My sensibilities aren't defiled - but I would support those who are hurt by your pointless cruelty.
Sure they are. Cry some more, little leech.
Good to see a capitalist talking (but in very cowardly terms) about killing me.
Nah. I will only watch while the very system you wish for collapses around you and crushes you, and take pleasure from it. My idea of freedom encompasses the freedom to fail miserably and pay the price for it as you certainly will. Good luck!
Sorry, but you are talking from your ass, my friend. The farther Germany (or any country in Contemporary History) went from the free-market economy the worst it got, German is still pretty much a social market economy and that is what is dragging it down. The small recoveries German had were exactly in the few areas where they decided to stop to intervene. But as I said in my previous post nobody is better at ignoring evidence than leftists like you, my friend.
West Germany drastically reduced its technological and industrial production by abandoning the free market (the same that happened with the Nordic countries). They are still economically well mainly because they still have a lot of money to burn and a lot of industry to trash, unlike Sweden and Finland, for example, but as it is the case with the latter their economic model is unsustainable. Just a quick reference:
And although humans have organized in societies throughout human history there was never and never will be a monolithic group called "collective". Human civilization evolved as groups of individuals getting together to accomplish common goals and fighting to the death clubbing one another when their needs conflicted. Believing in this fairy tail of "collective needs" is what can be called stupidity. There are no collective needs or wishes, there are only individual needs and wishes that are accomplished by group efforts.
Is it a lie that the invisible hand of the market lets some people slip through its fingers into poverty.
It is a lie to say that it is any worse than all the alternatives we have. No other system has improved the lives of the average people more than Capitalism and the free market. It isn't perfect, but its problems must be compared to the problems of the alternative solutions provided, and those solutions not only do not fix those problems but tend to make them worse.
You prove time and time again that you are really an idiot. You are the crybaby whose sensibilities are so defiled by my saying all those evil words, but you can cry like a little child to your mother, err I mean government, and tell her I told you bad things.
Your ignorance is shameful. Regardless of its origins which go back to private institutions as the MIT as well as the government, the Internet is almost completely private nowadays, and I pay for my access. I am leeching nothing. You, on the other hand, are not only a leech, you are a parasite, a disease that must be purged from our world, and eventually will. I will enjoy watching when it happens.
This started way before the GLB. It started decades ago with government interference in real estate contracts and financing. Thomas Sowell explains the process in detail in his book "The Housing Boom and Bust", which I highly recommend if you really want to understand what happened.
Nah. I am one of those guys who actually work for his money. I don't leech the government, I don't need the government and I am quite satisfied when the government does nothing at all to me, but nice ad hominem. Fallacies like this only show your idiocy and lack of argument.
And yes, lynching, horrible as it is, is not quite as bad for society as policing thought, but that is unfortunately something beyond your limited capacity to understand.
Nobody needs to be radical to follow a doctrine. Obama, Clinton and Democrats in general are politically aligned to the left. They defend increasing control over the Economy, the Welfare State, Affirmative Action and many other ideas that practically define what is called political "left".
Sure there is evidence, my friend. The world is a giant laboratory and in it we can easily find enough evidence. Evidence that leftists are more than ready to ignore. Always.
Leftists defend state control over the economy regardless of the fact that it has been proven, by the economic calculation problem that it is simply impossible for centralized control to work.
Leftists defend political and economical models that have been empirically shown time and time again ineffective and unsustainable at their best and catastrophic at their worse, but who cares about those last dozen tries or so, THIS time it will work, right?
Leftists ignore that there isn't any other economical system that got even near Capitalism in improving the lives of common people.
Leftists blatantly ignore that all countries that have the freest economies have consistently improved the quality of live of the normal citizens, while those that have tried leftists "solutions" are either broken or breaking at this point.
And above all leftists defend that the collective know what is best for the individual when all examples in human history show that there is no such thing as "collective". There is only people ready to make use of class warfare, bigotry and naivete to gain power and live the lives of kings while the very people they pretend to care about die from hunger.
Right wing ideas are not the "Immutable Truth" even because this concept is utopic. They are wrong many many times, but they are right at least part of the time. Left wing ideas on the other hand, are all based on lies that come directly from the core of its doctrine and as such are the "Immutable Farce".
Leftists are above and beyond anything else a bunch of self-serving hypocrites.
Please, nobody is better at ignoring hard evidence than the left. Bad as all politicians are, right wing ones are still a lot less scaring than our new overlords from the left.
I don't know in which fantasy world you live, but you are completely out of touch with reality, my friend. Sure, there are a few exceptions but, as a general rule, if you want a good chance to have your funding approved either you are a hotshot with a big name or you say what politically correct people want to hear, and a lot of crappy pseudo-academics and incompetent researchers do not lose their shit exactly because they conform with politically correctness and produce results that are what people in power and vocal political groups want to rear.
"Political correctness" is bigotry in its purest form. It does not in any way or form helps to avoid it, and it does work by forbidding disambiguous wording and by forcing duplicitous and favoring meaningless generalized words in their place. It is exactly the same as Newspeak and you are only unable to see it because you don't want to see it.
There is a whole lot of ground between "being impolite"and "being politically incorrect". Being politically incorrect means saying any thought that defies the social order, no matter how politely you do so. For example if you point in a study even with a considerable amount of evidence that women are in average worse in ANY given task you can say bye bye to your academic funding.
Typing "one would be hard pressed to" isn't even close to evidence.
And exactly because it is true that is the only thing you can say about my statement. You can't really find such differences, mainly because they do not exist.
It certainly has a lot to do with punishments, and in many many ways. It ends careers, kicks people from jobs, punishes children in schools and even puts people in jail as in this case.
And it is far from being just institutionalized politeness. It is and always was an attempt of thought control, of indoctrination. One would be hard pressed to find real differences between Political Correctness and 1984's Newspeak.
Yes teachers, at least most of them. Those that ignore their obligations and abuse of their positions to force their world view and political ideals into kids. They are every bit as bad as bankers, traders, and drug dealers, in their own way.
Sure it is. Politically correctness is basically a set of acceptable behaviors to which any deviation is considered atrocious and punishable. It is the attempt to control and conform people to the same ideas by force. What he did was completely harmless, and I personally find very fun, as I find fun to play Quake or GTA, for example.
Nah. The person that has absolutely no argument and is now trying to derail the debate is you, not me, my friend. It is a pathetic attempt to preserve your feeble self-esteem and escape the obvious conclusion that everything you wrote in this thread is utter nonsense. I pity you.
Please provide me the paper you have written that demonstrably proves that HFT is not in the slightest bit responsible for any artificial deflation of stock markets, or any artificial booms that wouldn't otherwise have happened without it.
Please provide me the paper that proves you are not a serial killer, otherwise we will have to put you in jail, just in case.
The fact is, it's a chaotic system, and we have no idea it's impact on these sorts of issues.
It may be, or not, but again you are unable to prove it is, and claiming that something fits in a mathematical model requires a mathematical proof.
Again, you're making an argument without having even a basic grasp of the topic...
I do have a very good grasp of the topic and after reading your nonsense I am quite sure my knowledge about Mathematics and Economics is significantly greater than yours, but suit yourself and keep hiding in your shell of ignorance and prejudice.
The very nature of chaotic systems is that they can lead to unforeseen results
You can't even prove it is a chaotic system at all. You can`t prove anything at all.
It's not a case of forbidden unless proven useful, it's a case of forbidden until proven harmless
Nothing can be proven to be harmless, and you still fail to bring any evidence at all that this is harmful, even the "Flash Crash" didn't do any real harm to the market. When you want to ban something just because you suspect it may be harmful without any evidence it is actually harmful you are just acting on prejudice.
But no one said that. That was speculation on his behalf as to people's distaste for it. You can't say someone has no argument based on a certain opinion if they never actually expressed that opinion.
This speculation is substantiated by your complete lack of objective reasons to forbid it and your wish to do so even then.
Furthermore you are doing exactly what you are criticizing on him. This assertion you made is not backed by anything, for example:
HFT has a real impact on world economies and often unpredictably so.
Your whole point is that things should be forbidden unless proven useful. That is ridiculous and undesirable in a free society. In a free society things should only be forbidden when they are proven harmful, which is not the case with HFT.
That is not what he said. What he said is that when all you have to say against something is that it is bad because the rich are making money you have no argument.
The rest of your argument is just a bunch of suppositions without any real data to substantiate. Nobody was able to prove that HFT is more dangerous than normal trading or that it has any adverse effects on the economy. There is even analysts who defend that HFT have a very positive effect in the economy by adding liquidity to the market.
Richard Stallman warned us about this decades ago. It is incredible how people are still able to dismiss his warnings as more and more of his predictions come into reality.
This is one of the multiple reasons why public schools are this bad. These arbitrary "standards" help nobody, not even the student that otherwise would be left behind.
And voucher funds are nothing more than fair. Unfair is to force people to pay for their children education twice. If someone is not using the public education system, for which he pays, he should be able to receive back whatever he is saving the government to help paying his private school of choice.
Finland and Sweden have good public schools, not as good as private schools in other developed countries, but good nevertheless. But those schools are worse than they were 10 years ago, and their economy is failing mostly because of high taxes and high expenses in welfare, which includes schooling.
And lets not forget that corruption levels and misuse of public money in Finland and Sweden are much lower than in US, because of the difference in size between these countries. Even so their model is unsustainable. Even more, the system fails to reward adequately the high achievers, by heavily taxing the successful, which more likely than not end going away to places were their abilities are better rewarded. It is no surprise that most science and technology is made in US and other countries with lower taxes. Unless you force them to stay by the threat of death, like Communist regimens always do, those who produce tend to run away from welfare states.
Public schooling for the masses is a model that does not work and will never work. If the intent is to achieve universal education it is much better to pay a fixed amount to everybody so they can choose which private school they wish to attend (and complement with their own money of they so wish). It is cheap and better for everybody, helps the economy, gives control to the parents and cuts away money wasting in government bureaucracy.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in my mid-30s and earnt enough money during the first "dot com boom" to last me a lifetime.
And I am Bill Gates, little leech.
My sensibilities aren't defiled - but I would support those who are hurt by your pointless cruelty.
Sure they are. Cry some more, little leech.
Good to see a capitalist talking (but in very cowardly terms) about killing me.
Nah. I will only watch while the very system you wish for collapses around you and crushes you, and take pleasure from it. My idea of freedom encompasses the freedom to fail miserably and pay the price for it as you certainly will. Good luck!
Sorry, but you are talking from your ass, my friend. The farther Germany (or any country in Contemporary History) went from the free-market economy the worst it got, German is still pretty much a social market economy and that is what is dragging it down. The small recoveries German had were exactly in the few areas where they decided to stop to intervene. But as I said in my previous post nobody is better at ignoring evidence than leftists like you, my friend.
West Germany drastically reduced its technological and industrial production by abandoning the free market (the same that happened with the Nordic countries). They are still economically well mainly because they still have a lot of money to burn and a lot of industry to trash, unlike Sweden and Finland, for example, but as it is the case with the latter their economic model is unsustainable. Just a quick reference:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/number-one-problem-economy-europe
And although humans have organized in societies throughout human history there was never and never will be a monolithic group called "collective". Human civilization evolved as groups of individuals getting together to accomplish common goals and fighting to the death clubbing one another when their needs conflicted. Believing in this fairy tail of "collective needs" is what can be called stupidity. There are no collective needs or wishes, there are only individual needs and wishes that are accomplished by group efforts.
Is it a lie that the invisible hand of the market lets some people slip through its fingers into poverty.
It is a lie to say that it is any worse than all the alternatives we have. No other system has improved the lives of the average people more than Capitalism and the free market. It isn't perfect, but its problems must be compared to the problems of the alternative solutions provided, and those solutions not only do not fix those problems but tend to make them worse.
You prove time and time again that you are really an idiot. You are the crybaby whose sensibilities are so defiled by my saying all those evil words, but you can cry like a little child to your mother, err I mean government, and tell her I told you bad things.
Your ignorance is shameful. Regardless of its origins which go back to private institutions as the MIT as well as the government, the Internet is almost completely private nowadays, and I pay for my access. I am leeching nothing. You, on the other hand, are not only a leech, you are a parasite, a disease that must be purged from our world, and eventually will. I will enjoy watching when it happens.
This started way before the GLB. It started decades ago with government interference in real estate contracts and financing. Thomas Sowell explains the process in detail in his book "The Housing Boom and Bust", which I highly recommend if you really want to understand what happened.
Nah. I am one of those guys who actually work for his money. I don't leech the government, I don't need the government and I am quite satisfied when the government does nothing at all to me, but nice ad hominem. Fallacies like this only show your idiocy and lack of argument.
And yes, lynching, horrible as it is, is not quite as bad for society as policing thought, but that is unfortunately something beyond your limited capacity to understand.
Nobody needs to be radical to follow a doctrine. Obama, Clinton and Democrats in general are politically aligned to the left. They defend increasing control over the Economy, the Welfare State, Affirmative Action and many other ideas that practically define what is called political "left".
Sure there is evidence, my friend. The world is a giant laboratory and in it we can easily find enough evidence. Evidence that leftists are more than ready to ignore. Always.
Leftists defend state control over the economy regardless of the fact that it has been proven, by the economic calculation problem that it is simply impossible for centralized control to work.
Leftists defend political and economical models that have been empirically shown time and time again ineffective and unsustainable at their best and catastrophic at their worse, but who cares about those last dozen tries or so, THIS time it will work, right?
Leftists ignore that there isn't any other economical system that got even near Capitalism in improving the lives of common people.
Leftists blatantly ignore that all countries that have the freest economies have consistently improved the quality of live of the normal citizens, while those that have tried leftists "solutions" are either broken or breaking at this point.
And above all leftists defend that the collective know what is best for the individual when all examples in human history show that there is no such thing as "collective". There is only people ready to make use of class warfare, bigotry and naivete to gain power and live the lives of kings while the very people they pretend to care about die from hunger.
Right wing ideas are not the "Immutable Truth" even because this concept is utopic. They are wrong many many times, but they are right at least part of the time. Left wing ideas on the other hand, are all based on lies that come directly from the core of its doctrine and as such are the "Immutable Farce".
Leftists are above and beyond anything else a bunch of self-serving hypocrites.
Please, nobody is better at ignoring hard evidence than the left. Bad as all politicians are, right wing ones are still a lot less scaring than our new overlords from the left.
I don't know in which fantasy world you live, but you are completely out of touch with reality, my friend. Sure, there are a few exceptions but, as a general rule, if you want a good chance to have your funding approved either you are a hotshot with a big name or you say what politically correct people want to hear, and a lot of crappy pseudo-academics and incompetent researchers do not lose their shit exactly because they conform with politically correctness and produce results that are what people in power and vocal political groups want to rear.
"Political correctness" is bigotry in its purest form. It does not in any way or form helps to avoid it, and it does work by forbidding disambiguous wording and by forcing duplicitous and favoring meaningless generalized words in their place. It is exactly the same as Newspeak and you are only unable to see it because you don't want to see it.
Typing "one would be hard pressed to" isn't even close to evidence.
And exactly because it is true that is the only thing you can say about my statement. You can't really find such differences, mainly because they do not exist.
It certainly has a lot to do with punishments, and in many many ways. It ends careers, kicks people from jobs, punishes children in schools and even puts people in jail as in this case.
And it is far from being just institutionalized politeness. It is and always was an attempt of thought control, of indoctrination. One would be hard pressed to find real differences between Political Correctness and 1984's Newspeak.
Depends on where it hits.
Yes teachers, at least most of them. Those that ignore their obligations and abuse of their positions to force their world view and political ideals into kids. They are every bit as bad as bankers, traders, and drug dealers, in their own way.
Sure it is. Politically correctness is basically a set of acceptable behaviors to which any deviation is considered atrocious and punishable. It is the attempt to control and conform people to the same ideas by force. What he did was completely harmless, and I personally find very fun, as I find fun to play Quake or GTA, for example.
Nah. The person that has absolutely no argument and is now trying to derail the debate is you, not me, my friend. It is a pathetic attempt to preserve your feeble self-esteem and escape the obvious conclusion that everything you wrote in this thread is utter nonsense. I pity you.
Please provide me the paper you have written that demonstrably proves that HFT is not in the slightest bit responsible for any artificial deflation of stock markets, or any artificial booms that wouldn't otherwise have happened without it.
Please provide me the paper that proves you are not a serial killer, otherwise we will have to put you in jail, just in case.
The fact is, it's a chaotic system, and we have no idea it's impact on these sorts of issues.
It may be, or not, but again you are unable to prove it is, and claiming that something fits in a mathematical model requires a mathematical proof.
Again, you're making an argument without having even a basic grasp of the topic...
I do have a very good grasp of the topic and after reading your nonsense I am quite sure my knowledge about Mathematics and Economics is significantly greater than yours, but suit yourself and keep hiding in your shell of ignorance and prejudice.
The very nature of chaotic systems is that they can lead to unforeseen results
You can't even prove it is a chaotic system at all. You can`t prove anything at all.
It's not a case of forbidden unless proven useful, it's a case of forbidden until proven harmless
Nothing can be proven to be harmless, and you still fail to bring any evidence at all that this is harmful, even the "Flash Crash" didn't do any real harm to the market. When you want to ban something just because you suspect it may be harmful without any evidence it is actually harmful you are just acting on prejudice.
But no one said that. That was speculation on his behalf as to people's distaste for it. You can't say someone has no argument based on a certain opinion if they never actually expressed that opinion.
This speculation is substantiated by your complete lack of objective reasons to forbid it and your wish to do so even then.
Furthermore you are doing exactly what you are criticizing on him. This assertion you made is not backed by anything, for example:
HFT has a real impact on world economies and often unpredictably so.
Your whole point is that things should be forbidden unless proven useful. That is ridiculous and undesirable in a free society. In a free society things should only be forbidden when they are proven harmful, which is not the case with HFT.
That is not what he said. What he said is that when all you have to say against something is that it is bad because the rich are making money you have no argument.
The rest of your argument is just a bunch of suppositions without any real data to substantiate. Nobody was able to prove that HFT is more dangerous than normal trading or that it has any adverse effects on the economy. There is even analysts who defend that HFT have a very positive effect in the economy by adding liquidity to the market.
Richard Stallman warned us about this decades ago. It is incredible how people are still able to dismiss his warnings as more and more of his predictions come into reality.
This is one of the multiple reasons why public schools are this bad. These arbitrary "standards" help nobody, not even the student that otherwise would be left behind.
And voucher funds are nothing more than fair. Unfair is to force people to pay for their children education twice. If someone is not using the public education system, for which he pays, he should be able to receive back whatever he is saving the government to help paying his private school of choice.
Finland and Sweden have good public schools, not as good as private schools in other developed countries, but good nevertheless. But those schools are worse than they were 10 years ago, and their economy is failing mostly because of high taxes and high expenses in welfare, which includes schooling.
And lets not forget that corruption levels and misuse of public money in Finland and Sweden are much lower than in US, because of the difference in size between these countries. Even so their model is unsustainable. Even more, the system fails to reward adequately the high achievers, by heavily taxing the successful, which more likely than not end going away to places were their abilities are better rewarded. It is no surprise that most science and technology is made in US and other countries with lower taxes. Unless you force them to stay by the threat of death, like Communist regimens always do, those who produce tend to run away from welfare states.
Public schooling for the masses is a model that does not work and will never work. If the intent is to achieve universal education it is much better to pay a fixed amount to everybody so they can choose which private school they wish to attend (and complement with their own money of they so wish). It is cheap and better for everybody, helps the economy, gives control to the parents and cuts away money wasting in government bureaucracy.