cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-06-08 - Re: Anonymous stock trades.

Header Data

From: hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 4665297995a0e115a6c414cb5ff148872a662cbcc144cd6a929cd449107d9631
Message ID: <9606071731.AA04519@Etna.ai.mit.edu>
Reply To: <199606071452.KAA18055@jekyll.piermont.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-06-08 00:26:17 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 08:26:17 +0800

Raw message

From: hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 08:26:17 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Anonymous stock trades.
In-Reply-To: <199606071452.KAA18055@jekyll.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <9606071731.AA04519@Etna.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Perry writes..

>Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, PhD, seems to know even less about free market>
>environmentalism than he knows about futures and options.

This is the Perry argument!

Call someone a fool, invite ridicule... ohhh perry does that make you feel big?
does that make you feel like you can argue?

Of course you can't argue or you would not have begun your arguement with a 
gratuitous insult. You are clearly uncertain of your case and feel that you have 
to puff yourself up a bit and try a bit of intimidation. 


I asked my stock broker about the trades Hilary did. Sorry Perry, you were wrong 
5% margin is sufficient in most markets. That means $1000 can cover $20,000. 
Your whole case was based on a false premise.

Since the last time you began a Perrygram by insulting me you turned out to be 
wrong it should be no suprise for this to be a repeat.

The argument from Friedman was as published in a letter to the London Times by 
the man himself. You can even go and look it up if you like, it was published in 
'89 or '90. He did not make a reference to "stakeholders". That was not his 
argument. His argument was based entirely on the mechanism of the market, supply 
and demand.


	-Phill

Thread