Economies of scale. To simplify, the most efficient method of producing this chemical only requires one plant for the entire world.
We could set up a table top production facility to produce it but that table top production facility would have to approved and regulated by the FDA which is a expensive process. After all we would not want to execute prisoners with substandard drugs. (And maybe not. If it were not the right strength then the execution would be botched.)
Well, at this point I would argue that a co-op structure would be betterthen a union structure. After all, at this point there is not much "managment".
Of course in the long run more and improved capital increases productivity and productivity gains are the main driver behind increasing wages. Which is not to say that capital wont displace today’s workers – see the luddites.
The reason why there are unions – and their ultimate weapon the strike – is to redress the power balance between labor and the firm. The other choice is for workers to quite their current firm and join another but that is expensive. Need to find a new job, learn new skills, etc. And in the bad old days, worry about company towns, blacklists, etc.
I don’t see that high of a barrier to entry so I don’t see the firm having that much power. It’s the labor that’s got the capital (cars, spare rooms, etc.) in this example. If Uber cranks shafts labor it would not be that hard for a rival to launch another app. Yes, Uber would have some type of power due to it’s networking affects but those can crumble quickly.
Knight due to its negligence totaled its 460m car. It has to pay for that out of their pocket.
When it was crashing its car, Knight also knocked down a street sign causing damage to public property. For that it was fined 12m.
In this case Knight’s negligence mostly harmed itself. But there are other cases where most of the damage is born but other people. In that case the numbers could have been reversed.
It has been tried. Look up Order Book exchanges. The Paris Bourse was one. The NYSE was a hybrid. They both converted.
Empirically it produced (mostly) inferior results so everybody ditched it for a quote driven system.
The problem with a order book exchange is the decreased certainty of trade executions which increased the risk to market makers which causes higher spreads and lower liquidity.
Now Order Book markets still do survive where liquidity is low or cost is a driving factor. in Dark Pools like ICE. It survives because these trades are more concerned about anonymity and cost then certainty of execution.
You have algorithmic trading in which you use computers to execute trading. Algorithmic trading can then be broken down into 2 separate groups.
On one side you have brokers executing trades for their client. When one makes large trades one distorts the market causing one to get a poor price on one trades. Algorithmic trading minimizes this distortion. This is what Knight was doing.
On the other side you have HFT and Market Makers. They use algorithmic trading to profit from said distortions.
It is a cat and mouse game. Some firms play both sides. On which side one is can be like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. But Knight was not doing HFT when they blew up.
Well, kind of. In GM’s model you can do almost everything online but you still have to buy the car from an independent dealership. Which for GM I think is the right answer. Having the parent company compete directly against their own independent franchise is wrong. There is just too much room for abuse. Now Tesla is a different matter – they would not be competing with their own franchise since they don’t have any.
You are right, HFT do not lower fees. Never claimed they did. I am not talking about commison (as in your example) nor custody. I was refering to the bid-ask spread. This is a extra cost on top of your commision. It will not show up on your trade ticket since it is a implict cost. Think of it as friction.
I don't think so. I think these are the classes
Free Streaming: Hulu, major network sites, etc. Payment: 1 day lag, commercials
Cheap streaming: Premium Hulu, Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc. Payment: 1 low monthly fee.
Purchase: Buy DVD, iTunes, whatever: Payment: less then cable.
People pay for cable for convenience and timeliness. People are not willing to delay viewing. One example is sports. Nobody wants to watch yesterdays’ game, which is why ESPN is one of the most expensive chancels on basic TV. Game of Thrones is another example. I can either pay HBO big bucks now or I delay until the DVD comes out.
The First Tycoon: The Epic Life of Cornelius Vanderbilt Paperback by T.J. Stiles. I don’t have the book in front of me so I can’t site the page number.
These charges were levied by populist when railroads were very new and canals still dominated.
To put this in contex: This was the 1850s. The railroad was a new disruptive technology. Railroad companies were the first modern corporations and these corporations were ranking in money.
Examples of insider trading cases that have been brought by the SEC are cases against: Corporate officers, directors, and employees who traded the corporation's securities after learning of significant, confidential corporate developments;
In most cases, corporate insiders can’t trade when they have material information, before major announcements, must publicly disclose their trading ahead of time, hire a outside 3rd party to determine the exact timing of the trades, etc.
I'm perfectly ok with the levels of profit and gain but show me a widget or something of value that was produced from the labor.
I can’t, but I can point to a pile of worthless widgets that don’t exist. It’s not what they produce it is what they save. You may despair over their large profits, I rejoice in the 80% reduction of profits made by the old protected oligarchs who used to control the market makers.
Trades happening at minute resolution by a human would provide the same liquidity as trades happening at the microsecond resolution by machines.
Empirically not. Back in the 90s you could do a 1 to 1 comparison between the quote driven exchanges and order book exchanges like the London vs. Paris exchange. The quote driven market offered better pricing, costs, and liquidity.
Actually, most American productively invests via pension plans, annuities (indirectly), ETFs, and mutual funds.
The fees (either for purchasing or the annual expense fee) for these investments have been dropping. One of the factors are the fund’s lower trading costs. And yes, if you are a buy and hold investor in an index fund you are paying trading fees. Pull out the supplementary prospectus and read. (Computers and automation are probably bigger factors but trading costs is a big measurable factor.)
It used to be that market makers took $.125 on each stock traded. Now the middle man takes $.001 per stock. The buyer’s and seller’s cost drop by $.12 so each person’s cost drops by $.06
We don’t have to go back 12,000 years – I can think of an example of only 150 years ago.
A lot of the same mud being thrown at railroad companies. A common argument was that they did not do anything – that they just shipped the work of other people. Ignoring the fact that their cost was 1/20th of water transport. (East/West trade in the US.)
It has been tried. Look up Order Book exchanges. The Paris Bourse was one. The NYSE was a hybrid. They both converted.
Empirically it produced (mostly) inferior results so everybody ditched it for a quote driven system.
The problem with a order book exchange is the decreased certainty of trade executions which increased the risk to market makers which causes higher spreads and lower liquidity.
Now Order Book markets still do survive where liquidity is low or cost is a driving factor. in Dark Pools like ICE. It survives because these trades are more concerned about anonymity and cost then certainty of execution.
I don’t think your statement applies. There are market makers in a centralized order book market.
As it stands today, quote driven markets have a higher certainty of completion of a trade then an order book market. That uncertainty is a risk for the market makers in a order book system, which drives up their costs, which drives up the spread and lowers liquidity.
There will always be a temporary imbalance between long term buyers and long term sellers which a middle man / market maker can exploit. Think about this way, you have a buyer and a seller of the same stock whose time frame is measured in years, not milliseconds. What is the chance that they will show up in the same month? Low. So there is somebody who has a time frame of months who is a market maker. But the people who trade in months need somebody who trades in days, days need hours, etc.
I did not get that from the article. The gold standard for measuring transaction cost is “Implementation shortfall” which factors in explicit costs and implicit costs.
Explicit costs are commissions costs (which don’t factor in much) and the bid/ask spread. The spread has fallen from $.125 cents to under $.01. For people investing in mutual funds / ETFs the NAV / Price spread has collapsed. ec. My best guess is algorithmic trading have cut these costs by 50% to 80%
Implicate costs factors in the uncertainty that when you decided to sell X shares at Y dollars you will sell X shares at Y dollars. For most people this has higher costs then the explicit costs. Once again the costs here have collapsed. My best guess is that costs have droped by 80% to 90%.
There are now more people on the other side of the trade then in the old world where there were 1 to 4 market makers.
No, it is the same thing. In both cases you are violating the holder’s copyright which is the principle we are talking about. It is only to the degree that it is different. Here is my favorite Winston Churchill quote on the matter – and I am kind of sad to learn it is not by Churchill.
Runs after financial period has closed, 8 times a year. Wait until ETL/Zena process is done.
My point is that it will react very differently than the example and it may not be explosive. IIRC 1 gallon of gasoline has the same amount of energy as 11 sticks of dynamite however it is really hard to make gasoline explode.
So my question is how you would make this type of battery to explosively discharge its energy. Not chemical. Structural damage would cause some of the capacitors to discharge but that would not necessary lead to a cascade effect.
Slashdot Mirror
I would agree. The article was awfully thin. Doctor #1 did this, #2 did that. Not much in the way of analyst or insight.
At one point during the 80's airbags were considered. Put them behind a prisoner’s neck then activate it to snap the neck.
Economies of scale. To simplify, the most efficient method of producing this chemical only requires one plant for the entire world.
We could set up a table top production facility to produce it but that table top production facility would have to approved and regulated by the FDA which is a expensive process. After all we would not want to execute prisoners with substandard drugs. (And maybe not. If it were not the right strength then the execution would be botched.)
They scream if you do it wrong.
Cite please? IIRC lobsters don’t have lungs so they can’t scream. What you are hearing is steam coming out of the lobster shell.
Well, at this point I would argue that a co-op structure would be betterthen a union structure. After all, at this point there is not much "managment".
I think what you mean is capital, not money.
Of course in the long run more and improved capital increases productivity and productivity gains are the main driver behind increasing wages. Which is not to say that capital wont displace today’s workers – see the luddites.
Or maybe switch to an alternative sharing app?
The reason why there are unions – and their ultimate weapon the strike – is to redress the power balance between labor and the firm. The other choice is for workers to quite their current firm and join another but that is expensive. Need to find a new job, learn new skills, etc. And in the bad old days, worry about company towns, blacklists, etc.
I don’t see that high of a barrier to entry so I don’t see the firm having that much power. It’s the labor that’s got the capital (cars, spare rooms, etc.) in this example. If Uber cranks shafts labor it would not be that hard for a rival to launch another app. Yes, Uber would have some type of power due to it’s networking affects but those can crumble quickly.
Let’s stick with the car analogy.
Knight due to its negligence totaled its 460m car. It has to pay for that out of their pocket.
When it was crashing its car, Knight also knocked down a street sign causing damage to public property. For that it was fined 12m.
In this case Knight’s negligence mostly harmed itself. But there are other cases where most of the damage is born but other people. In that case the numbers could have been reversed.
It has been tried. Look up Order Book exchanges. The Paris Bourse was one. The NYSE was a hybrid. They both converted.
Empirically it produced (mostly) inferior results so everybody ditched it for a quote driven system.
The problem with a order book exchange is the decreased certainty of trade executions which increased the risk to market makers which causes higher spreads and lower liquidity.
Now Order Book markets still do survive where liquidity is low or cost is a driving factor. in Dark Pools like ICE. It survives because these trades are more concerned about anonymity and cost then certainty of execution.
In the lingo of the stock market this is not HFT.
You have algorithmic trading in which you use computers to execute trading. Algorithmic trading can then be broken down into 2 separate groups.
On one side you have brokers executing trades for their client. When one makes large trades one distorts the market causing one to get a poor price on one trades. Algorithmic trading minimizes this distortion. This is what Knight was doing.
On the other side you have HFT and Market Makers. They use algorithmic trading to profit from said distortions.
It is a cat and mouse game. Some firms play both sides. On which side one is can be like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. But Knight was not doing HFT when they blew up.
Well, kind of. In GM’s model you can do almost everything online but you still have to buy the car from an independent dealership. Which for GM I think is the right answer. Having the parent company compete directly against their own independent franchise is wrong. There is just too much room for abuse. Now Tesla is a different matter – they would not be competing with their own franchise since they don’t have any.
You are right, HFT do not lower fees. Never claimed they did. I am not talking about commison (as in your example) nor custody. I was refering to the bid-ask spread. This is a extra cost on top of your commision. It will not show up on your trade ticket since it is a implict cost. Think of it as friction.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/trading/121701.asp.
I guess they changed the rules. When I lasted looked that was the only advantage for me – and obviously not a big enough one for me to subscribe.
I don't think so. I think these are the classes
Free Streaming: Hulu, major network sites, etc. Payment: 1 day lag, commercials
Cheap streaming: Premium Hulu, Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc. Payment: 1 low monthly fee.
Purchase: Buy DVD, iTunes, whatever: Payment: less then cable.
People pay for cable for convenience and timeliness. People are not willing to delay viewing. One example is sports. Nobody wants to watch yesterdays’ game, which is why ESPN is one of the most expensive chancels on basic TV. Game of Thrones is another example. I can either pay HBO big bucks now or I delay until the DVD comes out.
The First Tycoon: The Epic Life of Cornelius Vanderbilt Paperback by T.J. Stiles. I don’t have the book in front of me so I can’t site the page number.
These charges were levied by populist when railroads were very new and canals still dominated.
To put this in contex:
This was the 1850s. The railroad was a new disruptive technology.
Railroad companies were the first modern corporations and these corporations were ranking in money.
Nope, still illegal for corporate insiders. From your source: http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm
Examples of insider trading cases that have been brought by the SEC are cases against: Corporate officers, directors, and employees who traded the corporation's securities after learning of significant, confidential corporate developments;
In most cases, corporate insiders can’t trade when they have material information, before major announcements, must publicly disclose their trading ahead of time, hire a outside 3rd party to determine the exact timing of the trades, etc.
I'm perfectly ok with the levels of profit and gain but show me a widget or something of value that was produced from the labor.
I can’t, but I can point to a pile of worthless widgets that don’t exist. It’s not what they produce it is what they save. You may despair over their large profits, I rejoice in the 80% reduction of profits made by the old protected oligarchs who used to control the market makers.
Trades happening at minute resolution by a human would provide the same liquidity as trades happening at the microsecond resolution by machines.
Empirically not. Back in the 90s you could do a 1 to 1 comparison between the quote driven exchanges and order book exchanges like the London vs. Paris exchange. The quote driven market offered better pricing, costs, and liquidity.
Actually, most American productively invests via pension plans, annuities (indirectly), ETFs, and mutual funds.
The fees (either for purchasing or the annual expense fee) for these investments have been dropping. One of the factors are the fund’s lower trading costs. And yes, if you are a buy and hold investor in an index fund you are paying trading fees. Pull out the supplementary prospectus and read. (Computers and automation are probably bigger factors but trading costs is a big measurable factor.)
It benefits buyers as equally as sellers.
It used to be that market makers took $.125 on each stock traded. Now the middle man takes $.001 per stock. The buyer’s and seller’s cost drop by $.12 so each person’s cost drops by $.06
We don’t have to go back 12,000 years – I can think of an example of only 150 years ago.
A lot of the same mud being thrown at railroad companies. A common argument was that they did not do anything – that they just shipped the work of other people. Ignoring the fact that their cost was 1/20th of water transport. (East/West trade in the US.)
It has been tried. Look up Order Book exchanges. The Paris Bourse was one. The NYSE was a hybrid. They both converted.
Empirically it produced (mostly) inferior results so everybody ditched it for a quote driven system.
The problem with a order book exchange is the decreased certainty of trade executions which increased the risk to market makers which causes higher spreads and lower liquidity.
Now Order Book markets still do survive where liquidity is low or cost is a driving factor. in Dark Pools like ICE. It survives because these trades are more concerned about anonymity and cost then certainty of execution.
I don’t think your statement applies. There are market makers in a centralized order book market.
As it stands today, quote driven markets have a higher certainty of completion of a trade then an order book market. That uncertainty is a risk for the market makers in a order book system, which drives up their costs, which drives up the spread and lowers liquidity.
There will always be a temporary imbalance between long term buyers and long term sellers which a middle man / market maker can exploit. Think about this way, you have a buyer and a seller of the same stock whose time frame is measured in years, not milliseconds. What is the chance that they will show up in the same month? Low. So there is somebody who has a time frame of months who is a market maker. But the people who trade in months need somebody who trades in days, days need hours, etc.
I did not get that from the article. The gold standard for measuring transaction cost is “Implementation shortfall” which factors in explicit costs and implicit costs.
Explicit costs are commissions costs (which don’t factor in much) and the bid/ask spread. The spread has fallen from $.125 cents to under $.01. For people investing in mutual funds / ETFs the NAV / Price spread has collapsed. ec. My best guess is algorithmic trading have cut these costs by 50% to 80%
Implicate costs factors in the uncertainty that when you decided to sell X shares at Y dollars you will sell X shares at Y dollars. For most people this has higher costs then the explicit costs. Once again the costs here have collapsed. My best guess is that costs have droped by 80% to 90%.
There are now more people on the other side of the trade then in the old world where there were 1 to 4 market makers.
No, it is the same thing. In both cases you are violating the holder’s copyright which is the principle we are talking about. It is only to the degree that it is different. Here is my favorite Winston Churchill quote on the matter – and I am kind of sad to learn it is not by Churchill.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:George_Bernard_Shaw#Shaw.3F_.22We_have_established_what_you_are.2C_Madam.22
FYI, I am for IP as a concept but I think the current rules are overly generous to the copyright holders.
Runs after financial period has closed, 8 times a year. Wait until ETL/Zena process is done.
My point is that it will react very differently than the example and it may not be explosive. IIRC 1 gallon of gasoline has the same amount of energy as 11 sticks of dynamite however it is really hard to make gasoline explode.
So my question is how you would make this type of battery to explosively discharge its energy. Not chemical. Structural damage would cause some of the capacitors to discharge but that would not necessary lead to a cascade effect.