| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2011 06:30:32 PM · #451 |
| Watch out Slippy or I'll go all Judith on you! |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 06:49:24 PM · #452 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Watch out Slippy or I'll go all Judith on you! |
I'm aroused..... Is that wrong?
|
|
|
|
11/10/2011 07:01:45 PM · #453 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Shouldn't you be against gambling as a practice? I know the Bible doesn't specifically mention it, but everything else seems to suggest that working with your own two hands and not the accumulation of wealth was the way to go. Bible aside, we are seeing what happens when your retirement plan based on gambling. Social security may have its flaws but at least it's in the right direction. |
Gambling, the potential short term gain in the face of certain long term losses, is antithetical to purposeful, directed, long-term investment in companies over time. Investing in the S&P over the last 100 years, for example, has represented nearly certain long term gains in the face of potential short term losses. Personally I think there is an obvious difference, but I share your distaste for gambling (if if really exist on your side and you aren't just trying to stick it to me). Lotteries, for example, are a heinous tax on those least equipped to deal with it. Even when working properly it serves to concentrate wealth instead of spread it out which is exactly opposite what we are talking about accomplishing on this thread. |
Look up what a "technical trader" is and tell me whether their activity constitutes "betting" or "investing."
Every person I've heard discuss the activities of the investment bankers, insurance companies (AIG), etc. refers to the risky "bets" they took. A "derivative" is not an investment in a company -- it is a side-bet made between two parties on the outcome of a third party's activity, exactly like betting on a horse race.
If people left their money in the market for a hundred years, or even one, they might be considered to be "investing" in the company. But when traders move their computers closer to the Stock Exchange's server farm so that their trade orders will get there a few milliseconds faster than the order from the broker across town, I think that's more indicative of "gambling" for profit. If this acivity was taxed like gambling -- losses deductible only to the extent they offset winnings -- I think you'd see this activity go away "right away." Right now it's not "gambling" only to the extent that thery activity is receiving favorable tax treatment (what a surprise). The taxpayers have insured the investment banks against those "certain long-term losses."
Message edited by author 2011-11-10 19:08:31. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 07:05:59 PM · #454 |
I wasn't talking anything about that Paul so your point is a bit on the side. I'm not a fan of that type of trading anyway.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Gambling, the potential short term gain in the face of certain long term losses, is antithetical to purposeful, directed, long-term investment in companies over time. |
I do think, however, it is important when discussing ethical or moral grounds to note that "taking risk" and "gambling" are not synonymous. Every time I drive with the family I take the risk that someone will hit me and kill my kids. I'm not, however, "gambling" in any moral or ethical sense of the word. I like my definition that I used above. It gets at the crux of the problem with gambling.
Message edited by author 2011-11-10 19:09:26. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 07:06:58 PM · #455 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Watch out Slippy or I'll go all Judith on you! |
I'm aroused..... Is that wrong? |
According to the SCOTUS it is... |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 07:10:10 PM · #456 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Watch out Slippy or I'll go all Judith on you! |
I'm aroused..... Is that wrong? |
According to the SCOTUS it is... |
After the SCOTUS decision on the tomato, I'm not impressed.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2011 10:35:46 PM · #457 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Spork99:
We do regulate their behavior, just not enough. |
i guess im still gunshy about too much regulation becuase we have no protection that the regulation is in our best interests. take the net neutrality vote today, i'm all for regulating the net and keeping it neutral. while i usually advocate a hands off approach, its clear in this case the the telcos have their hands deep in the republican pockets and want this regulation repealed. |
Of course not regulating has worked so well. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 10:37:50 PM · #458 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Watch out Slippy or I'll go all Judith on you! |
I'm aroused..... Is that wrong? |
According to the SCOTUS it is... |
After the SCOTUS decision on the tomato, I'm not impressed. |
If you guys want to talk about your SCROTUS, I suggest a private chat room. |
|
|
|
11/11/2011 06:23:10 AM · #459 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Spork99:
We do regulate their behavior, just not enough. |
i guess im still gunshy about too much regulation becuase we have no protection that the regulation is in our best interests. take the net neutrality vote today, i'm all for regulating the net and keeping it neutral. while i usually advocate a hands off approach, its clear in this case the the telcos have their hands deep in the republican pockets and want this regulation repealed. |
Of course not regulating has worked so well. |
agree. But Comcast for one has shown that it would prefer to prioritize traffic on its networks and who is to say in the future they wouldn't use that against the consumer in the future.
like i said i favor as little regulation as possible but regulation is sometimes favorable and required. for instance in this case where monopolies or oligopolies are involved. you need competition to allow the free market to behave fairly to the consumers, but in some cases monopolies or oligopolies are preferable since that have the ability to provide a better service or that they just happen since the barrier of entry for any competition is too great. this is the situation that we have with the cable providers and proactive regulation to keep the internet neutral isn't a bad thing. |
|
|
|
11/11/2011 12:10:48 PM · #460 |
| Here's a link to the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Budget. It is possible to get back into fiscal balance without doing it on the backs of those who can least afford it. |
|
|
|
11/11/2011 12:22:23 PM · #461 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Here's a link to the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Budget. It is possible to get back into fiscal balance without doing it on the backs of those who can least afford it. |
Seems like a decent start, but the numbers mean nothing to me unless it has been evaluated by the CBO. That is the only governmental or political institution I'll take at face value. Have they sunk their teeth in this yet? |
|
|
|
11/11/2011 03:30:06 PM · #462 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Here's a link to the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Budget. It is possible to get back into fiscal balance without doing it on the backs of those who can least afford it. |
Seems like a decent start, but the numbers mean nothing to me unless it has been evaluated by the CBO. That is the only governmental or political institution I'll take at face value. Have they sunk their teeth in this yet? |
Frankly, why would they bother? It has zero chance of going anywhere through the legislature. They may be 100% correct in their approach and accounting, but nothing with the word "progressive" has any sort of a shot at getting passed no matter how good it might be. |
|
|
|
11/11/2011 03:40:43 PM · #463 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Here's a link to the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Budget. It is possible to get back into fiscal balance without doing it on the backs of those who can least afford it. |
Seems like a decent start, but the numbers mean nothing to me unless it has been evaluated by the CBO. That is the only governmental or political institution I'll take at face value. Have they sunk their teeth in this yet? |
Frankly, why would they bother? It has zero chance of going anywhere through the legislature. They may be 100% correct in their approach and accounting, but nothing with the word "progressive" has any sort of a shot at getting passed no matter how good it might be. |
Maybe title it "progressively regressive..." to get the republican support? |
|
|
|
11/14/2011 08:11:54 AM · #464 |
Okay, you've had your slice of first amendment rights pie. Now move on!
Police move in on Occupy Portland protest camp |
|
|
|
11/14/2011 09:45:48 AM · #465 |
| No more First Amendment for you! |
|
|
|
11/16/2011 08:40:49 AM · #466 |
So the protestors are being allowed back into Zuccotti Park, but they're not allowed tents or generators, and they're not allowed to lie down (in case they fall asleep)
It'll be fun to see how that last part is policed... Half-asleep protestors being dragged to their feet by police and propped up against a tree. |
|
|
|
11/16/2011 09:41:40 AM · #467 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Here's a link to the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Budget. It is possible to get back into fiscal balance without doing it on the backs of those who can least afford it. |
Seems like a decent start, but the numbers mean nothing to me unless it has been evaluated by the CBO. That is the only governmental or political institution I'll take at face value. Have they sunk their teeth in this yet? |
Frankly, why would they bother? It has zero chance of going anywhere through the legislature. They may be 100% correct in their approach and accounting, but nothing with the word "progressive" has any sort of a shot at getting passed no matter how good it might be. |
Maybe title it "progressively regressive..." to get the republican support? |
if someone would hook some nitrous up to the ventilation system these idiots might be able to agree on something. |
|
|
|
11/17/2011 04:39:07 PM · #468 |
|
|
|
11/17/2011 05:20:19 PM · #469 |
My favorite was the leadership meetings taking place in the Deutsche Bank. Does irony get any thicker? |
|
|
|
11/17/2011 05:22:16 PM · #470 |
If you're a Stewart fan and love ironic humor you have to dig up those Tempest in a Tea Party clips he has on his site. Probably on Hulu as well. |
|
|
|
11/17/2011 05:38:16 PM · #471 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
My favorite was the leadership meetings taking place in the Deutsche Bank. Does irony get any thicker? |
I continually read that as "Douche Bank" |
|
|
|
11/17/2011 08:47:12 PM · #472 |
Originally posted by JH:
So the protestors are being allowed back into Zuccotti Park, but they're not allowed tents or generators, and they're not allowed to lie down (in case they fall asleep)
It'll be fun to see how that last part is policed... Half-asleep protestors being dragged to their feet by police and propped up against a tree. |
makes sense. this isn't a protest any longer, its a campout.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2011 09:17:57 PM · #473 |
After today.. Its a walk-a-round.
Have a few buddies of mine who were down there today.. Absolute mayhem |
|
|
|
11/17/2011 09:39:42 PM · #474 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by JH:
So the protestors are being allowed back into Zuccotti Park, but they're not allowed tents or generators, and they're not allowed to lie down (in case they fall asleep)
It'll be fun to see how that last part is policed... Half-asleep protestors being dragged to their feet by police and propped up against a tree. |
makes sense. this isn't a protest any longer, its a campout. |
I'd be willing to bet that taking away tents and generators will make it less of a campout and more of a protest. |
|
|
|
11/17/2011 09:42:45 PM · #475 |
Perhaps they could try to emulate the Tea Party and start their own political party. If indeed they are representative of the 99% they would be a shoe-in.
Ray |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 10:59:21 AM EDT.
