How To Fine A Fine Blogger And Shoot Yourself In The Foot

[Raúl Ilargi Meijer]

Toni Frissell “Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy” 1957 Yes that’s right, The Automatic Earth has a new home (again)! It’s been a huge effort with the scarce
[See the full post at: How To Fine A Fine Blogger And Shoot Yourself In The Foot]

[jal]

Hi!

I hope that this version will be better than the release of ACA.

After searching the home page, I found the login box on the lower left side.

This version of TAE is slower to load.

[Raúl Ilargi Meijer]

we’ll look into that, jal, like a thousand other little things. what’s ACA?

[jal]

hehehe

Afordable Care Act.

[jal]

I think that this report, ( amount of leverage), demonstrate that we are living under new rules.
Leverage is irrelevant if central banks are going to be there with the printing press.

Bank failures will only occur if you are out of favor with the other wolves.

[Greenpa]

Something all activists need to keep in mind- if you truly start to irritate The Owners – they can, and will take action; up to and including your permanent disappearance. The Greenpeace crew in arctic Russia just discovered that when the oil companies are being directly operated by a mafia- it gets a lot more dangerous, quickly.

[Greenpa]

“There’s one final question I can’t seem to figure out: why the €8000 fine? Why not €8, or €800,000?”

My guess would be they are aiming at “real world deterrence” of other bloggers- you, for example, would not be intimidated by the threat of a €8 fine- and the bigger options are so big as to seem transparent bluff; never stick. But- €8,000? Small enough to not be worth fighting- big enough to hurt- so; effective intimidation.

[Professorlocknload]

“Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.” Mark Twain

However;

Could this be a symbolic move to rein in the blogsphere? A small step toward forcing registration, licensing and regulation of internet information outlets? Another attack on the First Amendment?
Most assuredly.
We can only hope the above statement by MT still holds today. And a whole lot of e-Ink is applied against this tactic.

And, greenpa, yup, “effective intimidation.” 8k is the opener. These fines will most likely rise until only the “Preferred Providers” remain.

ps A little difficulty signing in, something ’bout an “Internal Server Error,” but got here on the second try. So, guess ya’ll gotta put up with me again.

[jal]

ilargi, check the links that you provide, (more good reads), on the left of the front page. Some don’t take you where you want us to go.

—
I just wanted to do a little calculation on the effects of leverage. (for newbies)

$100.00 deposit with a gov./regulator recommendation not a law, of 10 times leverage with a 5% interest on those 10 loans would generate $50.00 of interest per year.
At 20 times leverage the interest would generate $100.00 of cash flow.
At 50 times the original $100.00 deposit the generated cash flow at 5% would be $250.00 per year.

As can be seen, the original deposit could be returned to the depositor and the bank could continue raking in the cash flow and could end up being the owner of all the collateral of all the loans that default.

( note to the accountants: don’t nit-pick accuracy of the calculations. Its only an example)

—
Avantars won’t load.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[jal]

Darn it!
I can’t edit again, after doing an edit.
(If you click on my avatar, which I put in as an attachment you’ll get a nice surprise)

[Raúl Ilargi Meijer]

“check the links that you provide, (more good reads), on the left of the front page. Some don’t take you where you want us to go.”

Like which?

[jal]

Sharon Astyk
Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_ELSEIF in /home/sharonas/public_html/wp-content/themes/oriental/index.php on line 35

Maybe you would also like to link to
Gail Tverberg
https://ourfiniteworld.com/

[Golden Oxen]

Just testing.

[Kenneth Barrows]

I have finally logged in successfully, but I had some problems. If you have fewer people registered than you thought, it may be a technical problem.

[Gravity]

I wanted to comment on this;
“…the Sanctions Committee stated that it had jurisdiction to rule on the dissemination of inaccurate information about a financial instrument that can be traded in a regulated French market, whether or not it was disseminated in France, and regardless of whether it was disseminated by a Frenchman or a foreigner.”

The sanctions committee of the AFM may not have the legal authority to rule on these matters, or to impose fines based on their rulings. They claim jurisdiction to transnationally impose administrative fines based on a supposed transgression which is legally equivalent [identical] to the act of defamation of a [publicly traded] business, but without equivalent legal evidence of said act being provided, and subsequent conviction attained, thus infringing on the jurisdiction of courts as the sole arbiter of defamatory matters. This authority cannot be legally displaced from the courts to any other agency, especially not for punishing quantified opinions originating or replicating outside of France.

The publication or dissemination of any opinion on SocGen’s suspected insolvency qualitively remains protected political speech, being constitutionally guaranteed free speech. Yet, if quantified figures and statistical data [concerning a financial instrument that can be traded in a regulated French market] are used to argue for such opinion, a divergent criterion of quantified truth is employed by said AFM agency to judge the use of such statistical figures. The AFM may supposedly render inconvenient statistical data as ‘inaccurate information’, and consequently publication and dissemination thereof as defamatory-like, because it is specifically quantified by exact numbers whereas any published opinion consisting of mere words are not counted as disseminated information at all within their jurisdiction because such opinions are not quantified by exact numbers.

The agency’s criterion of quantified truth is unable to discern between an act of free speech [merely backed by an argument of statistical data] and an act of commercial defamation [by means of knowingly disseminating inaccurate statistical data], and thus cannot be employed to impose fines accruing to damages for the equivalent act of defamation, unless it specifically employs a legal conviction for defamation backed by legal evidence, which already affords exclusive authority to courts elsewhere.

The AFM’s authority to rule on the legality of dissemination of statistical opinions and to impose fines for equivalent defamation based on supposed inaccuracy of numbers must be challenged as being illegal, within France and elsewhere.

[Author]

Posts