Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Regulations = Indirect Corporate Subsidies?



July 12, 2009 – Comments (4) | RELATED TICKERS: DOW , DD , PM

Subscribe to my YouTube channel. 

4 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 12, 2009 at 2:14 PM, DaretothREdux (57.92) wrote:

Excellent work. Possibly inspired by my blog earlier today? Even if it was, everything you said bears repeating.

Keep up the good fight!


Report this comment
#2) On July 12, 2009 at 3:03 PM, bdash (26.26) wrote:

a couple of bad points:

1) dow & others want cap n trade because they can produce more of x product per amount of Co2 emmitted than a smaller competitor.

2) marlburro wanted cigarette legislation because it banned new companies...

other than that you are right. nice post

Report this comment
#3) On July 12, 2009 at 3:54 PM, TMFPencils (99.86) wrote:

Hi bdash,

I think that's what I was hinting at in the video, Dow and the others will be able to efficiently deal with cap and trade laws than any smaller business could dream of. 

Marlboro supported the legislation because it makes competition next to impossible, I think that's what I got at in the video. 

Regardless, thanks for the kind words and I believe we're on the same page! 


I hadn't seen your post (honest!) and am actually in the process of writing an article on regulation. Your stuff is fantastic and I will be watching it going forward! 



Report this comment
#4) On July 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, DaretothREdux (57.92) wrote:

David (pencils2),

Call me Dare. That's what everyone else calls me and I like the image it gives my CAPS character. I didn't know if you had seen my post or not, but since we were saying a lot of the same things I thought your blog was a good place to (shamefully self-promote) link my blog.

Either way, thanks for the kind comments. I found your stuff early on in your blogging career and will continue to follow it. 

As I said before: keep up the good work (and good fight)!


Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners