what is so worthwhile about gaining increasingly more value and wealth
- OK, ask yourself a question: is it worthwhile building industries that are self-sustainable or just running welfare projects, personal pet projects that can only last due to subsidies and are not sustainable on their own?
Is it really hard to understand that a business that makes profits and not losses is the business that is going to survive? Is it better to build a business that survives by investing into it or is it better to build a temporary play ground that only misallocates scarce resources to something that is not market oriented and so cannot be sustained in the long run?
If you cannot answer this question, then you won't understand the problem with yours.
- then get rid of government in energy and in business regulations and moral hazard production, because BP had a go ahead from the government to do whatever, since their liability was only up to 75,000,000 USD per incident, and that's a penny to them, it's called a moral hazard. That's the same stuff that gov't did with fake money for the entire financial system and for the entire economy, that's the same thing they did with all the other fake insurance that they provide (fake, because real insurance must have actual assets in a fund, gov't doesn't, it relies on money printing and its supposed ability to raise taxes to cover their expenses).
All the people who've gone to 'Vegas and lost their shirt (or at least lost money they couldn't afford to lose) disprove your point.
- a bank who'd have a manager that would gamble with people's money, when it's real savings, in a system where banks are not propped up by fake insurance (FDIC), fake, because it simply relies on the printing press, not on any assets.
A system where money doesn't come out of thin air, a system where interest rates are real, and people can expect a normal return of interest on long term papers, bond, actual dividends?
In that system a banking manager like that would quickly lose his job or the bank would shut down.
Before 1971 in USA there was not a single investment bank that was public, they were all partnerships and the partners had their own money at stake. What changed since 1971?
Same as with most other things in USA, with jobs being moved out to other countries, etc., the money was no longer real, Nixon took the world off the gold.
Who said that I want to "destroy HFT"? Where does that come out of? It is a market decision what to do with HFT, the reason that the HFT are taking over though, is a response to the free money that is provided by the gov't to the banks and thus various 'investor' firms to gamble with. The reason people gamble with money is because it's not real, it's fake. You don't gamble, you don't take crazy risks with your actual savings. Also you don't gamble if you don't expect to be bailed out.
The retail investors is pushed out of the trading platforms, what is the current ratio of retail investors VS various automated trading mechanisms?
A market solution is to force the economy into the recession, so that the debts will be liquidated, bad money will be removed from the system by forcing many people to fail, companies would shut down and all the real remaining resources would be available to restart production. The fact that this means a round of deflation is a good thing for an economy in a recession, because deflation allows people with little savings to survive due to lower prices.
But no, the gov't prints money, bails out banks and investment firms (Warren Buffet wouldn't be around if AIG wasn't bailed out).
You don't need a law to get rid of HFT competing with retail investors, you need real money, you need real interest rates, real return on money. You don't gamble if you can have a working market that gives you a normal return of about 5-6%.
Most of the people are pushed into the retail stock market, so in today's world they are pushed into gambling, while in a healthy economy with real money, they could just stick to long term bonds, corporate or gov't, doesn't matter, as long as the value of money is not destroyed.
What do you care about HFT if you don't trade with them? HFT is created by the promise of a bail out and by non-existing interest rates, but I don't want to 'ban' anything except gov't manipulation of money.
The real solutions are shunned, the real solutions is to allow the people (market) set the interest rates, allow the people (market) choose what to use as money, prevent government from printing, from interfering with the economy, prevent gov't from deficit spending, ensure that all bonds pay actual interest rates, not fake ones, that support deficit spending, things like that.
Of-course the actual solutions aren't even accepted on silly public forums, and they are definitely not going to be accepted by the politicians.
Fraud is not a legal practice in case of Free Market, however there is no actual problem here that cannot be solved by the Free Market - only get apps from reputable sources.
Free Market has its own regulations. If you fail, you fail, there is no government bail out. If you don't care about the risk you take, you can get burned, so you are not checking whether the source of your app or source of your food or your bank has good reputation, you are taking a risk.
Now saying that these people get burned in unregulated markets, first of all, those markets are monopolies. Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet republics do not have Free Market, they have mafias running their governments, people's rights are NOT protected.
If you think Russia and Urkaine, etc., are examples of Free Market, then you have completely misunderstood the principles of Freedom.
The Pussy Riot case just happened, just a few weeks ago, you think Russia has a Free Market?
No. The difference is not (and was never expected to be) that organic food contains more or better nutrients. The difference is that organic food is a misnomer, all food is organic, otherwise humans couldn't sustain themselves on it any longer, than they can sustain themselves on rocks, metals and various inorganic compounds
Obviously, corporations are not people are not companies are not businesses,
- what a bunch of nonsense. Most corporations are small businesses and hundreds of thousands of corporations are 1 men shows that operate as contractors. This is Orwellian attempt at redefining words, nothing else. As to corporations being people - corporations are a fiction, there is always at least 1 person behind the corporate front, and since corporation operates as a separate legal entity, it has to have the rights similar to that of people because it operates with the money of the people, so not allowing a corporation to have the rights of people means that people cannot use their money within their own full rights (for example without the right of free speech, the government could prevent a corporation that competed with a government protected monopoly from advertising. This often happens anyway through quazi gov't agencies, like FINRA. It prevent businesses from advertising their past success, which specifically helps the established large firms and prevents small firms from competing).
Actually there is no reason at all that government should be allowed to create ANY new laws past the first set that governs the government. How about having a Constitution that specifies what exactly the government is allowed to do and then locks the system so that no new laws can ever be created?
There is no reason to use government for more than border protection and protection of individual freedoms, all other functions should be handled by people without government intervention.
Here is a picture that I remember from way back - this is a red river in the city of Zaporizhia in Ukraine, this city has (or had) a number of factories, smelters, motor factories, I think most of them were just dumping the waste right into Dnepr (the main river in Ukraine) and then all that water flows into the Black sea.
Quite correct, that's how the majority opinion is ruled nowadays, people are told: the majority of 'economists' say that more government spending is a good thing for the economy and taxes must be raised on the rich, it's going to help the economy, etc.
'The majority of economists' - that's the trick. Have the universities work together with the government, only allow the Keynesian charlatans to be counted as 'economists' (and obviously there is a majority of them, because only Keynesian economists are going to be promoted by gov't in universities).
That's how you can create false consensus around completely wrong ideas.
I am a 'free market' guy, I am against government on all fronts out of principle, that gov't is an inherent form of evil that must be controlled and cannot be allowed to steal individual freedoms.
OTOH I cannot even think to 'deny evolution', this makes no sense to me.
As to the global warming, etc., AFAIC this stuff being pushed by various politicians is another way to steal individual freedoms. It's all about taxes, it's all about caps on production, it's all about diminishing personal liberties. So it's a strawman to declare that 'free market' people deny evolution or deny climate change, what we do deny is the authority of government to impose its will, the collective is not above the individual.
I write plenty of code that is heavy on algorithms, many data transformations, mappings, mappings to mappings, etc., all of this to get data into certain types of structures that are easy for human consumption, easy to understand visually. When you do a lot of transformations of data, you write a lot of code, when the data has various attributes and you have to combine this data into something meaningful based on combinations of these attributes, create tree structure, prune them, use heuristics to eliminate unnecessary parts of structures to speed up the process and such.
Every chunk of code is terse and quite verbose, it's 'easy' to read each separate chunk, and since these chunks are contained in their own functions, you can follow what every higher level function is, so supposedly it's not difficult to understand from reading it.
OTOH if instead of forcing a person to read through 15-40 pages of such stuff I just want them to understand what the entire thing does, I can put a comment on top of the top level function: inputs, outputs, side-effects (if any).
This is what happens when all that governments end up doing is printing their money and spending, going into debt by selling debt instruments while printing currency. The 'free' money is handed over to the banks, the interest rates are lowest ever and thus the only 'secure' way to 'make' money is to buy government debt.
Now understand that what Sharp is going through is what all smaller businesses are going through, except Sharp has the scale, the assets that it can basically pawn. But a small business has no ability to secure any loans, it doesn't have the collateral.
This means that the REAL interest rates on the market are fucking INSANE, if even industry leaders like Sharp, with clients like Apple cannot get a fucking loan from a fucking bank. Talk about lack of purpose for the banking system, when all it does is facilitating the gov't ability to borrow more money through basically what amounts to is counterfeiting operation and money laundering (that's the part where the Federal reserve, as an example, doesn't buy the Treasury debts directly, but goes through a proxy bank, allowing that bank to make 'record profits' in interim).
This is a fucking disaster, this is what loans are SUPPOSED to be for - business. Not consumption, which is all that gov't takes out loans to do, no it's production that is suffering.
That's the crux of the economic disaster that the world is facing.
which estimates it will see an additional $317 million annually as a result
And will be instantly pissed away on corruption and bullshit and the bond payments for the initial funding for that idiotic "high speed" train which is really just a welfare project for high paid political cronies to sit around on boards and committees.
- yes, but it won't be 317Million annually any more than what the FaceBook supposed taxes were going to bring to CA.
It's simple - the taxes, they won't collect them because people won't buy as much from CA with these taxes, they'll find a way to get around them one way or another. Arizona is nearby and I see a business opportunity in Arizona to CA delivery for a fraction of the tax fee.
Former President Bill Clinton has even stepped in to serve as the symposium's Honorary Chair. In a statement, Clinton said: "This important effort helps advance the knowledge and technologies required to explore space, all while generating the necessary tools that enhance our quality of life on earth."
- now there is a bunch of political nonsense, if you want to add some to your collection. Who exactly is going to benefit from this and how is this going to be paid for? Certainly if you spend billions or trillions you can 'invent' things, you can come up with certain technologies, but that's a side show, the main point is to send a hunk of metal out of this solar system somewhere else.
If somebody wanted to spend a bunch of money researching materials and technologies actually to 'enhance our quality of life on earth', they don't need to have it wrapped in an ultra-expensive 'send a tube to another star' project. It sounds wonderful and it may be a great project to work on for people who'll get those jobs, but unless this is done privately (and it's not, it's DARPA), then it's more taxes, borrowing and inflation.
Ok, if you want to spend a bunch of money employing a bunch of scientists just for the shit of it, hoping for some return on that investment, at least have them do something that is useful in THIS freaking solar system. How about mining asteroids? Mining the Solar system for fresh water? For whatever. Sending a tube into space so that 100 years later (hundred years) it can enter a foreign star system. If you want that as a goal, first stop all other government spending. Stop the wars, stop the retirement and health care ponzi scams (which they are, all the money is spent and bonds have to be sold, which means they have to be bought back with interest, which means taxes have to be collected again to pay back for the bonds, which means it's double taxation for the purposes of paying out the later entries into the pyramid scams, because the first batch of taxes was stolen already), stop all the other nonsense spending, then you can pretend that you can 'enhance our quality of life on earth' by sending a tube into another star system.
By the way, balls on that guy and stupidity of people who listen to him, pay him to listen to him. The guy put USA on a short term adjustable rate mortgage and thus allowed the deficits and debts to be so much bigger. The guy had the Fed chairman who was known for his 'Greenspan put', that's how much money they printed. Presided over the huge stock market bubble, which was created with all that cheap, fake money. Now most people think he was the best president, what a joke.
Slashdot Mirror
what is so worthwhile about gaining increasingly more value and wealth
- OK, ask yourself a question: is it worthwhile building industries that are self-sustainable or just running welfare projects, personal pet projects that can only last due to subsidies and are not sustainable on their own?
Is it really hard to understand that a business that makes profits and not losses is the business that is going to survive? Is it better to build a business that survives by investing into it or is it better to build a temporary play ground that only misallocates scarce resources to something that is not market oriented and so cannot be sustained in the long run?
If you cannot answer this question, then you won't understand the problem with yours.
I am pretty sure that works of fiction qualify for this, so does it mean Ender's Game becomes illegal in UK?
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one
- which is of-course the kind of nonsense that is always used to justify murdering thugs in power doing whatever they want.
Of-course once you do incorporate you'll become THE EVIL and Democrats, even those who are delegates at the DNC convention will want to cap or even completely ban your profits.
Psychopathic Traits: What Successful Presidents Have in Common
Presidential success is linked with fearless dominance, a psychopathic trait of boldness that can sometimes turn reckless
I don't want a blank check for BP
- then get rid of government in energy and in business regulations and moral hazard production, because BP had a go ahead from the government to do whatever, since their liability was only up to 75,000,000 USD per incident, and that's a penny to them, it's called a moral hazard. That's the same stuff that gov't did with fake money for the entire financial system and for the entire economy, that's the same thing they did with all the other fake insurance that they provide (fake, because real insurance must have actual assets in a fund, gov't doesn't, it relies on money printing and its supposed ability to raise taxes to cover their expenses).
All the people who've gone to 'Vegas and lost their shirt (or at least lost money they couldn't afford to lose) disprove your point.
- a bank who'd have a manager that would gamble with people's money, when it's real savings, in a system where banks are not propped up by fake insurance (FDIC), fake, because it simply relies on the printing press, not on any assets.
A system where money doesn't come out of thin air, a system where interest rates are real, and people can expect a normal return of interest on long term papers, bond, actual dividends?
In that system a banking manager like that would quickly lose his job or the bank would shut down.
Before 1971 in USA there was not a single investment bank that was public, they were all partnerships and the partners had their own money at stake. What changed since 1971?
Same as with most other things in USA, with jobs being moved out to other countries, etc., the money was no longer real, Nixon took the world off the gold.
Who said that I want to "destroy HFT"? Where does that come out of? It is a market decision what to do with HFT, the reason that the HFT are taking over though, is a response to the free money that is provided by the gov't to the banks and thus various 'investor' firms to gamble with. The reason people gamble with money is because it's not real, it's fake. You don't gamble, you don't take crazy risks with your actual savings. Also you don't gamble if you don't expect to be bailed out.
The retail investors is pushed out of the trading platforms, what is the current ratio of retail investors VS various automated trading mechanisms?
A market solution is to force the economy into the recession, so that the debts will be liquidated, bad money will be removed from the system by forcing many people to fail, companies would shut down and all the real remaining resources would be available to restart production. The fact that this means a round of deflation is a good thing for an economy in a recession, because deflation allows people with little savings to survive due to lower prices.
But no, the gov't prints money, bails out banks and investment firms (Warren Buffet wouldn't be around if AIG wasn't bailed out).
You don't need a law to get rid of HFT competing with retail investors, you need real money, you need real interest rates, real return on money. You don't gamble if you can have a working market that gives you a normal return of about 5-6%.
Most of the people are pushed into the retail stock market, so in today's world they are pushed into gambling, while in a healthy economy with real money, they could just stick to long term bonds, corporate or gov't, doesn't matter, as long as the value of money is not destroyed.
What do you care about HFT if you don't trade with them? HFT is created by the promise of a bail out and by non-existing interest rates, but I don't want to 'ban' anything except gov't manipulation of money.
The root cause behind HFT is high level of inflation (money printing), artificial interest rates that are forced down to support inflation and thus the consumers, who are forced into the stock markets, which become gambling mechanisms rather than investment platforms.
The real solutions are shunned, the real solutions is to allow the people (market) set the interest rates, allow the people (market) choose what to use as money, prevent government from printing, from interfering with the economy, prevent gov't from deficit spending, ensure that all bonds pay actual interest rates, not fake ones, that support deficit spending, things like that.
Of-course the actual solutions aren't even accepted on silly public forums, and they are definitely not going to be accepted by the politicians.
Slashdot?
Listen, slashdot collectively agrees that Russia has a free market, see? Slashdot is not in any position to be a moral authority on such things, why are you surprised?
Fraud is not a legal practice in case of Free Market, however there is no actual problem here that cannot be solved by the Free Market - only get apps from reputable sources.
Free Market has its own regulations. If you fail, you fail, there is no government bail out. If you don't care about the risk you take, you can get burned, so you are not checking whether the source of your app or source of your food or your bank has good reputation, you are taking a risk.
Now saying that these people get burned in unregulated markets, first of all, those markets are monopolies. Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet republics do not have Free Market, they have mafias running their governments, people's rights are NOT protected.
If you think Russia and Urkaine, etc., are examples of Free Market, then you have completely misunderstood the principles of Freedom.
The Pussy Riot case just happened, just a few weeks ago, you think Russia has a Free Market?
No. The difference is not (and was never expected to be) that organic food contains more or better nutrients. The difference is that organic food is a misnomer, all food is organic, otherwise humans couldn't sustain themselves on it any longer, than they can sustain themselves on rocks, metals and various inorganic compounds
- FTFY.
"we"?
Here is your 'alternative Universe' with almost 30,000,000 corporations counted.
Obviously, corporations are not people are not companies are not businesses,
- what a bunch of nonsense. Most corporations are small businesses and hundreds of thousands of corporations are 1 men shows that operate as contractors. This is Orwellian attempt at redefining words, nothing else. As to corporations being people - corporations are a fiction, there is always at least 1 person behind the corporate front, and since corporation operates as a separate legal entity, it has to have the rights similar to that of people because it operates with the money of the people, so not allowing a corporation to have the rights of people means that people cannot use their money within their own full rights (for example without the right of free speech, the government could prevent a corporation that competed with a government protected monopoly from advertising. This often happens anyway through quazi gov't agencies, like FINRA. It prevent businesses from advertising their past success, which specifically helps the established large firms and prevents small firms from competing).
Actually there is no reason at all that government should be allowed to create ANY new laws past the first set that governs the government. How about having a Constitution that specifies what exactly the government is allowed to do and then locks the system so that no new laws can ever be created?
There is no reason to use government for more than border protection and protection of individual freedoms, all other functions should be handled by people without government intervention.
Here is a picture that I remember from way back - this is a red river in the city of Zaporizhia in Ukraine, this city has (or had) a number of factories, smelters, motor factories, I think most of them were just dumping the waste right into Dnepr (the main river in Ukraine) and then all that water flows into the Black sea.
Quite correct, that's how the majority opinion is ruled nowadays, people are told: the majority of 'economists' say that more government spending is a good thing for the economy and taxes must be raised on the rich, it's going to help the economy, etc.
'The majority of economists' - that's the trick. Have the universities work together with the government, only allow the Keynesian charlatans to be counted as 'economists' (and obviously there is a majority of them, because only Keynesian economists are going to be promoted by gov't in universities).
That's how you can create false consensus around completely wrong ideas.
I am a 'free market' guy, I am against government on all fronts out of principle, that gov't is an inherent form of evil that must be controlled and cannot be allowed to steal individual freedoms.
OTOH I cannot even think to 'deny evolution', this makes no sense to me.
As to the global warming, etc., AFAIC this stuff being pushed by various politicians is another way to steal individual freedoms. It's all about taxes, it's all about caps on production, it's all about diminishing personal liberties. So it's a strawman to declare that 'free market' people deny evolution or deny climate change, what we do deny is the authority of government to impose its will, the collective is not above the individual.
I write plenty of code that is heavy on algorithms, many data transformations, mappings, mappings to mappings, etc., all of this to get data into certain types of structures that are easy for human consumption, easy to understand visually. When you do a lot of transformations of data, you write a lot of code, when the data has various attributes and you have to combine this data into something meaningful based on combinations of these attributes, create tree structure, prune them, use heuristics to eliminate unnecessary parts of structures to speed up the process and such.
Every chunk of code is terse and quite verbose, it's 'easy' to read each separate chunk, and since these chunks are contained in their own functions, you can follow what every higher level function is, so supposedly it's not difficult to understand from reading it.
OTOH if instead of forcing a person to read through 15-40 pages of such stuff I just want them to understand what the entire thing does, I can put a comment on top of the top level function: inputs, outputs, side-effects (if any).
This is what happens when all that governments end up doing is printing their money and spending, going into debt by selling debt instruments while printing currency. The 'free' money is handed over to the banks, the interest rates are lowest ever and thus the only 'secure' way to 'make' money is to buy government debt.
Now understand that what Sharp is going through is what all smaller businesses are going through, except Sharp has the scale, the assets that it can basically pawn. But a small business has no ability to secure any loans, it doesn't have the collateral.
This means that the REAL interest rates on the market are fucking INSANE, if even industry leaders like Sharp, with clients like Apple cannot get a fucking loan from a fucking bank. Talk about lack of purpose for the banking system, when all it does is facilitating the gov't ability to borrow more money through basically what amounts to is counterfeiting operation and money laundering (that's the part where the Federal reserve, as an example, doesn't buy the Treasury debts directly, but goes through a proxy bank, allowing that bank to make 'record profits' in interim).
This is a fucking disaster, this is what loans are SUPPOSED to be for - business. Not consumption, which is all that gov't takes out loans to do, no it's production that is suffering.
That's the crux of the economic disaster that the world is facing.
143 km ought to be enough for anybody.
Here is something funny, the DNC convention 'cracked' by an undercover libertarian. It's funny until you realise that those people are actually not average people from the street, they are delegates, representing their party in the convention.
which estimates it will see an additional $317 million annually as a result
And will be instantly pissed away on corruption and bullshit and the bond payments for the initial funding for that idiotic "high speed" train which is really just a welfare project for high paid political cronies to sit around on boards and committees.
- yes, but it won't be 317Million annually any more than what the FaceBook supposed taxes were going to bring to CA.
It's simple - the taxes, they won't collect them because people won't buy as much from CA with these taxes, they'll find a way to get around them one way or another. Arizona is nearby and I see a business opportunity in Arizona to CA delivery for a fraction of the tax fee.
Former President Bill Clinton has even stepped in to serve as the symposium's Honorary Chair. In a statement, Clinton said: "This important effort helps advance the knowledge and technologies required to explore space, all while generating the necessary tools that enhance our quality of life on earth."
- now there is a bunch of political nonsense, if you want to add some to your collection. Who exactly is going to benefit from this and how is this going to be paid for? Certainly if you spend billions or trillions you can 'invent' things, you can come up with certain technologies, but that's a side show, the main point is to send a hunk of metal out of this solar system somewhere else.
If somebody wanted to spend a bunch of money researching materials and technologies actually to 'enhance our quality of life on earth', they don't need to have it wrapped in an ultra-expensive 'send a tube to another star' project. It sounds wonderful and it may be a great project to work on for people who'll get those jobs, but unless this is done privately (and it's not, it's DARPA), then it's more taxes, borrowing and inflation.
Ok, if you want to spend a bunch of money employing a bunch of scientists just for the shit of it, hoping for some return on that investment, at least have them do something that is useful in THIS freaking solar system. How about mining asteroids? Mining the Solar system for fresh water? For whatever. Sending a tube into space so that 100 years later (hundred years) it can enter a foreign star system. If you want that as a goal, first stop all other government spending. Stop the wars, stop the retirement and health care ponzi scams (which they are, all the money is spent and bonds have to be sold, which means they have to be bought back with interest, which means taxes have to be collected again to pay back for the bonds, which means it's double taxation for the purposes of paying out the later entries into the pyramid scams, because the first batch of taxes was stolen already), stop all the other nonsense spending, then you can pretend that you can 'enhance our quality of life on earth' by sending a tube into another star system.
By the way, balls on that guy and stupidity of people who listen to him, pay him to listen to him. The guy put USA on a short term adjustable rate mortgage and thus allowed the deficits and debts to be so much bigger. The guy had the Fed chairman who was known for his 'Greenspan put', that's how much money they printed. Presided over the huge stock market bubble, which was created with all that cheap, fake money. Now most people think he was the best president, what a joke.
Picture wouldn't hurt more, she is paralysed chest down.