Who Does Citigroup Think They’re Fooling?

This story was hilarious.  Both MF Global and Peregrine stole segregated customer funds.  For the first time ever, futures customers lost money due to default/theft/fraud.

To alleviate concerns, Citigroup decided to start informing customers about segregated customer fund balances.  Previously, this information was not disclosed daily.

That’s completely missing the point.  What prevents Citigroup from lying?  Both MF Global and Peregrine lied to regulators.  What prevents Citigroup from lying to its customers, regarding segregated fund account balances?

6 Responses to Who Does Citigroup Think They’re Fooling?

  1. Anonymous Coward July 15, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    I don’t think I have your email address anymore. So this is in lieu of sending you an email.

    Some time ago, I was telling with a particularly aggressive and nasty group of people that were clearing about to steal from me. The law was very clear and against what they were doing. They wouldn’t listen to me. They very wasting too much of my time.

    So I thought it would be worth getting a lawyer to sort the matter out. The lawyer didn’t have to look up any documents as I gave him the documentation and pointed out the relevant part. It took the lawyer all of 30 seconds to confirm the point of law.

    The lawyer couldn’t be bothered to take on board we were dealing with aggressive and nasty people. He padded he work and charged at least twice what he should have done. To make matters worse after we had sorted out the problem ourselves, he wanted a big chunk of cash just to “close the file”. What a dishonest piece of work!

    The lawyer wrote to the other side and pointed out what they were about to do was illegal.

    So the other people then moved from out and out stealing to continuous harassment to get us to sign documents changing ownership for no or little money.

    As the lawyer overcharged us we could hardly do back to him to finish sorting out the problem.

    So we just got harassed more and harassed more until they finally decided to leave us alone.

    If the lawyer was honest, didn’t overcharge for a simple case and bothered to understand the problem, we would have been much better off.

    Moral: Lawyers take vast sums of money and do a piss poor job. They only partially solve your problem.

  2. Robert Ferguson July 15, 2012 at 9:00 pm

    Hey FSK, do you ever go to lewrockwell.com? Good site. Liberty-minded people should start setting the term “anarcho-capitalism” as a standard and wearing it proudly. Isn’t it interesting that the State, at a very young age, inculcates an association between the word “anarchy” and “violence” or evil? I resent the notion that government protects people from evil. Government is not the purveyor of “good”, in fact, in the entirety of human history, governments have been the greatest forces of evil, destruction and violence. I resent the assumption that any “good” one may possess comes only from the State. I believe that most people want to be productive, peaceful and free. I believe that those inclinations come from a natural order of human beings, not from State decree or force. I don’t have the will to do my job and extend good will to others because the State “taught” me those values. The world is and always will be an imperfect place, bad people and bad things will always be a part of our world. The goal of human civilization has and never should been to have some authority defeat all evils, ithat is an absurd and unrealistic goal. State authority, given power under those auspices, always uses that authority in ways that contravene that very goal by enhancing evil and destruction!! Anarcho-capitalism or “agorism” is the only viable future of our species, it always has been. That is a society of free markets, and free lives.

    • I read lewrockwell.com once in awhile. I’m looking for more advanced freedom-oriented reading material.

      Some of the authors on lewrockwell.com still are advocating “within the system” reform. When I website has lots of different authors, I tend to lose interest, because some of the articles are good but many are lousy.

      I got into arguments with the moderators on mises.org regarding The Compound Interest Paradox and they started censoring me. I stopped reading after that.

  3. Yes, I too have had frustrating interactions with “intellectuals” on Mises.org. “minarchists” I believe you have called them. I recently had an unfortunate, long, and protracted email exchange with professor Noam Chomsky about economics. Mr. Chomsky is heralded by the “Left” as a dissident and freeinded thinker, when it my assertion, and our recent exchange only solidified it, that he is in fact an approved “Gatekeeper” of State political “debate”.

    • Why bother writing to Noam Chomsky? He promotes the pro-State troll version of “anarchy”.

      Don’t trust an anarchist who works for the State. (MIT gets most of its funding from the State.)

      It would be nice if someone like Noam Chomsky understood market anarchism or agorism. I’m not holding my breath waiting.

      If Noam Chomsky wasn’t describing stupid ideas as “anarchism”, the mainstream media wouldn’t be promoting him.

      I’ve learned the hard way that you can’t convince a fool. It’s a waste of time and banging your head against a wall. That applies to Noam Chomsky or mises.org. (In case you didn’t know, lewrockwell.com and mises.org are owned by the same person.)

      I don’t mind when someone disagrees, but I get very offended when someone censors me. Once that happens, I stop contributing to a forum/blog/website.

      Also, I watched some videos of Noam Chomsky. He had the attitude of someone who thought he was a super-genius, even though he really wasn’t that smart. It’s the usual “good at promoting yourself” vs. “actually having good ideas”.

      Here’s an interesting video of Noam Chomsky refuting “Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism”. My reaction to that video is “Noam Chomsky is obviously a clueless twit.” You can tell he’s a clueless douchebag by the tone of his voice. Actually, Noam Chomsky seems to be an intelligent person tricked into promoting evil, rather than someone completely evil like Bernard Madoff or Chuck Schumer. However, it makes no difference if you’re evil on purpose, or if you’re so clueless that you don’t know any better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>