Consider, that stock prices are based on demand, not the value of the company.
Isn't demand based on the value of the company? If not, what is demand based on? What is your evidence that a person's willingness to pay a certain price for a stock is not related to the value that person sees in the company....?
All insiders? Or just the one who want to prop up the company? Information has a way of leaking out one way or another, and only laws against insider trading can interfere with such a leak.
Um, what? The people that get to sell first will not be impacted by the mass sell off of the others.
Why should they be? What is the problem exactly?
The insider trading restriction allows for all parties to have the opportunity to sell when the news is released.
No, it doesn't. It allows for people who have political pull to sell before the public has knowledge. All politicians, for example, are exempt from insider trading laws, and can make fortunes by dumping/buying stocks before passing new selective legislation.
In a free market, all parties make decisions based on all information available and is assumed to be perfect.
A free market protects individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, against force, threat of force, and fraud, and provides judicial recourse when such rights are violated. There is no right to perfect, equally-available knowledge.
Contrary to the labeling of this as a "scam" worthy of more years in prison than many murderers gets, insider trading is actually a good thing for the market. Information about the quality of a company helps provide the market with knowledge and certainty about future prospects. A company may not want to have negative information released too soon, however if market insiders are able to sell their stock ASAP, they signal to the market that there are problems with the company, allowing the market to respond and adjust accordingly. By banning insider trading (except, of course, among politicians), the government is not only propping up failing organizations, but also hindering successful ones, and adding uncertainty to the market.
I don't get what you can't grasp about this, so I will make it as clear as possible by omitting an irrelevant accreditation:
To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that,... Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
You cannot possibly continue to claim that "nowhere does he call for building a bubble". To do so is to deny reality and claim that what he wrote is not what he meant - but something more "subtle".
The only things modern neuroscience is killing are bogus philosophical notions such as the mind-body dichotomy and any variant of "free will" that claims an individual's mind should be able to perform any decision without regard for the current state of his brain (which is obviously a corollary to the mind-body dichotomy).
Legitimate notions of "free will", which recognize that the mind is dependent on the brain for its existence and proper function, still remain.
Why is it that everyone who claims Bitcoin is flawed doesn't have the slightest clue how it works. It's probably because the Bitcoin system is so complicated.
Your GPU's do not constitute value.
Yes, they do. The process of mining bitcoins involves performing operations that make the bitcoin network more secure. Those operations are of value, and the user is paid in bitcoins for his work.
Bitcoin is the equivalent of a nations currency that has been printed by individuals by permission.
Wrong. It is the equivalent of a trading system that is independently validated by every other member of the system. People are neither "printing" (which does not add any value to the system, and only devalues the currency), nor are they doing it "by permission", nor is it equivalent to a "national currency", which is normally forced on the public and manipulated by the nation's government, and legally required to be accepted as payment for debt (i.e. "legal tender"). Bitcoin is none of that, which is why it is ultimately better for the free market, though unlikely to become rapidly popular, due to the government-granted monopoly that the Federal Reserve Note currently enjoys.
Read the original article in the NYT you dolt! He is clearly saying that he agrees with Paul McCulley's suggestion.
Re:Then Why Are We Seeing the Same Negative Effect
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 2
The potential downgrade has little to do with the amount of debt owed - rather, it is a reflection of the rating agencies' assessment of how likely we are to repay our bonds.
Please reread what you wrote: The amount of debt you owe has little to do... with the likelihood that you can repay that debt...?
So, to keep the analogy the same as the current US situation: if I take on so much credit card debt, that I need to get new credit cards just to keep paying the interest on the old credit cards, it will (supposedly) have little effect on my credit rating, because it (supposedly) does not affect my ability to repay the principal.
This is your assertion, now please support it with evidence.
IOW, because no consumer could possibly want to put any effort into shopping around for something as simple as a light bulb, incandescents will always be the better choice.
Exactly my point. He blames me for buying cheap CFL, when in reality it's a fault with CFL's that the user *must* buy the more expensive, high-end ones, just to have any hope of breaking even in 15 years. All for a light bulb.
You bought some kind of ridiculously cheap, low-quality bulbs from somewhere, and got what you paid for.
The difference is that I could have done the same thing with incandescent - namely, bought the cheapest brand - and it still would have lasted as long as expected. So while you have worded your reply in a manner that makes it look like a problem with the user, you have actually identified another plus for incandescent over CFL.
you could have easily gotten a replacement for a defective bulb.
"Easily" in what sense? Keeping thousands of receipts, identifying specific bulbs with specific receipts, mailing in proof of purchase, etc - if they are not paying me for the extra time to do that, then they are not off-setting the extra cost that is required with fulfilling their warranty. So once again, any "savings" is destroyed.
I have had several CFL's fail within months, completely destroying any potential long-term savings. And do they really think anyone is properly disposing of these bulbs?
making your "reason" complete and utter bullshit and exposing you as a total fucktard.
Sorry, not the case. Re-read my post - I said "why you won't have a flying car by 2015". Given that this company is just now getting exemption, there is absolutely no way they will have it developed to the point of production in 4 years. Had the regulations not existed in the first place, there would likely have been multiple competitors in the market by now.
every aspect of the reality of a flying car is beyond absurd
That's the entrepreneurial spirit that makes America so great!....
(typified by the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, which generates 1 petabyte of data per second)
So, the LHC produces 1 petabyte per second, and given that there are 30+ million seconds in the year, that means the LHC produces 30+ zettabytes a year. Clearly there is a problem with your typification.
"Their property" should also removed from public lands at their own cost or they better pay fair market value for the land they are using.
Public property should not exist. Do not punish people who have taken advantage of an unjust situation - blame the people who created the unjust situation: the local government politicians.
the only way they would have been able to lay that "private property" was because the government gave them grants of money and land to do so.
The status quo isn't justified by its own existence. The fact that the government prohibited people from owning land without first getting permission from the government does not imply that that original prohibition was just.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider, that stock prices are based on demand, not the value of the company.
Isn't demand based on the value of the company? If not, what is demand based on? What is your evidence that a person's willingness to pay a certain price for a stock is not related to the value that person sees in the company....?
All insiders? Or just the one who want to prop up the company? Information has a way of leaking out one way or another, and only laws against insider trading can interfere with such a leak.
Um, what? The people that get to sell first will not be impacted by the mass sell off of the others.
Why should they be? What is the problem exactly?
The insider trading restriction allows for all parties to have the opportunity to sell when the news is released.
No, it doesn't. It allows for people who have political pull to sell before the public has knowledge. All politicians, for example, are exempt from insider trading laws, and can make fortunes by dumping/buying stocks before passing new selective legislation.
In a free market, all parties make decisions based on all information available and is assumed to be perfect.
A free market protects individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, against force, threat of force, and fraud, and provides judicial recourse when such rights are violated. There is no right to perfect, equally-available knowledge.
How?
Because IT is not a problem.
"Freedom" is freedom from force, threat of force, or fraud, incurred by other individuals. Ignorance does not fall into one of those categories.
Contrary to the labeling of this as a "scam" worthy of more years in prison than many murderers gets, insider trading is actually a good thing for the market. Information about the quality of a company helps provide the market with knowledge and certainty about future prospects. A company may not want to have negative information released too soon, however if market insiders are able to sell their stock ASAP, they signal to the market that there are problems with the company, allowing the market to respond and adjust accordingly. By banning insider trading (except, of course, among politicians), the government is not only propping up failing organizations, but also hindering successful ones, and adding uncertainty to the market.
"Just how much does the FCC help these companies control?"
There, I fixed that for ya.
NameCoin is a non-centralized, peer-to-peer DNS using the .bit TLD. It cannot be confiscated unless the entire p2p DNS network is shut down.
Check out the footage of the tens of thousands that showed up for the Day of Rage at Wall Street.
To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that,... Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
You cannot possibly continue to claim that "nowhere does he call for building a bubble". To do so is to deny reality and claim that what he wrote is not what he meant - but something more "subtle".
The only things modern neuroscience is killing are bogus philosophical notions such as the mind-body dichotomy and any variant of "free will" that claims an individual's mind should be able to perform any decision without regard for the current state of his brain (which is obviously a corollary to the mind-body dichotomy).
Legitimate notions of "free will", which recognize that the mind is dependent on the brain for its existence and proper function, still remain.
Your GPU's do not constitute value.
Yes, they do. The process of mining bitcoins involves performing operations that make the bitcoin network more secure. Those operations are of value, and the user is paid in bitcoins for his work.
Bitcoin is the equivalent of a nations currency that has been printed by individuals by permission.
Wrong. It is the equivalent of a trading system that is independently validated by every other member of the system. People are neither "printing" (which does not add any value to the system, and only devalues the currency), nor are they doing it "by permission", nor is it equivalent to a "national currency", which is normally forced on the public and manipulated by the nation's government, and legally required to be accepted as payment for debt (i.e. "legal tender"). Bitcoin is none of that, which is why it is ultimately better for the free market, though unlikely to become rapidly popular, due to the government-granted monopoly that the Federal Reserve Note currently enjoys.
Read the original article in the NYT you dolt! He is clearly saying that he agrees with Paul McCulley's suggestion.
The potential downgrade has little to do with the amount of debt owed - rather, it is a reflection of the rating agencies' assessment of how likely we are to repay our bonds.
Please reread what you wrote: The amount of debt you owe has little to do ... with the likelihood that you can repay that debt...?
So, to keep the analogy the same as the current US situation: if I take on so much credit card debt, that I need to get new credit cards just to keep paying the interest on the old credit cards, it will (supposedly) have little effect on my credit rating, because it (supposedly) does not affect my ability to repay the principal.
This is your assertion, now please support it with evidence.
IOW, because no consumer could possibly want to put any effort into shopping around for something as simple as a light bulb, incandescents will always be the better choice.
Exactly my point. He blames me for buying cheap CFL, when in reality it's a fault with CFL's that the user *must* buy the more expensive, high-end ones, just to have any hope of breaking even in 15 years. All for a light bulb.
Sounds like a company eager to get rid of some unwanted inventory. I wouldn't count on that experience being universally-true, or sustainable.
Windows 7 is Windows Vista: A New Hope.
You bought some kind of ridiculously cheap, low-quality bulbs from somewhere, and got what you paid for.
The difference is that I could have done the same thing with incandescent - namely, bought the cheapest brand - and it still would have lasted as long as expected. So while you have worded your reply in a manner that makes it look like a problem with the user, you have actually identified another plus for incandescent over CFL.
you could have easily gotten a replacement for a defective bulb.
"Easily" in what sense? Keeping thousands of receipts, identifying specific bulbs with specific receipts, mailing in proof of purchase, etc - if they are not paying me for the extra time to do that, then they are not off-setting the extra cost that is required with fulfilling their warranty. So once again, any "savings" is destroyed.
Unlike old style bulbs, CFLs are complex enough that quality matters. The ultra-cheap ones are really crap.
Despite the way you've worded your reply, that is actually another plus for incandescent over CFL.
I have had several CFL's fail within months, completely destroying any potential long-term savings. And do they really think anyone is properly disposing of these bulbs?
But where's my Mr. Fusion to go with it?!?!
making your "reason" complete and utter bullshit and exposing you as a total fucktard.
Sorry, not the case. Re-read my post - I said "why you won't have a flying car by 2015". Given that this company is just now getting exemption, there is absolutely no way they will have it developed to the point of production in 4 years. Had the regulations not existed in the first place, there would likely have been multiple competitors in the market by now.
every aspect of the reality of a flying car is beyond absurd
That's the entrepreneurial spirit that makes America so great!....
to comply with DOT regulations at the same time as Federal Aviation Administration rules would be prohibitively expensive
That is why you won't have a flying car by 2015.
(typified by the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, which generates 1 petabyte of data per second)
So, the LHC produces 1 petabyte per second, and given that there are 30+ million seconds in the year, that means the LHC produces 30+ zettabytes a year. Clearly there is a problem with your typification.
"Their property" should also removed from public lands at their own cost or they better pay fair market value for the land they are using.
Public property should not exist. Do not punish people who have taken advantage of an unjust situation - blame the people who created the unjust situation: the local government politicians.
the only way they would have been able to lay that "private property" was because the government gave them grants of money and land to do so.
The status quo isn't justified by its own existence. The fact that the government prohibited people from owning land without first getting permission from the government does not imply that that original prohibition was just.