Comments on: Barter: Radio Stations Are Aggressive Traders

By: Matthew Humphreys

Matthew Humphreys — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:06:19 +0000

I completely agree with Jack’s approach as long as you have his integrity and business expertise.

The reason it won’t work for most barter exchanges is their total ignorance relating to barter economics and the mis-management of their own currency. Without banking laws as they would relate to the barter industry, we continue to see ridiculous decision making by trade exchange owners. They buy what they want when they want it with little to no regard for the economic value of their currency and how that affects their membership. Like locusts, we see them pop-up all around us as anyone can start a trade exchange.

If every barter broker had to be bonded and insured, we would see a much more viable barter system in America with a currency that members could count on. Then, Jack’s media model and the correct management therein would create a dynamic reality for every barter exchange in the country.

By: Andrew Pludek

Andrew Pludek — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:09:09 +0000

I am sorry Matthew, but that’s the same kind of addle headed nanny state thinking that allowed all of the worlds Stock exchanges to be melted down into a very few giant exchanges with one set of rules governing practically all of them, i.e SEC.

Yes individual trade exchanges may make idiotic or even criminal decisions from time to time and some people are going to be affected by their own bad luck or bad business practices but the overall market place will not be affected.

If you impose from above a set of universal rules then three things happen. One, the freedom of choice is narrowed. Two the opportunity for a criminal opportunist to rape the market place is actually enhanced not, as some would believe, reduced. I rest my case on Enron et al on that score, and finally Three the opportunity for fraud on a large scale induced by the supposed antifraud organisation guarded by the new “priesthood’ is also enhanced.

Talk about unintended consequences of good intentions.

I refer to the Real estate marketplace as the epitome in my last example. The Realtor system does nothing to discourage criminality. It actually makes it harder to get rid of bad agents.

I am involved in Evalues because it allows me an independant operator to make my own decisions regarding how I do business. Any more rules just becomes Restraint of Trade; illegal in many jurisdictions.

By: Matthew Humphreys

Matthew Humphreys — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:06:48 +0000

The comparison Andrew Pludek makes to the world stock markets and the SEC as it relates to the almost non-existent barter industry in the USA is laughable. Can we all just admit the truth about our business for once?

In the USA, barter exchanges do not register much in the mainstream business marketplace because any convicted felon or derelict can pay for software support and instantly, launch a barter operation.

Lots of FREEDOM with NO RESPONSIBILITY preying on the innocent with no rules or risk to the predator.

To sell stocks, bonds and investments, you have to study an extreme amount of information, pass the difficult exam and follow the laws that govern that industry.

I’m grateful that my investments are protected at this level. Real Estate not nearly as tedious but is also governed to a level that most people are protected.

There are always thieves to watch out for but in the barter industry, it’s an epidemic problem that could be resolved with MINOR requirements.

It’s only an idea but if you disagree, at least have the intelligence to make a reasonable comparison.