Slashdot Mirror

it only affects the price by one or two ticks.

You're right, I don't know the intricacies of how it works, and I had to google what a tick was. But that comment right there proves my point. That comment basically means "It only affects the price by a little bit", considering the value of a tick is some fraction of dollar. According to a 30 second reading of this anyway: "For example, the E-mini S&P 500 futures contract has a designated tick size of $0.25 while gold futures have a tick size of $0.10." So you are agreeing that involving a HFT between an actual buyer and an actual seller has an effect on the price, it may not be much, but it has an effect.

In addition, those one or two HFT ticks can be down or the move can be up

I'm sure they can go up or down, but the HFTs wouldn't be operating if that tick movement wasn't in their favor the majority of the time. I'm no economics major, but I'm smart enough to figure out they wouldn't be doing it if they weren't making money.

HFT trading phenomenally enhances liquidity,

This is where I get fuzzy, it doesn't make sense to me. If I'm placing an order to buy, in order for the transaction to go through there has to be someone willing to sell within the range I'm wiling to buy. Adding an HFT to the mix can't magically create that person willing to sell for what I'm willing to pay. They aren't acting as a necessary middleman, they are just buying what I want to buy before I am able to do so, and selling it to me for "one or two ticks" more than I could have bought it from the seller to begin with.

So what I'm gathering from your comments, is that Peter Gibbons is pretty accurate in his description. "Well those are whole pennies, right? I'm just talking about fractions of a penny here. But we do it from a much bigger tray and we do it a couple a million times."

Misleading ? What a thing to complain about in this thread the whole topic is meant to be misleading.

It's the broken window fallacy dressed up for rubes to stupid to know of it. http://www.investopedia.com/as...

The U.S. has the largest coal reserves on the planet it's our cheapest and most abundant energy source. If anything we should be building more coal plants instead of trying to drop our economic growth to zero and surrender comparative advantage.

WTF are you talking about? Why? We know for a fact that coal leaks mercury into our water cycle, and that it is far more expensive to build a coal plant that filters as much of that shit as possible than to just burn natural gas. The EU was our primary coal buyer, and they moved away from that shit. China could have been our customer, but 1) they are coal self-sufficient and 2) they are also moving away from it. India is also moving away from it...

... and so on and so on. There is a coal glut, a diminished demand and the cost ration of coal vs natural gas increases as the cost of using the later decreases.

So how the fuck do you suggest we build more coal plants? How do we finance them? How do we keep them running? With what money? The conditions nowadays make coal plants a fucking money pit.

Sure, we have the largest coal deposits on Earth. We also have a lot of dirt around and hydrogen in the air. The value of a thing is not a mere function of its abundance or lack thereof.

Misleading ? What a thing to complain about in this thread the whole topic is meant to be misleading.

It's the broken window fallacy dressed up for rubes to stupid to know of it.
http://www.investopedia.com/as...

The U.S. has the largest coal reserves on the planet it's our cheapest and most abundant energy source. If anything we should be building more coal plants instead of trying to drop our economic growth to zero and surrender comparative advantage.

Presumably, the next step is an ai that works to find the perfect algorithm to beat all others. You'll have different AI's trying to outsmart each other. It will be like the Rock Paper Scissor AI programs that people have written that can consistently beat humans in what one would think should be random (but in fact isn't).

They already have robo-investors that do that. It's the basis behind most high-frequency trading platforms (to outwit other high-frequency trading platforms). The problem with scaling this stuff down for the ordinary joes, is there's little to prevent the people who make the algorithms from frontrunning the trades on the side. In fact many people thought that is what Madoff was doing before it was discovered he didn't actually executes trades at all use the money as a ponzi scheme...

The whole reason the republican party is so willing to tolerate his bullshit theatrics is that his actual policies are a wet dream come true for the people who have been fertilizing the swamp. They are letting coal mines pollute streams again, repealing laws that protect grandmothers from being ripped off by "financial planners." And reducing the safeguards on the kind of real-estate bank lending that caused the housing meltdown. Its open season on the little guy like never before.

Haven't you been paying attention these past 8 years? Anything Obama and/or the Democrats did, do, might/will do is bad and must be stopped. Screw anything else.

Trump begins to prove he is just another liar in office.

The whole reason the republican party is so willing to tolerate his bullshit theatrics is that his actual policies are a wet dream come true for the people who have been fertilizing the swamp. They are letting coal mines pollute streams again, repealing laws that protect grandmothers from being ripped off by "financial planners." And reducing the safeguards on the kind of real-estate bank lending that caused the housing meltdown. Its open season on the little guy like never before.

1) What do you mean by "lots"? Is it growing as fast as the rate of population growth?

2) Silicon Valley income is over inflated compared to all US wages. Nice job picking the highest paid workers in the US. People in Flint make far less.

3) Americans get the best health care they can afford or go without. Incomes continue to drop while health care costs rise. Income: http://www.weeklystandard.com/... and health care costs:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/...

4) If you are making $10 an hour then 600 USD a month is unaffordable.

5) Price per square foot doesn't matter it is the monthly income that matters. Median US income is about 57K USD see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or 3800 assuming a 20% tax bracket (which may be low). This works out to about 40% of take home which is above the 1/3 of income reccomended for housing.
http://www.investopedia.com/mo... and see http://www.bankrate.com/calcul...
The number for a 30000 home I came up with is 65K USD WITHOUT the cost of food, clothing, transportation, education and medical care.

6) You concede the cost of education to me.

7) Inflation is a zero sum game. If costs of goods goes up and incomes lag, workers lose.

8) OK. WHat is your definition of inflation? If prices go up and income does not keep pace we have inflation. Note the CPI does not include many items of importance such as food and transportation.

All I can say is that what I see and is conveyed to me by others can be explained by statistics.

The price of gadgets doesn't matter real people need real goods.

ZeniMax is seeking $2 billion in damage, which matches the value that Facebook paid for Oculus in 2014. The trial is expected to last three weeks.

If the Instagram and Whatsapp overtures are taken into account, that could loosely translate into tens of dollars.

I'm a lifelong proponent of nuclear energy, and I've often vented my rage at the mindless knee-jerk reactionary opposition to nuclear energy voiced by "greenies" who over-inflate accidents caused by infamously careless and dysfunctional regimes. I tell you this so you'll understand the significance when I say that your point is not lost on pro-nuke activists.

"We almost Lost Detroit is one of my favorite nonfiction books - especially because I was born and raised in Fermi I's potential fallout shadow. The book does a lovely job of documenting other costly accidents and near misses as well. Nuclear energy scares the hell out of me - and I think any pro-nuke activist should feel the same. I'm also an avid firearms enthusiast, and as any gun owner can tell you the rules of gun safety are based on multi-layered, defense-in-depth paranoia. It is not a question of if you will make a mistake, but when. Failing to apply this same standard to nuclear energy is insane, and we can't expect anyone to take our advocacy seriously if we brush off their concerns as fear-mongering, Luddite hysteria or flat-out ignorance. All three are present in anti-nuke activism, but that doesn't excuse us from the valid fears that need answering.

Those fears are why Americans proof-test our containment buildings to an extremely high standard. It's why our containment domes (Fermi I, shown here) are a damn sight more spacious than those used by other nations, which might explain why ours don't fail and others have. It's not enough to sit around and point out how the Soviet Union was a pack of incompetent bastards, or how Fukushima was the result of breathtakingly corrupt practices in government and industry, with half the employees being Yakuza, terrifyingly slapdash construction (when two major pipes didn't meet up in the middle like they were supposed to, hooking an earthmover to it, bending the pipe a bit and welding it together wasn't unheard of,) and laughable government "oversight" (i.e. "descent from heaven.") To dismiss these incidents is to say "it can't happen here" and most certainly can. And fear of that keeps the sharp edge on the vigilance needed to ensure it never does.

I'm not sure you understand how government bonds work, among other things. I recommend reading this.
http://www.investopedia.com/ar...

Supply and demand. As less and less investors demand that stock, the price will go down accordingly. For the fossil fuel companies that are also utilities, they will also face headwinds to their stock prices as the Fed raises interest rates over time as has been rumored.

If the stock price goes down, but they continue to make the same profits, the returns on buying the stock goes up.
If you want to hurt oil companies, stop buying the oil.

Supply and demand. As less and less investors demand that stock, the price will go down accordingly. For the fossil fuel companies that are also utilities, they will also face headwinds to their stock prices as the Fed raises interest rates over time as has been rumored.

The folks with all the money realized a few decades ago: there's just too many people

The folks with the money? Ts the same secret society of reptilians that control the world?
If you earn more than $33kyear, then technically you are one of those "folks". When are you going to give up your wealth to someone less fortunate?

, the 1% who own more net worth than the 99% of the rest of us (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475).

1% sounds like the high flyers, but if you're talking global population, you only have to earn $33k/year and you're one of them. Suddenly being a 1%er doesn't sound so evil...

If I were in charge of tickets for something like a pro sports team, the system I would use would be to put the tickets on sale at some ridiculous price, and announce that the price would drop 1% every four hours, or something like that.

That's essentially a dutch auction. You keep accepting bids until you find the highest price which clears the market. Everyone pays the market clearing price.

Stock market IPOs should work like this too. It ensures the company raises the maximum amount of capital. IIRC, that's how Google did their IPO, more or less. Underwriters hate the idea, surprise, surprise.

"Four Ways to Trade the Vix"

here's a few:
http://www.investopedia.com/ar...

The U3 numbers are a poor indication of the true employment situation,. but has been the consistent measurement for decades... The more accurate indication is the U6 number:

The True Unemployment Rate

The U-3 unemployment rate is a comparatively narrow technical measure that leaves out a whole swath of out-of-work people who are willing and able to take a job but who don't fit the narrow BLS definition of "unemployed." For example, a stonemason who wants to work but who has become discouraged by a lack of opportunity in the midst of a deep economic recession would not be included in U-3 unemployment. A marketing executive who is laid off at age 57 and stops scheduling new job interviews due to her experience of age discrimination would not be included in U-3 unemployment. A person who only works one six-hour shift per week because no full-time jobs are available in his area would not be included in U-3 unemployment.

In contrast to the U-3 rate, the U-6 unemployment rate includes all of these cases. Consequently, the U-6 rate is much truer to a natural, non-technical understanding of what it means to be unemployed. By capturing discouraged workers, underemployed workers and other folks who exist on the margins of the labor market, the U-6 rate provides a broad picture of the underutilization of labor in the country. In this sense, the U-6 rate is the true unemployment rate.

Source: The True Unemployment Rate: U6 Vs. U3

Here's just a couple of links for you:

http://www.bankrate.com/financ...
http://www.investopedia.com/fi...

Some of the second set actually being funny.

Nope. Compare Developed Economy.

Bitcoin and other electronic currencies are "property" (see e.g. https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsro... )

Now the IRS doesn't automatically monitor all bank accounts: see e.g. here: http://peopleof.oureverydaylif... for

The IRS can however, force banks, foreign exchanges, and now electronic currency exchange houses, to disclose the identity of those engaged in transactions. It can do this to any individual or corporation if they decide to audit them: see here: http://www.libra.tech/blog/how... As far as I know, criminal law does not necessarily apply. A mere administrative decision to audit someone (could even be selected at random) is enough. See https://www.irs.gov/businesses... and here http://www.investopedia.com/as...

Of course, a complete regulatory framework for bitcoin and lookalikes hasn't yet materialised. According to this post: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/ar... it took about a decade to establish it for derivatives, so one might expect the same for bitcoin.

So what we see is the IRS seeing how far it can go, but they seem to have a very strong case. They're not auditing anyone in particular, but merely tracing a web of payments. Could be an audit. And consider the alternative. Suppose for example that bitcoin exchanges need not disclose the names of participants in transactions on request. You'd have an instant on-shore tax evasion mechanism ... and that is against the general thrust of tax law in general, not to mention common sense.

So I'm afraid the IRS will get its way ... and will go even further. Block chains are electronic records of transactions. Therefore potentially every last blockchain involving electronic currency transactions could become subject of disclosure to the IRS.

That is an enormous amount of weight to send up. Space-x is aiming for (has not achieved) $1,000 per pound. Their current cost is more realistically $4,000.

4425*850*4000=$150,450,000,000. Then add the cost to send up another 4427/7=630 satellites per year (630*850*2000(because they'll get costs way down if they can send up that much material)=$1 billion dollars per year. They need to spend 150 billion dollars initially and an ongoing 1 billion dollars per year.

In 2014 SpaceX had a "market cap" of (optimistically) 12 billion dollars. Let's assumt that 12 billion dollars have already been justified. Now rumors of an IPO have been heard, so let's assume a massive over-the-top IPO: 13 billion dollars. Then add in a billion dollars. (assuming every penny they can scrape together goes to this plan) 12+13+1=26 billion. Using realistic numbers for launch costs and hyper-optimistic numbers for funding, they're about 125 billion dollars short. And I don't see Trump signing a 125 billion dollar Space-X pork bill. If we're very optimistic about launch costs that hypothetical bill could go as low as a still-highly-unlikely 75 billion dollars.

iPhone, since a few of their own corporations make some not-insubstantial cash from manufacturing the things...

The labor cost of an iPhone 7 is estimated to be about $5. About $220 is parts. The rest is marginal profit. If Apple is forced to shift production to America, and Chinese buy Xiaomi phones instead, it will hurt America far more than it will hurt China.

"Man who broke England's bank" - you don't have a clue. Read & learn

http://www.investopedia.com/as...

You really don't know what you are talking about. Read up on the 4% rule. http://www.investopedia.com/te...

Check out www.mrmoneymustache.com

You most likely suck at managing money. 1.2M is $48,000 per year to live on. If you can't make ends meet on that, especially with a paid off residence, you have a spending problem.

It's ironic that you're calling Apple a middle-man when it's actually Google who are inserting themselves as a financial intermediary (were you aware that Google have issued you a virtual credit card?) and knowing every single transaction detail, which of course suits their panopticon business model. There's a reason they're not charging you for that privilege.

Apple are acting as a payment communication medium, keeping no details of your transaction and yes, charging for the privilege. Whether it's worth it is in the eye of the beholder.

This might help explain the differences between the two systems:
http://www.investopedia.com/ar...

I'm sorry but that's just not true.
The two systems are vastly different in implementation. Google are acting as a financial intermediary for every transaction through use of a "virtual credit card" which is what is on your phone and what the vendors see (they never see your actual cards as they are only on Google'a servers). As a result, Google have access and knowledge of every detail of every transaction you make using their system. This aligns with their panopticon business model. By effectively acting as a middleman financial institution they don't need any agreement with banks etc. Every transaction you make actually becomes two 1. Google pays vendor, 2. Google charges your bank.

Apple are not doing this at all, instead they are securely storing your card details on the phone and communicating payment details to and from the vendor and your financial institution. Their system is designed so they don't store your card details nor know about your transactions. However this requires agreement with the financial institutions on the other end.
http://www.investopedia.com/ar...

It takes a minute for it to turn into the sort of asset the rich people can stash.

Yes we could try having a conversation about it. The drone owner could've asked the property owner for permission before overflying his property. He failed to initiate that conversation, believing that he could just fly wherever he wanted, everyone else's rights be damned. The property owner simply responded in kind. This tit for tat strategy turns out to be one of the most effective solutions to the Prisoner's Dilemma. At getting people to behave cooperatively.

I agree that just shooting the drone was a dick move. But it was the drone operator who made the first dick move. You shouldn't shoot first, ask questions later. But neither should you fly first, ask questions later.

And when I heard "European delivery" I thought of this: http://www.investopedia.com/te...

Modern banking has nothing to do with where you put money. It's all about where you put loans.

There's just not enough profit in fictional value but there is in the doubly fictional debit.

e.g. You plug in all the numbers for your flight path. It should then display a world map with your flight path overlaid, so you can easily check that the numbers you entered have you at least landing on the right continent. This sort of sanity-checking is common in other fields, like accountants check to see if a discrepancy is divisible by 9 to quickly identify a transposition error.

This is one of the reasons I still advocate doing navigation in nautical miles instead of km. One nautical mile is defined as 1 arc-minute of longitude at the equator, which is also pretty close to 1 arc-minute of latitude anywhere on Earth. So basically you look on your big navigation chart with latitude lines labeled in degrees and minutes, and you immediately have a sense of scale in terms of nautical miles (each degree is 60 nm). You do a bunch of complex navigation calculations in nautical miles, plot it on the chart, and say, "Hey that doesn't look right. My destination is over 30 arc-minutes away, but my calculations say I'll only be sailing less than 30 nm. I must've made a math error somewhere..." Whereas if you do it in km, the sense of scale is not as intuitive and you may not uncover the error until you're far along the route and wondering why the landmarks you were expecting aren't showing up.

How much you wanna bet most of those people were involved in robo-signing, or some other form of shenanigans OTHER than creating false accounts?

Yea, the phony accounts are just the tip of the iceberg.

How much you wanna bet most of those people were involved in robo-signing, or some other form of shenanigans OTHER than creating false accounts?

huge force in the software industry. They just aren't though.
You are silly! Who do you think is making all the software in China, for China? The USA? Europe? They do their software themselves.
You are mixing up Windows and "Office" sales with "the software industry".

Here: http://www.investopedia.com/ar...

Hope you know at least two of those companies ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://www.investopedia.com/ar...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Sorry, but I remember the various crisis' over the last 40 years.

Because, surprise, banks are still run by short-sighted, overly "clever" assholes who will do anything to turn a quick buck.

Exactly. And they always will be. And they will always find creative ways around whatever banking laws we can come up with. The ONLY solution is to start locking people in charge up. But our Corporate structures prevent this because you can't blame any one person for any one decision. My solution is to lock up any CxO and the Entire Board of Directors under fraud, RICO or whatever you can. Once you start tossing white collars into pound you in the ass prison, the crimes will actually stop.

Ignorance of the fraud being perpetrated isn't any excuse for those that are supposedly running these institutions.

whoosh. hint if they require massive subsidies to be viable then they are NOT competitive. anything can be claimed as competitive if you ignore the costs of generation.

There are an impressive amount of issues with this statement, considering its only 3 short sentences. In rough order of importance...

1. The subsidies expired. They don't exist any more. The "if" part of your second sentence evaluates to false, so there was really no point in writing that it down in the first place.
2. Carbon-burning technologies are getting huge subsidies unique to their industry (that have not expired). There are official ones, like oil exploration tax breaks, and unofficial ones, like being allowed to simply dump their waste carbon into our air for free. If they had to pay their own production costs, and taxes on their own profits, and to clean up after themselves like the renewables do, the carbon burners wouldn't even be close to competitive with the renewables.
3. That's not how "whoosh" is used here. Its for jokes or sarcasm that the poster bit on, not for simply being wrong. S even if your criticism was right (hint: it wasn't), "whoosh" would not apply here.

Tesla most certainly does not lose $15K on each car. That's fucking absurd, and you're an idiot.

You have a point. They're not losing $15K on each car; according to Generally Accepted Accounting Practices they actually lose $19,059 per Model S they sell.

http://www.investopedia.com/ar...

Of course if I have to choose sides, between the GAAP reported by a reputable finance site or some dude on Slashdot who thinks he understands finance (i.e you), I'll go with the real experts.

You know what Brannon, it's people like you that make the "mansplainer" label possible. You make an entire gender look bad. So downshift a couple gears with the insults and use this as a learning experience.

Have you really never heard of an investment J-curve?
http://www.investopedia.com/te...

You didn't even read that article did you?

Yes I did. Your IQ is probably not enough to actually understand it:

"GDP = C + G + I + NX

where ... NX is the nation's total net exports, calculated as total exports minus total imports (NX = Exports - Imports)" http://www.investopedia.com/te...

This proves that during the referendum campaign you pro-EU idiots used the economic argument while being pretty ignorant about the most basic macroeconomic definitions. Add that to your psychopathic love for mass immigration and "multiculturalism" (i.e., having a smelly kebab's in front of your house), and you get the reason of the final result.

For one thing a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing and it is not the same as loosing money.

Yes, it is. You don't even know the very definition of Gross Domestic Product: http://www.investopedia.com/te...

And any person of at least average intelligence would not want to "compete" with countries like Poland or Bulgaria where the average monthly salary for workers is about 500 pounds, unless you crave for that kind of salary.

You didn't even read that article did you? The word deficit does not even appear in it. The trade deficit with the EU is only one part of the UK's overall economy and as long as other aspects of the economy even it out you are not 'loosing money' from it. As for 'unfair' wages in Poland and Bulgaria. The Germans still have an automotive industry, their cars still sell in the face of competition from places like Romania where the wages are much lower. The UK has no automotive industry of it's own to speak of and what remains is mostly owned by the Germans, the Japanese and the French (irony abounds). It is possible to compete with countries like Poland and Bulgaria if you work hard, adapt and leverage technology instead of sitting on your ass and whining about lower wages in Poland and Bulgaria being 'unfair' and petitioning your government for protectionist trade barriers.

If you think that is unimportant...

It was ironic, IDIOT. I was laughing at the person I was answering to. And now I'm laughing at you. You might want to go to live in some bidonvilles in Paris' suburbs, there are many pro-EU "multicultural" people like you there.

Ditto, I was and still am laughing at you out loud and good luck with your isolationism, it will leads to stagnation and decline but once again good luck with it.

For one thing a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing and it is not the same as loosing money.

Yes, it is. You don't even know the very definition of Gross Domestic Product: http://www.investopedia.com/te...

And any person of at least average intelligence would not want to "compete" with countries like Poland or Bulgaria where the average monthly salary for workers is about 500 pounds, unless you crave for that kind of salary.

If you think that is unimportant...

It was ironic, IDIOT. I was laughing at the person I was answering to. And now I'm laughing at you. You might want to go to live in some bidonvilles in Paris' suburbs, there are many pro-EU "multicultural" people like you there.

You know that the former does not imply the latter

Yes it does, idiot. A trade deficit causes the GDP to be lower:

http://www.investopedia.com/te...

Well this thread has proven who understands big business and who doesn't. Kara Swisher and Recode certainly do not.

The reason for a deal like this is called a "Poison Pill." From Investopedia:

What is a 'Poison Pill'?

A poison pill is a tactic utilized by companies to prevent or discourage hostile takeovers. A company targeted for a takeover uses a poison pill strategy to make shares of the companys stock look unattractive or less desirable to the acquiring firm.

A Ton of info about Poison Pills

So as one would imagine a deal with Firefox like the one described would make it very hard for a company to buy Yahoo. Just like Ms. Mayer wants it. She needs to suck it totally dry before she'll move on I suspect. ~

Why hasn't there been a drop in the number of Facebook or Twitter hits daily?

Good stats on this are hard to find. Perhaps there already has been a drop:

http://fortune.com/2016/04/07/...

http://www.investopedia.com/ar...

It was all about bashing Monsanto — the "evil" company, that specialized in GMO seeds and holds thousands of patents.

European competitors in particular were so afraid of it rising, they started a PR campaign to mongering fears of GMOs. The campaign created public's perception so negative, some countries (France, Germany) ban GMOs outright and vandals attack growers. Lately Monsanto (and DuPont) must've started fighting back, because American media began defending the technology — even calling its opponents "anti-Science" (where have I heard that before?).

But now that a German firm is seeking to buy Monsanto, Europeans need to be disabused of their misconceptions too.

GMO-haters have nothing but FUD — they've heard it is (or may be) dangerous, but don't know why — somebody told them... See also "chemtrails" and "Trump is racist".

Unfortunately, even in the US food can not be labeled "Organic", if it contains GMOs...

He owns 24%, but he has 60% of the votes, so he controls 60%.

You just explained why it's bad that these billionaire CEOs all sit on each others' boards of directors.

http://www.investopedia.com/ar...

You're wrong because the items that compose the yearly GDP are only accounted for ONCE, either as the revenues generated by the economic system, or according to how these revenues are spent or invested by the government, companies and consumers, so by definition nothing is double-counted, it's two ways to analyze the same thing. This confirms what I was saying before: you have no clue of what the GDP actually is and how it is calculated, hence you shouldn't have even started arguing about it .

I saw that the definition of GDP included government spending, so I made a guess as to how it might be double counted. I didn't pretend to be an expert on the subject.

You, on the other hand, despite being arrogant and calling me clueless, merely assert nothing is double counted, but offer no evidence to the contrary. Since exports count towards GDP, and result in tax revenue for the government, and government spending counts towards GDP, how could it be the case that the 20% GDP from energy doesn't result in other GDP that isn't accounted for under energy?

As a simple example, if they sell $100 worth of oil, and tax it for $50 to spend on social welfare, then GDP here would be $150, the oil would be 2/3 of GDP and social welfare 1/3 of GDP, but all the money spent would have been generated through the sale of the oil.

Because non-stategic businesses, especially small and medium enterprises, can be operated by private entities without damaging the public well-being or increasing wealth inequality, especially in a country where half of the economy is government-run, and the other half is heavily regulated.

In other words, a mixed economy with free markets and capitalism work better than complete state control.

Nope, 79 years is not "pretty high" at all in the western world, and a 3-year difference (and even more with respect to other countries) is pretty relevant, since western countries should be supposed to enjoy very similar living standards, technology and, most importantly, healthcare services.

82 vs 79 is pretty similar, but I understand you wish to hype up any difference at all. You're talking about a 3.8% difference. If 3 years is such a big deal, is it a big deal that Norway is 2 years behind Japan, which is at 84?

Nope, obesity is really a US problem, not "western

No, it really is Western. The US may be leading the charge, but rates have increased dramatically in European countries. You ignored the France article and instead pointed to another article, which is probably based on old data. Here, have another one.

I don't know: maybe because the Chinese government owns roughly 70% the Chinese stock market capitalization? [..] Do you know what the big problem of the internet is? It's easy to be ridiculed if you're not informed. Have a good weekend.

Yes, any idiot can ridicule somebody by selectively looking at data. Congratulations. But what you haven't addressed is that China did in fact move away from communism and towards capitalism and free markets with great success, as is widely acknowledged.

Also don't see any mention about my Venezuela link, with people rioting for food in the socialist paradise country of price controls (long live the revolution!), nor any rebuttal to failing socialist states like Greece.

After-tax profit margin is a financial performance ratio, calculated by dividing net income after taxes by net sales. A company's after-tax profit margin is important because it tells investors the percentage of money a company actually earns per dollar of sales. This ratio is interpreted in the same way as profit margin - the after-tax profit margin is simply more stringent because it takes taxes into account.

http://www.investopedia.com/te...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you think you know simething?

Please enlighten me with what you know. This should prove most entertaining.

Gold is not an investment, never was, it is money

To my knowledge, there is no country that actually uses gold as legal money. You personally might value it as a currency, but that is not a majority opinion.

its function is to keep purchasing power and be an inflation hedge

It fails to keep its purchasing power due to fluctuations in its exchange rate with real currencies. Even accounting for the recent recession, real estate has actually done a better job of keeping its "purchasing power". I'll also note that the very definition of an "inflation hedge" is an investment.

Governments produce inflation, unless you are under a mistaken belief that central banks are not really controlled by governments and don't really act for the short term benefit of the current organization. Governments produce inflation and sometimes hyper inflation that take down economies.

You're going to have to explain this conspiracy theory of yours a little more. Governments (through central banks) can encourage inflation by raising their interest rates, or they can allow deflation by cutting interest rates, but they're not the driving force behind inflation, and would have no reason to initiate heavy inflation or hyperinflation.

Inflation happens when consumers have to pay more for the same goods and services. A little inflation has a positive effect on the economy, because it encourages people to spend money, adding more inertia to the economic machine, thereby providing confidence that producers will continue to have income in the near future, allowing them (as consumers) to purchase luxury goods and raise their quality of life. Conversely, if consumer prices are dropping under deflation, consumers are less likely to spend money, because they'll get a better deal later. That, in turn, reduces the viability of industry, lowers confidence, and further discourages spending.

These basic market principles are independent of any government. The government's only involvement is that by issuing loans from a central bank and controlling the interest rates of those loans, the government has a very highly-desired product whose price it can control. That lets the central bank effectively put its thumb on the scales, promoting inflation or deflation as it sees fit, but it can't actually control the whims of the rest of the market.

As to taking down governments, that's a worth while life goal, call it a hobby for the sake of freedom.

Using corporate money to fund a personal hobby, especially one that will harm the company, is a good way to get fired, even for an executive.