A Useful Guide to Editing The Chicago Department Of Business And Consumer Protection
Below you can get an idea about how to edit and complete a Chicago Department Of Business And Consumer Protection hasslefree. Get started now.
- Push the“Get Form” Button below . Here you would be brought into a dashboard making it possible for you to make edits on the document.
- Pick a tool you need from the toolbar that emerge in the dashboard.
- After editing, double check and press the button Download.
- Don't hesistate to contact us via [email protected] for any help.
The Most Powerful Tool to Edit and Complete The Chicago Department Of Business And Consumer Protection


Complete Your Chicago Department Of Business And Consumer Protection At Once
Get FormA Simple Manual to Edit Chicago Department Of Business And Consumer Protection Online
Are you seeking to edit forms online? CocoDoc has got you covered with its comprehensive PDF toolset. You can make full use of it simply by opening any web brower. The whole process is easy and quick. Check below to find out
- go to the CocoDoc's online PDF editing page.
- Drag or drop a document you want to edit by clicking Choose File or simply dragging or dropping.
- Conduct the desired edits on your document with the toolbar on the top of the dashboard.
- Download the file once it is finalized .
Steps in Editing Chicago Department Of Business And Consumer Protection on Windows
It's to find a default application able to make edits to a PDF document. However, CocoDoc has come to your rescue. View the Manual below to form some basic understanding about ways to edit PDF on your Windows system.
- Begin by downloading CocoDoc application into your PC.
- Drag or drop your PDF in the dashboard and conduct edits on it with the toolbar listed above
- After double checking, download or save the document.
- There area also many other methods to edit PDF online for free, you can check this definitive guide
A Useful Handbook in Editing a Chicago Department Of Business And Consumer Protection on Mac
Thinking about how to edit PDF documents with your Mac? CocoDoc is ready to help you.. It allows you to edit documents in multiple ways. Get started now
- Install CocoDoc onto your Mac device or go to the CocoDoc website with a Mac browser. Select PDF file from your Mac device. You can do so by hitting the tab Choose File, or by dropping or dragging. Edit the PDF document in the new dashboard which provides a full set of PDF tools. Save the paper by downloading.
A Complete Guide in Editing Chicago Department Of Business And Consumer Protection on G Suite
Intergating G Suite with PDF services is marvellous progess in technology, able to simplify your PDF editing process, making it faster and more cost-effective. Make use of CocoDoc's G Suite integration now.
Editing PDF on G Suite is as easy as it can be
- Visit Google WorkPlace Marketplace and search for CocoDoc
- set up the CocoDoc add-on into your Google account. Now you are able to edit documents.
- Select a file desired by pressing the tab Choose File and start editing.
- After making all necessary edits, download it into your device.
PDF Editor FAQ
Why have wages in the USA remained flat for the last twenty years?
The following is the blueprint for exactly what’s happened over the last four decades. It is very real. It presents all of us with precisely how the American working and middle classes have been screwed.Confidential Memorandum: Attack of American Free Enterprise SystemDATE: August 23, 1971TO: Mr. Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chairman, Education Committee, U.S. Chamber of CommerceFROM: Lewis F. Powell, Jr.This memorandum is submitted at your request as a basis for the discussion on August 24 with Mr. Booth (executive vice president) and others at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The purpose is to identify the problem, and suggest possible avenues of action for further consideration.Dimensions of the AttackNo thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack. This varies in scope, intensity, in the techniques employed, and in the level of visibility.There always have been some who opposed the American system, and preferred socialism or some form of statism (communism or fascism). Also, there always have been critics of the system, whose criticism has been wholesome and constructive so long as the objective was to improve rather than to subvert or destroy.But what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts.Sources of the AttackThe sources are varied and diffused. They include, not unexpectedly, the Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both political and economic. These extremists of the left are far more numerous, better financed, and increasingly are more welcomed and encouraged by other elements of society, than ever before in our history. But they remain a small minority, and are not yet the principal cause for concern.The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians. In most of these groups the movement against the system is participated in only by minorities. Yet, these often are the most articulate, the most vocal, the most prolific in their writing and speaking.Moreover, much of the media-for varying motives and in varying degrees-either voluntarily accords unique publicity to these “attackers,” or at least allows them to exploit the media for their purposes. This is especially true of television, which now plays such a predominant role in shaping the thinking, attitudes and emotions of our people.One of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which the enterprise system tolerates, if not participates in, its own destruction.The campuses from which much of the criticism emanates are supported by (i) tax funds generated largely from American business, and (ii) contributions from capital funds controlled or generated by American business. The boards of trustees of our universities overwhelmingly are composed of men and women who are leaders in the system.Most of the media, including the national TV systems, are owned and theoretically controlled by corporations which depend upon profits, and the enterprise system to survive.Tone of the AttackThis memorandum is not the place to document in detail the tone, character, or intensity of the attack. The following quotations will suffice to give one a general idea:William Kunstler, warmly welcomed on campuses and listed in a recent student poll as the “American lawyer most admired,” incites audiences as follows:“You must learn to fight in the streets, to revolt, to shoot guns. We will learn to do all of the things that property owners fear.”2 The New Leftists who heed Kunstler’s advice increasingly are beginning to act — not just against military recruiting offices and manufacturers of munitions, but against a variety of businesses: “Since February, 1970, branches (of Bank of America) have been attacked 39 times, 22 times with explosive devices and 17 times with fire bombs or by arsonists.”3 Although New Leftist spokesmen are succeeding in radicalizing thousands of the young, the greater cause for concern is the hostility of respectable liberals and social reformers. It is the sum total of their views and influence which could indeed fatally weaken or destroy the system.A chilling description of what is being taught on many of our campuses was written by Stewart Alsop:“Yale, like every other major college, is graduating scores of bright young men who are practitioners of ‘the politics of despair.’ These young men despise the American political and economic system . . . (their) minds seem to be wholly closed. They live, not by rational discussion, but by mindless slogans.”4 A recent poll of students on 12 representative campuses reported that: “Almost half the students favored socialization of basic U.S. industries.”5A visiting professor from England at Rockford College gave a series of lectures entitled “The Ideological War Against Western Society,” in which he documents the extent to which members of the intellectual community are waging ideological warfare against the enterprise system and the values of western society. In a foreword to these lectures, famed Dr. Milton Friedman of Chicago warned: “It (is) crystal clear that the foundations of our free society are under wide-ranging and powerful attack — not by Communist or any other conspiracy but by misguided individuals parroting one another and unwittingly serving ends they would never intentionally promote.”6Perhaps the single most effective antagonist of American business is Ralph Nader, who — thanks largely to the media — has become a legend in his own time and an idol of millions of Americans. A recent article in Fortune speaks of Nader as follows:“The passion that rules in him — and he is a passionate man — is aimed at smashing utterly the target of his hatred, which is corporate power. He thinks, and says quite bluntly, that a great many corporate executives belong in prison — for defrauding the consumer with shoddy merchandise, poisoning the food supply with chemical additives, and willfully manufacturing unsafe products that will maim or kill the buyer. He emphasizes that he is not talking just about ‘fly-by-night hucksters’ but the top management of blue chip business.”7A frontal assault was made on our government, our system of justice, and the free enterprise system by Yale Professor Charles Reich in his widely publicized book: “The Greening of America,” published last winter.The foregoing references illustrate the broad, shotgun attack on the system itself. There are countless examples of rifle shots which undermine confidence and confuse the public. Favorite current targets are proposals for tax incentives through changes in depreciation rates and investment credits. These are usually described in the media as “tax breaks,” “loop holes” or “tax benefits” for the benefit of business. As viewed by a columnist in the Post, such tax measures would benefit “only the rich, the owners of big companies.”8It is dismaying that many politicians make the same argument that tax measures of this kind benefit only “business,” without benefit to “the poor.” The fact that this is either political demagoguery or economic illiteracy is of slight comfort. This setting of the “rich” against the “poor,” of business against the people, is the cheapest and most dangerous kind of politics.The Apathy and Default of BusinessWhat has been the response of business to this massive assault upon its fundamental economics, upon its philosophy, upon its right to continue to manage its own affairs, and indeed upon its integrity?The painfully sad truth is that business, including the boards of directors’ and the top executives of corporations great and small and business organizations at all levels, often have responded — if at all — by appeasement, ineptitude and ignoring the problem. There are, of course, many exceptions to this sweeping generalization. But the net effect of such response as has been made is scarcely visible.In all fairness, it must be recognized that businessmen have not been trained or equipped to conduct guerrilla warfare with those who propagandize against the system, seeking insidiously and constantly to sabotage it. The traditional role of business executives has been to manage, to produce, to sell, to create jobs, to make profits, to improve the standard of living, to be community leaders, to serve on charitable and educational boards, and generally to be good citizens. They have performed these tasks very well indeed.But they have shown little stomach for hard-nose contest with their critics, and little skill in effective intellectual and philosophical debate.A column recently carried by the Wall Street Journal was entitled: “Memo to GM: Why Not Fight Back?”9 Although addressed to GM by name, the article was a warning to all American business. Columnist St. John said:“General Motors, like American business in general, is ‘plainly in trouble’ because intellectual bromides have been substituted for a sound intellectual exposition of its point of view.” Mr. St. John then commented on the tendency of business leaders to compromise with and appease critics. He cited the concessions which Nader wins from management, and spoke of “the fallacious view many businessmen take toward their critics.” He drew a parallel to the mistaken tactics of many college administrators: “College administrators learned too late that such appeasement serves to destroy free speech, academic freedom and genuine scholarship. One campus radical demand was conceded by university heads only to be followed by a fresh crop which soon escalated to what amounted to a demand for outright surrender.”One need not agree entirely with Mr. St. John’s analysis. But most observers of the American scene will agree that the essence of his message is sound. American business “plainly in trouble”; the response to the wide range of critics has been ineffective, and has included appeasement; the time has come — indeed, it is long overdue — for the wisdom, ingenuity and resources of American business to be marshalled against those who would destroy it.Responsibility of Business ExecutivesWhat specifically should be done? The first essential — a prerequisite to any effective action — is for businessmen to confront this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate management.The overriding first need is for businessmen to recognize that the ultimate issue may be survival — survival of what we call the free enterprise system, and all that this means for the strength and prosperity of America and the freedom of our people.The day is long past when the chief executive officer of a major corporation discharges his responsibility by maintaining a satisfactory growth of profits, with due regard to the corporation’s public and social responsibilities. If our system is to survive, top management must be equally concerned with protecting and preserving the system itself. This involves far more than an increased emphasis on “public relations” or “governmental affairs” — two areas in which corporations long have invested substantial sums.A significant first step by individual corporations could well be the designation of an executive vice president (ranking with other executive VP’s) whose responsibility is to counter-on the broadest front-the attack on the enterprise system. The public relations department could be one of the foundations assigned to this executive, but his responsibilities should encompass some of the types of activities referred to subsequently in this memorandum. His budget and staff should be adequate to the task.Possible Role of the Chamber of CommerceBut independent and uncoordinated activity by individual corporations, as important as this is, will not be sufficient. Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.Moreover, there is the quite understandable reluctance on the part of any one corporation to get too far out in front and to make itself too visible a target.The role of the National Chamber of Commerce is therefore vital. Other national organizations (especially those of various industrial and commercial groups) should join in the effort, but no other organizations appear to be as well situated as the Chamber. It enjoys a strategic position, with a fine reputation and a broad base of support. Also — and this is of immeasurable merit — there are hundreds of local Chambers of Commerce which can play a vital supportive role.It hardly need be said that before embarking upon any program, the Chamber should study and analyze possible courses of action and activities, weighing risks against probable effectiveness and feasibility of each. Considerations of cost, the assurance of financial and other support from members, adequacy of staffing and similar problems will all require the most thoughtful consideration.The CampusThe assault on the enterprise system was not mounted in a few months. It has gradually evolved over the past two decades, barely perceptible in its origins and benefiting (sic) from a gradualism that provoked little awareness much less any real reaction.Although origins, sources and causes are complex and interrelated, and obviously difficult to identify without careful qualification, there is reason to believe that the campus is the single most dynamic source. The social science faculties usually include members who are unsympathetic to the enterprise system. They may range from a Herbert Marcuse, Marxist faculty member at the University of California at San Diego, and convinced socialists, to the ambivalent liberal critic who finds more to condemn than to commend. Such faculty members need not be in a majority. They are often personally attractive and magnetic; they are stimulating teachers, and their controversy attracts student following; they are prolific writers and lecturers; they author many of the textbooks, and they exert enormous influence — far out of proportion to their numbers — on their colleagues and in the academic world.Social science faculties (the political scientist, economist, sociologist and many of the historians) tend to be liberally oriented, even when leftists are not present. This is not a criticism per se, as the need for liberal thought is essential to a balanced viewpoint. The difficulty is that “balance” is conspicuous by its absence on many campuses, with relatively few members being of conservatives or moderate persuasion and even the relatively few often being less articulate and aggressive than their crusading colleagues.This situation extending back many years and with the imbalance gradually worsening, has had an enormous impact on millions of young American students. In an article in Barron’s Weekly, seeking an answer to why so many young people are disaffected even to the point of being revolutionaries, it was said: “Because they were taught that way.”10 Or, as noted by columnist Stewart Alsop, writing about his alma mater: “Yale, like every other major college, is graduating scores’ of bright young men … who despise the American political and economic system.”As these “bright young men,” from campuses across the country, seek opportunities to change a system which they have been taught to distrust — if not, indeed “despise” — they seek employment in the centers of the real power and influence in our country, namely: (i) with the news media, especially television; (ii) in government, as “staffers” and consultants at various levels; (iii) in elective politics; (iv) as lecturers and writers, and (v) on the faculties at various levels of education.Many do enter the enterprise system — in business and the professions — and for the most part they quickly discover the fallacies of what they have been taught. But those who eschew the mainstream of the system often remain in key positions of influence where they mold public opinion and often shape governmental action. In many instances, these “intellectuals” end up in regulatory agencies or governmental departments with large authority over the business system they do not believe in.If the foregoing analysis is approximately sound, a priority task of business — and organizations such as the Chamber — is to address the campus origin of this hostility. Few things are more sanctified in American life than academic freedom. It would be fatal to attack this as a principle. But if academic freedom is to retain the qualities of “openness,” “fairness” and “balance” — which are essential to its intellectual significance — there is a great opportunity for constructive action. The thrust of such action must be to restore the qualities just mentioned to the academic communities.What Can Be Done About the CampusThe ultimate responsibility for intellectual integrity on the campus must remain on the administrations and faculties of our colleges and universities. But organizations such as the Chamber can assist and activate constructive change in many ways, including the following:Staff of ScholarsThe Chamber should consider establishing a staff of highly qualified scholars in the social sciences who do believe in the system. It should include several of national reputation whose authorship would be widely respected — even when disagreed with.Staff of SpeakersThere also should be a staff of speakers of the highest competency. These might include the scholars, and certainly those who speak for the Chamber would have to articulate the product of the scholars.Speaker’s BureauIn addition to full-time staff personnel, the Chamber should have a Speaker’s Bureau which should include the ablest and most effective advocates from the top echelons of American business.Evaluation of TextbooksThe staff of scholars (or preferably a panel of independent scholars) should evaluate social science textbooks, especially in economics, political science and sociology. This should be a continuing program.The objective of such evaluation should be oriented toward restoring the balance essential to genuine academic freedom. This would include assurance of fair and factual treatment of our system of government and our enterprise system, its accomplishments, its basic relationship to individual rights and freedoms, and comparisons with the systems of socialism, fascism and communism. Most of the existing textbooks have some sort of comparisons, but many are superficial, biased and unfair.We have seen the civil rights movement insist on re-writing many of the textbooks in our universities and schools. The labor unions likewise insist that textbooks be fair to the viewpoints of organized labor. Other interested citizens groups have not hesitated to review, analyze and criticize textbooks and teaching materials. In a democratic society, this can be a constructive process and should be regarded as an aid to genuine academic freedom and not as an intrusion upon it.If the authors, publishers and users of textbooks know that they will be subjected — honestly, fairly and thoroughly — to review and critique by eminent scholars who believe in the American system, a return to a more rational balance can be expected.Equal Time on the CampusThe Chamber should insist upon equal time on the college speaking circuit. The FBI publishes each year a list of speeches made on college campuses by avowed Communists. The number in 1970 exceeded 100. There were, of course, many hundreds of appearances by leftists and ultra liberals who urge the types of viewpoints indicated earlier in this memorandum. There was no corresponding representation of American business, or indeed by individuals or organizations who appeared in support of the American system of government and business.Every campus has its formal and informal groups which invite speakers. Each law school does the same thing. Many universities and colleges officially sponsor lecture and speaking programs. We all know the inadequacy of the representation of business in the programs.It will be said that few invitations would be extended to Chamber speakers.11 This undoubtedly would be true unless the Chamber aggressively insisted upon the right to be heard — in effect, insisted upon “equal time.” University administrators and the great majority of student groups and committees would not welcome being put in the position publicly of refusing a forum to diverse views, indeed, this is the classic excuse for allowing Communists to speak.The two essential ingredients are (i) to have attractive, articulate and well-informed speakers; and (ii) to exert whatever degree of pressure — publicly and privately — may be necessary to assure opportunities to speak. The objective always must be to inform and enlighten, and not merely to propagandize.Balancing of FacultiesPerhaps the most fundamental problem is the imbalance of many faculties. Correcting this is indeed a long-range and difficult project. Yet, it should be undertaken as a part of an overall program. This would mean the urging of the need for faculty balance upon university administrators and boards of trustees.The methods to be employed require careful thought, and the obvious pitfalls must be avoided. Improper pressure would be counterproductive. But the basic concepts of balance, fairness and truth are difficult to resist, if properly presented to boards of trustees, by writing and speaking, and by appeals to alumni associations and groups.This is a long road and not one for the fainthearted. But if pursued with integrity and conviction it could lead to a strengthening of both academic freedom on the campus and of the values which have made America the most productive of all societies.Graduate Schools of BusinessThe Chamber should enjoy a particular rapport with the increasingly influential graduate schools of business. Much that has been suggested above applies to such schools.Should not the Chamber also request specific courses in such schools dealing with the entire scope of the problem addressed by this memorandum? This is now essential training for the executives of the future.Secondary EducationWhile the first priority should be at the college level, the trends mentioned above are increasingly evidenced in the high schools. Action programs, tailored to the high schools and similar to those mentioned, should be considered. The implementation thereof could become a major program for local chambers of commerce, although the control and direction — especially the quality control — should be retained by the National Chamber.What Can Be Done About the Public?Reaching the campus and the secondary schools is vital for the long-term. Reaching the public generally may be more important for the shorter term. The first essential is to establish the staffs of eminent scholars, writers and speakers, who will do the thinking, the analysis, the writing and the speaking. It will also be essential to have staff personnel who are thoroughly familiar with the media, and how most effectively to communicate with the public. Among the more obvious means are the following:TelevisionThe national television networks should be monitored in the same way that textbooks should be kept under constant surveillance. This applies not merely to so-called educational programs (such as “Selling of the Pentagon”), but to the daily “news analysis” which so often includes the most insidious type of criticism of the enterprise system.12 Whether this criticism results from hostility or economic ignorance, the result is the gradual erosion of confidence in “business” and free enterprise.This monitoring, to be effective, would require constant examination of the texts of adequate samples of programs. Complaints — to the media and to the Federal Communications Commission — should be made promptly and strongly when programs are unfair or inaccurate.Equal time should be demanded when appropriate. Effort should be made to see that the forum-type programs (the Today Show, Meet the Press, etc.) afford at least as much opportunity for supporters of the American system to participate as these programs do for those who attack it.Other MediaRadio and the press are also important, and every available means should be employed to challenge and refute unfair attacks, as well as to present the affirmative case through these media.The Scholarly JournalsIt is especially important for the Chamber’s “faculty of scholars” to publish. One of the keys to the success of the liberal and leftist faculty members has been their passion for “publication” and “lecturing.” A similar passion must exist among the Chamber’s scholars.Incentives might be devised to induce more “publishing” by independent scholars who do believe in the system.There should be a fairly steady flow of scholarly articles presented to a broad spectrum of magazines and periodicals — ranging from the popular magazines (Life, Look, Reader’s Digest, etc.) to the more intellectual ones (Atlantic, Harper’s, Saturday Review, New York, etc.)13 and to the various professional journals.Books, Paperbacks and PamphletsThe news stands — at airports, drugstores, and elsewhere — are filled with paperbacks and pamphlets advocating everything from revolution to erotic free love. One finds almost no attractive, well-written paperbacks or pamphlets on “our side.” It will be difficult to compete with an Eldridge Cleaver or even a Charles Reich for reader attention, but unless the effort is made — on a large enough scale and with appropriate imagination to assure some success — this opportunity for educating the public will be irretrievably lost.Paid AdvertisementsBusiness pays hundreds of millions of dollars to the media for advertisements. Most of this supports specific products; much of it supports institutional image making; and some fraction of it does support the system. But the latter has been more or less tangential, and rarely part of a sustained, major effort to inform and enlighten the American people.If American business devoted only 10% of its total annual advertising budget to this overall purpose, it would be a statesman-like expenditure.The Neglected Political ArenaIn the final analysis, the payoff — short-of revolution — is what government does. Business has been the favorite whipping-boy of many politicians for many years. But the measure of how far this has gone is perhaps best found in the anti-business views now being expressed by several leading candidates for President of the United States.It is still Marxist doctrine that the “capitalist” countries are controlled by big business. This doctrine, consistently a part of leftist propaganda all over the world, has a wide public following among Americans.Yet, as every business executive knows, few elements of American society today have as little influence in government as the American businessman, the corporation, or even the millions of corporate stockholders. If one doubts this, let him undertake the role of “lobbyist” for the business point of view before Congressional committees. The same situation obtains in the legislative halls of most states and major cities. One does not exaggerate to say that, in terms of political influence with respect to the course of legislation and government action, the American business executive is truly the “forgotten man.”Current examples of the impotency of business, and of the near-contempt with which businessmen’s views are held, are the stampedes by politicians to support almost any legislation related to “consumerism” or to the “environment.”Politicians reflect what they believe to be majority views of their constituents. It is thus evident that most politicians are making the judgment that the public has little sympathy for the businessman or his viewpoint.The educational programs suggested above would be designed to enlighten public thinking — not so much about the businessman and his individual role as about the system which he administers, and which provides the goods, services and jobs on which our country depends.But one should not postpone more direct political action, while awaiting the gradual change in public opinion to be effected through education and information. Business must learn the lesson, long ago learned by labor and other self-interest groups. This is the lesson that political power is necessary; that such power must be assidously (sic) cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination — without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.As unwelcome as it may be to the Chamber, it should consider assuming a broader and more vigorous role in the political arena.Neglected Opportunity in the CourtsAmerican business and the enterprise system have been affected as much by the courts as by the executive and legislative branches of government. Under our constitutional system, especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.Other organizations and groups, recognizing this, have been far more astute in exploiting judicial action than American business. Perhaps the most active exploiters of the judicial system have been groups ranging in political orientation from “liberal” to the far left.The American Civil Liberties Union is one example. It initiates or intervenes in scores of cases each year, and it files briefs amicus curiae in the Supreme Court in a number of cases during each term of that court. Labor unions, civil rights groups and now the public interest law firms are extremely active in the judicial arena. Their success, often at business’ expense, has not been inconsequential.This is a vast area of opportunity for the Chamber, if it is willing to undertake the role of spokesman for American business and if, in turn, business is willing to provide the funds.As with respect to scholars and speakers, the Chamber would need a highly competent staff of lawyers. In special situations it should be authorized to engage, to appear as counsel amicus in the Supreme Court, lawyers of national standing and reputation. The greatest care should be exercised in selecting the cases in which to participate, or the suits to institute. But the opportunity merits the necessary effort.Neglected Stockholder PowerThe average member of the public thinks of “business” as an impersonal corporate entity, owned by the very rich and managed by over-paid executives. There is an almost total failure to appreciate that “business” actually embraces — in one way or another — most Americans. Those for whom business provides jobs, constitute a fairly obvious class. But the 20 million stockholders — most of whom are of modest means — are the real owners, the real entrepreneurs, the real capitalists under our system. They provide the capital which fuels the economic system which has produced the highest standard of living in all history. Yet, stockholders have been as ineffectual as business executives in promoting a genuine understanding of our system or in exercising political influence.The question which merits the most thorough examination is how can the weight and influence of stockholders — 20 million voters — be mobilized to support (i) an educational program and (ii) a political action program.Individual corporations are now required to make numerous reports to shareholders. Many corporations also have expensive “news” magazines which go to employees and stockholders. These opportunities to communicate can be used far more effectively as educational media.The corporation itself must exercise restraint in undertaking political action and must, of course, comply with applicable laws. But is it not feasible — through an affiliate of the Chamber or otherwise — to establish a national organization of American stockholders and give it enough muscle to be influential?A More Aggressive AttitudeBusiness interests — especially big business and their national trade organizations — have tried to maintain low profiles, especially with respect to political action.As suggested in the Wall Street Journal article, it has been fairly characteristic of the average business executive to be tolerant — at least in public — of those who attack his corporation and the system. Very few businessmen or business organizations respond in kind. There has been a disposition to appease; to regard the opposition as willing to compromise, or as likely to fade away in due time.Business has shunted confrontation politics. Business, quite understandably, has been repelled by the multiplicity of non-negotiable “demands” made constantly by self-interest groups of all kinds.While neither responsible business interests, nor the United States Chamber of Commerce, would engage in the irresponsible tactics of some pressure groups, it is essential that spokesmen for the enterprise system — at all levels and at every opportunity — be far more aggressive than in the past.There should be no hesitation to attack the Naders, the Marcuses and others who openly seek destruction of the system. There should not be the slightest hesitation to press vigorously in all political arenas for support of the enterprise system. Nor should there be reluctance to penalize politically those who oppose it.Lessons can be learned from organized labor in this respect. The head of the AFL-CIO may not appeal to businessmen as the most endearing or public-minded of citizens. Yet, over many years the heads of national labor organizations have done what they were paid to do very effectively. They may not have been beloved, but they have been respected — where it counts the most — by politicians, on the campus, and among the media.It is time for American business — which has demonstrated the greatest capacity in all history to produce and to influence consumer decisions — to apply their great talents vigorously to the preservation of the system itself.The CostThe type of program described above (which includes a broadly based combination of education and political action), if undertaken long term and adequately staffed, would require far more generous financial support from American corporations than the Chamber has ever received in the past. High level management participation in Chamber affairs also would be required.The staff of the Chamber would have to be significantly increased, with the highest quality established and maintained. Salaries would have to be at levels fully comparable to those paid key business executives and the most prestigious faculty members. Professionals of the great skill in advertising and in working with the media, speakers, lawyers and other specialists would have to be recruited.It is possible that the organization of the Chamber itself would benefit from restructuring. For example, as suggested by union experience, the office of President of the Chamber might well be a full-time career position. To assure maximum effectiveness and continuity, the chief executive officer of the Chamber should not be changed each year. The functions now largely performed by the President could be transferred to a Chairman of the Board, annually elected by the membership. The Board, of course, would continue to exercise policy control.Quality Control is EssentialEssential ingredients of the entire program must be responsibility and “quality control.” The publications, the articles, the speeches, the media programs, the advertising, the briefs filed in courts, and the appearances before legislative committees — all must meet the most exacting standards of accuracy and professional excellence. They must merit respect for their level of public responsibility and scholarship, whether one agrees with the viewpoints expressed or not.Relationship to FreedomThe threat to the enterprise system is not merely a matter of economics. It also is a threat to individual freedom.It is this great truth — now so submerged by the rhetoric of the New Left and of many liberals — that must be re-affirmed if this program is to be meaningful.There seems to be little awareness that the only alternatives to free enterprise are varying degrees of bureaucratic regulation of individual freedom — ranging from that under moderate socialism to the iron heel of the leftist or rightist dictatorship.We in America already have moved very far indeed toward some aspects of state socialism, as the needs and complexities of a vast urban society require types of regulation and control that were quite unnecessary in earlier times. In some areas, such regulation and control already have seriously impaired the freedom of both business and labor, and indeed of the public generally. But most of the essential freedoms remain: private ownership, private profit, labor unions, collective bargaining, consumer choice, and a market economy in which competition largely determines price, quality and variety of the goods and services provided the consumer.In addition to the ideological attack on the system itself (discussed in this memorandum), its essentials also are threatened by inequitable taxation, and — more recently — by an inflation which has seemed uncontrollable.14 But whatever the causes of diminishing economic freedom may be, the truth is that freedom as a concept is indivisible. As the experience of the socialist and totalitarian states demonstrates, the contraction and denial of economic freedom is followed inevitably by governmental restrictions on other cherished rights. It is this message, above all others, that must be carried home to the American people.ConclusionIt hardly need be said that the views expressed above are tentative and suggestive. The first step should be a thorough study. But this would be an exercise in futility unless the Board of Directors of the Chamber accepts the fundamental premise of this paper, namely, that business and the enterprise system are in deep trouble, and the hour is late.Footnotes (Powell’s)Variously called: the “free enterprise system,” “capitalism,” and the “profit system.” The American political system of democracy under the rule of law is also under attack, often by the same individuals and organizations who seek to undermine the enterprise system.Richmond News Leader, June 8, 1970. Column of William F. Buckley, Jr.N.Y. Times Service article, reprinted Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 17, 1971.Stewart Alsop, Yale and the Deadly Danger, Newsweek, May 18. 1970.Editorial, Richmond Times-Dispatch, July 7, 1971.Dr. Milton Friedman, Prof. of Economics, U. of Chicago, writing a foreword to Dr. Arthur A. Shenfield’s Rockford College lectures entitled “The Ideological War Against Western Society,” copyrighted 1970 by Rockford College.Fortune. May, 1971, p. 145. This Fortune analysis of the Nader influence includes a reference to Nader’s visit to a college where he was paid a lecture fee of $2,500 for “denouncing America’s big corporations in venomous language . . . bringing (rousing and spontaneous) bursts of applause” when he was asked when he planned to run for President.The Washington Post, Column of William Raspberry, June 28, 1971.Jeffrey St. John, The Wall Street Journal, May 21, 1971.Barron’s National Business and Financial Weekly, “The Total Break with America, The Fifth Annual Conference of Socialist Scholars,” Sept. 15, 1969.On many campuses freedom of speech has been denied to all who express moderate or conservative viewpoints.It has been estimated that the evening half-hour news programs of the networks reach daily some 50,000,000 Americans.One illustration of the type of article which should not go unanswered appeared in the popular “The New York” of July 19, 1971. This was entitled “A Populist Manifesto” by ultra liberal Jack Newfield — who argued that “the root need in our country is ‘to redistribute wealth’.”The recent “freeze” of prices and wages may well be justified by the current inflationary crisis. But if imposed as a permanent measure the enterprise system will have sustained a near fatal blow.This is the infamous “Powell Memo”. It could hardly be clearer. The sad part here is that millions of American voters are complicit in this attack upon themselves. They’ve been storming the gates of their own little castles for almost forty years now. Wake the hell up!
What do you see the trajectory for US policy and governance? Will the socialist policies get implemented?
The most popular version of socialism in America is with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).Here are some useful definitions:Social Democracy—capitalism that is similar to FDR New Deal Democrat philosophy. Believes in regulation of big business and banks, labor protections, some major industries nationalized, Social Security type retirement and disability benefits, in Europe healthcare and education is free or affordable. Canada and the Nordic nations are Social Democracies. Bernie Sanders subscribes to this. He claims to be a socialist but he isn’t a socialist by any normal definition.Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)—a group of socialists that are not Marxist Leninists. They still believed in a market economy and don’t believe in a planned economy. They favor high taxes to pay for social programs and to provide free education, free healthcare, and other benefits. They favor the nationalization of major industries and smaller businesses and consumer areas ran by worker cooperatives. They do not favor violent revolution. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is a member of the DSA.The past, present, and futureAOC proposed a climate change measure called The Green New Deal. The purpose was to meaningfully mitigate the catastrophic effects of climate change which must be addressed within 12 years or very serious consequences will result. 60% of Americans support climate change legislation. Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against it. 70% of Americans support single payer healthcare. Schumer and Pelosi tabled it.America has been declared an oligarchy by top political scientists. The rich and the corporations own the politicians because they control the two major parties. The parties serve as filters to weed out socialists. AOC and a few other socialists were elected. There are already rumors of Pelosi working to have AOC challenged by another Democrat in the primaries. The Senate was designed as an anti-Democratic force to counter the democratic impulses of the House of Representatives. Madison did not envision people electing Senators. That came later. The supermajority requirement in the Senate is a road block to socialist progress. Even if socialist legislation made it through both houses Trump would veto it. The U.S. Constitution was the most brilliant means of wealth preservation for property owners ever devised. Separating powers dilutes the power of any one democratic body from passing legislation. Madison said that pure democracy couldn’t work because the common people would vote for wealth redistribution, and the founders were rich landowners, and many slaveowners. Women, blacks, and non landowners weren’t permitted to vote.The hippies in the counterculture movement were energized by the atrocities of the Vietnam War. But these hopes were smashed after MLK Jr. was gunned down, and in 1968 the protesters at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago were savagely beaten.The system is larger than single people, and even a generation. The Baby Boomers made progress in the areas of gay rights, women, civil rights, and sex. But the system is very immune to permitting more economic justice. That is when things get violent. As Noam Chomsky said, the elites were fine with MLK Jr. calling out racist Southern sheriffs, but once he started challenging the wealth of the elites, he was murdered. Fred Hampton was a black socialist and one of the leaders of the Black Panther Movement. A collaboration of the FBI with the Chicago Police Department killed him in his bed.Is it hopeless? No. There is hope for some changes. If people are organized and raise class consciousness this helps. If the people could conduct a series of general strikes that would shut down society until changes are made, that would work. But propaganda is used to separate people and divide and conquer. Identity politics does the same thing. It exchanges class struggle for labels. We know from the Standing Rock protests, the Women’s Day protests, Occupy Wall Street, and Black Lives Matter, that protesting with signs doesn’t work. The elites just walk right on by. Only strikes that hurt their wallets get their attention. Teachers have been making headway because their strikes are effective—they have leverage as teachers. But your average unskilled worker in manufacturing has zero leverage. They just move the factory overseas. But again, there is some hope, because fast food workers are not replaceable—yet. So a strike by these workers is helpful.Even if you and I did nothing from now on out, automation is still going to put people out of work and lead to communism. It will take a long time, but it will happen. Technology is already able to do some legal analysis, assist doctors with medical diagnoses, beat Ken Jennings on Jeopardy!, beat Gary Kasparov in chess, and beat the world champion of Go. The growth of these technologies is exponential.By organizing and spreading information we reduce future violence. People that believe other people matter agree to legislation that reduces suffering. Compassion and organizing got us the civil rights legislation that has done much good. There will be at time when people revolt due to automation, but the less resistance there is, the more people will be spared. One thing is certain—the vast number of unemployed aren’t going to watch their children go hungry and be homeless while the rich live in gated communities with extravagant abundance. Humans have a large capacity to take abuse, but this isn’t inexhaustible. The rich are very delusional in that they think they deserve everything they have and that other people simply wanting to live is them being “entitled” and “lazy.”Consider the riots in black communities. People will take a lot, but not forever. There is usually an incident that sparks a riot, and all the pent up anger is released.Thomas Sankara summed it up best:
What are the key takeaways from the SEC ICO guidance issued on April 3, 2019?
What are the key takeaways from the SEC ICO guidance issued on April 3rd 2019?On the surface the SEC’s response to Turnkey Jet’s letter to the SEC of April 2nd 2019, drafted by J.P. Curry Esq. is highly problematic for it implies that a consent decree type agreement is necessary for the issuance of a token initial offering.This is phrased in terms of “the SEC will not recommend enforcement action…” which de-facto grants the SEC powers it does not have under current legislation. This grants the SEC implicit power to approve or better “recommend non enforcement” of undisclosed or non-existent legislative initiatives.This is very similar to the Open Internet Order protocols of 2010, that were initiated by the Federal Communications Commission without legislative authority, and eventually taken down in court subsequent to a multiyear legal challenge. That also means that unless you got Verizon grade legal funds, you have no business innovating in the token space or with blockchain.Explicitly it means nothing.The SEC’s April 3rd letter, in response to Turnkey Jet’s consent letter, as drafted by J.A. Ingram says nothing about its legal authority to intervene in the issuance of its “non enforcement” letter.It is purposefully unforceful since the authority is absent.It’s more of a “consent agree” extorted against the threat of administrative harassment. A serious enough threat, but they are not packing any ammo in the stated opinion.No Action, Interpretive and/or Exemptive Letter of April 3, 2019The SEC April 3rd 2019 “Public Statement”, “Statement on “Framework for ‘Investment Contract’ Analysis of Digital Assets” drafted by B. Hinman Director of Division of Corporate Finance, and by V. Szczepanik, Seniour Advisor for Digital Assets and Innovation, is on the other hand a little clearer as to their authority.Statement on “Framework for ‘Investment Contract’ Analysis of Digital Assets”Clearly stated: “…it may fall within the definition of a security under the US federal securities laws…” Which laws they do not say, for clearly the Securities Law of 1933 did not contemplate the notion of digital goods.Whatever “framework” they offer, would come under the guise of a white paper: Framework for “Investment Contract” Analysis of Digital AssetsThis is based entirely on the Supreme’s Courts Howey Definition from 1946.Regardless of precedent claimed, they are at least being honest about the precedent set:“This framework represents Staff views and is not a rule, regulation, or statement of the Commission. The Commission has neither approved nor disapproved its content. This framework, like other Staff guidance, is not binding on the Divisions or the Commission. It does not constitute legal advice, for which you should consult with your own attorney. It does not modify or replace any existing applicable laws, regulations, or rules. Market participants are encouraged to review all the materials published on FinHub.”End of statement.Explicitly it means nothing but implicitly it gives them power to curtail innovation.Sczczepanik goes further than this. Her statement at SXSW 2019 was that “We would much rather have people come in and ask us before they do something, than do it and ask for forgiveness later…”Forgiveness for what? Either the law specifically bans an activity, or its permissible a priori. If it’s not banned, or legislatively regulated, one is not required to ask permission to conduct business of any conceivable kind. This is an administrative state regulatory capture of the first order, absent any legislative authority.What is critical here is the pseudo consent decree they agreed to as negotiated by Curry Esq. Here is the link for the offending piece: https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/2019/turnkey-jet-040219-2a1-incoming.pdfThis agreement is offensive on many levels. First and foremost on the simple basis that for two and a half millennia of roman jurisprudence, and seven hundred years of English common law thereupon based, the operating principle has been that “everything is permitted unless specifically banned or regulated.”Napoleon’s Code Civil des Francais of 1803, and Bismarck’s Prussian Code of 1873 states that “Everything is forbidden unless specifically allowed by law, regulated by the competent ministry, and permits granted and paid for”.The US would have to ditch the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for such a legal monstrosity to prevail. I think I would know if that had occurred.The short of it is that a digital coin offering is a figment of my imagination, and absent legislation, I am free to do with it as I please. That also extends to the sale, purchase or trade of imaginary pet rocks. I could also theoretically make a market for pet rocks, if it also pleased me.But lets look at the specifics of the Curry “negotiated pseudo consent agreement” that prompted the “no action” letter on the part of the SEC.Token is restricted to (p1): “Token sales cannot be used for platform development”. That means that they cannot be financed via coin issuance, ie a bet on the future value of the coin offering. That restricts financing, specifically to private funds only and bank loans, not VC backed public market accessed risk capital financing. It states “funds will be secured privately”. That means funds invested in technology development and deployment are not subject to leverage or the distribution of risk among different investments.Tokens must be “immediately useful” which means that that all tokens must be in use, or withdrawn. That’s a pseudo escrow account, not a token.Tokens might have a restriction on use limited to “charter flights”. They cannot be used for commercial air travel. That is a severe and restrictive definition of market that does not exist in law. The market is defined geographically for any given service or product (regionally, nationally or globally), for the purposes of anti trust. As written, it's a restraint of trade in the market for business travel, movements of goods, and air travel generally. The SEC has no authority to determine market. Only the Justice Department subject to the Sherman Act specifically and the Anti-Trust generally can make such a determination, if they can prove it in a Court of Law. It’s an administrative grab of somebody else’s turf, that bypasses judicial review.“Repurchases can only be made at a discount”. This is highly problematic because it does not allow the purchaser to get out of the purchase of a service he no longer finds useful. It also perverts the settlement process since the vendor has to negotiate his compensation, after he got nominally paid for services rendered at a given price.This also irrationally prices token supply negatively. The very definition of a property right presupposes the ability to resell the good. If that is gone, its no longer a property right. If its no longer property, then what exactly is it? A travel license subject to SEC review?If it's a pseudo coin (though not legal tender), the money supply is not within the purview of the SEC. The monopoly on the money supply was granted to the Federal Reserve Banking Corporation in 1913. It's a private corporation. If somebody is walking on their legislatively chartered monopoly, its their business, not the SEC’s. A cease and desist letter approved by a Judge is the only requirement if its a coin alternative.If it is not a storage of value, then one should be able to control the “not a coin” token supply, i.e. the volume of tokens in circulation. Absent that, there are either too many coins or too few to transact business.Since tokens must be purchased in advance, and held in escrow 1:1 against future use, there must be a guarantee that use can be made at market rates. If you restrict the ability to buy and sell them, you are at the mercy of the restricted pool of suppliers. Suppliers leaving because they are not happy with their inability to make a market for the token, or who are unhappy with the discount to redeem cash for services rendered, further curtail one’s ability to negotiate a market rate for the services.The inability to use the tokens for anything else other than “charter flights” means the tokens are perfectly illiquid. An illiquid coin with a market purposefully and legislatively restricted to a narrow sub market of the vertical, is sub optimal to the point of no longer being a transactional tool or pseudo coin. Its a captive prepayment mechanism that precludes a services discount against volume or future schedule capture.More critically, the tokens cannot be used as forward financial instruments, because they are not financial instruments. If they are not, it bewilders the mind as to why the SEC is involved in private contractual negotiations.They can only be used “for the immediate purchase of a charter flight”. That means it's a purchase against today’s availability, not tomorrow availability. If they cannot be used to hedge the future price of fuel, availability of equipment, landing rights, or parking slots, gates or personnel, they are not financial instruments. In which case, what has the SEC got to do with my ability to reserve a charter jet for next year’s Davos trip…? (Hehehehehe…).All business is based on one’s ability to efficiently price tomorrow’s needs, both goods and services. This is a pure restraint of trade on the part of a Securities Regulator. The SEC has no business deciding the future allocation of scarce resources by whatever means they are transacted.The non transferability of tokens across other digital domains, results is a mis allocation of technology invested funds. It precludes technology re-use.Domain restrictions are of course possible under Anti Trust, but that is not the legislative authority of the SEC. Regardless, you cannot restrict the applicability of a new technology. Even patent is very clear about this. It's a process, and a process necessarily is restricted to a specific industry. Using the same concept or idea as part of another industry’s process is perfectly permissible under patent law. Overly broad patents are rejected on this very basis. It is the purpose of patent law to restrict it to market process so that it can be re-used in other markets.While the patent is purposefully kept narrow, there is nothing that says that you cannot acquire the knowhow to apply it in another domain. There are no restrictions in law that disallow further investigation and application to other industries. A process patent for a separate domain is what is required, subject of course to a new filing with the PTO.It would seem that this agreement also trumps the PTO’s exclusive on the issuance of patents, and determining their reach.The pseudo consent decree also states unequivocally that the purpose is to reduce transactional fees like wire transfers, and other banking fees. If that were true, why would the agreement require 1:1 dollar deposit into a federally insured bank? Funds are released against escrow. Are escrow services cheaper than a check or a TT Wire transfer?If the tokens can only be exchanged for escrow amounts at a discount to face value, is that not more expensive than a normal banking transaction? If funds must be withdrawn from TokenJet’s bank escrow account, does it not follow that the funds must be wired out within business hours?That makes a mockery of the transactional efficiency and cost arguments being made by TokenJet. Its pure nonsense.P.2 goes further in defining who the customer is by using a novel conception of supplier and customer, that has nothing to do with goods, services or digital transactions: “Brokers and carriers are business entities and cannot be customers…” That of course precludes my ability to buy services from five vendors, assemble my own bill of materials, and sell it on. That is what a brokerage function is. I buy the plane’s time slot, the fuel, the pilot’s time, the cabin crew, the takeoff and landing slots, the ability to file the flight plan and leverage that against my ability to find a customer for that virtual product at any present or future time. A broker in the aviation industry is in fact purchasing goods from multiple other suppliers and brokers and provided he or she has a valid State issued Reseller’s License, he can buy, trade or barter for those goods without having to pay a sales tax on it either.It seems the concept of resell is alien to the folks at the SEC.If a token cannot facilitate the assembly of services rendered, its neither a coin or a service. What remains is the pseudo consent agreement which is nothing more than a restraint of trade. If the flight is not across State lines, it's a restraint of State Rights. If it’s between States, it's a restraint of interstate commerce. The SEC has no business and no authority regulating this.Further, “When a token enters circulation TKJ may freely trade or exchange tokens between wallets”. This is not an accounting function, and there is scant little to audit, especially where triangulation is not permitted by the tax authorities, or a value added tax against services rendered is required. There is no method by which a tax authority can collect what its due if the transaction is settled in one jurisdiction for services rendered in another jurisdiction. The agreement precludes venue for revenue purposes.That of course means that bank escrow capital is not subject to taxation. Yet, its pretty obvious that the decision here is to be made by the Department of Revenue not the SEC.“Platform will eliminate chargebacks” which is fine except that consumer law allows the chargeback in the event that goods or services provided do not meet the contractual stipulation. It is not the SEC’s job to re-write consumer protection rights.“TKJet will be responsible for verifying the validity of the ledger”. Except its not an accounting ledger, so no Generally Accepted Accounting Standards exist. Is the SEC now in the business of setting digital accounting standards also? Regardless the whole point of a block-chain, private or not, is to allow the parties to the transactions to verify transparently all entries in the ledger, and by virtue of distributed verification protocols, guarantee its veracity. In a two participant blockchain, either party can verify that present transactions cannot overwrite previous transactions. If you are required to verify the validity of the ledger, does that give you the right to reverse entries or make journal entries ex post facto? It's a contradiction in terms.On page 3 of the pseudo consent agreement they take this further:”The respective token balances and related activities of each member will not be public…” Then its not a block-chain, distributed or not.Worse yet there is nothing in the block-chain that would allow users to discover the appropriate price points in the market. It does not afford pricing discovery. As such its not a public market for services or products, but a private contractual domain where the information asymmetry is owned and leveraged by the stock holders only. If its not a public market where pricing discovery and trade is allowed, its not a public market, and as such its not subject to SEC review in any form. This agreement is an SEC attempt to regulate private contracts between willing participants. The State has no authority to regulate perfectly legal contracts between business and individuals, never mind the SEC.“TKJ will allow any and all brokers to be members because of anti trust legal concerns…” A monopoly position or absence thereof, is not for the “offender” to prove or disporove. It’s for the Justice Department to make a case, and for them to prosecute said claimed violations in Court subject to defendant’s legal recourse. Again, the SEC has no business regulating monopolies or even considering market impact of business trade agreements.P.4: “TKJ is obligated to release token escrow funds to broker or carrier…” In which case it's a pre-paid business service, subject to normal contractual practice. Absent is the ability to negotiate discount against volume purchase or pre-payment. It's a pure restraint of trade and a restraint of the ability to privately contract services in whatever manner one pleases.It also implies that contract structure, is subject to banking regulation generally, and by securities regulators specifically. That implies that the financial regulator is the only party that can arbitrate digital contract terms, and their disposition in the event of a contract dispute. It takes the Sovereign Court out of the contract enforcement business, and hands it over the SEC.This also introduces another problem. Failure to fully comply with the stated digital contract terms, does not entitle the defrauded party from not paying for partial services rendered, or returning goods not to contract terms. This agreement entitles the receiving party to claim that even a partial failure to meet agreed to terms, entitles them to withdraw total payment. Its either or, and the purchasing party has full power to decline payment on the simple basis that a comma is out of place. That is worse than a traditional letter of credit that requires thirty days to clear, where the slightest clerical error guarantees extensive delays and negotiations.We are back to a 1970’s financial instrument transmitted via Telex bank to bank.On page 4 it further insists the blockchain would be “…no different than currently employed business jet card programs”. But discounts are not permitted against settlement. Does that mean that only the SEC can regulate airline miles rebate programs? Or are those illegal now too? Is the SEC making the Justice Department’s case on their behalf, that airline miles and hotel rebates are a private bribe to the detriment of the corporation paying for said services? Legitimate case to be made, but its not the SEC’s case to make.On page 5, the logic further stretches incredulity. “Only consumers will be able to purchase tokens…” That of course means that a private contractor in the airline industry will not be able to settle all the transactions necessary to organize a flight, and sell their logistical skills to the highest bidder. Perhaps the SEC is unaware that all product is a BOM. And I am certain that they probably do not even know what that means, which is why they should not interfere with normal contractually agreed business transactions.In an industry where costs and revenue are calculated on the basis of time travelled, the agreement states “The tokens will not reprensent a TKJ obligation to supply a specified number of flight hours…” Airplanes like ships do not have mile odometers, they have time odometers, as in “how many hours are on that engine…?” Again, this is what happens when securities lawyers improvise themselves as business consultants with no vertical experience or training.“In compliance with banking Know Your Customer rules” … “any transfer of funds above US$10,000 must be reported” which I assume, means that the TKJ service provider is now a banking agent with legal reporting requirements. That implies that if my trip to Davos costs more than 10k, the SEC needs to know about it, or the travel agent, sorry the block-chain owner is subject to money laundering violations of law.The agreement specifies that only a customer can purchase the token. Then it goes to specify that the actual person flying is the customer. Does that not imply that a corporation cannot purchase said tokens with no idea who will eventually fly in the jet? The agreement strictly enforces the notion that the consumer is the flyer, not the corporation purchasing the service. This of course ignores that the beneficiaries are on the flight manifest, not on the contracted service. One answers to the contract the other to the TSA. And yet the consent decree enforces “all users must submit to CFR1540.107”And with that the SEC is doing Department of Homeland Security enforcement.Yes, the SEC consent agreement specifically states that “TKJ will follow the Patriot Act… and report any purchases above $10k”. Are there travel restrictions under law? Is freedom of movement no longer law? A flight plan and passenger manifest is mandatory. What does the SEC have to do with the purchase or brokerage of corporate jet travel restricted singularly to purchase by the actual flyer only…?!Page 8 further restricts the purchase, in so far as it “cannot be made in the expectation of profit”. Fine, but if I pre-book my trip to Davos a year in advance, will I not get a substantial price reduction versus buying it the day Davos Week opens? Does that mean that the expectation of future savings is a profit center and should be regulated like buying a pork future six months out on the Chicago Board of Trade?Buying when goods are not scarce, or reserving future production when its useful to you, is what profit is entirely predicated on. Will the individual flying have to prove to the SEC that he did not intend to profit from the early reservation of the jet when clearly buying passage same day would have been more expensive…?!The agreement is completely absurd. Future contracting for services, flight hours in the appropriately contracted private jet, has absolutely nothing to do with the Howey Test devised by the Supreme Court for an entirely different matter.A financial instrument is a property right. There are no property rights being transacted here. The property rights are transferred to TKJ subject to bank escrow and are not refundable. There are no financial instruments to track because the token gives you none.Under current law a reservation of passage on an aircraft is not a legal right, never mind a property right.When you purchase the token you simply surrender all your contractual rights to travel, to the SEC. The agreement presumes all services rendered are subject to banking and security controls. And since the profit motive is banned, it follows that the only beneficiary to the transaction is the capital holder as regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.If I was a shareholder in the Federal Reserve Bank I would tell the SEC they need to take better aim when pissing in the night pot.And that’s my story and I am sticking to it.Thanks for the ask always a pleasure!
- Home >
- Catalog >
- Miscellaneous >
- Cover Letter Examples >
- Cover Letter Format Examples >
- Cover Letter With Salary Requirements >
- salary requirements answer >
- Chicago Department Of Business And Consumer Protection