Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
L2 please
14's hit. Anybody have l2? Sorry to keep asking, this is too exciting not to watch. I never thought I would see green here again.
l2 please.
Let's gooo EFLN!
Anyone have L2?
L2 pls
L2?
L2 please?
I think we could be leaving the trip 0's pretty soon.
Next step: Get current on OTC.
Yeah, too long..but we knew the chill would take a long time to clear.
I am cautiously optimistic that Slavo will bring us some good news soon.
Trading on Schwab now!
Schwab still not trading as well. They put in a request and told me to check back in an hr.
I never thought this would trade again. Hopefully this proves that Slavo is on the up&up.
Next step would be to get current on OTC.
Talked with a rep from schwab today.
He said this should be trading today or tomorrow! Let's hope he is right.
No response so I emailed Slavo.
He said they are hiring somebody to sue dtcc. IDK
Maybe the shareholders can file suit against cillo?
Me too. I will report back when I get an answer. It took her a few days to get back to me last time.
I received a similar email which said that they had an attorney working on it and that the process is slow and expensive.
I emailed back for clarification on the attorney.
Did it ask you for a password? It keeps asking me to sign in.
Update: Nevermind. That was my office network asking for a pw.
That is very true. Scuba, pass the message along??
I hope I am right as well!
I disagree completely. It was my understanding that this would be a long process which didn't start until the case was settled. EAFN has too much money to lose by giving up.
It is frustrating that they will not put out a pr, but if you look at it from their perspective, why spend money on a pr if you don't have to. I think they will pursue legal recourse (I hope). In addition, why keep posting financials if it is dead?
I will try, but they keep saying that only the company can resolve this. Honestly, Slavo should get on a plane, go to NYC and start knocking down doors at the dtcc until somebody gives him an answer.
I think it will be many many months until the DTCC actually gets to EFLN. In my opinion I don't think the DTC cares and that is why they are not pushing to get this resolved.
This is what they replied to me:
I think this is solely DTCC not really caring about a small company.
Compliance Inquiries <complianceinquiries@dtcc.com>
Feb 5 (1 day ago)
to me
Joe,
As per DTC Policy, any inquiries from an issue’s Shareholder regarding restrictions placed on an issue are to be directly addressed with representatives of said issue.
Thank you.
Me Three
My guess is that they were unable to even begin until the cillo case was settled.
Can anybody here trade this yet?
Anybody think Cillo is getting off easy here?
Anybody contact Slavo and ask what his thoughts are on this?
former ceo
Will get back to you on the assumptions list as I only had time for a cursory glance. In this case, I am saying the regulators are failing at their job by not doing anything, even though complaints had been issued. I think if regulation wasn't tied to money (through special interests) maybe the system would be better. As an example, Underwriters Laboratories, a private company (approved by osha) which tests equipment, dampers, etc. UL is self sufficient unlike gov't org's which are paid for by taxpayers.
The reason something like this works is because end users want to make sure that what they are buying is safe for use and for an independent laboratory to test said equipment helps ensure a level of safety. With this two headed fish incident, Simplot is in bed with the regulators which is why the EPA ignored what was going on. Money talks in gov't and that is where I see the problem.
Stills,
Apologies for taking a while to get back to you, I have been at the office till midnight every day this week (I don't get paid nearly enough to be working these hours, but oh well).
Anyway, just to touch quickly upon some of your thoughts. The way I see it, if there is no government agency to regulate issues like externalities, then how would they be sorted out? I believe prior to 1970, issues like this were solved through mutual agreements between the private property owners who are affected by the externality. If issues could not be settled, then it went to court.
The reason I would rather a court deal with something like this is because they are less biased than a gov't agency which can be easily bought out by special interest groups. I honestly believe in the adage "Power Corrupts," and most of the time politician's have good intentions but don't understand the unintended consequences of their actions. Look at what is happening with the EPA right now. They tell people what type of inhalers they can use and have declared a war on coal but won't do anything about two headed fish popping up in Iowa (see below).
Anyway, for the next 3 weeks, I probably won't be able to post too often, but I really want to keep going with our discussions, so I would like to apologize in advance for any time lags.
For some light entertainment:
http://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/post/daily-show-dons-two-headed-fish-costume-criticize-idaho-company
Although I do believe in unregulated markets, as I believe that the free market will regulate itself, I am talking about Liberty in the context of the individual. I believe that the government has no right to tell anybody what they can or cannot do so long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others. That means, eat what you like, drink what you like, etc. Now I am not condoning behavior that is bad, smoking, drugs, etc. but it is up to the individual to decide what they want to do.
I do believe that a transaction between two parties which inadvertently negatively impacts a third party should be against the law. However, the problem with government intervention in cases like you stated (manufacturer polluting lakes), is that the government does a poor job at regulating. Where do lines start getting drawn? Look at the EPA for example. Many people would argue that they cause more harm than good. I think something like this can be better solved in a courtroom rather than through regulation.
Will try to expand upon this after work.
Open mindedness is very important and something I am trying to work on. I do agree that nothing will necessarily be solved as hypothetical situations are just that, however, there are definitely historical examples which can/will be used to support hypotheses.
Having said that, I was thinking about our previous conversation and I realized that continuing to talk about the government's role in health care without first delving into the government's role in society seems out of order. Furthermore, it is not possible to understand the role of government without first touching upon the basic rights of individuals. Therefore I will present two assumptions related to the basic right's of individuals and gov't.
My first premise is as follows: Man has the right to his life, his faculties, and his production. In other words, the right's of man are his life, liberty, and property.
My second premise: Man has a right to defend his rights and so it follows that men have the right to create a collective organization to protect the right's of many. It is the government's role to protect the individual right's of man.
Just a side note, should we take this convo off the message board or is it cool to just keep going here?
Stills,
Will write a nice response this weekend, been trying to catch up with some work. My office was shut all of last week due to the hurricane and clients won't push back deadlines (dicks).
Anyway, just throwing this out there, but for the next topic I suggest one of these
1. role of gov't
2. fiat money vs gold standard
3. principles of taxation
I really enjoy these conversations as they push me to think differently and abstractly about many subjects.
Well, I think it is unrealistic to think a charity would pay for roads and bridges. I do think that private entrepreneur would love to build roads and bridges and collect fares from cars who pass by, this way the people who pay for the bridge are the ones that use it. However, no private enterprise can compete with a gov't that can raise capital through force and doesn't have to make a profit. I don't think that taxes (specifically income tax) should be paying for something like this. If local legislation or state legislation approve the building of roads and bridges, I think that is better than it happening on the federal level. It is more likely that states will get a project done faster and more efficiently as they cannot print money like the federal gov't if they are running too high of a deficit. The beauty of our country was how it was set up originally where states can dictate local laws and rules to the benefit of local communities and states. If you do not like these rules, it is much easier to run for local office/state office and try to change them, or move to a state you feel is better for you.
I absolutely have a problem with the current taxation and furthermore the role of our gov't as it currently stands. I don't want to get into this right now as it is a separate conversation.
I don't want to see anybody needlessly die, but I believe when gov't gets involved with something, that said thing gets more expensive and less efficient. Look at VA hospitals for example. It's not that the quality of doctors is poor. It's the beaurocratic nonsense that doctors have to put up with the hurts the quality of care. I believe that if the gov't gets out of healthcare costs will come down to the point where people can afford to see a doctor without paying exceptionally high fees.
Stills,
Love these convos. Pretty swmaped today, so I will try to put together a response tonight.
Just a quick thought from your response. The difference between charities and taxes is that when one gives to a charity it is a voluntary exchange. Taxes are taken by force, it is essentially legalized plunder.
I honestly don't want any gov't building roads or bridges, I think this should all be left to private companies. If any gov't is building roads or bridges, it should be states or local. Someone in NY should not be paying for a road in Texas. Just my opinion on that.
Hey Stills.
To your questions, I can't necessarily give you a straight answer because I haven't thought about it entirely. However to your first question, if the gov't did not monopolize the insurance industry and cover these costs, I truly believe that charities would be willing to help people who go to emergency rooms and can't pay. In addition I don't think the federal gov't should be building bridges or roads anywhere. This should be left to the states and local governments. I am an engineer and I can tell you first hand that the buildings we work on with private clients go so much more smoothly and fast paced than any gov't job. The amount of waste is crazy. We worked on one job, can't say which, in DC...thing went on for 7 years. Wasn't even a complicated building. It is crazy.
To your second question, I do not have any answer as I don't really know all of the specifics of this legislation other than the general purpose of what it is trying to accomplish. I do believe though that as we maintain this course, health care is going to skyrocket.
Here is my take on health care in general (sorry for the drawn out response, slow day at work):
Why healthcare is so expensive in the first place? Expensive equipment? Malpractice insurance? These are definitely contributing factors, but in my opinion not the sole reason. If you think about it in terms of supply and demand it makes sense that if you increase the demand of people going to see a doctor but maintain a constant supply of doctors, then the price will increase. Why has the demand for going to see a doctor increased? The reason for this is the government interference in health care.
What is the point of insurance? The point of insurance is to prevent against catastrophes. You aren't buying car insurance to get an oil change or paint the bumper. You get it to protect yourself against a crash. The same should apply to healthcare. The point of having health care insurance should be to prevent major medical problems, not going to the doctor and coughing while he holds up a stethoscope. However, when the government decided to get involved and subsidize insurance through the employers, it essentially made it so that you can go to the doctor 10 times a year and it will only cost you a copay each time.
If you get gov't out of health care, employers will have more money because they don't have to pay for 75% of your health care and can in turn pass that off to the employee who can buy insurance on the open market. This competition will help to lower costs of insurance. People will also only go to the doctor when they are sick or when they feel they need to. This will also help to drive down the demand and force doctors (who still need to make money, it is a business) to lower costs to a sustainable level.
I think the health care law is incredibly well intentioned but I think it is the wrong solution to a tough problem. Instead of trying to bring down the cost of healthcare so that everyone can go see a doctor, they are forcing the costs onto employers, taxpayers, etc in order to maintain high prices.
Furthermore, this countries malpractice laws are ridiculous. Because doctors are so scared of being sued they will order every test under the sun when it is not necessary.
The bubble in housing before was created, a good portion, due to the previous non-regulations and the type of lending that was being done. Housing is improving due to how bad it got previously. Its far from a bubble.