311–320 of 367 posts
By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's - Paul Krugman, 1998 Excuse me if I take the Krug-o-tron's opinions with a grain of salt.
>The Trump administration is making no real effort to crack down on whoever is trading using inside information, and these inside traders are operating with a complete sense of impunity, assured that they can get away with it. Yeah that's because IT's HIM. Jesus how much more proof do you people need that the Trumps themselves are looting the country.
Can you watch what happens on a market just before the press conference and do the same?
Depends on what your brokerage allows, see timestamps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think we need to be providing proof that the sky is blue at this point but here you go. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/oct/31/tucker-carlson...
The article doesn't even include the words "ideologue" or "extreme" or make a similar claim. Very weird and defensive response.
How obtuse are you being?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe if Iran had a nuke Israel would cut back on sexual torture of detainees and indiscriminate bombing of vast swaths of densely populated land. And maybe the US would think twice about spending $10 trillion fighting pointless wars in the region. I’m in favor of that scenario.
> Maybe if Iran had a nuke Israel would cut back on sexual torture of detainees and indiscriminate bombing of vast swaths of densely populated land. Aside from the fact that Iran and its proxies do this, you have to remember that Israel very likely has nukes and so if Iran gets a nuke what exactly are they going to do with it in the scenario you described? Nuke Tel Aviv? Israel would just nuke them back. > And maybe…
I think if Iran acquired nuclear weapons the region would stabilize. Israel would be forced to stop the genocide and land grabs, because they would no longer hold a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region.
Regarding the cost of the Iraq war it was at least $3T. Likely a lot more. My $10T estimate isn’t exactly mainstream but $3T is a solid floor: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/true-cost-iraq-war-...
“Maybe it wasn’t worth the money”
You say that casually. As of $3 trillion wouldn’t have dramatically improved the lives of tens of millions of Americans. As opposed to killing several thousand military members and a million+ Iraqi civilians.
Evil really is pretty banal I guess.
Criminal probe into this started last month. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-probes-suspicious...
As if anything in the executive branch of the US still works properly. Isn't the FBI already raiding the homes of political opponents for intimidation? The famed US constitution with all its 'checks and balances' they would never shut up about turned out to be papier mâché and completely trampled by the first person that tried.
Give it time.
If you are trading in the futures market and you don't have inside info or are not an actual supplier of the commodity, you are the sucker.
To be fair, you could also be a real world user of a commodity and productively use futures markets. For example, an airline or trucking company using them to hedge fuel prices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't there a 50% chance you are betting on the "insider" side of it?
There's a The issue is that the odds aren't actually 50/50 on you buying either side of the trade; one half will look like a better deal (and given public information, it is a better deal) so you'll buy that half. Then when the market resolves, it'll turn out that insiders knew some piece of information that made the other half of the trade a better choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a The issue is that the odds aren't actually 50/50 on you buying either side of the trade; one half will look like a better deal (and given public information, it is a better deal) so you'll buy that half. Then when the market resolves, it'll turn out that insiders knew some piece of information that made the other half of the trade a better choice.
So then the person who uses public information is actually the bigger fool than someone who uses no information whatsoever and just picks a side of the bet. If insiders know that a volcano is going to erupt and offers a 50/50 payout, people who know the historical improbability will bet that is will NOT erupt, thinking it is an easy payout. But there will be some idiots out there that bet that it will erupt based on…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the UK, the Prime Minister or the Home Office cannot ring up any of the enforcement agencies and tell them to drop a corruption case - the law is supposed to apply to everyone. I would not rely on that. The Attorney General can withdraw prosecutions, and is a government minister (although not technically in the Cabinet). Parliament can do anything , it just usually doesn't. This includes retroactive legislation…
Yep; I think the above comment took the wrong lessons. What actually happened in the US is that "common norms and expectations" were thrown out the window, so instead of the question being "What is traditionally done?" it became "What can legally be done?" And, as it turns out, when you're only constrained by the letter of the law the executive branch is insanely powerful. UK politics, more than most younger countrie…