Do you understand the free market…at all?
The why did you bought stock of that company in the first place? If the companies don’t provide enough information for you to make a rational decision you shouldn’t invest in that company.
If people won’t buy stock because of lack of information,companies are forced to reveal that information if they want to obtain capital that way.
That’s very relevant because China is a perfect example of Laissez-faire capitalism , right?
please expain how a market can be free with asymetric information based on arbitrary laws and ‘clubs’. That’s not free pal. If the Eurozone allows un-tariffed trade amongst its members but imposes a tariff on trade with the US amongst all its members then that’s not free market either - BUT according to you ‘free association’ inherently means free everything else. How can this nonesense be so hard for people to see through? Are you so naive to think it’s only the governement that can manipulate the markets?
Does the Apartheid in South Africa constitute a fair deal to you? Those whites were exercsiing their right to exercise their ignorance and superior military and repressive might against the blacks. So you’re oK with that? What is difference between a clutch of companies exercising their ability to exclude the rest based on who they like and don’t like?
Also, the businessweek article cited is very narrow minded. It’s not just about execution price of an order, it’s about monitoring price fluctuations accurately if you trade your stock positions - then even 5% dark pool distorts the market.
To future responders - please don’t question my understadning of free markets and such, I’ve made a very good living with investments in all manner of instruments. I find that being a trader for a living has been the ultimate ‘free’ job in the world. I trade what I want, when I want, I keep my profits (after tax) and I’m solely responsible for the losses and their management. I don’t boss anyone around and no-one bosses me - until these dark pools distrupt the clear price signals of demand and supply.
To the scenario of apples, if you’re an apple farmer and a bunch of other apple farmers set up a club to manipulate the price of apples against you then yes, there should be full disclosure! Their actions are wrong and illegal and should be stopped. Markets will only clear when there is no manipulation of any kind… damn, this is basic economics people, lose the religion and get with the thinking already.
Corporate Ghost -
it’s not the company, it’s the investment banks who own the stock and buy and sell amongst them. In the secondary market the company has no control of this. If you don’t understand this then perhaps you need to read up on the topic before posting or giving advice.
No China is not a perfect example of anything other than evil. But, it is a good example of how silly the idea of no regulations are if people think that individuals will always do ‘good’ over bad if they can make more money being ‘bad’.
Wow. You have a lot to learn about libertarianism.
well nibbler, given that there is no defined and agreed upon definition of Libertarianism I’d say so do you. However, if the opposite of Libertarian is Authoritarian then I would say individuals imposing thier will on others is more the latter than the former. If you disagree, heck, I couldn’t care less anymore. I don’t think anyone who has posted here has any idea of what dark pools actually are. It’s nothing to do with the company, it’s not a free association concept because membership is discriminatory and it has huge externalities towards those individuals who want to operate in the free markets - free from manipulation.
C’est fini.
Have the last word with some banal statement if you so wish.
Irrelevant. Ultimately,the companies decide whether to issue their stock or not and the investors decide whether to invest their money in a certain company or not.
idiot. you are an idiot. Not because you disagree with me, but because you are obviously refusing to learn about the subject before you speak on it. Pure idiocy.
So, what you’re saying is:
Someone has gotten an “unfair” advantage(done through cooperation, free association, and voluntary interaction), and that somehow justifies violence? You can use aggression because you believe that it benefits you?
Sorry, this is a libertarian board, utilitarianism is that way —>
Seriously,I don’t understand what you are doing in a forum about libertarianism and the Austrian school when you obviously don’t know anything about them.
These private exchanges seem to be set up specifically for the fulfillment of large volume trades. They help alleviate an information seeking problem for large investors by bringing them together with others who wish to trade large volumes. It is believable to see how trying to break large orders up into many small transactions is very difficult. Given this information cost, it also makes sense that being able to fulfill these transactions quickly to other large volume customers would trade at a premium.
Additionally, in a liquid market these transactions are not secret. The very fact that they are not trading on public exchanges says that the prices listed are not cheep enough. The reduction in buyers implies a reduction in price, bringing the two exchanges closer together. Additionally, given the price premium likely payed, many of the members are probably engaged in price arbitration by buying/selling in small, numerous transactions on the public exchanges and then buying/selling in large, irregular transactions in the private market. It doesn’t matter that these exchanges are secretive and private, because all the relavent information is still distributed to public exchanges.
Even the lack of information is still information.
It is liberty because you were free to enter into such an arrangement. At the time you entered you felt you were better off doing so. Praxeology 101. If you no longer feel the arrangement is beneficial, end it.
Mandatory regulation (e.g. the state) is bad. Voluntarily agreeing to abide by a set of regulations is the definition of a free market. The deregulation you are familiar with is done strategically between select corporations and the state – corporatism, corporate welfare – whatever term you use, it’s the same thing. The deregulation that occurs in the US is done in such a way as to favor a given company over all others. That is NOT a free market.
Required by whom? Enforced by whom?
People will act in a manner according to what they value most at any given moment. If a company is able to stay in business by selling poisonous milk and toys, then so be it.
This is a forum for dialogue regarding liberty. Liberty’s long term goal is the continuation of liberty. Liberty is the freedom to make decisions for yourself, even stupid ones.
Apartheid was a government measure!
Your line of argument leads us to conclude that we should smash any voluntary groupings if they impede “efficiency”. Did I misconstrue what you were trying to say?
China certainly is not an unregulated or self regulated market. And the company that ordered the bulk of the toys did not specify to use lead free paint. They assumed that the manufacturer would, due to laws/regulations in effect in the US that outlaw the used of leaded paints. But my understanding of the situation (not that I am involved in it) is that the orderer of the toys made assumptions, rather than completely specifying the necessary requirements.
You still haven’t explained what’s wrong with dark pools, AND you used a false analogy. Dark pools are more like cartels of consumers… just that they don’t consist of ALL consumers so they don’t really negatively effect everyone. Dark pools may hurt some while helping others, depending on how many shares are traded at what price.
So please do explain how providing potential investment funds for a business is bad.
thank you for taking this whole discussion down with name calling and an utter lack of civility.
i believe you deeply misuderstand the concept of market reguations. austrians dont believe in absolutely no regulations, or blindly letting companies regulate themselves. market regulation comes from the consumer level. consumers regulate companies with capital at their disposal, and if certain sectors of the market are seriously untrustworthy, this need for oversight would precipitate in the form of free market regulatory bodies.
austrians dont oppose all regulatory institutions, just coercive ones.