The financial industry objects strongly to the rule because they believe it would negatively influence their ability to give advice to clients who cannot pay for it because agent income could only derive from the financial instruments they sell, so agents might decline servicing such clients.
I'm sorry, huh? What is there problem with it?
It would negatively influence their ability to give advice to clients who cannot pay for their advice? Or cannot pay for the recommendation of the advice?
The regulation requires that agents make potential remuneration to themselves a secondary rather than primary consideration. Their client's best interests should be kept first and foremost. It's intended to prevent the abuses that occur when agents sell investment vehicles that make them a lot of money without regard to their client's financial well being. Look up boiler room.
If that still doesn't make sense then maybe I'm not explaining it well enough. It was just in the news over the past few days so there should be little difficultly looking up news articles that explain it better than I can. Try this one: Labor Department may seek delay of fiduciary rule: report
Thanks for the link, there was another link in there that explained the concern from the advisors point of view (sorry, I've been really busy and not really paying attention to the news).
I can't tell if that line of thought is disingenuous or not, though.
In one sense, I get where I might want my financial advisor to *not* take my best interest as a first priority - which is when I want to gamble. I would be a little pissed if I asked him for advice on a gamble and he could only reply: "Sorry, by law I can only inform you that gambling on this is not in your best interest." And then if I was like: 'Dude, I'll pay you for your opinion on this one", and then he had to reply: "Sorry, that's illegal", then, yeah, that would be pretty annoying.
I get the idea against the boiler room stuff, that's a no brainer.
I think probably most people share my own reaction to this of, "The maple syrup comment makes no sense, and DrJones* wasn't implying anything like that anyway."
And yet they just posted that if there are 10 people and one Nazi then you have 11 Nazis. And then, apparently, you can get started with the punching.
I'm going to clarify further::
Up-front disclosure: I don't support the alt-right. This is just a point of principle.
That point is: A terrible group, in this case neo-nazis, joining your side in something does not make you a member of that group and does not make your side automatically wrong.
On top of that, you shouldn't advocate violence against a person just because you think they are a member of a group, even if it is neo-nazis - you could be wrong and violence isn't the answer.
So, to further clarify I'm going to use Arnold Schwarzenegger's message to Trump about this. Have you seen it?
The Governator writes:
There are not two sides to bigotry. There are not two sides to hatred. And if you choose to march with a flag that symbolizes the slaughter of millions of people, there are not two sides.
I agree. But if some asshole decides to bring that flag to a march I want to participate in for different reasons, then there actually is more than one side.
They'd be choosing to march with me, I didn't choose to march with them.
The Governator writes:
Don't hang around people who carry Nazi flags, give Nazi salutes, or shout Nazi slogans. Go home. Or better yet - tell them they are wrong to celebrate an ideology that murdered millions of people. And then go home.
If I'm marching for something, then I don't want to be at home. Just because some asshole with a flag shows up doesn't mean I should stop. Consider some neo-nazis showing up to a BLM protest against the police because they agreed - would you expect the BLM protesters to go home?
If I was marching, I would yell at a nazi-flag-bearer, and tell them to fuck off and get the fuck out. But I wouldn't go home if it was something that I thought was worth marching for (more disclosure: practically, that is nothing that I think is actually plausible). I wouldn't punch anybody that didn't AssaultMewhich is loaded and complex - and beside the point, though, and I don't think anyone should advocate otherwise.
I'm on board for "leaving the terrible ghosts of the past in the trash heap of history", but I think that we shouldn't bury our trash and forget about it - and tearing old monuments down is stupid. But that is not something I'm worth marching for. And cities can do what they want with their shit. But the calls for violence need to stop.
Hrm, what do you think about this:
If thinking that a person is a nazi means that you are justified in punching them, then wouldn't that make calling someone a nazi a punch-able offense? Especially if you're wrong about them? If people thinking that I'm a nazi means that I'm gonna start getting punched, then if you started calling me a nazi I would feel justified in starting to punch you in defense. Isn't that fair?
Yeah, how about we just don't start any punching? And how about we all stop advocating violence against people that we think are members of a group?
Martin Luther King in Strength to Love writes:
Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.
You're advocating violence against what you think are nazis - because you dislike what they're saying.
Yes the people who showed up chanting "blood and soil" and "jews will not replace us" whilst carrying flags with swastikas on them were just having a laugh. To paraphrase something Chris Rock tweeted the other day "if you have 10 guys who think it's ok to hang out with 1 nazi, you have 11 nazis."
So therefore, logically: If you are marching for something, and people show up agreeing with you that are carrying nazi flags and chanting naughty words, then that makes you a nazi too and I am justified in punching you if you do not leave?
My question is whether or not there was a reason they would want to march with you? And then thinking what reason would you have had to march with this Charlotteville group instead of against it?
Well, I thinks it is stupid to tear down old statues. And I don't give a shit if some asshole also thinks that.
But what would be your "different reason" here, in this case?
The stated reason for the protest was not tearing a statue down. If some assholes show up to display their anti-semitism, that doesn't mean I have to no longer want to preserve the statue.
Perhaps you might be talking about something else like Stopping A Pipeline?
Hadn't thought of it, but let me use that to further illustrate my point:
The natives were protesting the pipeline. Say some neo-nazis show up who also do not want the pipeline and stand with the natives. Some leftists are saying that makes the natives neo-nazis as well. I don't agree. Other leftists would present two choices to the natives: 1. Just leave - I don't think they should have to stop fighting against the pipeline. 2. Join the other side - I don't think they should have to start supporting the pipeline.
I think they also have the option of ignoring the neo-nazis, or telling them to fuck off, and then just keep doing what they're doing.
The problem is that leftists will start calling them NAZIS and think it is okay to start punching them.
That is unacceptable.
There are, actually, more than two sides in that situation.