Taxes!

[Arraya]

[quote=pri_dk]. Computers are part of our world now – get used to it.

.[/quote]

Yeah, no doubt. You could completely replace the wall streets function with a computer program.

Since the 70s they have had difficulty with their intended purpose, which is finding viable, socially beneficial technologies. Well at least as far as with the amount of investment capital growing exponentially each year. So they have resorted to gambling schemes and financial alchemy. For the most part, they serve little to no social function.

Slightly OT, but tangentially related.

The science of motivation

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]If one has to choose between giving this money to a HF trader, or giving it to a handful of start-ups, or to an existing company that wants to expand to meet demand, I would certainly prefer the latter two.[/quote]

CAR, nobody “gives” money to HF traders.

[/quote]

You’re right. Nobody would willingly “give” money to HF traders; the traders take it.

Sorry, but they do not “earn” their money. Skimming a portion off of legitimate transactions is NOT productive, nor is it beneficial to society.

Yes, that applies to derivatives, too.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]If one has to choose between giving this money to a HF trader, or giving it to a handful of start-ups, or to an existing company that wants to expand to meet demand, I would certainly prefer the latter two.[/quote]

CAR, nobody “gives” money to HF traders.

[/quote]

You’re right. Nobody would willingly “give” money to HF traders; the traders take it.

Sorry, but they do not “earn” their money. Skimming a portion off of legitimate transactions is NOT productive, nor is it beneficial to society.

Yes, that applies to derivatives, too.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]If one has to choose between giving this money to a HF trader, or giving it to a handful of start-ups, or to an existing company that wants to expand to meet demand, I would certainly prefer the latter two.[/quote]

CAR, nobody “gives” money to HF traders.

[/quote]

You’re right. Nobody would willingly “give” money to HF traders; the traders take it.

Sorry, but they do not “earn” their money. Skimming a portion off of legitimate transactions is NOT productive, nor is it beneficial to society.

Yes, that applies to derivatives, too.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]If one has to choose between giving this money to a HF trader, or giving it to a handful of start-ups, or to an existing company that wants to expand to meet demand, I would certainly prefer the latter two.[/quote]

CAR, nobody “gives” money to HF traders.

[/quote]

You’re right. Nobody would willingly “give” money to HF traders; the traders take it.

Sorry, but they do not “earn” their money. Skimming a portion off of legitimate transactions is NOT productive, nor is it beneficial to society.

Yes, that applies to derivatives, too.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]If one has to choose between giving this money to a HF trader, or giving it to a handful of start-ups, or to an existing company that wants to expand to meet demand, I would certainly prefer the latter two.[/quote]

CAR, nobody “gives” money to HF traders.

[/quote]

You’re right. Nobody would willingly “give” money to HF traders; the traders take it.

Sorry, but they do not “earn” their money. Skimming a portion off of legitimate transactions is NOT productive, nor is it beneficial to society.

Yes, that applies to derivatives, too.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]
Your comments show a complete ignorance about HF trading and the markets in general. You simply don’t know what you are talking about.

[/quote]

Please clarify which comments you’re referring to, and your argue your position. Making personal attacks (false ones, at that) will not make your point, nor win a debate.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]
Your comments show a complete ignorance about HF trading and the markets in general. You simply don’t know what you are talking about.

[/quote]

Please clarify which comments you’re referring to, and your argue your position. Making personal attacks (false ones, at that) will not make your point, nor win a debate.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]
Your comments show a complete ignorance about HF trading and the markets in general. You simply don’t know what you are talking about.

[/quote]

Please clarify which comments you’re referring to, and your argue your position. Making personal attacks (false ones, at that) will not make your point, nor win a debate.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]
Your comments show a complete ignorance about HF trading and the markets in general. You simply don’t know what you are talking about.

[/quote]

Please clarify which comments you’re referring to, and your argue your position. Making personal attacks (false ones, at that) will not make your point, nor win a debate.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]
Your comments show a complete ignorance about HF trading and the markets in general. You simply don’t know what you are talking about.

[/quote]

Please clarify which comments you’re referring to, and your argue your position. Making personal attacks (false ones, at that) will not make your point, nor win a debate.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]This is an oversimplification. True, trading shares that have already been issued do not directly provide additional capital. What it does provide is liquidity – something that is essential in capital markets.

If there were not an active market for a security, investors would be reluctant to buy it because they would be concerned that they may have trouble selling it later. IPOs and other offerings would be much more difficult, and happen far less often.

A big reason that publicly-traded companies can issue stock/bonds/whatever to raise capital is that the buyers of these securities are confident that they are purchasing a liquid investment. The existence of active markets is what gives them this confidence.

So the vast majority of trading does not directly raise capital, but it does very much “have an effect on whether Ford expands their workforce or opens a new plant.” The liquidity of Ford’s stock makes it possible for Ford to issue more.

Securities markets do not exist simply to provide a venue for gambling. This is a popular myth, but completely incorrect.

One of the biggest reasons that the US is the most prosperous economy in history is that we have the most established and, in fact, transparent markets that have ever existed. These markets give companies the ability to easily raise capital, expand their business, and (this one’s for you CAR!) hire more employees.[/quote]

Agree with all of this. And should not have ignored in my comment. But my point was (which I also confess, I totally ignored in my comment) that lowering taxes (or raising them) on those with the highest income has virtually no effect on expansion of capital or creation of jobs. There is no shortage of capital for those purposes. The relatively highly efficient markets ensure that.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]This is an oversimplification. True, trading shares that have already been issued do not directly provide additional capital. What it does provide is liquidity – something that is essential in capital markets.

If there were not an active market for a security, investors would be reluctant to buy it because they would be concerned that they may have trouble selling it later. IPOs and other offerings would be much more difficult, and happen far less often.

A big reason that publicly-traded companies can issue stock/bonds/whatever to raise capital is that the buyers of these securities are confident that they are purchasing a liquid investment. The existence of active markets is what gives them this confidence.

So the vast majority of trading does not directly raise capital, but it does very much “have an effect on whether Ford expands their workforce or opens a new plant.” The liquidity of Ford’s stock makes it possible for Ford to issue more.

Securities markets do not exist simply to provide a venue for gambling. This is a popular myth, but completely incorrect.

One of the biggest reasons that the US is the most prosperous economy in history is that we have the most established and, in fact, transparent markets that have ever existed. These markets give companies the ability to easily raise capital, expand their business, and (this one’s for you CAR!) hire more employees.[/quote]

Agree with all of this. And should not have ignored in my comment. But my point was (which I also confess, I totally ignored in my comment) that lowering taxes (or raising them) on those with the highest income has virtually no effect on expansion of capital or creation of jobs. There is no shortage of capital for those purposes. The relatively highly efficient markets ensure that.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]This is an oversimplification. True, trading shares that have already been issued do not directly provide additional capital. What it does provide is liquidity – something that is essential in capital markets.

If there were not an active market for a security, investors would be reluctant to buy it because they would be concerned that they may have trouble selling it later. IPOs and other offerings would be much more difficult, and happen far less often.

A big reason that publicly-traded companies can issue stock/bonds/whatever to raise capital is that the buyers of these securities are confident that they are purchasing a liquid investment. The existence of active markets is what gives them this confidence.

So the vast majority of trading does not directly raise capital, but it does very much “have an effect on whether Ford expands their workforce or opens a new plant.” The liquidity of Ford’s stock makes it possible for Ford to issue more.

Securities markets do not exist simply to provide a venue for gambling. This is a popular myth, but completely incorrect.

One of the biggest reasons that the US is the most prosperous economy in history is that we have the most established and, in fact, transparent markets that have ever existed. These markets give companies the ability to easily raise capital, expand their business, and (this one’s for you CAR!) hire more employees.[/quote]

Agree with all of this. And should not have ignored in my comment. But my point was (which I also confess, I totally ignored in my comment) that lowering taxes (or raising them) on those with the highest income has virtually no effect on expansion of capital or creation of jobs. There is no shortage of capital for those purposes. The relatively highly efficient markets ensure that.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]This is an oversimplification. True, trading shares that have already been issued do not directly provide additional capital. What it does provide is liquidity – something that is essential in capital markets.

If there were not an active market for a security, investors would be reluctant to buy it because they would be concerned that they may have trouble selling it later. IPOs and other offerings would be much more difficult, and happen far less often.

A big reason that publicly-traded companies can issue stock/bonds/whatever to raise capital is that the buyers of these securities are confident that they are purchasing a liquid investment. The existence of active markets is what gives them this confidence.

So the vast majority of trading does not directly raise capital, but it does very much “have an effect on whether Ford expands their workforce or opens a new plant.” The liquidity of Ford’s stock makes it possible for Ford to issue more.

Securities markets do not exist simply to provide a venue for gambling. This is a popular myth, but completely incorrect.

One of the biggest reasons that the US is the most prosperous economy in history is that we have the most established and, in fact, transparent markets that have ever existed. These markets give companies the ability to easily raise capital, expand their business, and (this one’s for you CAR!) hire more employees.[/quote]

Agree with all of this. And should not have ignored in my comment. But my point was (which I also confess, I totally ignored in my comment) that lowering taxes (or raising them) on those with the highest income has virtually no effect on expansion of capital or creation of jobs. There is no shortage of capital for those purposes. The relatively highly efficient markets ensure that.

[Author]

Posts