Comment: Wheres the Beef? I've listen to this twice

(See in situ)

Wheres the Beef? I've listen to this twice

Heres the facts:

Current law makes it difficult for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to effectively meet its mandate to investigate and punish market manipulation, resulting in little or no deterrent against abusive practices. This is because current law sets a very high bar for the CFTC to prove market manipulation. By comparison, a lower burden of proof makes it much easier for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prove and deter market manipulation.

The CFTC must prove “specific intent” to do harm, rather than the “recklessness” standard used by the SEC for the past 75 years, and recently employed by the FERC and FTC. “Specific intent” is a much more difficult standard to prove. In fact, the standard is so weak that in its 35-year history, the CFTC has successfully prosecuted and won only one case of manipulation in the futures markets.

And you think this is going to be the second case won? So say the CFTC prosecutes and wins, what happens next? A fine? There is no way the CFTC is going to force a short squeeze and screw the the silver industrial users (90% of the market) for the sake of the physical holders of silver (1% or 2% of the market). Not in a million years.