• C++ Programming for Financial Engineering
    Highly recommended by thousands of MFE students. Covers essential C++ topics with applications to financial engineering. Learn more Join!
    Python for Finance with Intro to Data Science
    Gain practical understanding of Python to read, understand, and write professional Python code for your first day on the job. Learn more Join!
    An Intuition-Based Options Primer for FE
    Ideal for entry level positions interviews and graduate studies, specializing in options trading arbitrage and options valuation models. Learn more Join!

Who are you voting for in 2012?

For someone who loves liberty so much, you sure enjoy telling people what to believe and how to act ;).

I try to persuade people with arguments. I did not force anyone to believe in anything ;).

I laid out my arguments, and the only counter-argument I get are personal attacks =)
 
I think laws/statements need to be analyzed within their context, and not at face value.

I agree. But you didn't provide context with your statement, and instead simply dismissed an argument because of its alleged age. If you were to make the case that what was said in the 1700s is irrelevant today, then I would agree with your argument, if not your conclusions. I am really just arguing semantics at this point though.

... but we did better with one

Fair enough ;). I believe that we did better despite the income tax and not because of it; but obviously that is up for debate.

Fascist? Because I acknowledge a civilized society must have law which must in turn be enforced (at least to some extent)? That's quite the stretch if you ask me...

You acknowledged that force was the BASIS for society, not a necessary condition. I may have misread you, but I understood your argument to say that force was necessary and sufficient for society, ie, that society was born out of force. Such a statement echos the beliefs of fascists, who said that identity is found within a coercive state. I apologize if this is not what you intended to say.
 
Alexei, you say that only 2% of alpha comes from algo trading, and fundamental traders do better? Isn't a vast majority of volume done by machines now? Where do you get your numbers from?
 
Really? That's an interesting opinion. Especially considering that things like roads, electric cables and sewage systems it's generally accepted that a government is more efficient at dealing with than individuals (even with the misfires that inevitably happen in any system)... because everyone building their own sewage system turns out to be really super expensive. Theory is it's so expensive, that even the occasional bridge to nowhere thrown in with the normal, generally well functioning system, pales in comparison to the cost. And can you imagine the cost of electricity if every electric company ran its own wire to your house?

Also, you have capitalism backwards. It favors large monopolies, not "entrepreneurs". To drop state functions into the hands of "entrepreneurs" is just a thinly disguised entitlement. You are spreading the work that could be done by 10 people to 10 different groups of 10 people. It's actually EXACTLY what Sweden does. Oh the irony.

Notice I said " built upon the false premise that government will today invest in education and especially infrastructure more efficiently" . Years and years ago, sure, when our country was still being built from the ground up the government may well have invested in infrastructure more efficiently, but this is still arguable. Today, most needed roads have already been built, cities have already been planned and laid out. Government "infrastructure investment" is subject to diminishing returns. Look back at the original post and you can see how laughable some of the federal "infrastructure" spending is anymore.

I live in the Dallas, TX area and lately we've seen an increase in private toll roads, which have been hugely successful. Again, our public school system in the US is pure trash. If only we were allowed to choose which system our taxes subsidized, we'd likely invest in the system that actually works (ie via vouchers). The private sector invests in infrastructure as well if government gets out of the way and lets them do it, and I would argue the private sector does a better job of it, actively concerned about waste and necessity due to spending it's own money.

I do not have capitalism backwards. Government intervention regularly creates and reinforces monopolies. It is the enemy of competition. See local utilities (possibly the only beneficial one, possibly), phone line (now internet) providers, health insurers, military manufacturers, etc. Also, ask yourself why so many US manufacturing companies have moved overseas. They cannot compete here with our regulations, minimum wage, restrictions, etc. The list goes on and on. Enough socialism brings the death of the entrepreneur.
 
Sure, the return on re-paving a beat up road is less than that of putting a new road in place. However, this is a poor argument for not repaving roads.
Nobody is asking to quit repaving roads. You're apparently still not understanding my argument. It's efficiency we're sacrificing. Nobody is arguing against infrastructure investment, just how it ought to be done.

Yes, "some" federal infrastructure is laughable. There are cracks in any system. But most of it is legit.
I disagree for reasons I have already stated.

What kind of Government intervention are you talking about? What kind of theoretical world do you think we live in?
Perhaps the real world of which numerous examples I mentioned and you ignored... For how little you seem to read my posts you sure seem eager to instigate a response.

In the real world, antitrust legislation ("Government intervention") is most certainly needed to break up monopolies, which are merely the natural end-state of business in capitalism, and make sure competition can actually take place... I'm not sure what you're going to do to argue against this, since this is one is also more or less of a "gimme" supported/demonstrated by history over and over again... I still contend you have capitalism backwards.
Just because the government's anti trust legislation offers a cumbersome and inefficient method of breaking up monopolies does not imply it is the only, much less most efficient, means of competition. Again, actually read what you're responding to, and you'll see plenty of examples where government in fact creates and maintains many monopolies through legal barriers to entry, while further destroying competition through uneven taxation and regulation. Just in case I need to add this, this does not mean anti trust legislation is never useful, but to say it is solely necessary or "certainly needed" is incorrect. Stepping out of the private sector and firstly allowing these firms to compete is many times a valid and more efficient solution. These are anything but new concepts I'm sourcing and are found, besides in my real world examples, in any good intermediate micro book, usually under "Causes of Monopoly". I suggest you look there to answer your contention.

Here's a great one: http://www.amazon.com/Intermediate-...ter-Nicholson/dp/0324599102/ref=pd_sbs_misc_1
 
What is your argument in that case? That I sell the portion of the road in front of my house to a company and then pay them for upkeep? Why not just build another house over the area and sell it? MUCH higher return...

That I get 3-4 sewage companies to route their lines to my house in hopes of competition forming?

Or are you arguing that we turn into Sweden and hire entrepreneurs to do the work of "the government" for it/auction off the work to entrepreneurs? Because you know to make sure that it ends up in the hands of entrepreneurs you'd have to block the large corporations from undercutting them...

Is there something special about that particular macroeconomics book or is it like the other ones?

Listen, I don't want to go back and forth with this and I don't think you do either. I think the government has inadequate incentives to ensure each investment yields appropriate return/wealth creation. I think the private sector does. The private sector will not always invest most efficiently. The government will not always invest most efficiently. I think the private sector will more often currently, and this may or may not always be true.

That book is primarily what I have learned off of, which is why I suggested it, but now that I think about it, this next one is not only MUCH more readable and enjoyable, but much shorter, and FREE.

http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf

Take a look. You may not agree with it, but at least you can see where I'm coming from.
 
Back
Top