Sorry everyone for the lack of spacing. I don't post here much, and forgot that I needed use HTML code to get the spacing. My bad for not previewing first. It should have looked like this:
Thanks to technological advancements, it's now possible for every Tom, Dick or Jane to buy and sell stock at their leisure over the internet. Simply put, more people have access to the stock market now than they did in the 70's, 80's and 90's, which is why increased liquidity is important.
You keep tossing out the idea that day trading poses no societal benefit. My question to you is, why does it have to? Why should everything in this world have to have some kind of benefit to society? Can't people simply day trade because they like it? And spare me the "If everyone day traded" argument. We both know that would never happen. Just answer the question- Why does everything have to have some kind of benefit to society?
You also keep accusing day traders for the fall of the stock market, which tells me you don't understand the concept of day trading. First of all, day trading is reactionary. Day traders merely react to the market news, they don't create it. They don't create economic data. They aren't responsible for earnings reports or lending practices. They didn't force people to buy homes they couldn't afford, nor did they force financial institutions into using bad lending practices. So, again, how did day traders crash the market?
To me it sounds like you're merely opposed to the idea, and as such, you feel no one should do it. The truth is day traders aren't hurting you in any way, shape or form, and you've provided no real reason why day trading shouldn't be allowed.
Thanks to technological advancements, it's now possible for every Tom, Dick or Jane to buy and sell stock at their leisure over the internet. Simply put, more people have access to the stock market now than they did in the 70's, 80's and 90's, which is why increased liquidity is important.
You keep tossing out the idea that day trading poses no societal benefit. My question to you is, why does it have to? Why should everything in this world have to have some kind of benefit to society? Can't people simply day trade because they like it? And spare me the "If everyone day traded" argument. We both know that would never happen. Just answer the question- Why does everything have to have some kind of benefit to society?
You also keep accusing day traders for the fall of the stock market, which tells me you don't understand the concept of day trading. First of all, day trading is reactionary. Day traders merely react to the market news, they don't create it. They don't create economic data. They aren't responsible for earnings reports or lending practices. They didn't force people to buy homes they couldn't afford, nor did they force financial institutions into using bad lending practices. So, again, how did day traders crash the market?
To me it sounds like you're merely opposed to the idea, and as such, you feel no one should do it. The truth is day traders aren't hurting you in any way, shape or form, and you've provided no real reason why day trading shouldn't be allowed.
Man, what a great day. It reminds me of the quote by Margaret Meade: "Never doubt that a small group of people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
The more important issue is that a Federal Judge just told a government agency that they were no longer allowed to impede on the rights and freedoms of private citizens "just because."
So while it's a tremendous day for rocketry, it's also a great day for the American People at large.
Just a note: Knowing how much of the planet is covered in water is *not* scientific literacy. That is trivia knowledge. If I need to know how much of the planet is covered in water (I'd guess 80%), I look it up, and decide if the definition matches my needs.
I think you hit it on the head. Information like "How much of our planet is covered by water?" isn't something most people outside of a basic Earth science class need to know to function in their daily lives. It's not something they need to know for work or to carry on a conversation with their peers.
With things like Google and internet capable cell phones becoming more mainstream, you're going to find most people commit less information they don't need in their every day lives to memory in favor of "If I need to know, I'll look it up."
While California is suffering from the largest fiscal crisis the state has ever seen due to the most obscene mismanagement of state funds ever witnessed. People are losing their jobs and homes while taxes are being raised (during a recession even), but none of those things are as important as attempting to stave off terrorist attacks by blurring some images of publicly attainable information on a computer program.
Other than I used to work for one and got screwed by them, and I live in a state governed by Unions, you're right. I know absolutely nothing about unions.
But please, enlighten me. Why don't you educate me, since I'm so obviously ill informed?
Well, for starters, autoworkers union != bank executives. The two situations aren't even similar. On one hand, you have a union that's doing nothing more than bleeding a corporation dry. On the other, you have a situation where the free market should really be determining things like salaries and bonuses*.
Truth be told, it would be better for the US Automakers if they went bankrupt. That would dissolve all union contracts, forcing them to restructure. While there are certainly other factors like demand and quality, the benefits alone received by members of the UAW make it almost impossible for American car companies to compete with non-union car manufacturers in the US. Its great when a company can afford to treat their people well, but when they can't, something's gotta give. Unfortunately, the UAW doesn't see it that way. Their form of compromise is to give nothing but take everything. Same story with the unions here in California. All take, but no give. And they wonder why the state is having a hard time paying them.
*For the record, I am opposed to huge bonuses being paid to execs whose companies received money on the backs of the tax payers. I'm not opposed to it as determined by the free market system, just when it comes on the backs of tax payers.
It's so bad here in California that folks from Colorado have been actively soliciting businesses to relocate to a more tax friendly environment: http://www.denverpost.com/theeconomy/ci_11708094 Their timing is perfect, since our state's legislator was schedule to hash out a tax increase package over this past weekend.
The problem is a general lack of a financial education in school. Schools don't teach financial discipline when really they should be required to teach things like what interest really means and how it can compound, why putting money into a 401k or IRA and why investing in the stock market for the longer term are good things, and why you don't want to over leverage yourself to the point where one small blip makes your whole financial health crumble. Instead of teaching students how to purchase assets instead of liabilities, or why you should put 10% of your paycheck into savings before you spend money on anything else (Pay yourself first,) they teach you how to balance your checkbook and apply for a credit card. But of course, it's un-American to have an educated population. Who else are you going to sucker in to your high percentage credit card and ARM?
I really wish they'd implement something like this in the People's Republik of Kalifornia. It would be nice to tell them what useless programs to cut instead of trying to raise our taxes in the name of public safety and education.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry everyone for the lack of spacing. I don't post here much, and forgot that I needed use HTML code to get the spacing. My bad for not previewing first. It should have looked like this:
Thanks to technological advancements, it's now possible for every Tom, Dick or Jane to buy and sell stock at their leisure over the internet. Simply put, more people have access to the stock market now than they did in the 70's, 80's and 90's, which is why increased liquidity is important. You keep tossing out the idea that day trading poses no societal benefit. My question to you is, why does it have to? Why should everything in this world have to have some kind of benefit to society? Can't people simply day trade because they like it? And spare me the "If everyone day traded" argument. We both know that would never happen. Just answer the question- Why does everything have to have some kind of benefit to society? You also keep accusing day traders for the fall of the stock market, which tells me you don't understand the concept of day trading. First of all, day trading is reactionary. Day traders merely react to the market news, they don't create it. They don't create economic data. They aren't responsible for earnings reports or lending practices. They didn't force people to buy homes they couldn't afford, nor did they force financial institutions into using bad lending practices. So, again, how did day traders crash the market? To me it sounds like you're merely opposed to the idea, and as such, you feel no one should do it. The truth is day traders aren't hurting you in any way, shape or form, and you've provided no real reason why day trading shouldn't be allowed.
We already have regulation. We have FAA regulations, NFPA regulations and our own regulations. We don't need any more.
Man, what a great day. It reminds me of the quote by Margaret Meade: "Never doubt that a small group of people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." The more important issue is that a Federal Judge just told a government agency that they were no longer allowed to impede on the rights and freedoms of private citizens "just because." So while it's a tremendous day for rocketry, it's also a great day for the American People at large.
Just a note: Knowing how much of the planet is covered in water is *not* scientific literacy. That is trivia knowledge. If I need to know how much of the planet is covered in water (I'd guess 80%), I look it up, and decide if the definition matches my needs.
I think you hit it on the head. Information like "How much of our planet is covered by water?" isn't something most people outside of a basic Earth science class need to know to function in their daily lives. It's not something they need to know for work or to carry on a conversation with their peers.
With things like Google and internet capable cell phones becoming more mainstream, you're going to find most people commit less information they don't need in their every day lives to memory in favor of "If I need to know, I'll look it up."
I'm just gonna Tivo the show and fast forward through the commercials anyway.
While California is suffering from the largest fiscal crisis the state has ever seen due to the most obscene mismanagement of state funds ever witnessed. People are losing their jobs and homes while taxes are being raised (during a recession even), but none of those things are as important as attempting to stave off terrorist attacks by blurring some images of publicly attainable information on a computer program.
While I know it's popular to blame Bush for the world's problems, gas prices aren't something he had anything to do with. Booming economies in developing nations such as China and India, coupled with production cut backs for [insert favorite reason here] are what turned that $1/gallon of gas into $4+/gallon. China's demand for oil has increased by something like 8% per year since 2002. They still don't consume nearly as much as the US, but that's a phenomenal leap in overall global consumption in such a short time.
Other than I used to work for one and got screwed by them, and I live in a state governed by Unions, you're right. I know absolutely nothing about unions. But please, enlighten me. Why don't you educate me, since I'm so obviously ill informed?
Well, for starters, autoworkers union != bank executives. The two situations aren't even similar. On one hand, you have a union that's doing nothing more than bleeding a corporation dry. On the other, you have a situation where the free market should really be determining things like salaries and bonuses*.
Truth be told, it would be better for the US Automakers if they went bankrupt. That would dissolve all union contracts, forcing them to restructure. While there are certainly other factors like demand and quality, the benefits alone received by members of the UAW make it almost impossible for American car companies to compete with non-union car manufacturers in the US. Its great when a company can afford to treat their people well, but when they can't, something's gotta give. Unfortunately, the UAW doesn't see it that way. Their form of compromise is to give nothing but take everything. Same story with the unions here in California. All take, but no give. And they wonder why the state is having a hard time paying them.
*For the record, I am opposed to huge bonuses being paid to execs whose companies received money on the backs of the tax payers. I'm not opposed to it as determined by the free market system, just when it comes on the backs of tax payers.
zOMG!
It's so bad here in California that folks from Colorado have been actively soliciting businesses to relocate to a more tax friendly environment: http://www.denverpost.com/theeconomy/ci_11708094 Their timing is perfect, since our state's legislator was schedule to hash out a tax increase package over this past weekend.
The problem is a general lack of a financial education in school. Schools don't teach financial discipline when really they should be required to teach things like what interest really means and how it can compound, why putting money into a 401k or IRA and why investing in the stock market for the longer term are good things, and why you don't want to over leverage yourself to the point where one small blip makes your whole financial health crumble. Instead of teaching students how to purchase assets instead of liabilities, or why you should put 10% of your paycheck into savings before you spend money on anything else (Pay yourself first,) they teach you how to balance your checkbook and apply for a credit card. But of course, it's un-American to have an educated population. Who else are you going to sucker in to your high percentage credit card and ARM?
I really wish they'd implement something like this in the People's Republik of Kalifornia. It would be nice to tell them what useless programs to cut instead of trying to raise our taxes in the name of public safety and education.
Lookout! SkyNet, here we come!
If you don't like yahoo, try softhome.net. 30MB of mail and you can use your pop service. And it is all free.