Ha, ha, ha!, so many arguments against an absurd statement that I never made.

I never said that brokers (and the transactions they intermediate) need to be eliminated.

In my previous reply "My honor, Mr. Anastasiu!", I wrote:

"But will he succeed (our note - Sobolewski) in ordering brokers to abandon the monopoly of their transactions, to allow direct transactions between citizens?"

The meaning is clear: "to abandon the monopoly of their trades" does not mean that brokers should commit suicide, but that the direct trades, unintermediated (for unlisted companies, or for those issued by those companies that were forcefully listed, that have concluded no agreements with the registrar/depositor or companies that have been hanging around for no reason at all, on the Rasdaq, which have only seem 2-3 trades in all that time - thousands of companies were in that situation and still are).

Mr. Anastasiu, aside from the fact that I have persistently and clearly presented by ideas for years, starting with 1995 (and as a result, it's not normal for you not to know what I stand for), in the comments to the article which appeared the day before yesterday (comments which you have read and to which you are responding today), there is also the clarification, addressed to Doru Nicolaescu: "that means that the existent informal market operating around the organized and regulated markets is not forbidden.

That is what is really important!

What I am not sure that you (our note - Doru Nicolaescu) have ever said, is the relationship that should exist between the natural, informal and the regulated markets.

I doubt it has ever been said that the informal market feeds the regulated market, just like the roots bring the sap to the trunk.

I don't think I've ever claimed that without the natural market, the regulated markets would wither and