BaalChatzaf

BREXIT and Trump

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The stock market is a legalized gambling casino.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The stock market is a legalized gambling casino.   

Overly simplistic.

Comparing Investing And Gambling.  Something the article doesn't mention is that gambling is a zero-sum game (except for the house) and stock-investing isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, merjet said:

 

Overly simplistic.

Comparing Investing And Gambling.  Something the article doesn't mention is that gambling is a zero-sum game (except for the house) and stock-investing isn't.

Read "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis.

 

Question.  What does buying a share of stock from an initial or original investor do to increase the capital of the company that issued the stock?   Buying "used" shares does not add one cent to the capital stock of industries.   What one has  is  a lotto game.   Buying used certificates of ownership does not  add a bit to the company that issued them.   Also buying stock (secondarily)  that does not pay dividends means the only way to realized a gain is to resell at a higher price. This has its limits and someone eventually is left holding the bag.   It is like a Ponzi scheme in a way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2016 at 10:16 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

Read "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis.

 

Question.  What does buying a share of stock from an initial or original investor do to increase the capital of the company that issued the stock?   Buying "used" shares does not add one cent to the capital stock of industries.   What one has  is  a lotto game.   Buying used certificates of ownership does not  add a bit to the company that issued them.   Also buying stock (secondarily)  that does not pay dividends means the only way to realized a gain is to resell at a higher price. This has its limits and someone eventually is left holding the bag.   It is like a Ponzi scheme in a way.

The Wall Street Journal used to run an entertainment piece every year showing savvy investors competing against a dart board. The upside is to obtain an accountable professional who manages wealth, institutional rates and a disciplined investment strategy that maintains a low risk profile over the long run.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10190809017144480

Just one example. Buying stock and selling within a year would expose one to short term capital gains tax. The idea of chasing prices for perceived higher yields is dangerous to value. Rookie investors, like me, often made the mistake of buying late and selling early.

Theres plenty of evidence supporting long term holding strategies and periodic reallocations being the smart money. )  

Its not that the market is a lottery or a Ponzi scheme. Its that investors dont understand the risk associated with the purchase. If one were to hold a bag of money over time it would lose value, guaranteed. Who is left holding the bag? )

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said:

The Wall Street Journal used to run an entertainment piece every year showing savvy investors competing against a dart board. The upside is to obtain an accountable professional who manages wealth, institutional rates and a disciplined investment strategy that maintains a low risk profile over the long run.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10190809017144480

Just one example. Buying stock and selling within a year would expose one to short term capital gains tax. The idea of chasing prices for perceived higher yields is dangerous to value. Rookie investors, like me, often make the mistake of buying late and selling early.

Theres plenty of evidence supporting long term holding strategies and periodic reallocations being the smart money. )  

Its not that the market is a lottery or a Ponzi scheme. Its that investors dont understand the risk associated with the purchase. If one were to hold a bag of money over time it would lose value, guaranteed. Who is left holding the bag? )

 

So invest the money or lend it out at interest....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Read "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis.

Irrelevant. The Big Short isn't about the stock market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, merjet said:

Irrelevant. The Big Short isn't about the stock market.

No, it is about the bond market.  But the bond market became a casino,  just like the stock market.   The point is the big financial houses are no longer in the business of  enabling productivity.  Now they are just  fiddling to produce monetary income without doing anything productive for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the Westminster system, where party leaders actually go away (if only for a while)  if not to oblivion.  

David Cameron resigns, Boris Johnson gets heebie-jeebies and bows out of the Conservative race, Jeremy Corbin deals with two hundred knives in his back while not resigning, and now the famous gone-before-but-not-for-long Nigel Farage has set his blocks again. From the Guardian today:

Farage, 52, was originally leader from 2006 to 2009 and came back to the job after the 2010 election, overseeing the rise of Ukip from a fringe single-issue party to a major political force. He then stepped down after the 2015 election, only to “unresign” just days later, as he wanted to lead Ukip’s campaign to leave the EU.

The MEP insisted his latest resignation was for good but raised the prospect of taking some role in negotiating Britain’s exit from the EU, saying he “might have something to give”.

The race to find a successor will now begin, with possible candidates including deputy leader Paul Nuttall, immigration spokesman Steven Woolfe, culture spokesman Peter Whittle, Suzanne Evans, who is currently suspended, Diane James, an MEP, or the party’s only MP, Douglas Carswell.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016/07/01 at 3:33 PM, anthony said:

 

Especially by the media. I've always had respect for Amanpour, liberal as she may be, but I've never seen her look more personally pissed off and sound more scathing as she has by Brexit. A pretty good give-away of her premises. I came in on the end of a wrap-up she did 4-5 nights ago, and heard her pronounce roughly this:

"I want to leave you with this thought. The British youth voted overwhelmingly for "Stay", while it was mainly the aging who want to leave. But just consider this: the elderly have only 16 years[?] of life left, while the young have 46[!]. Just think about that!".

 

.

One simple reason for the older-younger divide of Brexit hasn't been pursued that I've seen, it's that the elders recall - or remember proudly learning - that Britain and British were exceptionalist too, once. The young are now a little more concerned with conformism, sameness, fitting in and trying to amend their 'post-colonial-guilt', than "sovereign independence" and all that. (In fact, of course nobody wants to hammer this point on the Left, it would show them up).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, anthony said:

One simple reason for the older-younger divide of Brexit hasn't been pursued that I've seen, it's that the elders recall - or remember proudly learning - that Britain and British were exceptionalist too, once. The young are now a little more concerned with conformism, sameness, fitting in and trying to amend their 'post-colonial-guilt', than "sovereign independence" and all that. (In fact, of course nobody wants to hammer this point on the Left - it would show them up).

Britania used to rule the Waves.  Back in the early and middle 19 th century  Britain was  the world's leading nation in technology and and invention.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, anthony said:

One simple reason for the older-younger divide of Brexit hasn't been pursued that I've seen, it's that the elders recall - or remember proudly learning - that Britain and British were exceptionalist too, once. The young are now a little more concerned with conformism, sameness, fitting in and trying to amend their 'post-colonial-guilt', than "sovereign independence" and all that. (In fact, of course nobody wants to hammer this point on the Left, it would show them up).

The young have been educated under the Progressive's strong belief in global governance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Britania used to rule the Waves.  Back in the early and middle 19 th century  Britain was  the world's leading nation in technology and and invention.  

And how. And the pink atlas. Indulging in a spot of er, tribalism-collectivism, that was a source of pride for me as a kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 2, 2016 at 8:16 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

Read "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis.

 

Question.  What does buying a share of stock from an initial or original investor do to increase the capital of the company that issued the stock?   Buying "used" shares does not add one cent to the capital stock of industries.   What one has  is  a lotto game.   Buying used certificates of ownership does not  add a bit to the company that issued them.   Also buying stock (secondarily)  that does not pay dividends means the only way to realized a gain is to resell at a higher price. This has its limits and someone eventually is left holding the bag.   It is like a Ponzi scheme in a way.

Actually, buying "used" shares does add to the capital stock of industries, by making original investment possible in the first place. No one would invest if no secondary market existed.

Same for Hondas. While some who sell them may imagine that original sales would benefit from the disappearance of the secondary market, in fact, original sales would suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

No one would invest if no secondary market existed.

I agree completely - that's an excellent point.  And, another view of this is that the stock shares (or a Honda) are a specific kind of property and come with the right to resell them.  I have some books for sale on Amazon and I will be paid a royalty for each new book that sells.  When someone turns around and resells one of my books as a used book it does diminish the sale of new books, and the market for new books does not depend upon the existence of a secondary market.  But the paperback versions come with the right to resell, whereas the eBook versions... not so much.  Sometimes it is about economics, sometimes it is about property rights.

Comparing the sale of stock in the secondary market to a Ponzi scheme is misleading since markets go up and down and since individual companies fortunes go up and down.  In this sense it is not a fixed pie that requires losers for their to be winners.  (In today's mixed economy and with quantitative easing it might be more accurate to call it gambling than investing... at least for those not doing it for a living - but that's a different issue).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Actually, buying "used" shares does add to the capital stock of industries, by making original investment possible in the first place. No one would invest if no secondary market existed.

Same for Hondas. While some who sell them may imagine that original sales would benefit from the disappearance of the secondary market, in fact, original sales would suffer.

what about shares that paid dividends?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

The young have been educated under the Progressive's strong belief in global governance.

"Give me a child until he's seven, and you can do what you like with him afterwards" - or something - by one Order of Monks. How did we internationally come to taking for granted, education being the responsibility of the State? By assuming education as a "right" (a claim on others' money) rather than as a value to individual parents and their children. And "Equality of input". Etc. As important - and moreso, since it begins here with young minds- as separation of state and economy or religion, must be separation of schooling and government. Then all schools, colleges and universities would be privately owned businesses, capitalist free enterprise -- a frightening idea to Progressive intellectuals, I imagine. As we can predict, tuition costs will drop dramatically and quality of teaching will rise. Teaching students HOW to think would surpass WHAT they should think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, anthony said:

separation of schooling and government

Absolutely!

4 hours ago, anthony said:

Teaching students HOW to think would surpass WHAT they should think

Yes!  Every class should be in the form of some particular content in service of 'how to think critically.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SteveWolfer said:

Absolutely!

Yes!  Every class should be in the form of some particular content in service of 'how to think critically.'

The only time that is done in the elementary public schools  is accidentally and incidentally.  Critical thinking is definitely not part of the course work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is sad that this has happened... that our educational system has deteriorated so badly, and that this decline started so long ago and has gone on, and on, and on, without causing the alarm it should have.  Now, from where we are, it is such a long road back and there is no sign that it is even starting to go in the right direction.  When I think of what the educational system could be in a free market with today's technology it is enough to make a grown man cry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

It is sad that this has happened... that our educational system has deteriorated so badly, and that this decline started so long ago and has gone on, and on, and on, without causing the alarm it should have.  Now, from where we are, it is such a long road back and there is no sign that it is even starting to go in the right direction.  When I think of what the educational system could be in a free market with today's technology it is enough to make a grown man cry.

https://fee.org/articles/the-failure-of-american-public-education/

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2015/04/why_have_american_education_standards_collapsed.html

https://lbj.utexas.edu/news/2012/decline-american-education

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British Prime Minister David Cameron will leave office on Wednesday --  since Andrea Leadsom removed her name from the ballot for Conservative party leader. 

Theresa May is the last man standing. She will be in charge of the UK's exit from Europe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2016 at 10:41 AM, william.scherk said:

Theresa May is the last man standing. She will be in charge of the UK's exit from Europe.

I should have done a better OL search for "Brexit" ... before placing my analysis in the "Conspiracy" thread:

There is no particular movement on the issue in Britain. The 'deal' is up for a vote. 

For a glimpse of what UK Media are reporting today:   

brexitNewDec8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theresa May's Brexit agreement was to be put to a vote in the House of Commons tomorrow. That vote has been postponed, as May acknowledged she would lose the vote.

The European Court of Justice issued a ruling that said the UK could unilaterally revoke its 'Article 50' notice. This would mean that the entire process would halt.  May said today that she would not revoke the notice of withdrawal. 

So, what are the options?  Hell if I know.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a possible paradox ... in what is called the "Backstop" in EU-UK negotiations. It concerns the changes that must and must not occur at the Ireland/Northern Ireland border.  How can free passage of Irish EU citizens (Irish citizenship may be claimed by any Northern Ireland citizen) to and from the UK be maintained after a Brexit deal? Moreover, how can the border be maintained/done away with if there is a no-deal Brexit?

From the Irish Times: 

Brexit explained: Why does the Border matter and what is the backstop? The Border is a sticking point in Brexit negotiations, but why?

image.jpg

Quote

Hell to pay

Northern nationalists expect to continue enjoying the rights to live and work around Europe as they do today. There will be hell to pay if Brexit relegates them to second-class EU and hence Irish citizenship.

Even the fancy footwork does not address political rights. How will Irish citizens in Northern Ireland continue engaging with the European Parliament? The Republic’s Constituency Commission has been considering what to do with the two extra MEPs Ireland will receive due to Brexit. Sinn Féin wants it to create a new constituency covering Northern Ireland, with the franchise extended to the entire population. The party’s argument is that everyone in the North is both an Irish and a British citizen by birthright as a fundamental principle of the Belfast Agreement, whatever passport they choose to hold.

Next year’s referendum on extending presidential voting to the diaspora will blow this debate wide open.

 

Edited by william.scherk
Situation normal, all backstopped up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...