As a FINRA registered representative, should i be getting a "kick" out of these replies?


/I'm sorry

lazyguineapig33: arbitration clauses are a serious threat to our democracy and rule of law. they should be under heavy scrutiny and restriction.

No, these clauses are put in place to protect you, the consumer. The fact that 99.99% of the time the arbitration goes in favor of the companies who demand you use arbitration if you do business with them is just a coincidence.

Approves

lohphat: So Wall Street is a cartel.

Color me shocked.

You can't enter the industry without signing a contract waving your rights to due process yet this industry effectively runs the world.

Time to get out the rope.



Its Friday the 13th. You know how Friday the 13th got its significance in the first place, right?

The king of Spain rounded up and killed all the international bankers of their age.

That was a long time ago.

So Wall Street has its own private justice system, with financial people acting as judges ("arbitrators").

To the people who have a problem with this: would you prefer that financial disputes be handled by the regular court system? As politicized as it is? With juries picked of uneducated schmucks who render judgment from their unaccountable easily-manipulated emotions? Where educated jurors are systematically disqualified for being educated? Where the side with the most money to spend on lawyers can usually win, or at least delay and grind their opponent into bankruptcy? Seriously?

Wall Street has adopted to the appalling comedy of our public justice system. Good for them.

Breathe Laugh Twitch: So Wall Street has its own private justice system, with financial people acting as judges ("arbitrators").

To the people who have a problem with this: would you prefer that financial disputes be handled by the regular court system? As politicized as it is? With juries picked of uneducated schmucks who render judgment from their unaccountable easily-manipulated emotions? Where educated jurors are systematically disqualified for being educated? Where the side with the most money to spend on lawyers can usually win, or at least delay and grind their opponent into bankruptcy? Seriously?

Wall Street has adopted to the appalling comedy of our public justice system. Good for them.

Yeah, this whole "jury of your peers" bullshiat is so outdated. If I want to kill a bunch of hookers, wear their skin like a dress, and carry their heads around in the trunk of my car, I don't want a jury trial when I'm caught. I want a binding arbitration, conducted with an arbitrator of my choice, whom I pay, and whose entire existence relies on the fact that I really, REALLY like to kill hookers, so I toss a lot of business their way. That's a much better, more efficient and fair way to do it. Well, it's more fair to ME anyways, and that's what really matters. Hookers aren't really even people anyways, so who gives a f*ck if it's not fair to them? Nobody, that's who.

ikapoz: As a FINRA registered representative, should i be getting a "kick" out of these replies?


/I'm sorry

My wife just had to testify at a FINRA hearing, I'm sure she wouldn't be getting a kick.

Breathe Laugh Twitch: So Wall Street has its own private justice system, with financial people acting as judges ("arbitrators").

To the people who have a problem with this: would you prefer that financial disputes be handled by the regular court system? As politicized as it is? With juries picked of uneducated schmucks who render judgment from their unaccountable easily-manipulated emotions? Where educated jurors are systematically disqualified for being educated? Where the side with the most money to spend on lawyers can usually win, or at least delay and grind their opponent into bankruptcy? Seriously?

Wall Street has adopted to the appalling comedy of our public justice system. Good for them.

The House John Edwards and other liberal politicians built.

mod3072 Edit/Remove Favorite UserAdd Favorite User

*
* Smartest
*
* Funniest
*

Quote 2012-01-13 01:27:51 PM Edit/unIgnore User Ignore User

lazyguineapig33: arbitration clauses are a serious threat to our democracy and rule of law. they should be under heavy scrutiny and restriction.

"No, these clauses are put in place to protect you, the consumer. The fact that 99.99% of the time the arbitration goes in favor of the companies who demand you use arbitration if you do business with them is just a coincidence."


Ok, someone on the internet is wrong, so I must jump into action.

Yes arbitration exists to protect consumers but only to a certain, and limited, point. Courts traditionally take that "depute resolution" role but arbitration is designed to "speedy things up". The trade off for "speedy things up" is that the rules of evidence, appeal, decision process and final judgment are rarely, if ever, open to public scrutiny.

If 2 conflicting parties choose that "speedy things up" trade off of their own free will (i.e., not under any duress), then fine. Let them go at it. On the other hand, forcing people into it then further saying "and you can't go to court" is horseshiat. Doing so is nothing more than censoring one's free will under the color of law and under the guise of being consumer friendly.

I don't know where you pull the 99% but I am calling bullshiat on that as well. Even if the consumer wins it can frequently be a moot point. The damages are so small that nothing changes the offender's behavior. Bad behavior is repeated.