say this works against transparency, which
>> > is very likely Bad. Regulations which encourage transparency are
>> > generally the best sort.
>>
>> After chewing on this for a few days I find myself wondering if it is even
>> possible to oversee these global markets and tell what the hell is going
>> on. I can't think of any way to do that unless there is a global cop. IOW
>> I see no way for the United States government to oversee the Korean
>> futures market trading center if that is where the big boys want to trade.
>> But then I come back to the fact that the contracts must be enforced
>> or the traders are not going to trade. Unenforced contracts are pretty
>> much worthless. That really leaves London and New York. The entity that
>> enforces the contracts sets the rules. It also implies a lot of
>> cooperation between the central banks. While tortuous interference in the
>> markets themselves by politicians is certainly off limits, these markets
>> must be enforced (Joe lost and he will pay) and that means they must have
>> rules and be regulated.
>>
>
> the only way globalization will work is with a world wide
> dictatorship, something all free market cranks pine for. borders are
> there for a reason, and purpose. to allow your country to be raped by
> the high priests and their chanters who are so stupid, that they make
> lemmings look logical, is insane.
> the constitution is for all, not for a financial aristocracy, and
> their crazy supporters.

Good Grief.....

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice....