Newbee Republican Congressman Laughed At By Michigan Constituents

[ocean_314]

Originally Posted by Alexrom1207

So the lesson is that big businesses have the ability to buy politicians who will let them get away with breaking to law to drive away competition....couldn't agree more, which I why I favor the implementation of a stable set of regulations for each industry that are strictly enforced. But that's more government....not less. You insist that these companies broke the law, but taking the law away (deregulating), would have accomplished the same thing...which I why I'm always very skeptical of hearing some politician say that we need to deregulate this industry or that industry et cetera. Then you find out that their donors/friends/co-owners/investors just so happen to own a business that would like to buy some piece of land, or owns some piece of land, or discovered coal, or wants to mine for coal, or owns some questionable mortgages and wants to package them and sell security interests in them, or wants to be able to invest bank customer money in the financial markets (you get the picture)... and some regulation is preventing them from going after it.

So they deregulate and wham....the small businesses that were grandfathered in get driven out of business by the big business that moves in and drains the well dry w/in 10 years and leaves a giant mess and a ghost town in its wake, or the guy with the risky mortgages....well I think we all know what he did.

The point I'm making is that Democrat or Republican, they all favor the big business over the little guys. You can't depend on the government to ensure your success...and anyone who thinks differently is either (1) and idiot or (2) a campaign contributor with a multi-million dollar business who can count on the government to ensure his success, or (3) a politician who also owns a business who can count on himself to ensure a government that ensures his success.

Clinton did not deregulate the business laws, HE DID NOT ENFORCE THEM.
This is why the dot com scam happened. This is why Madoff got away with he blatant fraud. This is why Wall Street looted the pension funds and so one.

Clinton refused to enforce the Anti trust laws, which is why i was put out of business along with hundreds of small manufactures.

The rules of the game change with every new president and congress, just look at the living hell Obama is putting Boeing though. And the insurance industry.

The Republican Party makes it easier business to succeed the Democratic Party makes it easier for the con artist and scammers to succeed. Like global warming and green energy and all those lawyers suing storefronts under the disabilities act and so on and on and on.

[Bill McIntyre]

Originally Posted by ocean_314

Clinton did not deregulate the business laws, HE DID NOT ENFORCE THEM.
This is why the dot com scam happened. This is why Madoff got away with he blatant fraud. This is why Wall Street looted the pension funds and so one.

Clinton refused to enforce the Anti trust laws, which is why i was put out of business along with hundreds of small manufactures.

The rules of the game change with every new president and congress, just look at the living hell Obama is putting Boeing though. And the insurance industry.

The Republican Party makes it easier business to succeed the Democratic Party makes it easier for the con artist and scammers to succeed. Like global warming and green energy and all those lawyers suing storefronts under the disabilities act and so on and on and on.

You are so damn dumb. Your hero Reagan absolutely gutted the Justice Department Anti-trust division. He cut funding so much that it just didn't have enough attorneys to enforce the law. I wish I still had the figures on how many attorneys were laid off, and how great the decrease in anti-trust cases was.

But whatever your excuse for your business failure, that was long ago. Thousands of people have started businesses since your business failed, while all you have done is sit around bitching and living off of your wife's earnings.

[ocean_314]

Originally Posted by Bill McIntyre

You are so damn dumb. Your hero Reagan absolutely gutted the Justice Department Anti-trust division. He cut funding so much that it just didn't have enough attorneys to enforce the law. I wish I still had the figures on how many attorneys were laid off, and how great the decrease in anti-trust cases was.

But whatever your excuse for your business failure, that was long ago. Thousands of people have started businesses since your business failed, while all you have done is sit around bitching and living off of your wife's earnings.

Ok Bill please tell me how the dot com scam happened? How did Madoff get away with the things he did????

Why is Obama not enforcing any election fraud laws??

[Bill McIntyre]

So I guess you're going to ignore Reagan's lack of enforcement of anti-trust?

And I guess you aren't going to explain what prevented you from starting another business in all those years after Clinton allegedly caused yours to fail?

Originally Posted by ocean_314

Ok Bill please tell me how the dot com scam happened?

If you want to blame it on lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws, its up to you to explain how happened. My understanding is summarized by this more conventional explanation. I know you won't read it, but here it is.

Soaring stocks

In financial markets, a stock market bubble is a self-perpetuating rise or boom in the share prices of stocks of a particular industry. The term may be used with certainty only in retrospect when share prices have since crashed. A bubble occurs when speculators note the fast increase in value and decide to buy in anticipation of further rises, rather than because the shares are undervalued. Typically many companies thus become grossly overvalued. When the bubble "bursts," the share prices fall dramatically, and many companies go out of business.
The dot-com model was inherently flawed: a vast number of companies all had the same business plan of monopolizing their respective sectors through network effects, and it was clear that even if the plan were sound, there could only be one network-effects winner in each sector, and therefore that most companies with this business plan would fail. In fact, many sectors could not support even one company powered entirely by network effects. American news media, including respected business publications such as Forbes and the Wall Street Journal, encouraged the public to invest in risky companies, despite many of the companies' disregard for basic financial and even legal principles.
In spite of this, however, a few company founders made vast fortunes when their companies were bought out at an early stage in the dot-com stock market bubble. These early successes made the bubble even more buoyant. An unprecedented amount of personal investing occurred during the boom, and the press reported the phenomenon of people quitting their jobs to become full-time day traders.
[edit]Free spending

According to dot-com theory, an Internet company's survival depended on expanding its customer base as rapidly as possible, even if it produced large annual losses. For instance, Google and Amazon did not see any profit in their first years. Amazon was spending on expanding customer base and alerting people to its existence and Google was busy spending on creating more powerful machine capacity to serve its expanding search engine.[citation needed] The phrase "Get large or get lost" was the wisdom of the day. At the height of the boom, it was possible for a promising dot-com to make an initial public offering (IPO) of its stock and raise a substantial amount of money even though it had never made a profit — or, in some cases, earned any revenue whatsoever. In such a situation, a company's lifespan was measured by its burn rate: that is, the rate at which a non-profitable company lacking a viable business model ran through its capital served as the metric.
Public awareness campaigns were one of the ways in which dot-coms sought to expand their customer bases. These included television ads, print ads, and targeting of professional sporting events. Many dot-coms named themselves with onomatopoeic nonsense words that they hoped would be memorable and not easily confused with a competitor. Super Bowl XXXIV in January 2000 featured 17 dot-com companies that each paid over $2 million for a 30-second spot. By contrast, in January 2001, just three dot-coms bought advertising spots during Super Bowl XXXV. In a similar vein, CBS-backed iWon.com gave away $10 million to a lucky contestant on an April 15, 2000 half-hour primetime special that was broadcast on CBS.
Not surprisingly, the "growth over profits" mentality and the aura of "new economy" invincibility led some companies to engage in lavish internal spending, such as elaborate business facilities and luxury vacations for employees. Executives and employees who were paid with stock options instead of cash became instant millionaires when the company made its initial public offering; many invested their new wealth into yet more dot-coms.
Cities all over the United States sought to become the "next Silicon Valley" by building network-enabled office space to attract Internet entrepreneurs. Communication providers, convinced that the future economy would require ubiquitous broadband access, went deeply into debt to improve their networks with high-speed equipment and fiber optic cables. Companies that produced network equipment like Nortel Networks were irrevocably damaged by such over-extension; Nortel declared bankruptcy in early 2009. Companies like Cisco, which did not have any production facilities, but bought from other manufacturers, were able to leave quickly and actually do well from the situation as the bubble burst and products were sold cheaply.
In the struggle to become a technology hub, many cities and states used tax money to fund technology conference centers, advanced infrastructure, and created favorable business and tax law to encourage development of the dot com industry in their locale. Virginia's "Technology Corridor" is a prime example of this activity. Large quantities of high speed fiber links were laid, and the State and local governments gave tax exemptions to technology firms. Many of these buildings can be viewed along I-495, after the burst, as vacant office buildings.
Similarly, in Europe the vast amounts of cash the mobile operators spent on 3G licences in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, for example, led them into deep debt. The investments were far out of proportion to both their current and projected cash flow, but this was not publicly acknowledged until as late as 2001 and 2002. Due to the highly networked nature of the IT industry, this quickly led to problems for small companies dependent on contracts from operators. One example is of a then Finnish mobile network company Sonera, which paid huge sums in German broadband auction then dubbed as 3G licenses. 3rd generation networks however took years to catch on and Sonera ended up as a part of TeliaSonera, then simply Telia.


The technology-heavy NASDAQ Composite index peaked at 5,048 in March 2000, reflecting the high point of the dot-com bubble.
Over 1999 and early 2000, the U.S. Federal Reserve increased interest rates six times, and the economy began to lose speed. The dot-com bubble burst, numerically, on Friday, March 10, 2000, when the technology heavy NASDAQ Composite index, peaked at 5,048.62 (intra-day peak 5,132.52), more than double its value just a year before.[citation needed] The NASDAQ fell slightly after that, but this was attributed to correction by most market analysts; the actual reversal and subsequent bear market may have been triggered by the adverse findings of fact in the United States v. Microsoft case which was being heard in federal court.[citation needed] The findings, which declared Microsoft a monopoly, were widely expected in the weeks before their release on April 3.[citation needed] The following day, April 4, the NASDAQ fell from 4,283 points to 3,649 and rebounded back to 4,223, forming an intraday chart that looked like a stretched V.
On March 20, 2000, after the NASDAQ had lost more than 10 percent from its peak, financial magazine Barron's shocked the market with its cover story "Burning Up". Sean Parker stated: "During the next 12 months, scores of highflying Internet upstarts will have used up all their cash. If they can't scare up any more, they may be in for a savage shakeout. An exclusive survey of the likely losers." The article pointed out: "America's 371 publicly traded Internet companies have grown to the point that they are collectively valued at $1.3 trillion, which amounts to about 8% of the entire U.S. stock market."[9]
By 2001 the bubble was deflating at full speed. A majority of the dot-coms ceased trading after burning through their venture capital, many having never made a ″net″ profit. Investors often referred to these failed dot-coms as "dot-bombs."

How did Madoff get away with the things he did????

His clients were dumb and greedy. The SEC failed to follow up on tips. But his Ponzi scheme had been going on for over 20 years. He was finally caught during the Obama term. Its a bit silly to give Obama all the credit, but not as silly as blaming him for what had been going on for over 20 years before he was elected.

Why is Obama not enforcing any election fraud laws??

Please be specific.

[Bill McIntyre]

Reagan's sabotage of anti-trust has broken the American jobs machine

http://real-economics.blogspot.com/2...trust-has.html

[ocean_314]

Gee Bill i did start another successful business which i sold so my wife could work her successful business full time. Her and her team are doing research that is going to change the world of medicine.

Geee and i thought that the dot com scam happened because Wall Street funded a bunch of do nothing startups in exchange for huge chucks of stock and then fraudulently hyped those do nothing startups on the TV and in the media taking them public promising the public that these companies where going to be the next greatest thing since sliced bread. Remember the phase pushed by Wall Street of " No more brick and mortar stores"?

Remember when Wall Street pushed the stocks of these do nothing startups to record stock prices and then sold all their stocks and going on to the next do nothing start up...geee this seems like fraud to me and it violates all kinds of SEC laws...that Clinton refused to enforce.