Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 99 percent

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 162 posts

Re: The 99 percent

#11

Post by jacoblyles »

noahc wrote: post #9
guimarin wrote: post #2

Five points for the OWS guys. 1. Transparency. We need to see where every dollar of the US federal gov't is spent. It needs to be on the internet, and it needs to be easily accessable. An exception can be made for classified spending in specific, but not so categorically (IE we spend X on classified stuff). Additionally, just like there is a Surgeon's General Warning on cigarette packages, there needs to be a link on…

Can anyone with more experience and knowledge explain the effects of #3. I've read that HFT is actually a good thing because it basically acts as a market maker. This is just a back of the napkin opinion, but it seems that #3 would reduce liquidity in the markets. We know that markets aren't perfect or else Buffet and other value investors couldn't survive. Does HFT make markets more or less perfect at pricing? Does…

I haven't seen any thoughtful reasoning behind calls for a Tobin tax. It's mostly populists who are upset that some people make money by trading.

Re: The 99 percent

#12

Post by jeremyarussell »

guimarin wrote: post #2

Five points for the OWS guys. 1. Transparency. We need to see where every dollar of the US federal gov't is spent. It needs to be on the internet, and it needs to be easily accessable. An exception can be made for classified spending in specific, but not so categorically (IE we spend X on classified stuff). Additionally, just like there is a Surgeon's General Warning on cigarette packages, there needs to be a link on…

I find myself seconding #1. I think in order for a democracy (or a republic) to work it needs to have transparency at all times. The effect that a lack of transparency has on a voters ability to pick the right candidate is too immense to continue to ignore it. Especially a candidates donors though, seeing as to how they're usually the real constituents of the elected officials.

Edit: typo

Re: The 99 percent

#13

Post by ericdykstra »

guimarin wrote: post #2

Five points for the OWS guys. 1. Transparency. We need to see where every dollar of the US federal gov't is spent. It needs to be on the internet, and it needs to be easily accessable. An exception can be made for classified spending in specific, but not so categorically (IE we spend X on classified stuff). Additionally, just like there is a Surgeon's General Warning on cigarette packages, there needs to be a link on…

Any candidates that actually pushed for these things would instantly get my vote. Too bad pretty much every candidate is a politician, which by definition means they oppose #1.

Re: The 99 percent

#14

Post by thwest »

noahc wrote: post #9
guimarin wrote: post #2

Five points for the OWS guys. 1. Transparency. We need to see where every dollar of the US federal gov't is spent. It needs to be on the internet, and it needs to be easily accessable. An exception can be made for classified spending in specific, but not so categorically (IE we spend X on classified stuff). Additionally, just like there is a Surgeon's General Warning on cigarette packages, there needs to be a link on…

Can anyone with more experience and knowledge explain the effects of #3. I've read that HFT is actually a good thing because it basically acts as a market maker. This is just a back of the napkin opinion, but it seems that #3 would reduce liquidity in the markets. We know that markets aren't perfect or else Buffet and other value investors couldn't survive. Does HFT make markets more or less perfect at pricing? Does…

Market liquidity is not the same as creating value. If you aren't investing on the same timeframe that it takes to create a business (3-5 years), you are simply exchanging money for money, not creating value. There is some minimum amount of liquidity needed for things to work at all, but massive amounts of liquidity is not good in and of itself. After a point market liquidity is a force for creating bubbles, not sustainable businesses.

Re: The 99 percent

#15

Post by mynameishere »

guimarin wrote: post #2

Five points for the OWS guys. 1. Transparency. We need to see where every dollar of the US federal gov't is spent. It needs to be on the internet, and it needs to be easily accessable. An exception can be made for classified spending in specific, but not so categorically (IE we spend X on classified stuff). Additionally, just like there is a Surgeon's General Warning on cigarette packages, there needs to be a link on…

end loopholes that allow companies like exxon to pay no federal taxes

Corporate taxes are idiotic. They should tax them at zero and replace the lost revenue with a new upper-margin tax. Reasons:

1. Corporate taxes are effectively a sales tax.

2. Corporations, unlike individuals, can hire armies of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists to get around the taxes.

3. Those same professionals are more often deployed by large, rather than small, companies.

4. Those same professionals are intelligent people wasting their intelligence on tax avoidance. They could just as easily be useful to society. Engineers, doctors, teachers, etc.

Re: The 99 percent

#16

Post by jarek »

noahc wrote: post #9
guimarin wrote: post #2

Five points for the OWS guys. 1. Transparency. We need to see where every dollar of the US federal gov't is spent. It needs to be on the internet, and it needs to be easily accessable. An exception can be made for classified spending in specific, but not so categorically (IE we spend X on classified stuff). Additionally, just like there is a Surgeon's General Warning on cigarette packages, there needs to be a link on…

Can anyone with more experience and knowledge explain the effects of #3. I've read that HFT is actually a good thing because it basically acts as a market maker. This is just a back of the napkin opinion, but it seems that #3 would reduce liquidity in the markets. We know that markets aren't perfect or else Buffet and other value investors couldn't survive. Does HFT make markets more or less perfect at pricing? Does…

The standard response to claiming HFT as a market maker is that it provides minute amounts of additional liquidity and its costs and drawbacks, or potential costs and drawbacks, outweigh the benefits. Of course some amount of market making is necessary, but you could claim that without HFT you'd just settle your trades in 0.1 s rather than 0.02 s and with 0.5% spread rather than 0.49% spread.

I don't know enough to form a proper opinion whether or not this is the case.

Of course part of the problem is defining HFT or algorithmic trading. If you build a robot to press an appropriate button at a trading terminal really fast, is that algorithmic, HFT, and should that be banned? Do you fix the tax at 10 cents, and if so how do you react if companies just create massive securities worth millions of dollars and trade those?

Re: The 99 percent

#17

Post by mc32 »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #8
guimarin wrote: post #2

Five points for the OWS guys. 1. Transparency. We need to see where every dollar of the US federal gov't is spent. It needs to be on the internet, and it needs to be easily accessable. An exception can be made for classified spending in specific, but not so categorically (IE we spend X on classified stuff). Additionally, just like there is a Surgeon's General Warning on cigarette packages, there needs to be a link on…

I'm really torn on #5. My pragmatic side says "hell yes", due to the very human nature law of those that most want to govern are the ones we least want doing it. But... my rights side says all that is doing is taking away my right to vote for whom I want.

I'd change it to disallow consecutive terms --yet as many terms so long as not consecutive

Re: The 99 percent

#18

Post by guimarin »

noahc wrote: post #9
guimarin wrote: post #2

Five points for the OWS guys. 1. Transparency. We need to see where every dollar of the US federal gov't is spent. It needs to be on the internet, and it needs to be easily accessable. An exception can be made for classified spending in specific, but not so categorically (IE we spend X on classified stuff). Additionally, just like there is a Surgeon's General Warning on cigarette packages, there needs to be a link on…

Can anyone with more experience and knowledge explain the effects of #3. I've read that HFT is actually a good thing because it basically acts as a market maker. This is just a back of the napkin opinion, but it seems that #3 would reduce liquidity in the markets. We know that markets aren't perfect or else Buffet and other value investors couldn't survive. Does HFT make markets more or less perfect at pricing? Does…

Instituting #3 will lower liquidity. I think the trade-off is worth it.

This is a topic where the critics, who argue in favor of the status quo are at an advantage, because the realities of HFT are not easily discernable to the layman, and require a much deeper understanding of the entire modern financial ecosystem. Suffice to say, there were/are pros and cons to having a specialist.

Re: The 99 percent

#19

Post by harryh »

Toddward wrote: post #7
guimarin wrote: post #2

Five points for the OWS guys. 1. Transparency. We need to see where every dollar of the US federal gov't is spent. It needs to be on the internet, and it needs to be easily accessable. An exception can be made for classified spending in specific, but not so categorically (IE we spend X on classified stuff). Additionally, just like there is a Surgeon's General Warning on cigarette packages, there needs to be a link on…

#2 is crucial - Glass-Steagall should never have been repealed.

Why? Do you even know why Glass-Steagall did?

The strictly investment banks (as opposed to the consolidated ones) were the ones that had the most trouble / caused the most problems in the recent recession.

Re: The 99 percent

#20

Post by guimarin »

mynameishere wrote: post #15
guimarin wrote: post #2

Five points for the OWS guys. 1. Transparency. We need to see where every dollar of the US federal gov't is spent. It needs to be on the internet, and it needs to be easily accessable. An exception can be made for classified spending in specific, but not so categorically (IE we spend X on classified stuff). Additionally, just like there is a Surgeon's General Warning on cigarette packages, there needs to be a link on…

end loopholes that allow companies like exxon to pay no federal taxes Corporate taxes are idiotic. They should tax them at zero and replace the lost revenue with a new upper-margin tax. Reasons: 1. Corporate taxes are effectively a sales tax. 2. Corporations, unlike individuals, can hire armies of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists to get around the taxes. 3. Those same professionals are more often deployed by large…

You cannot replace a corporate tax with a personal tax, all persons will simply become corporations.
Post reply on HN