George Matyjewicz wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, an association like eCTA doesn't carry much weight
> > > unless it is licensed, like the Bar Association,
> >
> >We in the US do not have a choice but to deal with licensed lawyers.
> >What? There's a bunch of unlicensed lawyers sitting around out there
> >waiting for business to come their way? We don't have any choice in
> >the matter because of the government. That's why the ABA has weight.
> >It's legally taken choice away from us here in the US.
>
> Yes. They are called Paralegals and are legal in many
> states. And they are called accountants or tax preparers, rather
> than CPAs. The difference is if you want to deal with the court
> you need a lawyer, or with investors you need a CPA.
>
> >Licenses are just an anti-competition thing. They certainly don't
> >mean you're good at what you do as lawyers, doctors and pipefitters
> >have demonstrated over and over again.
>
> How else does one evaluate a professional?
Most evaluate any *licensed* "professional" the same way you evaluate
any *unlicensed* "professional". By paste performance via
recommendations.
How do you evaluate a professional?
> >Why should anybody pay a government for permission to work? That
> >doesn't make any sense, George. It's rediculous concept.
>
> Who is suggesting paying for permission to work? Licensing can
> be an education issue. CPAs are licensed by the state board of
> education, not the government.
You're saying that a state board of education is not the government?
> >If money changers should be licensed, why shouldn't private money
> >producing companies be required to be license by the government?
>
> Who said they should be licensed?
>From your statement, I'm inferring that's what you meant:
"Unfortunately, an association like eCTA doesn't carry
much weight unless it is licensed,". I can be wrong about
my inference.
If the association needs to be licensed, do you think licensing
of the members is not far behind? It's another tax opportunity
for a government. That's all, unless the assoc. requested the
licensing. Then it's an anti-competition act on the association's
part.
I said an association that is
> not a licensing body is merely a trade association, and has
> little weight in the business world. Does the Web Consultant's
> Association mean anything?
Not to me, and if they were licensed, that would mean even less.
What don't governments require a license to do nowadays?
Would you select a Web consultant
> because he/she was a member of that association?
>
> I personally believe the eCTA is a good thing. However, I don't
> know if it will make the general public feel any better. Let's
> give a scenario here: assume an exchange agent decides to offer
> poor service to a customer, or rips off a customer. Will the
> eCTA black ball that agent? What if it's not true? Will the
> eCTA run the risk of being sued for defamation of character?
>
> If it doesn't protect the public or settle arbitration,
What's protecting the public and arbitrating got to do with licensing?
You're original statement:
"Unfortunately, an association like eCTA doesn't carry much weight
unless it is licensed,"
then it
> is merely a trade association organized for the benefit of it's members.
>
> George
>
> ______________________________________
> George Matyjewicz, President/General Manager
> Standard Transactions (BVI) Limited
> World Wide Currency for the World
> http://www.standardreserve.com
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
