Re: Ping Larkin
- From: John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:04:37 -0800
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:23:31 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <meru@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
Shooting politicians and bureaucrats would be more effective ;-)My sentiment as well, but someone has to run run the country and try to
balance the budgets. It would help the west if we all stopped exporting
jobs to China, but you can blame global multinationals for that, who
have no interest other than shareholder value.
No business is run as a charity. All businesses do what they have to
do to compete and survive. And shareholders hire boards and executives
exactly to maximize the value of their stocks; wouldn't you? So, given
It depends on whether they maximise the long term value of their stocks
by genuine management skill and organic growth or talk the price up with
a well constructed pack of lies and then dump the stock at peak market
leaving real long term investors to carry the can. The dot.com boom was
a pretty good example of that scam.
Most of the dot.commers were sincere in expecting success. If you
don't like the risk of new-idea stocks, don't buy them.
all that, tax policy should be structured to do the most good, which
includes creating jobs so that people have earnings so that they can
pay taxes.
No disagreement there. And simpler tax systems are better - but you do
have to do something smart to make sure that working harder always
creates a monotonically improving situation for most people.
We all want free market
economics, but business is now too powerfull for the good of nations.
Business is 100% of all economies. Business has to be powerful because
it creates wealth and stuff. As long as businesses compete, the more
powerful the business side of the economy, the better off everybody
is. The miserable nations suffer from too little business, not too
much.
Remind me how it was that we ended up having to bail out banks with vast
amounts of taxpayers money? Heads we win - tails you lose casino banking.
Thank Bill Clinton and Barney Frank for that.
The increasing volume of high frequency trades looks like it will be the
next variant on the theme of too big to fail high loss city trading
MFUs. Around 70% of US stock transactions are now high speed programmed
trades parasitic on the businesses they purport to be dealing in. UK
experts are worried that the trend will totally destabilise the markets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8338045.stm
They have found a new high stakes pass the parcel gambling game.
A little damping wouldn't hurt the system, like a 0.2% tax on all
stock trades, or a bigger tax on short-term trades.
John
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ping Larkin
- From: krw
- Re: Ping Larkin
- References:
- Re: Ping Larkin
- From: Joerg
- Re: Ping Larkin
- From: John Larkin
- Re: Ping Larkin
- From: Joerg
- Re: Ping Larkin
- From: John Larkin
- Re: Ping Larkin
- From: Jim Thompson
- Re: Ping Larkin
- From: ChrisQ
- Re: Ping Larkin
- From: John Larkin
- Re: Ping Larkin
- From: Martin Brown
- Re: Ping Larkin
- Prev by Date: Re: PCB Encapsulants to Annoy Copy Pirates
- Next by Date: Re: PCB Encapsulants to Annoy Copy Pirates
- Previous by thread: Re: Ping Larkin
- Next by thread: Re: Ping Larkin
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|