• About
  • Contact
  • Editorial
  • Policies
  • Archives
Angry Bear
Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.
  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics
« Back

Open thread Dec. 30, 2014

Dan Crawford | December 30, 2014 9:15 am

Comments (4) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
4 Comments
  • Denis Drew says:
    December 30, 2014 at 10:04 am

    I’ve been thinking about the implications for state (anti) labor laws covering state employees — in reference for my new understanding of freedom of association — here:
    [reprint]
    Unlike freedom of COMMERCIAL SPEECH (e.g., advertising soft drinks) which ranks significantly short in importance of POLITICAL SPEECH (e.g., Gettysburg Address), freedom of COMMERCIAL ASSOCIATION is so much an organic component of a free life (e.g., maxing out what the market will pay for your economic input), that it ranks just short of freedom of POLITICAL ASSOCIATION on economic grounds alone — but should be recognized as ranking fully equal to political association because unionization is where the great majority create their political effectiveness (e.g., organized campaign financing and legislative lobbying).
    [snip]
    Yesterday I read that Wisconsin’s Supreme Court came down 5 to 2 (4 conservatives joined by one liberal) against collective bargaining being First Amendment protected
    … “The decision was 5-2, with Justice Michael Gableman writing the lead opinion, which found that collective bargaining over a contract with an employer is not a fundamental right for public employees under the constitution. Instead, it’s a benefit that lawmakers can extend or restrict as they see fit, he said.
    “No matter the limitations or ‘burdens’ a legislative enactment places on the collective bargaining process, collective bargaining remains a creation of legislative grace and not constitutional obligation. The First Amendment cannot be used as a vehicle to expand the parameters of a benefit that it does not itself protect,” Gableman wrote. [my emphasis] …
    “Act 10 prohibited public workers from bargaining over anything except wages, ended the practice of automatic dues deduction from workers’ paychecks and required challenging yearly votes for unions to remain certified.”
    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/supreme-court-to-rule-thursday-on-union-law-voter-id-b99321110z1-269292661.html

    Last night I read “Union Bargaining a Dream For Many State Workers” — running off the long (and growing) list of states with short to no bargaining power for their employees. [hope the software can handle two web addresses]
    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41810901/ns/business-us_business/t/union-bargaining-dream-many-state-workers/#.VKIEAP8FAE

    This morning I woke up with the wide eyed notion that if the Wisconsin court had ruled the other way it would have potentially opened the way to OVERTURN ANTI-STATE EMPLOYEE BARGAINING LEGISLATION in every state. One federal ruling would open the path wide — instant unionization!

    So far: threshold question: could any government — local, state or federal — constitutionally bar all union organizing and collective bargaining. Seems constitutionally impossible — so, while laws may balance constitutional rights against other interests — at what point could collective bargaining be said to switch its nature from a fundamental constitutional right “a creation of legislative grace.” I don’t see how anybody can point to any such point at all.

  • JimH says:
    December 30, 2014 at 12:49 pm

    First the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) in September 2014 and now Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) in January 2015 are going to ban certain activity. Some believe that the activity is part of HFT. Both of these institutions appear to be commodities markets. (Futures?) Why now???

    Rule 575.
    Exhibit A
    CME, CBOT, NYMEX and COMEX
    Disruptive Practices Prohibited
    All orders must be entered for the purpose of executing bona fide transactions. Additionally, all non-actionable messages must be entered in good faith for legitimate purposes.
    A. No person shall enter or cause to be entered an order with the intent, at the time of order entry, to cancel the order before execution or to modify the order to avoid execution;
    B. No Person shall enter or cause to be entered an actionable or non-actionable message or messages with intent to mislead other market participants;
    C. No Person shall enter or cause to be entered an actionable or non-actionable message or messages with intent to overload, delay, or disrupt the systems of the Exchange or other market participants; and
    D. No person shall enter or cause to be entered an actionable or non-actionable message with intent to disrupt, or with reckless disregard for the adverse impact on, the orderly conduct of trading or the fair execution of transactions.

    To the extent applicable, the provisions of this Rule apply to open outcry trading as well as electronic trading activity. Further, the provisions of this Rule apply to all market states, including the pre-opening period, the closing period and all trading sessions.

    ICE
    Rule 4.02 – Trade Practice Violations

    In connection with the placement of any order or execution of any Transaction, it shall be a violation of the Rules for any Person to:
    (l) Engage in any other manipulative or disruptive trading practices prohibited by the Act or by the Commission pursuant to Commission regulation, including, but not limited to:
    (1) Entering an order or market message, or cause an order or market message to be entered, with:
    (A) The intent to cancel the order before execution, or modify the order to avoid execution;
    (B) The intent to overload, delay, or disrupt the systems of the Exchange or other market participants;
    (C) The intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of trading, the fair execution of transactions or mislead other market participants, or
    (D) Reckless disregard for the adverse impact of the order or market message.

    (2) Knowingly entering any bid or offer for the purpose of making a market price which does not reflect the true state of the market, or knowingly entering, or causing to be entered, bids or offers other than in good faith for the purpose of executing bona fide Transactions.

  • JimH says:
    December 30, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    Here is an FBI press release on 2 October 2014 announcing the indictment of a High-Frequency Trader.

    http://www.fbi.gov/chicago/press-releases/2014/high-frequency-trader-indicted-for-manipulating-commodities-futures-markets-in-first-federal-prosecution-for-spoofing

    The press release describes his actions and mentions CME.

  • JimH says:
    December 30, 2014 at 6:58 pm

    Here is an article on 24 July 2014 about a lawsuit against the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

    From: http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/07/lawsuit-stunner-half-of-futures-trades-in-chicago-are-illegal-wash-trades/
    “The most stunning allegation in the lawsuit is that an estimated 50 percent of all trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is derived from illegal wash trades.”

    Lawsuit 7-22-2014: http://www.desilvalawoffices.com/documents/HFT-Braman-filed-.pdf

    Did the negative PR after Michael Lewis’s book on HFT and this lawsuit against CME change the trading on the oil futures markets? Oil prices seem to start down in July 2014. Don’t know but I think that it is interesting.

Featured Stories

June 29, 2022, Letters from an American

run75441

Money In Politics

Robert Waldmann

How should Democrats fight Dobbs?

Eric Kramer

Housing prices surge, no moderation in CPI

NewDealdemocrat

Contributors

Dan Crawford
Robert Waldmann
Barkley Rosser
Eric Kramer
ProGrowth Liberal
Daniel Becker
Ken Houghton
Linda Beale
Mike Kimel
Steve Roth
Michael Smith
Bill Haskell
NewDealdemocrat
Ken Melvin
Sandwichman
Peter Dorman
Kenneth Thomas
Bruce Webb
Rebecca Wilder
Spencer England
Beverly Mann
Joel Eissenberg

Subscribe

Blogs of note

    • Naked Capitalism
    • Atrios (Eschaton)
    • Crooks and Liars
    • Calculated Risk
    • Economist View
    • Hullabaloo
    • Talking Points
    • Memo
    • Washington
    • Monthly
Angry Bear
Copyright © 2022 Angry Bear Blog

Topics

  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics
  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics

Pages

  • About
  • Contact
  • Editorial
  • Policies
  • Archives