Slashdot Mirror

If it's riskier, then in aggregate, the profit will even out.

That's not true. Consider that high-risk investment strategies may appear similar to the Martingale strategy, or a falling knive. These strategies may be profitable on average, in the long run; but the capital requirements to avoid getting "stopped out" are prohibitive for small-capitalization investors. Such strategies may have a higher expected value, but may be unfeasible to attempt due to the risk. For example, VC investors pour a lot of money into a variety of new companies which are all probably going to fail, because the expected returns on a single success are so high. The high risk keeps many investors away from VC, but clearly the expected reward is higher in aggregate for the VC investors, because that is what they choose to do.

There is an exception under the US Securities laws against market manipulation that allow an IPO's underwriters to make a "stabilizing bid" (IPO price) to keep a stock from falling as a "market" is created for the new issuance. Needless to say they did not support the stock after the first day of trading :) http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stabilizingbid.asp

That is just plain sloppy use of language – it like lumping all football players together – no matter if they are a striker or a quarterback.

In your context, covers the whole private capital / hedge fund. I would just be simpler – and more accurate - to drop the vulture and just derided capitalism.

However, in the private capital / hedge fund world, vulture capital means something else.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/vulturefund.asp

Sure, they like to go by fancy names, such as distress debt, turn around operations, Warren Buffet, etc., but we know what they are. This deal fall into the mega cap leverage buy out

And I'd think a majority of people fetch their groceries on the way back from work, that's why so many supermarkets are near major arteries...

They build the supermarkets near major arteries because that's where the people are...

First, you want to compare the US government, an organization that has bee around for hundreds of years to a start up? If you want to compare us to something, then compare us to an old blue chip. And guess how much debt those old corps run up? Oh that's right, they tend to run massive cash reserves because they're not stupid.

Apple does, sure. But old dogs like IBM have had periods of high (or volatile) debt to equity ratios specifically for the purposes of financing... wait for it... growth. Since the dollar is a fiat currency, there's no reason for the United States to care too much about how much "money" there is. Keep in mind that when the US dollar doesn't buy a loaf of bread, gold won't either. The only thing that will matter at that point is who has the guns to protect their food supply. No amount of pretend hard currencies are going to change that. So, if you're a doomsday libertarian, which it looks like you are, I'd recommend guns, ammo, and arable land instead of krugerrands.

Third, I love that you think the problem in the US is a lack of infrustructure. You honestly think that if we had a few more bridges or roads or a couple extra solar power planets all our problems would be solved. You think that somehow the economy would be good. Because in your mind, the reason US businesses are failing is because they don't have enough roads. Really? Wake up...

Ten years ago I traveled on a TGV while in France. If you're unaware, that's a nuclear powered electric bullet train that travels 500 miles in 3 hours and twenty minutes, and is rarely late. That kind of infrastructure simply doesn't exist in the United States, because all of our money is poured down the drain of car commuting instead of mass transportation. Even our airports are overloaded because there are no shorthaul trains as an alternative, and this ends up filling airports with unnecessary traffic.

Also: "We investigate the long run consequences of infrastructure provision on per capita income in a panel of countries over the period 1950-1992. Simple panel based tests are developed which enable us to isolate the sign and direction of the long run effect of infrastructure on income in a manner that is robust to the presence of unknown heterogeneous short run causal relationships. Our results provide clear evidence that in the vast majority of cases infrastructure does induce long run growth effects. But we also find a great deal of variation in the results across individual countries. Taken as a whole, the results demonstrate that telephones, electricity generating capacity and paved roads are provided at close to the growth maximizing level on average, but are under-supplied in some countries and over-supplied in others. These results also help to explain why cross section and time series studies have in the past found contradictory results regarding a causal link between infrastructure provision and long run growth."

http://web.williams.edu/Economics/wp/pedroniinfrastructure.pdf

Fourth, I love how you think we're in debt because there were some tax breaks. Yes there were tax breaks and it caused US tax revenue to decrease by what percentage? Okay... and by what percentage did US spending go up? Exactly. I'll admit that if we didn't lower taxes our debt would be better but not by much. It is the spending that went up by the most and continues to go up by the most. That isn't an opinion. It's a mathematical fact. You agree or be wrong.

"The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has estimated the 10-year revenue loss from extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010 at $2.9 trillion, with an additional $606 billion in debt service costs (interest), for a combined total of $3.5 trillio

First, you want to compare the US government, an organization that has bee around for hundreds of years to a start up? If you want to compare us to something, then compare us to an old blue chip. And guess how much debt those old corps run up? Oh that's right, they tend to run massive cash reserves because they're not stupid.

Apple does, sure. But old dogs like IBM have had periods of high (or volatile) debt to equity ratios specifically for the purposes of financing... wait for it... growth. Since the dollar is a fiat currency, there's no reason for the United States to care too much about how much "money" there is. Keep in mind that when the US dollar doesn't buy a loaf of bread, gold won't either. The only thing that will matter at that point is who has the guns to protect their food supply. No amount of pretend hard currencies are going to change that. So, if you're a doomsday libertarian, which it looks like you are, I'd recommend guns, ammo, and arable land instead of krugerrands.

Third, I love that you think the problem in the US is a lack of infrustructure. You honestly think that if we had a few more bridges or roads or a couple extra solar power planets all our problems would be solved. You think that somehow the economy would be good. Because in your mind, the reason US businesses are failing is because they don't have enough roads. Really? Wake up...

Ten years ago I traveled on a TGV while in France. If you're unaware, that's a nuclear powered electric bullet train that travels 500 miles in 3 hours and twenty minutes, and is rarely late. That kind of infrastructure simply doesn't exist in the United States, because all of our money is poured down the drain of car commuting instead of mass transportation. Even our airports are overloaded because there are no shorthaul trains as an alternative, and this ends up filling airports with unnecessary traffic.

Also: "We investigate the long run consequences of infrastructure provision on per capita income in a panel of countries over the period 1950-1992. Simple panel based tests are developed which enable us to isolate the sign and direction of the long run effect of infrastructure on income in a manner that is robust to the presence of unknown heterogeneous short run causal relationships. Our results provide clear evidence that in the vast majority of cases infrastructure does induce long run growth effects. But we also find a great deal of variation in the results across individual countries. Taken as a whole, the results demonstrate that telephones, electricity generating capacity and paved roads are provided at close to the growth maximizing level on average, but are under-supplied in some countries and over-supplied in others. These results also help to explain why cross section and time series studies have in the past found contradictory results regarding a causal link between infrastructure provision and long run growth."

http://web.williams.edu/Economics/wp/pedroniinfrastructure.pdf

Fourth, I love how you think we're in debt because there were some tax breaks. Yes there were tax breaks and it caused US tax revenue to decrease by what percentage? Okay... and by what percentage did US spending go up? Exactly. I'll admit that if we didn't lower taxes our debt would be better but not by much. It is the spending that went up by the most and continues to go up by the most. That isn't an opinion. It's a mathematical fact. You agree or be wrong.

"The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has estimated the 10-year revenue loss from extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010 at $2.9 trillion, with an additional $606 billion in debt service costs (interest), for a combined total of $3.5 trillio

Wall Street normally evaluates Yahoo on an ex-TAC basis — including traffic acquisition costs,

TAC is Traffic Acquisition Cost.

"ex-TAC basis — including traffic acquisition costs," makes no damn sense to me. They are evaluating Yahoo! ex Traffic Cost basis and including it back in? So, they're going to subtract one and add 1 back in?

But hey, we're talking Wall Street here. It's not like they value companies and their earnings like normal business people.

Watch out for the MBAs and the CFAs. And if someone has both, they are the spawn of Satan and run away! They are a true Master of Lies!!

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fundamentals.asp
HTH.

I have to undo some mod points, but this is so wrong I couldn't leave it unchallenged.

Great. You found ONE.

The problem is staggeringly large. For you to sacrifice your precious mod point to hand-waive the problem away is ridiculous.

From Investopedia:

Each year, billions of dollars are sent by migrant workers to their home countries, with some estimates putting the total value of remittances at more than $200 billion. For some countries, remittances make up a sizable portion of GDP.

The Economist: on these private transfers:

Since 1996 they have been worth more than all overseas-development aid, and for most of the past decade more than private debt and portfolio equity inflows. In 2011 remittances to poor countries totalled $372 billion, according to the World Bank (total remittances, including to the rich world, came to $501 billion). That is not far off the total amount of foreign direct investment that flowed to poor countries. Given that cash is ferried home stuffed into socks as well as by wire transfer, the real total could be 50% higher.

And, don't forget Wikipedia

Remittances are playing an increasingly large role in the economies of many countries, contributing to economic growth and to the livelihoods of less prosperous people (though generally not the poorest of the poor). According to World Bank estimates, remittances totaled US$414 billion in 2009, of which US$316 billion went to developing countries that involved 192 million migrant workers. For some individual recipient countries, remittances can be as high as a third of their GDP.... A majority of the remittances from the US have been directed to Asian countries like India (approx. 66 billion USD in 2011), China (approx. $57 billion USD)and Philippines (approx. 23 billion USD)

Next time, before you burn a whole mod point, do just a tad of research.

Nobody knows, because the Laffer curve is only a concept. No one can draw a chart of it. Economics are far too complex to be encapsulated by it.

A quick looks shows this Laffer curve graph. And here the "expert of economics" BasilBrush said it couldn't be done.

In reality, it can be drawn, I showed it. It is a SIMPLE concept to understand, look it up. It has been PROVEN three times since WW2. JFK proved it, Regan proved, George W Bush proved it. That shows a 100% success rate at proving that it works that way. Has ANY other economic theory on tax rates ever even come close to being proven like this (Hauser's law has, but thats it as far as I know). The only people who claim it is too complicated and can't be proven are the ones who want to raise your taxes and they sound like idiots when this is trotted out because raising rates reduces revenue. They MUST resort to name calling and trying to say it isn't true when it has been shown three times to be true.

The core of this coin idea is to commit financial statement fraud. Specifically it will be exceeding the limit on one column through a not necessarily legal offset against another item. The exact method uses some imagined powers of the treasury to create expensive currency outside of the regular, regulated money supply process. They might as well be using Monopoly money as an IOU.

Yes, the materials value of the Monopoly dollars themselves have nothing to do with the value of the minted currency, since it's not backed by any metal standard. Congratulations for working out that unrelated part! I know it's hard to decipher what these longer phrases mean when you have to use a dictionary to look up single words, but you're getting there.

I'm very flattered you paused from writing flamebait aimed at [stupid|idiot] fucking [republicans|conservatives] long enough to respond to me. Keep practicing those five words, you're definitely getting the knack of them!

I know, to a certain extent this is already being done, but I'm thinking that Intel (in this example) should be going directly to Chuck Lorre, J. J. Abrams, Tim Kring, et al, and say "how would you like to survive the inevitable downfall of network television? And make a lot of money?"

This is the kind of thinking I was expecting to see from someone in the internet delivery of audio-video entertainment business -- hire a known director or producer to create new content for delivery.

However, just hiring a known entertainment name to create content for your business is not enough. You also need to fund the expenses that studios have -- soundstages, cameras, sets, costumes, catering, etc. -- while producing the content. Unless you want new science fiction stories filmed through a laptop camera and recorded with headset microphones for YouTube, that is.

Remember also, that most companies want results now, not three or six months later from now. It takes time to find a storyline that catches traction with viewers; Intel would rather distribute content that has mind-share, not spend time developing it.

Also, known content creators want to get paid. A lot. While they would be more likely to deliver a program that is popular in a shorter timeframe, their cost may not make it profitable short-term.

Netflix is looking to license independent content; Amazon is pursuing a similar strategy. It would take longer to build up a brand for quality independent content, but far more productive. If it were successful enough, you might even license it to the cable companies.

The futures market is not just a gambling forum... they are actually trading contracts for goods.

The presence of cash-settled futures contracts is a clear counterexample to "trading contracts for goods". Cash-settled contracts are still fundamentally useful for managing risk, but I think most people would still view that as "gambling" and not "goods".

It's not that it's illegal. There are regulations governing the trading of futures, which is what these are marketed as. The site is likely not following those regulations.

But, is this really 'trading futures'? My understanding is that real futures trading is defined thusly:

A financial contract obligating the buyer to purchase an asset (or the seller to sell an asset), such as a physical commodity or a financial instrument, at a predetermined future date and price. Futures contracts detail the quality and quantity of the underlying asset; they are standardized to facilitate trading on a futures exchange.

There's no promise of any future transactions here. It's someone placing a bet on a prediction, which if you're right pays off. It's not saying "Next March 31st I will sell you x units of y at price z" ... it's saying "I bet the stock market is trending down on March 31st".

So, unless there is a fear that people placing these bets could have some sway over the outcome (which is insider trading and already covered by regulations) ... then this doesn't seem like it fits the definition of trading futures.

But "I predict this team wins" or "I predict this person gets elected" seem like they're very far outside of regulating futures trades.

US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Canada top tax rate is 29%, vs 35% in the US (as of 2011). In California, home to a lot of VC-funded companies, high state taxes make this considerably worse. Also, Canadians get health care with their tax payments. In the US, we don't. The Canadian government and the governments in the provinces are more efficient, less corrupt, and much less anti-business than in the US. Your stereotypes about Canada and the US are out of date.

Every EU country and every Asian country has lower corporate taxes than the US. Around the world, the trend has been toward lower taxes except in countries that have enacted austerity plans and in countries with hardening socialist governments, like France and the US.

It's no secret which places are the best ones to invest.

gross income for a business is not the same as for your personal income:

here is the business definition of gross income
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/grossincome.asp

Panic selling always overshoots down past where the price will eventually settle.

This word "always", it doesn't mean what you think it does. It's very common for moderate panic to be just the first stage of a major drop in a stock's price, in which case the price will accelerate downward instead of settling back again. There's a popular phrase for the idea of "oh, it dropped a bunch, that must have gone too far; let me buy some and profit when it corrects": catching a falling knife. If you do it right, you get some small profit as the price returns to the mean from its extreme point. But if you're wrong, you can lose a giant amount of money. The odds of a trade played against panic are reasonable, but the risk/reward ratio is terrible. You can correctly play short-term panics a dozen times successfully but lose all that profit with one serious loss, when the initial panic turns into only more panic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity#Overview

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_trading#Rebate_trading
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/high-frequency-trading.asp

http://www.economist.com/node/21547988

This exact same argument could be made about taxes. Higher taxes discourages growth, with reduces the number of tax payers, which reduces tax revenue.

Similar to the Laffer Curve. However the Laffer Curve is ridiculed because hope and change trumps reality.

I was going to mention the same thing, but I knew I'd be modded down.

Placing a book order is not initiating a transaction.

The proper terminology is 'book' or 'public book of orders'. 'Book order' has no specific meaning.

There was no negotiation.

There certainly is. Once your order is placed on the 'book', your brokerage negotiates on your behalf to get the best price possible. Unless this order is canceled or expires (for a 'day only' order, for example), you are obliged to settle the trade. Read your brokerage agreement.

Investopedia gives a very fair definition of the term "free market":

"A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation."

This makes it clear that it is not a real thing that can be created, but an ideal thing that does not exist anywhere.

Investopedia further provides this very cogent observation:

"Each exchange is a voluntary agreement between two parties who trade in the form of goods and services. In reality, this is the extent to which a free market exists since there will always be government intervention in the form of taxes, price controls and restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market. Just like supply-side economics, free market is a term used to describe a political or ideological viewpoint on policy and is not a field within economics."(My emphasis.) http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp#axzz1zx4SZtCM

There is the concept of a "public good" - a good which would have too high a cost/benefit ratio for an individual or company to create but could be created if the society pooled its resources. Plus the benefits would be much higher to the individual than his contribution.

Then there is the concept of a "natural monopoly" - a business which has very high barriers to entry. Think of the infrastructure of a utility or water system, or a railroad.

So, yes - the private sector would probably come up with a few private roads, the use for which they would charge monopolistic costs.

Ultimately, society needs to determine what is best for the most people. Not just blindly espouse principals or concepts for which the rationale does not lead to the most public benefit. The Mafia is a business. It is left as an exercise to the reader why the Mafia business is prohibited by the society yet other businesses are allowed to exist.

There is the concept of a "public good" - a good which would have too high a cost/benefit ratio for an individual or company to create but could be created if the society pooled its resources. Plus the benefits would be much higher to the individual than his contribution.

Then there is the concept of a "natural monopoly" - a business which has very high barriers to entry. Think of the infrastructure of a utility or water system, or a railroad.

So, yes - the private sector would probably come up with a few private roads, the use for which they would charge monopolistic costs.

Ultimately, society needs to determine what is best for the most people. Not just blindly espouse principals or concepts for which the rationale does not lead to the most public benefit. The Mafia is a business. It is left as an exercise to the reader why the Mafia business is prohibited by the society yet other businesses are allowed to exist.

In economic theory, there is such a beast as the "Natural Monopoly." The reason it's a natural monopoly is because the barriers to entry are extremely high. Laying railroad track, laying power infrastructure - these have very high costs. So utilities are a natural monopoly.

Monopolies are typically bad because they allow extremely extractive costs to be imposed, instead of competitive costs. This reduces the benefit to the society which are the customers of the natural monopoly.

The whole point of civilization and society is for all members to get a better deal, not for merely maintaining or espousing a principle. In the case of utilities, it makes sense to leave it as a monopoly and have massive regulation on it.

Utility companies have found a way around it and now many if not most are also energy trading companies. Basically, they've gone Wall Street, becoming trading/betting companies.

We've run these experiments. Trying to increase the wealth of a society through novelty and innovation is good. But ONCE IT FAILS, it's time to end the experiment and institute the most beneficial system the historical experimental data supports.

What you are missing is that unlike Nintendo both Sony and MSFT sell their consoles under the razor and blades business model which is also why Sony quit supporting OtherOS. I am surprised when that whole thing came down how nobody seemed to notice that Sony was bleeding money already and you had researchers buying 500+ PS3s at a time to make clusters. every single modded or clustered PS3 is one more system Sony takes a loss on and doesn't get squat back.

As for the FSF? Sigh, why does anybody listen to them anymore? With their whole BadVista and Win 7 "sins" (gotta love that one, acting like they are a fricking church) its obvious the only "freedom" the FSF supports is to be JUST LIKE THEM and if you don't support the FSF "way" then you are wrong and evil and a monster.

One final note and a little offtopic but does anybody else notice that it is coders and ONLY coders that RMS hates? I mean he takes money from Intel and IBM and he doesn't ever say that doctors or CEOs shouldn't get paid JUST programmers. Why is the sweat off a programmer's brow worthless, yet the sweat from a plumber isn't? I mean sure he says you can sell copies but we all know you'll sell exactly ONE and then someone will just come along and sell or give away your work and that is that. The Red Hat support model only works in a teeny tiny niche, and when anybody tries to find another way? RMS has a shitfit. Anybody remember when RMS said you could make money selling documentation? Now he rails against that and demands free docs.

Personally I'm starting to feel the whole damned community is getting trolled by old RMS. Sure he may have believed back in the day but now he seems to just think programmers are completely worthless and should just be happy with whatever scraps they get while not saying jack shit about CEOs or anybody else making a buck. maybe its like one of the head guys at Red Hat says "RMS treats his friends like his enemies" but the fact the guy seems to be on a crusade to make sure programmers make less than the guy cleaning up the puke at the Chuck E Cheese while taking checks from big corps that make tons off of programmers makes me wonder...

This is kinda like people how do not want to sell something because they will lose money. The thing is, they have already lost the money. They are just Realising the Loss when they sell it. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/realizedloss.asp#axzz1yGnexnSj

So, they do not want us to Realise the Loss of our privacy. (Yes, you can read a lot into that, and you should.)

Fiat currencies are wasting assets. What this means is that, all other things equal, your dollars will lose value every year. Same as a new car -- the second you buy it the clock starts ticking and it starts losing value. Most people do not understand this (or want to understand it). But if you don't understand it, you will be repeatedly screwed by those who centrally control the economy.

The official rate of inflation (from government) is 2-3% per year, although independent analysts claim as high as 9%. What this means, in purely objective terms, is that if you don't receive at least a 2-3% pay raise each year, then you effectively take a pay cut each year, equal to the difference.

those are effective taxes, not the total percent they paid based on their profits. Do you understand what an "effective" tax rate is? An effective tax rate of 24% is not 24% of their total profit.

Do you? No, you don't.

What exactly does "non-profit" mean?

Something like this.

Why don't we see a lot more 'small businesses' doing this for the tax break?

They are not on the list, and probably they want to use profits to get rich.

There's nothing stopping a non-profit from switching back to for-profit later, right?

I suspect a reorganization would be required to set up a new corporation, with different name, different charter, its own board of directors, etc. It's doable, but it's not something you can do just by calling your Secretary of State.

However, for the purpose of GP, the lack of long-term interest in corporation is the plague of all publicly-owned businesses everywhere. Why invest in long-term research and growth if you are only going to be a CEO for a few years? Why should investors care if they can dump company stock at the first opportunity?

That still supports my point. You apparently only read the first sentence (which btw used to say exactly what I'm claiming: a free market has zero regulation) but you didn't read all the way through that first paragraph:

"Regulation which does not affect these specific properties can be in place without disqualifying the market as free under supply and demand."

Here's another definition (note the last word): A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.

Look, if you don't want a market with zero regulations, then you don't want a free market. If you want a market with even a small number of well-considered and carefully implemented regulations, then you want what is called an "unfree regulated market". Nearly (but not quite) everybody who actually considers this question, decides they do actually want unfree regulated markets. We should thus drop this religious devotion to "free markets" and instead decide what kind of unfree regulated market we want -- what regulations are good, and which are bad. Unfortunately, that kind of consideration can only be done by people who apply subtle thought, instead of platitudes like "regulations are bad".

Buying stock is a risk reward proposition. I own a portion of the company equal to the number of shares I own over the total number of shares available.

If you're buying common stock (which is most stocks), you're also the last in line to get paid when the company declares bankruptcy. You can still lose everything with no recourse, it's just less common because the barrier to entry is higher for publicly-owned companies than Kickstarter projects.

Not going to happen. Google has a dual class shares. Class B Google stock gets 10x more votes.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/04/092204.asp

Oil doesn't get subsidies.

Yes, they do. Where did you hear such a ridiculous fallacy? The Cato Institute?

And most of the time, it doesn't even get tax breaks.

Wait, are you talking about the substance itself? Surely no one would intentionally be that obtuse... anyway, oil companies most definitely receive tax breaks, to the tune of billions every year.

Most of those go to exploration, and drilling.

Well gee, Wally, care to explain why companies who break their own records for pure profit every single quarter actually need those "exploration" tax breaks?

But hey, don't let reality worry you.

Doesn't seem like I'm the one having trouble with the concept...

Feed-in-tariff ringing any bells?

No, since the term has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of oil subsidies.

The stock market, however, is not meant to be a casino.

Really? If you're thinking of the same stock market as I am, it's hard to believe that it's not intended to be a casino.

The justification for its existence and for treating it like something other than a gambling parlour is that it's a system for providing capital for companies.

Capital comes to companies through IPOs and corporate bond issuances. The stock market that you hear about on a daily basis is almost entirely the secondary market, which is a big pool of speculators (of varying lengths of time... but indeed everyone is speculating that the company won't go bankrupt) whose only "purpose" from a market perspective is to lend confidence to IPOs. The real problem as I see it is that the general public is led to believe that the stock market should be important in their daily life. It shouldn't, precisely because it is so volatile and whimsical.

No, China does not own 70% of Japan's debt, I don't know where you got that number, but it's not even close to being correct. an overview of Japan(and other countries') debts as compiled by the CIA. Japan's total debt to gdp ratio is about 200% of it's $5.5 trillion GDP, or roughly $11 trillion dollars. The foreign held debt is about 2.4 trillion, or only about 22% or so, so there is no way China could hold 70% of Japan's debts. Even if it held 70% of the foreign-owned debt, thats only about 16% of the total, a non-trivial amount to be sure, but nowhere near 70%

Just for the record, living in Japan doesn't give you any sort of special insight into this stuff, and if you are going to correct people, please make sure you are even remotely correct before doing so, otherwise it makes you look like an idiot English teacher.

Dividends are still profit, which is what all shareholders are after whatever form it comes in.

Dividends show up as regular taxable income, whereas a volatile "growth" stock such as AAPL will probably produce long-term capital gains. They're different, and it matters.

Dividends are still profit, which is what all shareholders are after whatever form it comes in.

Dividends show up as regular taxable income, whereas a volatile "growth" stock such as AAPL will probably produce long-term capital gains. They're different, and it matters.

consider the limit case: a company buys out *all* of its shareholders.

There's no way that MSFT can buy all of their own shares without pressuring the price up on themselves. Those last few shareholders will get quite a good price! But seriously, what's wrong with buying back all of your shares? It seems to me that it's a natural mechanism by which a publicly-traded company can regain control at the cost of a capital investment—the reverse of an IPO.

You're going to have unwind that for me, I am only aware of the standard definitions of these terms, to wit:

Hard money policies are those which are opposed to fiat currency and thus in support of a specie standard, usually gold or silver, typically implemented with representative money. (thus)

2. Describes gold/silver/platinum (bullion) coins. A government that uses a hard money policy backs the value of the currency it uses with a hard, tangible and lasting material that will retain its relative value over time. (thus)

The term “hard money” usually refers to one of two things. It can, first of all, be used for actual gold or silver coins, for example. Using this definition, we can say that a hard money policy is one in which the government recognizes currency which is based on an actual, fixed item which is considered valuable.(thus)

I'm just grabbin' the first few out of Google, here, maybe you have some sort of non-standard definition of these terms.

Those two NYTimes articles refer to flash trading, which was short-lived on several exchanges (most notably the NASDAQ). This does not happen a lot; it was shut down within months.

Think about it: If the HFTers shave a penny or so per share off of each trade between exchanges, future prospective buyers will be willing to pay that much less for their shares, because they know that when they ultimately sell them they'll suffer the same loss again to the HFTers. In consequence the seller is obligated to lower the price by that small pittance per share in order to make the trade, which sets the new market price for the stock. The value of the stock will continue to go down until it accounts for the amount of value the HFTers remove over the period of time that the average investor holds the stock.

While you are talking about HFT specifically here, this is an issue generic to traders using market-making strategies. The presence (or absence) of market makers should not depress the price of a stock, but it will definitely impact the bid/ask spread. You are imagining the "penny shaving" from a buyer's perspective, but market makers view buying and selling as mostly symmetric (buy low, sell high; or sell high, buy low), hence why the spread is impacted and not the "price". In actuality, HF market makers are competing with each other for increasingly small penny-shavings, and they're able to do so because reduced latency leads to reduced risk.

Regardless, a long-term investor is looking profit at least an order of magnitude above the cost of liquidity, so none of this should matter to Joe Sixpack and his 401k.

Think about it: If the HFTers shave a penny or so per share off of each trade between exchanges, future prospective buyers will be willing to pay that much less for their shares, because they know that when they ultimately sell them they'll suffer the same loss again to the HFTers. In consequence the seller is obligated to lower the price by that small pittance per share in order to make the trade, which sets the new market price for the stock. The value of the stock will continue to go down until it accounts for the amount of value the HFTers remove over the period of time that the average investor holds the stock.

While you are talking about HFT specifically here, this is an issue generic to traders using market-making strategies. The presence (or absence) of market makers should not depress the price of a stock, but it will definitely impact the bid/ask spread. You are imagining the "penny shaving" from a buyer's perspective, but market makers view buying and selling as mostly symmetric (buy low, sell high; or sell high, buy low), hence why the spread is impacted and not the "price". In actuality, HF market makers are competing with each other for increasingly small penny-shavings, and they're able to do so because reduced latency leads to reduced risk.

Regardless, a long-term investor is looking profit at least an order of magnitude above the cost of liquidity, so none of this should matter to Joe Sixpack and his 401k.

"Market cap" of bid shares is bogus. What happens after the first 10% (or 1% or less) of shares get sold? The price goes down. This is especially true for volatile, speculative, or foward-looking stocks where there are comparatively few buyers who are willing to bid a high price, as opposed to a company like Exxon that has reserves in the ground and the price is more readily and more universally agreed upon and the bids have "depth" that strongly support a price not much less than the highest bid price, which is the only thing that gets reported on Yahoo! Finance and even the vast majority of brokerage accounts.

This distinction between reporting highest bid only and the full depth of bids (e.g. NASDAQ Level II Quotes) is ignored by the mass media (e.g. in stories such as this one) and is one of the ways that Wall Street and also the Plunge Protection Team can manipulate markets -- naked shorts are another and can be used in conjunction.

A truer market cap calculation would take into account the dynamic price and would use the full depth of bids as an indicator and input into a model.

>Rich folks consume more, they pay more. easy math.

Sales taxes are regressive. They always have been. Don't just ask me, ask any economist.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp

If I was rich, I'd be in favor of a sales tax. But I'm not. I've dealt with combined GST and PST in Ontario and it seems like highway robbery when you have "mere mortal" wages, especially when "high sales tax" for me is 7 percent while in the States.

>Undocumented laborers and their families consume, they pay. easy math.

A lot of undocumented workers /have been/ paying taxes in the hopes of establishing proof of residency in case immigration reform comes around. IRS doesn't care if you're here illegally.

>Buy something from out of the country - double the sales tax on importation to the country.

BUT BUT PROTECTIONISM!!! ASLDKFQTQ!!!

I agree that we should have tariffs to stop dumping and the general race to the bottom the American worker has to do in order to compete with 35 cent an hour wages in Bangladesh.

>Online shoppers that don't currently pay state sales tax - you'll still pay national sales tax.

It already exists. You're already supposed to be paying this. It's called Use Tax. Businesses keep track of this. Most consumers don't.

An income tax has been the most equitable way to "spread the pain" over the years.

We had a damn good economy in the 1950s with the income tax rates they had back then. We built interstates, schools, and hospitals with it. Now we have an infrastructure crumbling around our ears and wars we aren't paying for.

As of March 2011

Total War Funding by Operation
Assuming an annual level of the current Continuing Resolution (H.J.Res. 44/P.L. 112-4) and
based on DOD, State Department/USAID, and Department of Veterans Administration budget
submissions, the cumulative total appropriated from the 9/11 for those war operations, diplomatic
operations, and medical care for Iraq and Afghan war veterans is $1.283 trillion including:
â $806 billion for Iraq;
â $444 billion for Afghanistan;
â $29 billion for enhanced security; and
â $6 billion unallocated (see Table 1).

And instead of raising taxes to fund such shenanigans, Bush insisted on cutting taxes, and the "Fiscal Responsibility" whackos still insist on doing the same.

Because, you know, none of that war shit costs anything, obviously.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

--
BMO

Ethics @ Google?

Yes

They are one of the biggest UK/EU tax dodgers. They don't give back to society. Ever hear about the Double Dutch Sandwich?

You mean unlike other ethical companies like Microsoft?

I am an employee for one of the biggest American ex-HF/Bank in London, but from a moral perspective I feel Google is as transparent as the banks.

Then clearly you have never worked @ Google.

Use your head.

Google are common thieves and are like all the fat cats we love to hate, but really if we look inside things we all know how they can afford to give you free swimming pool or pay you 500K USD per year...

I dunno, maybe because we put out high quality products that people actually like using?

Just don't go around like a peacock as the typical American who likes to show his salary, thinking you really are paid with don't be evil money.

Of course, the reason I posted anonymously is because I want to show off my salary. BTW, I am NOT American.

When you know the true reality about all this huge Ponzi scheme which is the global economy, and know Google is part of it, then probably I guess you'd feel a bit ashamed.

This is rich coming from a guy who admits he works for an American financial institution. Clearly, as everyone knows, Google is responsible for the state of the global (and US) economy, and not the American financial institutions .

What a sad sad world we live in.

I agree, which is precisely why I am thankful that I can work for a company like Google. Maybe you should consider not working for an American bank in London?

Why would raising taxes DECREASE revenue? The economy isn't in a bad state so the uphill comparison is wrong.

And sure they can cut spending. Where do you think they'll cut first?

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp

Don't forget about Soros properties - you know, the guy who has a large influence over liberal and public media (you know, government funded) and made a (US)$1 Billion by crashing the British Pound Sterling.

(Interesting bit of information from that page: Britain attempted to keep their unit valuable, but failed to do so because of "low interest rates and high inflation". The US is at the point of low interest rates, and have been for a very long time. The high inflation part hasn't yet come, but the undertow is there to try and create it.)

Saddly you can't short sell the stock for the first 30 days.

Investopedia disagrees with you. All you need is a cozy relationship with an institutional organization that is willing to buy the stock. Maybe not something that a retail trader can do, but probably within the means of a professional trader.

moderate-to-high amounts of violence

I watch the news. Check.

FCC-regulated TV news does exercise discretion as to whether to show the gorier shots.

sexual themes

Fuck? YEAH!

use of profanity

Fuck, YEAH!

Now you've got that song from Team America: World Police running through my head.

gambling

I cross the street, drive a car... does that count?

Western culture generally doesn't consider pure risk to be forbidden gambling. As I understand it, forbidden gambling is any sort of risk that A. isn't a pure risk and B. isn't tied to a business concern's profit.

drug use

Do coffee and beer count?

Maybe and yes. Irresponsible drug use counts, as does use of age-restricted drugs.

bodily functions

Who doesn't?

Not flamboyantly in front of other people in the way that a video game about a monkey flinging her own poop might.