51–60 of 162 posts
I have no idea what The Economist could possibly mean by "pick up the bill" in this context. They know as well as anyone that wealth isn't conserved. If my company makes twice as much money next year as this one, I've added to the world's wealth, not subtracted from it.
The graph is a bit hard to read since it's labeled poorly. The X-axis is the year. The Y-axis is the percentage of income relative to 1979, after-tax. They do not mention if these numbers were adjusted for inflation, but the report linked to on the page says the numbers are adjusted for inflation: Income is adjusted for inflation using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ research series of the consumer price index for al…
The graph is labelled "US real average after-tax income" (emphasis mine). Real income is, by definition, income that has been adjusted for inflation.
There is not an inherent problem in income inequality if everyone has an acceptable standard of living. The problem is when the poor go without health care, food, shelter, education, Internet, and heating. Unemployment can be a large part of this.
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…
Second, all of guilmarin's points: 1) Transparency - Only politicians would disagree with this. Good idea. 2) As other readers pointed out, this is a red herring, and would not solve anything. 3) This has the effect of killing the messenger, and there is a lot of evidence that derivatives are extremely helpful to markets as an information tool and reducing volatility. I certainly can't come up with a compelling moral reason to limit free people from doing what they want with their property. 4) The tax code should be simplified, but because simplicity is inherently better. Removing the corporate tax, as indicated, would both decrease complexity and promote investment. 5) Do you have any evidence that junior senators and representatives are better or worse? I could see a problem with lame ducks increasing their cronyism rather than decreasing it. I don't have an intrinsic opinion on this, but certainly sounds like a reasonable goal if you can come up with a clear mechanism on how this would help and particularly data to support. Looking at incumbent stuff might be a good way to do this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 f…
According to some recent research, HFT appears responsible for lowering spreads by more than an order of magnitude: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/10/mor... That's a definite social good that would go away under proposal #3.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
3. I'm not so sure about the effectiveness of the tax on financial instruments. I think it might be more effective to require reserves to be held by the issuer, maybe a few percent They are already required in some cases. A bank is required to to hold a percentage of deposits as capital. An insurance company is required to hold reserves against losses. At the time of the crash there was something like $60 trillion in…
The point of the tax is not to regulate the derivatives market. There are valid reasons for derivatives, and arbitrarily imposing a reserve requirement on a class of instruments that is ever changing and by definition, represents different alpha and beta is a bad idea. The point of the tax is to mitigate HFT strategies. In my view they don't add anything to the system when considered from the point of view of 'why' s…
If you're a company raising money, investors will want to be compensated for this extra cost, thus shifting the burden onto the company and raising the cost of raising capital.
If you're an investor who wants to liquidate, you'll be offered a price lower than fair market value, as buyer will want you to cover the tax portion.
Armed with this knowledge, the rational you will think twice before converting cash into financial equity instruments. Maybe you'll choose CDs, maybe bonds, maybe stocks of foreign companies that trade on exchanges that have no such requirements.
You could probably mitigate the HFT strategies by suggesting the market stay open for just a few hours a week - enough for buyers and sellers to match outstanding bids, not worth it for HFTraders to bother.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 f…
I have no idea whether this would actually be a good thing or not, though.
The graph is a bit hard to read since it's labeled poorly. The X-axis is the year. The Y-axis is the percentage of income relative to 1979, after-tax. They do not mention if these numbers were adjusted for inflation, but the report linked to on the page says the numbers are adjusted for inflation: Income is adjusted for inflation using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ research series of the consumer price index for al…
> They do not mention if these numbers were adjusted for inflation... The graph is labelled "US real average after-tax income" (emphasis mine). Real income is, by definition, income that has been adjusted for inflation.
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…
Regarding 4, specifically "to realize losses in the US and gains in a foreign country", how do you propose companies avoid this situation? Should they deliberately lose money overseas as well? What would this accomplish?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does a market need millisecond-resolution liquidity?
I'm not sure it does need that much liquidity. But, at what point are we not liquid enough? Is hourly liquidity enough? It's a good question, but I'm not sure how you measure what 'enough' is.