• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
timhau said:
I'm not an American, but I am a private investor and I do own NYSE- and NASDAQ-listed shares. I do a a few trades per year (buying much more than selling). Care to elaborate how algorithmic trading is bad for me and my kind?
Click to expand...

Exactly. A price is put up. A person can choose to purchase or sell at that price. The speed of other parties doesn't change that.
 
Manopolus said:
First and foremost, he would likely have put an end to trading-via-algorithm, partially by taxing each transaction, thus stabilizing markets and bringing new blood into public investing that isn't currently going public. As things are going, we're pretty much on our way to the end of traditional investing in the US.

Secondly, by forcing more money down to the bottom levels (via raising the minimum wage), he would increase the velocity of money, thus improving sales potential.

Thirdly, moving to a single payer system would also free up money that is currently tied up in the insurance industries -- not a bad thing unless you happen to be in the private health insurance field.

Lastly, his education system would create a better educated population so that companies don't have to move to Europe or Korea to get enough workers with the needed education to run the economy of the future.
Click to expand...

Kind of curious why you see the financial transaction tax as the "foremost" important thing he is proposing. Then again, I really don't understand his bugaboo with "Wall Street". I don't think it would "stabilize" markets, there were big crashes long before they invented computers that could trade stocks. I do agree that the rich could afford to pay higher taxes though. I would rather he just jack up income taxes on the rich and not mess with the financial system too much. I think it could backfire. You have to consider the secondary effects. It could make it harder for companies to get the funding they need, and this could hurt jobs in the end.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Exactly. A price is put up. A person can choose to purchase or sell at that price. The speed of other parties doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

What about if you knew that a trade can be canceled slightly AFTER an algorithm detects whether it can make a profit by immediately selling after a buy? That's the sort of speed we're talking about -- it breaks the normal rules. It can also cause immediate turns in the markets faster than you can react to them.

To be honest with you, I'm not anywhere close to an expert on these things. I just watched a documentary recently (Ghost Exchange -- 2013) that seemed to suggest that there were some major problems there. I guess I put it "first and foremost" just because it was new information to me. I know very little about finance personally.

Mainly, I was trying to put Bernie's policy suggestions into a language that the person I was responding to might accept a little better than the "free stuff" garbage you keep hearing from the right. There are reasons to do some of these things other than wanting free stuff.

It might have made more sense to just point to this link, I suppose:

http://usuncut.com/politics/gordon-gekko-sanders/

However, that only pointed to a few of the notions I wanted to throw out there.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul said:
Well, the polls are open from 6:30 AM to 7:30 PM in some of the elections today. Not many people work 13 hours straight. But the long waits are an issue. And it seems like here there is always some problem each time, like polling station runs out of ballots or some-such BS. And nothing is within walking distance in most US cities.
Click to expand...

Many people work 12-hour shifts 7 to 7 is common here. Add in commuting time and it could easily disenfranchise a particular demographic.

My polling station is about half a mile from our house and open from 7am to 10pm. All wards have fairly small populations - a few hundred, and I have never had to queue.
 
jimbob said:
Many people work 12-hour shifts 7 to 7 is common here. Add in commuting time and it could easily disenfranchise a particular demographic.

My polling station is about half a mile from our house and open from 7am to 10pm. All wards have fairly small populations - a few hundred, and I have never had to queue.
Click to expand...
Still don't get why you even vote if it's the delegates and superdelegates that decide it
 
cullennz said:
Still don't get why you even vote if it's the delegates and superdelegates that decide it
Click to expand...

because the people's vote lock in the Delegates and the Super delegates have up until now, and increasingly looking like it this year, always gone with the popular vote.
 
timhau said:
I'm not an American, but I am a private investor and I do own NYSE- and NASDAQ-listed shares. I do a a few trades per year (buying much more than selling). Care to elaborate how algorithmic trading is bad for me and my kind?
Click to expand...

Because the Koch brothers are doing it? :)
 
So now that Saunders has effectively lost to Clinton, what next? Other than an upsurge in attacks on Clinton of course.
 
Manopolus said:
What about if you knew that a trade can be canceled slightly AFTER an algorithm detects whether it can make a profit by immediately selling after a buy? That's the sort of speed we're talking about -- it breaks the normal rules. It can also cause immediate turns in the markets faster than you can react to them.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have any victims. Nobody is deprived anything they are entitled to.
 
Manopolus said:
The problem is that half the damn polls still overwhelmingly rely on home phones. Young people don't have home phones. The polls are therefore meaningless. None of the contests coming up are going to be anywhere near what the polls say. The South was a gimme for Clinton. Everywhere else is not.

Seriously, after Michigan you still think the polls have meaning? They don't.

Shall we visit the discussion again AFTER March 15? I expect this comment to be quite plainly reflected in the results... and I said the same damn things about Michigan. It's the same everywhere else. Bernie didn't win The South partially because he never campaigned there -- and the reason he didn't is because he didn't have much support there to begin with. If you think he didn't know what he was doing... umm... well, you're wrong.

It's sort of like what I heard Robert Reich say in a live feed the other day -- political pollsters are there to make astrologers look good. Nothing they're saying has any bearing on the actual election, particularly in a population that is skeptical of the current press. In the past, perhaps reporting about polls created a self-fulfilling prophecy, but they never really had much meaning to begin with. It's about who shows up, which is information that polling can't provide. Less than 10% of registered party members tend to show up even in a good year.

I think people are starting to realize/point out that it's the wrong damn conversation to be having to begin with... so the usual bandwagonning is losing its power to affect the results. In a "political revolution" such as the one that Sanders is trying to create, turnout favors the outsider (same is true of Trump, BTW). I expect that trend to continue in the general, BTW... which means that we're in a lot of trouble if we go with Hillary.
Click to expand...

How did the polls come out?
 
Manopolus said:
To be honest with you, I'm not anywhere close to an expert on these things. I just watched a documentary recently (Ghost Exchange -- 2013) that seemed to suggest that there were some major problems there. I guess I put it "first and foremost" just because it was new information to me. I know very little about finance personally.
Click to expand...

No offense to you personally, but the people who are most bothered by algorithmic trading seem to be ones who have little knowledge about finance and no personal experience about retail investing.
 
timhau said:
No offense to you personally, but the people who are most bothered by algorithmic trading seem to be ones who have little knowledge about finance and no personal experience about retail investing.
Click to expand...

Yep. They see smart people making money. Meanwhile, the shares of Wizz-Bang Inc their brother-in-law told them would triple are actually down 70%.
 
Do index funds fall under algorithmic trading? Seems like the most reasonable investing method there is.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
The Bernbots are oddly quiet the last 12 hours or so. Both in online forums and Facebook.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the antagonism between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters. Can't we all agree that both Sanders and Clinton are more qualified, more compassionate and much smarter than either Cruz or Trump?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom