NYSE Myth of May 17, 1792 [for Vyas]

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the clarification. Brilliant, in fact ! All the best, JOHNVyas Munidas <muni> wrote: Dear John,I don't think that the natal data is a waste of time for serious astrology - certainly the opposite is true.However if we consider Gold as a prime example, I think it would be near impossible to find a natal chart. My approach is a simple one:- predict mass psychology by understanding the condition of the planets and the signs they sit in.The planets exert their influence and it reflects in physically measurable ways here on the Earth. One may use a barometer, thermometer and also measure the positive-negative ion ratio in NY to gauge the sentiment. Changes

in these physically measurabe variables are mirrored in mass psychology. This is scientifically documented. I personally have experience with this and was astounded to see it in action. This made me realize that the theoretical application of sound principles can predict the same without need for physical measurement.Sometimes when things don't fit into the paradigms we are used to, we have to step back and consider the possibility that there is more to it and different angles of approach. I believe that SA is founded on such pioneering and research. Keep what works, refine it and throw out what doesn't after rigourous testing.Best regards,Vyas Munidas- "JohnTWB" <first_july_1776<SAMVA >Friday, May 19, 2006 2:12 PMRe: The NYSE Myth of May 17, 1792> Hi

Vyas,>> You and David and Sally and Chuck are conducting a very important > investigation underway, regarding exchange trading and astrological > prediction.>> All the more credible too for not discussing some one or another radix > for the NYSE's May 17, 1792, its proclaimed birthday of dubious choice. > For fear that I may have been misunderstood: I summarize, "The date is a > waste of time for serious astrology".>> My post is only a small sampling of a much larger file devoted to this > question.>> I hope some one in this group will study the radix possibilities for > September 1, 1791 and come up with a chart to defend on SAMVA principles, > however tentatively.>> Be that as it may.>> Cheers,>> JOHN>> Vyas Munidas <muni> wrote:>

You and Mr Jorge Angelino are research machines.>>>> Best regards,>> Vyas Munidas>>>> - > "JohnTWB" <first_july_1776> <samva >> Friday, May 19, 2006 1:37 PM> The NYSE Myth of May 17, 1792>>>>>> THE MYTH OF MAY 17, 1792>>>> The actual birth of New York City's first public securities exchange>> association took place on September 01, 1791 [as further discussed in the>> following section]. This 1791 event constitutes the actual birth of the>> precursor of what became, in registered name, the "NYSE", on January 29,>> 1863. This 1791 birth event arrived 9 months earlier, and in telling>> contrast to the more limited and nefarious purposed May 17, 1792 "Under>>

the Buttonwood" event, which event has been celebrated, and unstintingly>> promoted, by NYSE House historians as "The NYSE Birthday." So too has >> this>> potted history been widely acknowledged as such among most if not all>> financial astrologers. Americans seem addicted to their own home-grown>> mythologies. As if this never published May 17, 1792 price-fixing scheme,>> illegal under the laws of the State of NewYork of 1792, might ever be>> compared favorably to the relative comprehensiveness of the 14 >> resolutions>> formalized by the Stock Dealers' Association's>> published Broadside of September 01, 1791. Even a cursory comparative>> review, if only of the form of the two documents, should confirm the>> actual nature of the Buttonwood event as nothing more than a partisan and>> illegal get-rich-quick scheme connived in by New York

Federalist Party>> cronies of Alexander Hamilton, all feeding and fattening at the public>> trough. The backers and heirs of the September 1st Exchange Association>> finally at long last regained control of what became in 1820 New York>> City's first in-house stock exchange, as evidenced by the Constitution of>> February 21, 1820, which they sponsored. This Constitution was not >> amended>> until March 1902; it remains in force today, notwithstanding further>> amending fostered by the rise of federal regulations from 1935 and after.>>>> STOCKS DEALERS' GOVERNANCE, 14 RULES ADOPTED: New York City, September>> 01, 1791>>>> From the start, New York was the center of speculation and active>> trading. Initially, securities were sold at public indoor and outdoor>> auctions. Following on Alexander Hamilton's Treasury

Department policy>> measures on debt [= "stocks"], and the Bank of the United States, the>> increasing volumes of stocks trading undoubtedly attracted new players>> into these fledgling markets --- auctioneers, brokers, dealers, and>> investors. Increasing trading activity and more market players created >> new>> problems of trust and the honoring of contracts, even in this very small>> town that was the Wall Street community in the 1790s. Since the >> securities>> business was relatively new, the legal status of the business was >> unclear.>> Given these circumstances, groups of players soon considered ways to>> regulate themselves. One such group met at the Merchants Coffee House>> "agreed to be governed" by a set of 14 Trading Rules of Practice, first>> put forth by the group's leading dealers, brokers, and>> auctioneers,

who signed a publishable broadside on a Thursday, September>> 01, 1791. These were market practice Rules as standards governing stock>> trading by its members that were later printed and distributed for the>> public record, in broadside documentary form.>>>> More specifically: the 14 Rules of Governance dealt practically with >> such>> operating matters as contract enforcement and the provision of sanctions>> for events of default on traded contracts. Moreover, the Rules appear to>> have embodied what was then understood to be the functional separation of>> brokers from dealers/jobbers, standardized by British auctions practice.>> For example, one Rule prohibits the auctioneer from trading for his own>> account, a prohibition observed in the industry trading practice today.>> However, a number of other practices were to prove subsequently

without>> lasting institutional effect, because the typical volumes traded during>> this early period of economic development had not yet reached a minimum>> threshold of activity necessary to sustain them over the long run, Local>> markets' practice in a number of ways eventually reverted to a former>> pattern. Within just a decade, one Wall Street market leader since long>> forgotten by history, Nathaniel Prime>> [that's the Mr. "Prime" of the eponymous bankers' "Prime" Rate] acted as>> both dealer/jobber and broker in Wall Street stock trading. Acting at>> variance with the British practice, Mr. Prime combined the two functions,>> which the experts tell us carries the benefits of added liquidity to thin>> markets, which was the chronic condition of these markets during this>> period in American history.>>>> [P.S.: The

establishment of New York City's Stock Dealers Association is>> formally recorded in the original copy of the 14 adopted Resolutions of>> that day, published as the September 01, 1791 Broadside, long since>> archived. See the facsimile reproduced in Walter Werner & Steven T. >> Smith,>> WALL STREET [(New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1991), see appendix C, pp.>> 190-191], and by the way, a misleadingly entitled book this turns out to>> be, given the scholarly nature of the summarization of Werner's rigorous>> appraisals of the historiography of early American corporations. Also >> see:>> Stuart Banner, who has maintained that the Association's Broadside is the>> historic first evidence of self-regulation by stock traders in America, >> in>> his ANGLO-AMERICAN SECURITIES REGULATION: Cultural and Political Roots,>> 1690-1860

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 250-51.]>>>> [P.S.: Modern histories of Wall Street and the Stock Exchange appear to>> skate by the small-bone facts of record, the historical detail often>> relevant to the interests of mundane astrologers. So especially to be>> recommended as indispensible, these two classic historical reference>> works: [01] Edmund C.Stedman, THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE (1905), in >> which>> pp. 63-66 one finds a transcript of the, long thought lost irretrievably,>> preliminary Constitution of 1817 (over its 3 years life found unworkable;>> the original recovered from the attic of a private residence in Newark,>> NJ, in 1900, 118 years later. And in which pp. 495-507 one finds the >> March>> 1902, Constitution and Rules for the Government of the NEW YORK STOCK>> EXCHANGE. This constitution, the

last major revisions for the NYSE, >> before>> the Rules of the Game were nationalized by the Securities and Exchange >> Act>> of 1935 in the aftermath of the horrific 1929 market crash. (And 82 years>> after the establishment of the stile: NEW>> YORK STOCK EXCANGE.] Also: [02] Francis L. Eames, THE NEW YORK STOCK>> EXCHANGE (1894), in which pp. 13-16 one finds a facsimile of the>> Buttonwood Agreement of May 17,1792; and in which pp. 19-26, the>> transcript of the Constitution of the New York Stock and Exchange Board,>> February 21, 1820.>>>>>> >> Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just>> 2¢/min with Messenger with Voice.>>>>

[Guest guest]

You are too kind.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Vyas Munidas

 

 

 

-

" JohnTWB " <first_july_1776

<SAMVA >

Friday, May 19, 2006 4:49 PM

Re: NYSE Myth of May 17, 1792 [for Vyas]

 

 

> Thanks for the clarification.

>

> Brilliant, in fact !

>

>

> All the best,

>

> JOHN

>

> Vyas Munidas <muni> wrote:

> Dear John,

>

> I don't think that the natal data is a waste of time for serious

> astrology -

> certainly the opposite is true.

>

> However if we consider Gold as a prime example, I think it would be near

> impossible to find a natal chart. My approach is a simple one:- predict

> mass

> psychology by understanding the condition of the planets and the signs

> they

> sit in.

>

> The planets exert their influence and it reflects in physically measurable

> ways here on the Earth. One may use a barometer, thermometer and also

> measure the positive-negative ion ratio in NY to gauge the sentiment.

> Changes in these physically measurabe variables are mirrored in mass

> psychology. This is scientifically documented. I personally have

> experience

> with this and was astounded to see it in action. This made me realize that

> the theoretical application of sound principles can predict the same

> without

> need for physical measurement.

>

> Sometimes when things don't fit into the paradigms we are used to, we have

> to step back and consider the possibility that there is more to it and

> different angles of approach. I believe that SA is founded on such

> pioneering and research. Keep what works, refine it and throw out what

> doesn't after rigourous testing.

>

>

> Best regards,

>

> Vyas Munidas

>

>

>

> -

> " JohnTWB " <first_july_1776

> <SAMVA >

> Friday, May 19, 2006 2:12 PM

> Re: The NYSE Myth of May 17, 1792

>

>

>> Hi Vyas,

>>

>> You and David and Sally and Chuck are conducting a very important

>> investigation underway, regarding exchange trading and astrological

>> prediction.

>>

>> All the more credible too for not discussing some one or another radix

>> for the NYSE's May 17, 1792, its proclaimed birthday of dubious choice.

>> For fear that I may have been misunderstood: I summarize, " The date is a

>> waste of time for serious astrology " .

>>

>> My post is only a small sampling of a much larger file devoted to this

>> question.

>>

>> I hope some one in this group will study the radix possibilities for

>> September 1, 1791 and come up with a chart to defend on SAMVA principles,

>> however tentatively.

>>

>> Be that as it may.

>>

>> Cheers,

>>

>> JOHN

>>

>> Vyas Munidas <muni> wrote:

>> You and Mr Jorge Angelino are research machines.

>>

>>

>>

>> Best regards,

>>

>> Vyas Munidas

>>

>>

>>

>> -

>> " JohnTWB " <first_july_1776

>> <samva >

>> Friday, May 19, 2006 1:37 PM

>> The NYSE Myth of May 17, 1792

>>

>>

>>>

>>> THE MYTH OF MAY 17, 1792

>>>

>>> The actual birth of New York City's first public securities exchange

>>> association took place on September 01, 1791 [as further discussed in

>>> the

>>> following section]. This 1791 event constitutes the actual birth of the

>>> precursor of what became, in registered name, the " NYSE " , on January 29,

>>> 1863. This 1791 birth event arrived 9 months earlier, and in telling

>>> contrast to the more limited and nefarious purposed May 17, 1792 " Under

>>> the Buttonwood " event, which event has been celebrated, and unstintingly

>>> promoted, by NYSE House historians as " The NYSE Birthday. " So too has

>>> this

>>> potted history been widely acknowledged as such among most if not all

>>> financial astrologers. Americans seem addicted to their own home-grown

>>> mythologies. As if this never published May 17, 1792 price-fixing

>>> scheme,

>>> illegal under the laws of the State of NewYork of 1792, might ever be

>>> compared favorably to the relative comprehensiveness of the 14

>>> resolutions

>>> formalized by the Stock Dealers' Association's

>>> published Broadside of September 01, 1791. Even a cursory comparative

>>> review, if only of the form of the two documents, should confirm the

>>> actual nature of the Buttonwood event as nothing more than a partisan

>>> and

>>> illegal get-rich-quick scheme connived in by New York Federalist Party

>>> cronies of Alexander Hamilton, all feeding and fattening at the public

>>> trough. The backers and heirs of the September 1st Exchange Association

>>> finally at long last regained control of what became in 1820 New York

>>> City's first in-house stock exchange, as evidenced by the Constitution

>>> of

>>> February 21, 1820, which they sponsored. This Constitution was not

>>> amended

>>> until March 1902; it remains in force today, notwithstanding further

>>> amending fostered by the rise of federal regulations from 1935 and

>>> after.

>>>

>>> STOCKS DEALERS' GOVERNANCE, 14 RULES ADOPTED: New York City, September

>>> 01, 1791

>>>

>>> From the start, New York was the center of speculation and active

>>> trading. Initially, securities were sold at public indoor and outdoor

>>> auctions. Following on Alexander Hamilton's Treasury Department policy

>>> measures on debt [= " stocks " ], and the Bank of the United States, the

>>> increasing volumes of stocks trading undoubtedly attracted new players

>>> into these fledgling markets --- auctioneers, brokers, dealers, and

>>> investors. Increasing trading activity and more market players created

>>> new

>>> problems of trust and the honoring of contracts, even in this very small

>>> town that was the Wall Street community in the 1790s. Since the

>>> securities

>>> business was relatively new, the legal status of the business was

>>> unclear.

>>> Given these circumstances, groups of players soon considered ways to

>>> regulate themselves. One such group met at the Merchants Coffee House

>>> " agreed to be governed " by a set of 14 Trading Rules of Practice, first

>>> put forth by the group's leading dealers, brokers, and

>>> auctioneers, who signed a publishable broadside on a Thursday, September

>>> 01, 1791. These were market practice Rules as standards governing stock

>>> trading by its members that were later printed and distributed for the

>>> public record, in broadside documentary form.

>>>

>>> More specifically: the 14 Rules of Governance dealt practically with

>>> such

>>> operating matters as contract enforcement and the provision of sanctions

>>> for events of default on traded contracts. Moreover, the Rules appear to

>>> have embodied what was then understood to be the functional separation

>>> of

>>> brokers from dealers/jobbers, standardized by British auctions practice.

>>> For example, one Rule prohibits the auctioneer from trading for his own

>>> account, a prohibition observed in the industry trading practice today.

>>> However, a number of other practices were to prove subsequently without

>>> lasting institutional effect, because the typical volumes traded during

>>> this early period of economic development had not yet reached a minimum

>>> threshold of activity necessary to sustain them over the long run, Local

>>> markets' practice in a number of ways eventually reverted to a former

>>> pattern. Within just a decade, one Wall Street market leader since long

>>> forgotten by history, Nathaniel Prime

>>> [that's the Mr. " Prime " of the eponymous bankers' " Prime " Rate] acted as

>>> both dealer/jobber and broker in Wall Street stock trading. Acting at

>>> variance with the British practice, Mr. Prime combined the two

>>> functions,

>>> which the experts tell us carries the benefits of added liquidity to

>>> thin

>>> markets, which was the chronic condition of these markets during this

>>> period in American history.

>>>

>>> [P.S.: The establishment of New York City's Stock Dealers Association

>>> is

>>> formally recorded in the original copy of the 14 adopted Resolutions of

>>> that day, published as the September 01, 1791 Broadside, long since

>>> archived. See the facsimile reproduced in Walter Werner & Steven T.

>>> Smith,

>>> WALL STREET [(New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1991), see appendix C, pp.

>>> 190-191], and by the way, a misleadingly entitled book this turns out to

>>> be, given the scholarly nature of the summarization of Werner's rigorous

>>> appraisals of the historiography of early American corporations. Also

>>> see:

>>> Stuart Banner, who has maintained that the Association's Broadside is

>>> the

>>> historic first evidence of self-regulation by stock traders in America,

>>> in

>>> his ANGLO-AMERICAN SECURITIES REGULATION: Cultural and Political Roots,

>>> 1690-1860 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 250-51.]

>>>

>>> [P.S.: Modern histories of Wall Street and the Stock Exchange appear to

>>> skate by the small-bone facts of record, the historical detail often

>>> relevant to the interests of mundane astrologers. So especially to be

>>> recommended as indispensible, these two classic historical reference

>>> works: [01] Edmund C.Stedman, THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE (1905), in

>>> which

>>> pp. 63-66 one finds a transcript of the, long thought lost

>>> irretrievably,

>>> preliminary Constitution of 1817 (over its 3 years life found

>>> unworkable;

>>> the original recovered from the attic of a private residence in Newark,

>>> NJ, in 1900, 118 years later. And in which pp. 495-507 one finds the

>>> March

>>> 1902, Constitution and Rules for the Government of the NEW YORK STOCK

>>> EXCHANGE. This constitution, the last major revisions for the NYSE,

>>> before

>>> the Rules of the Game were nationalized by the Securities and Exchange

>>> Act

>>> of 1935 in the aftermath of the horrific 1929 market crash. (And 82

>>> years

>>> after the establishment of the stile: NEW

>>> YORK STOCK EXCANGE.] Also: [02] Francis L. Eames, THE NEW YORK STOCK

>>> EXCHANGE (1894), in which pp. 13-16 one finds a facsimile of the

>>> Buttonwood Agreement of May 17,1792; and in which pp. 19-26, the

>>> transcript of the Constitution of the New York Stock and Exchange Board,

>>> February 21, 1820.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just

>>> 2¢/min with Messenger with Voice.

>>

>>

>>

>>