Support NeoGAF

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Why doesn't Jeb just tell Trump to fuck off and suck his dick in one of these upcoming debates?

 

[Spoiled Milk]

If I recall correctly the Swedish Transaction Tax also had a ton of loopholes.

If it had so many loopholes, why did businesses flee the market?

As it mentions, 90-99% of investors just moved to London and did their transactions from abroad, which allowed them to completely avoid the tax (not entirely sure on the specifics, but I know it was easy to avoid which is why the revenue was so shitty).

No, that is not how these taxes work. Trading within the market itself is what is taxed. You cannot buy stocks from a Swedish market on a computer sitting in Canada and evade the transaction tax. The traders who left, left the market entirely.

The Swedish attempt was also between 0.1% and 0.5%, the tax proposed by Senator Sanders would be a much lower 0.01%.

That is incorrect. There is a stock-trade tax of .5%.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/46646...ion-tax-on-big-wall-street-firms-what-is-that

Under the Sanders proposal, trades would be taxed at a rate of 0.5 percent for stocks and 0.1 percent for bonds. A stock trade of $1,000 would thus incur a cost of $5.

...because there are so many transactions daily, it is made up for in volume.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uplo...-Transaction-Taxes-in-Theory-and-Practice.pdf

The Tax Policy Center analyzed the revenue generated from this kind of trading and found much more meager revenue gains.You can see on page 37 that in 2016, the revenue for a .05% tax would be about 38 billion dollars. That's far from the 100 billion needed to fund "college for all", which does not even take into consideration the fact that college costs will increase if everyone can suddenly afford to go to college. Not to mention, traders are very sensitive to transaction costs so you would see a reduction in volume, per what happened in Sweden.

It also cuts down on HFT which is a crapshoot of good and bad, which overall makes the market more stable. Obviously those 2 points are somewhat contradictory, but you can't have your cake and rip it off financially too.

The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture with the Brookings Institute, which is historically a left leaning economic policy center, so you might expect them to be in favor of that. However, from the same paper, in the volatility section:

...one would
expect that higher FTTs, which reduce volume, would reduce volatility (Matheson 2011).

...

In fact, several studies have found that higher transactions costs and FTTs actually
raise volatility. Umlauf (1993) found that the introduction of, and increases in, the
Swedish FTT led to increases in daily market volatility.

There is a strong correlation between volatility and "fast frequency trading".

I think the biggest issue people seem to avoid comparing the 2, is that you can probably avoid Sweden's Market, but the US is so big it's almost impossible for any corporation not to trade on it.

No, all I have to do is sell my US market shares and move my money abroad.

As the Comeback Kid once said, "It's the economy, stupid."

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

There was an article I can't find that basically explains why nationalized health care will cost more in the US. I remember, one of the reasons is we can't all of a sudden cut because we can't cut salaries of healthcare workers. Does anyone know of the link I'm referring to?

 

[Spoiled Milk]

There was an article I can't find that basically explains why nationalized health care will cost more in the US. I remember, one of the reasons is we can't all of a sudden cut because we can't cut salaries of healthcare workers. Does anyone know of the link I'm referring to?

That was a widely circulated post from the Bloomberg View. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-30/single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse

 

[Jeffolation]

Why doesn't Jeb just tell Trump to fuck off and suck his dick in one of these upcoming debates?

I imagine Barb would make him wash his mouth out with soup. Jeb ain't going to cross his mother, else he get locked in the basement again for a couple weeks.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

That was a widely circulated post from the Bloomberg View. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-30/single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse

<humble bow>

 

[shinra-bansho]

From memory they both say they're going to fund things with taxes on financial transactions. Although I don't know if it's meant primarily as revenue gathering or changing behaviour, and whether the interaction is taken into account.

Also from memory, there was a study of comparative salaries. US GPs get paid considerably more than other countries, I think specialists are high but not the highest. Nurses were the highest among the countries but the difference was smaller in absolute terms.

Edit: Oh it's a bit old now. Not sure if there are more recent figures.

 

[pigeon]

There's also a fundamental conceptual problem with an FTT, which is that it specifically deprecates high-frequency trading and otherwise moving your money around and supports investment strategies that don't fluctuate very much.

This might sound like a good thing, but it probably isn't! Trade frequency really has nothing to do with trade safety. At best it's like a neutral, market-distorting thing. At worst, high-frequency traders are also market makers and a tax like this is literally a tax on market liquidity, which will just lead to worse financial spasms as it becomes harder to get off a position without losing your shirt.

On the other hand I am not convinced it will drive everybody out of the market. There's already a big tax on trading frequently in the sense that you will lose money doing it compared to just indexing and waiting, and yet lots of people still run around doing it. So clearly lots of investors are motivated by factors other than optimal investment! Like seeking alpha/proving that there is a reason for them to exist/helping allocate capital efficiently so that the market can continue to make the world a better place.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

From memory they both say they're going to fund things with taxes on financial transactions. Although I don't know if it's meant primarily as revenue gathering or changing behaviour, and whether the interaction is taken into account.

I think there's a sincere difference between the two.

The Sanders plan is to fund College For All with an across the board transaction tax, the ramifications of which I've already detailed. Thus, the Sanders plan is a broad edged tax whose primary purpose is funding.

The Clinton plan, on the other hand, proposes a very narrow tax on high frequency trading, financial institutions with a high cancellation rate, and other forms of risky trading. This way, the riskiest and most destabilizing trade patterns are discouraged, but "normal" investment is completely unaffected. Obviously this is a very small part of the market, so the Clinton plan is a very narrow tax whose primary purpose is behavioral manipulation.

My personal opinion is that the Clinton plan is much more careful instrument.

There's also a fundamental conceptual problem with an FTT, which is that it specifically deprecates high-frequency trading and otherwise moving your money around and supports investment strategies that don't fluctuate very much.

This might sound like a good thing, but it probably isn't! Trade frequency really has nothing to do with trade safety. At best it's like a neutral, market-distorting thing. At worst, high-frequency traders are also market makers and a tax like this is literally a tax on market liquidity, which will just lead to worse financial spasms as it becomes harder to get off a position without losing your shirt.

I really don't think it's fair to say that market liquidity is seriously threatened by reducing high frequency trading. And further: I think there are a lot of economists that have sincere worries about HFT.

 

[daedalius]

Some Bernie supporters on my facebook lately have been posting a "how would it be paid for image" that links specific proposals to specific ideas like that, that's where that linkage came from. Not sure if it was official Sanders campaign material although it looked like it could have been

My favorite part is the accusation that you're a wallstreet shill if you happen to take question with any of his means for funding his plans.

 

[neurosisxeno]

If it had so many loopholes, why did businesses flee the market?

Because it's Sweden so who cares?

No, that is not how these taxes work. Trading within the market itself is what is taxed. You cannot buy stocks from a Swedish market on a computer sitting in Canada and evade the transaction tax. The traders who left, left the market entirely.That is incorrect. There is a stock-trade tax of .5%.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uplo...-Transaction-Taxes-in-Theory-and-Practice.pdf

The Tax Policy Center analyzed the revenue generated from this kind of trading and found much more meager revenue gains.You can see on page 37 that in 2016, the revenue for a .05% tax would be about 38 billion dollars. That's far from the 100 billion needed to fund "college for all", which does not even take into consideration the fact that college costs will increase if everyone can suddenly afford to go to college. Not to mention, traders are very sensitive to transaction costs so you would see a reduction in volume, per what happened in Sweden.

The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture with the Brookings Institute, which is historically a left leaning economic policy center, so you might expect them to be in favor of that. However, from the same paper, in the volatility section: There is a strong correlation between volatility and "fast frequency trading".

I was going off this NYT Article from mid-2015. It would appear he has expanded the values, but that's likely for negotiation reasons. I think he could get away with a 0.05% / 0.1% tax without too much trouble, and the linked study suggests 0.1% could lead to $50B in revenue with minimal\no adverse affects.

I did point out it cuts down on market volatility.

No, all I have to do is sell my US market shares and move my money abroad.

I'm going to assume a lot of people who "invest" are just dumping money into 401K's and such, and they probably won't care about a <1% tax on these transactions. You're more than welcome to take your money out of the system, good luck in the other markets, I heard China's market is excellent (he said with heavy sarcasm).

As the Comeback Kid once said, "It's the economy, stupid."

Gonna quote the guy that was impeached for Perjury?

 

[Suikoguy]

I think there's a sincere difference between the two.

The Sanders plan is to fund College For All with an across the board transaction tax, the ramifications of which I've already detailed. Thus, the Sanders plan is a broad edged tax whose primary purpose is funding.

The Clinton plan, on the other hand, proposes a very narrow tax on high frequency trading, financial institutions with a high cancellation rate, and other forms of risky trading. This way, the riskiest and most destabilizing trade patterns are discouraged, but "normal" investment is completely unaffected. Obviously this is a very small part of the market, so the Clinton plan is a very narrow tax whose primary purpose is behavioral manipulation.

My personal opinion is that the Clinton plan is much more careful instrument.

Good reasoning. It does however have the potential to have a reduction in revenue over time if it works to modify behavior. But that's a good thing overall.

Then again, i'm a big fan of encouraging good behaviors and discouraging bad through smart taxes. Requires good law though.

 

[pigeon]

I really don't think it's fair to say that market liquidity is seriously threatened by reducing high frequency trading. And further: I think there are a lot of economists that have sincere worries about HFT.

I would be interested to discuss this in more detail!

I think it's pretty straightforward to say that, inasmuch as HFT is mostly market making, restricting HFT will hurt liquidity (at least temporarily). That's what market makers do, they provide liquidity by standing ready. In addition, by making markets more efficient, HFT aids liquidity even more by propagating price information to market makers so that they can make money with a tighter spread. (http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.1919) So I didn't really think this was heavily debated!

In terms of worries about HFT in itself, I am interested to see what you think as well. Basically I am kind of like, to the degree that all HFT does is market making, I don't see how it can possibly be bad for the economy. It's probably bad for some individual investors -- like if they have information and they want to buy a bunch of stock without anybody knowing they have information -- but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad for, you know, America. There's no God-given right to buy as much stock as you want without anybody being able to tell you're doing it and make decisions based on that information. Moreover, I'm not sure there should be.

I'm going to assume a lot of people who "invest" are just dumping money into 401K's and such, and they probably won't care about a <1% tax on these transactions. You're more than welcome to take your money out of the system, good luck in the other markets, I heard China's market is excellent (he said with heavy sarcasm).

I mean, they also won't care if their investments are suddenly all in London, as long as they get dollars at the end. I don't think this argument really works. Eventually at the top of all those 401ks is a mutual fund or whatever and at the top of that is a guy who does worry about financial transaction taxes. Albeit not that much because he's indexing, which is why I made that argument instead.

 

[Elaugaufein]

If it had so many loopholes, why did businesses flee the market?

No, that is not how these taxes work. Trading within the market itself is what is taxed. You cannot buy stocks from a Swedish market on a computer sitting in Canada and evade the transaction tax. The traders who left, left the market entirely.That is incorrect. There is a stock-trade tax of .5%.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/46646...ion-tax-on-big-wall-street-firms-what-is-that


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uplo...-Transaction-Taxes-in-Theory-and-Practice.pdf

The Tax Policy Center analyzed the revenue generated from this kind of trading and found much more meager revenue gains.You can see on page 37 that in 2016, the revenue for a .05% tax would be about 38 billion dollars. That's far from the 100 billion needed to fund "college for all", which does not even take into consideration the fact that college costs will increase if everyone can suddenly afford to go to college. Not to mention, traders are very sensitive to transaction costs so you would see a reduction in volume, per what happened in Sweden.
The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture with the Brookings Institute, which is historically a left leaning economic policy center, so you might expect them to be in favor of that. However, from the same paper, in the volatility section: There is a strong correlation between volatility and "fast frequency trading".

No, all I have to do is sell my US market shares and move my money abroad.

As the Comeback Kid once said, "It's the economy, stupid."

So we've successfully created a global economy such that you can't do anything that might offend capital. Yay ?

I would be interested to discuss this in more detail!

I think it's pretty straightforward to say that, inasmuch as HFT is mostly market making, restricting HFT will hurt liquidity (at least temporarily). That's what market makers do, they provide liquidity by standing ready. In addition, by making markets more efficient, HFT aids liquidity even more by propagating price information to market makers so that they can make money with a tighter spread. (http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.1919) So I didn't really think this was heavily debated!

In terms of worries about HFT in itself, I am interested to see what you think as well. Basically I am kind of like, to the degree that all HFT does is market making, I don't see how it can possibly be bad for the economy. It's probably bad for some individual investors -- like if they have information and they want to buy a bunch of stock without anybody knowing they have information -- but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad for, you know, America. There's no God-given right to buy as much stock as you want without anybody being able to tell you're doing it and make decisions based on that information. Moreover, I'm not sure there should be.



I mean, they also won't care if their investments are suddenly all in London, as long as they get dollars at the end. I don't think this argument really works. Eventually at the top of all those 401ks is a mutual fund or whatever and at the top of that is a guy who does worry about financial transaction taxes. Albeit not that much because he's indexing, which is why I made that argument instead.

IIRC there were some issues with that liquidity vanishing very quickly in market downturns (not what you want) but I'm pretty sure there's regulations on that for official HFT outfits.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Good reasoning. It does however have the potential to have a reduction in revenue over time if it works to modify behavior. But that's a good thing overall.

Then again, i'm a big fan of encouraging good behaviors and discouraging bad through smart taxes. Requires good law though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

 

[Suikoguy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

Oh, That's the term for it.

 

[disastermouse]

How much lower was the revenue than what they expected?

(I'm also expecting the actual cost of that plan to come out significantly higher than his campaign says it will, given its inability to stay realistic on its projected budgets & assumptions elsewhere.)

Did you just compare Sweden's financial markets with Wall Street?

 

[Elaugaufein]

Oh, That's the term for it.

You really shouldn't use such revenue for anything non-temporary though. They sin taxes are often on addictive substances so demand is relatively inelastic over the short to medium term.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

How I think NV, SC and the super Tuesday states will shake out:

NV: Sanders win by 1-3%

SC: Clinton win by 8-10%

Vermont: Bernie

Arkansas: Hillary

Oklahoma: Hillary

Minnesota: Bernie

Tennessee: Hillary

Texas: Hillary

Virginia: Hillary

Colorado: Bernie

Massachusetts: Bernie

Georgia: Hillary

Alabama: Hillary

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Textual originalism as an obviously conservative tool that turns judges into bad historians that seek the evidence they want while ignoring the evidence they don't want.

https://newrepublic.com/article/106441/scalia-garner-reading-the-law-textual-originalism

 

[eBay Huckster]

Did you just compare Sweden's financial markets with Wall Street?

Did you ignore the multiple other posts saying the tax would barely even raise a sixth of what Sanders' team of monkeys flinging crap at a wall and writing down what looks like numbers budgeting team claims it will, to fund a program that said team's overly optimistic projections already put at 50% more expensive than the most optimistic of the estimates given for speculation tax revenue?

Forget 90%, given Sweden's differences with the US - even 10% of $50 billion ain't gonna be good to lose when 1) your "free college" proposal already costs a minimum of $75 billion and 2) you're already on record tying the speculation tax to the higher education subsidy.

 

[Cerium]

This article has persuaded me that I want Mariano Florentino Cuellar to be Obama's nominee.

Here&#8217;s a name you need to get to know: Tino Cuellar. Who is Tino Cuellar? The potential Supreme Court nominee who could tie the Republican Party in the most Gordian knots of any of them, and who could thereby alter the presidential race dramatically as well.

Yes, yes; Barack Obama should choose the person best qualified for the job with whom he is most intellectually comfortable. But should that person be Mariano Florentino Cuellar, there could be plenty of benefits aside from having a brilliant, young, Latino person on the court.

Cuellar, 43, is an associate justice on California&#8217;s State Supreme Court. He was born in Mexico. He is a naturalized U.S. citizen. He grew up on the border, and his family moved to California&#8217;s Imperial Valley when he was a teenager. He was smart and decided he wanted an education. He got one, all right. Get this resume: undergrad, Harvard; law school, Yale; master&#8217;s and doctoral degrees, Stanford.

Here&#8217;s his full Stanford bio, so you can give it a gander, but it&#8217;s incredibly impressive. He worked at the White House, he worked in the Treasury Department, he taught law at Stanford. &#8220;He&#8217;s a brilliant guy,&#8221; says Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan who knows Cuellar. &#8220;He&#8217;d be the justice with the most wide-ranging intellect since William O. Douglas.&#8221; (Bagenstos asked me to note that he is backing no single candidate and thinks the president has many good choices.)

He was elevated to California&#8217;s high court by a unanimous bipartisan vote, and given the highest possible rating by the California Bar Association. He is married to a U.S. district judge, Lucy Koh, who is a formidable intellect in her own right&#8212;the Senate confirmed her unanimously, 90-0, when Obama nominated her to that position in 2010. And they have two kids.

Now assuming there&#8217;s no skeleton in the old closet, suppose Obama sends Cuellar up to be nominated. Oh what fun it shall be.

 

[Elaugaufein]

There's still some kind of dark magic going on there that the US (which is one of the most productive economies on the planet) can't afford to do stuff that other countries (with lower productivity) can. And you suffer from far less race to the bottom arguments since generally speaking its hard to find functional countries that are kinder to those interests than the US.

Textual originalism as an obviously conservative tool that turns judges into bad historians that seek the evidence they want while ignoring the evidence they don't want.

https://newrepublic.com/article/106441/scalia-garner-reading-the-law-textual-originalism

It's a weird ass belief given how vaguely the Constitution was written. It was specifically written so that the spirit could be understand by the lay person. That's not exactly conducive to setting down every possible detail or nuance. So in order to do originalism you have to determine the spirit of the writer's intent and then adhere to the letter of that intent within the context of the time it was written.

 

[JesseEwiak]

OK, just mentioning William O. Douglas in connection with the guy gives him bonus points. If you want to talk about activist judges...

 

[Holmes]

How I think NV, SC and the super Tuesday states will shake out:

Interesting, but that South Carolina result would be pretty bad for Clinton. Here's my take at the moment.

NV: 52-48 Clinton
SC: 61-38 Clinton
VT: 72-27 Sanders
AR: 59 - 41 Clinton
OK: 57 - 43 Clinton
MN: 55 - 45 Sanders
TN: 59 - 40 Clinton
TX: 61 - 39 Clinton
VA: 58 - 42 Clinton
CO: 53 - 47 Sanders
MA: 54 - 45 Sanders
GA: 63 - 37 Clinton
AL: 61 - 38 Clinton

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Hillary continues to fall in SC. At 55% now in PPP.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Tino Cuellar is pretty fuckable to be honest.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Interesting, but that South Carolina result would be pretty bad for Clinton. Here's my take at the moment.

NV: 52-48 Clinton
SC: 61-38 Clinton
VT: 72-27 Sanders
AR: 59 - 41 Clinton
OK: 57 - 43 Clinton
MN: 55 - 45 Sanders
TN: 59 - 40 Clinton
TX: 61 - 39 Clinton
VA: 58 - 42 Clinton
CO: 53 - 47 Sanders
MA: 54 - 45 Sanders
GA: 63 - 37 Clinton
AL: 61 - 38 Clinton

That's probably not too far off. Of course, there's plenty of time for things to change, but that all seems pretty reasonable based on the state of the race right now. I think Bernie's gonna squeak out a win in NV though.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Sanders and Clinton are tied among white S.C. voters, the poll said. But Clinton has a strong lead among African-American voters, expected to make up more than half of Democratic primary voters. Among those voters, 63 percent said they back Clinton compared to 23 percent for Sanders.

Fourteen percent of black Democratic voters said they were undecided.

Sanders has managed to close the gap on Clinton, according to the poll. In November, Clinton led Sanders 86-11 among African-American voters.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/politi...s/the-buzz/article60547281.html#storylink=cpy

 

[mid83]

That was a widely circulated post from the Bloomberg View. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-30/single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse

I'm terrified that a single payer system would eventually lead to salary cuts, or at least lower ceilings, across the board for health care workers, not just doctors. Since I'm nurse, that hits me right at home. That doesn't even account for the tax increases that would result. Yes, I know Bernie promises savings from not paying insurance, but as a number of articles have shown in recent weeks, it seems like the true cost of his plan could be far higher than expected. No telling how that would affect tax increases and the eventual effect on health care worker salaries.

 

[Holmes]

Sanders and Clinton are tied among white S.C. voters, the poll said. But Clinton has a strong lead among African-American voters, expected to make up more than half of Democratic primary voters. Among those voters, 63 percent said they back Clinton compared to 23 percent for Sanders.

Fourteen percent of black Democratic voters said they were undecided.

Sanders has managed to close the gap on Clinton, according to the poll. In November, Clinton led Sanders 86-11 among African-American voters.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/politi...s/the-buzz/article60547281.html#storylink=cpy

Wow, could they have used any worse pictures for both Clinton and Trump?

I'm thinking with that poll at 11% undecided, if you divide them up equally but give Clinton a small edge between them (she is up by more than 20% so it's not crazy to think undecideds will probably break more towards her), and give the "other" vote close to 1% and with rounding shenanigans, that's how I got the 61-38. One thing to take into consideration though is that the GOP primary is a full 7 days prior, and is being contested right now, so Independent/Dixiecrat whites that might otherwise be for Sanders might instead opt for to vote in the GOP primary because it's a whole 7 days earlier and is more competitive (not in terms of margin, but in the amount of people on the ballot).

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Because it's Sweden so who cares?

That misses the point.

I was going off this NYT Article from mid-2015. It would appear he has expanded the values, but that's likely for negotiation reasons. I think he could get away with a 0.05% / 0.1% tax without too much trouble, and the linked study suggests 0.1% could lead to $50B in revenue with minimal\no adverse affects.

Okay, so where is the extra 50 billion coming from? College for All is 100B.

I did point out it cuts down on market volatility.

And I pointed out that the study found that market volatility actually increased, contrary to expectations.

I'm going to assume a lot of people who "invest" are just dumping money into 401K's and such, and they probably won't care about a <1% tax on these transactions. You're more than welcome to take your money out of the system, good luck in the other markets, I heard China's market is excellent (he said with heavy sarcasm).

You're assuming a lot of things incorrectly. For one, a lot of people who "invest" are not just dumping money into 401Ks. pidgeon's post is quite illuminating and says everything I would have said.

Gonna quote the guy that was impeached for Perjury?

He got impeached for lying about his adultery, by a guy... who cheated on his wife.

I would be interested to discuss this in more detail!

I think it's pretty straightforward to say that, inasmuch as HFT is mostly market making, restricting HFT will hurt liquidity (at least temporarily). That's what market makers do, they provide liquidity by standing ready. In addition, by making markets more efficient, HFT aids liquidity even more by propagating price information to market makers so that they can make money with a tighter spread. (http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.1919) So I didn't really think this was heavily debated!

I'm not disputing that HFT improves liquidity. I was simply stating that limiting HFT is not a serious threat to a minimum, healthy amount of liquidity. Markets existed before microsecond-fast algorithms did. I understand that exchanges have done a lot to "close the gap" and reduce fees in the past 20 years but you'd have to prove to me that that is irrefutably because of HFT, and not just a general result of Big Data trends, etc.

In terms of worries about HFT in itself, I am interested to see what you think as well. Basically I am kind of like, to the degree that all HFT does is market making, I don't see how it can possibly be bad for the economy. It's probably bad for some individual investors -- like if they have information and they want to buy a bunch of stock without anybody knowing they have information -- but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad for, you know, America. There's no God-given right to buy as much stock as you want without anybody being able to tell you're doing it and make decisions based on that information. Moreover, I'm not sure there should be.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-to-know-about-high-frequency-trading/360411/

That outlines some of the more pernicious effects of HFT. Things like front-running and generally discouraging investors because they feel like they can't beat a robot might have pretty serious effects economic productivity, perhaps even enough to offset to the theoretical increase in efficiency. So, yeah, it might be "bad for America" if investors in general start seeing reductions in returns. This is why some markets have already moved to batch auctions.

Then again, I see your point. I mean, that really only affects daytraders. It would be intuitive to me that HFT would be market neutral or merely make it more efficient, but I am inclined to believe that smart people are calling for more regulations because there are good reasons to do so.

I'm terrified that a single payer system would eventually lead to salary cuts, or at least lower ceilings, across the board for health care workers, not just doctors. Since I'm nurse, that hits me right at home. That doesn't even account for the tax increases that would result. Yes, I know Bernie promises savings from not paying insurance, but as a number of articles have shown in recent weeks, it seems like the true cost of his plan could be far higher than expected. No telling how that would affect tax increases and the eventual effect on health care worker salaries.

In order to get the kind of cuts in health care spending that he wants, salaries need to go down. That's really unavoidable. I'm not trying to make you out to be a bad-guy by saying you make "too much", but it's still true that American spending on the health care sector is disproportionately higher than the rest of the world, isn't it? Either salaries stay the way they are or costs come down; there's really no way to choose both.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Okay, so where is the extra 50 billion coming from? College for All is 100B.

More to the point, how do we mesh the need for extra revenue from that tax with the fact that according to the cited analysis, higher basis-point values in the tax beyond 0.1% actually cause decreases in revenue?

 

[Spoiled Milk]

More to the point, how do we mesh the need for extra revenue from that tax with the fact that according to the cited analysis, higher basis-point values in the tax beyond 0.1% actually cause decreases in revenue?

Laffer Curve says it ain't gonna happen.

Anyway, when I brought this up, I was just asking Sanders supporters to tell me how this was going to work. Still awaiting a response.

Medicare for All and a few of his other key proposals suffer similar revenue gaps. In an era of shrinking deficits, do we really want to go backwards?

 

[disastermouse]

Hillary continues to fall in SC. At 55% now in PPP.

Awesome!

 

[disastermouse]

Did you ignore the multiple other posts saying the tax would barely even raise a sixth of what Sanders' team of monkeys flinging crap at a wall and writing down what looks like numbers budgeting team claims it will, to fund a program that said team's overly optimistic projections already put at 50% more expensive than the most optimistic of the estimates given for speculation tax revenue?

Forget 90%, given Sweden's differences with the US - even 10% of $50 billion ain't gonna be good to lose when 1) your "free college" proposal already costs a minimum of $75 billion and 2) you're already on record tying the speculation tax to the higher education subsidy.

Yes, I did ignore it. I was responding to your 'It didn't work in Sweden' comment and nothing else.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Yes, I did ignore it. I was responding to your 'It didn't work in Sweden' comment and nothing else.

I mean, I didn't make an "it didn't work in Sweden, ergo X" comment - I asked how much the tax decreased activity by in that case and got an answer, then saw the TPC analysis that was directly assessing revenues in the US and responded to that one accordingly.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I wonder what Jeb was thinking during Rubio and Cruz's spat about speaking spanish?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns_dZuoQciM

 

[shinra-bansho]

So, in relation to discussion of policy modifying behaviour; is the expectation that the uptake of tertiary education remains unchanged in the event it's free? Are there limitations to said funding, given current completion rates for what should be 3-4 year degrees? Is there any targeting towards societal needs in terms of vocations?

 

[lednerg]

Stephen Colbert's Tribute To Antonin Scalia {YouTube]

 

[eBay Huckster]

So, in relation to discussion of policy modifying behaviour; is the expectation that the uptake of tertiary education remains unchanged in the event it's free? Are there limitations to said funding, given current completion rates for what should be 3-4 year degrees? Is there any targeting towards societal needs in terms of vocations?

I'd just like to add one more thing to this discussion, if you don't mind: as of the 2012-13 academic year, all institutions granting 2-year undergraduate degrees cost an average of $9,461 per year for all institutional fees (tuition, room and board, etc.), and all 4-year institutions cost an average of $23,409 per year, for an average cost per undergraduate student of $19,741. Additionally as of 2012, undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting institutions totaled 17.7 million, for a total extrapolated cost of $349.41 billion.

Sanders' plan, on the other hand, presumes that the cost per student falls to about $4,143 (the $75 billion cost figure his campaign gives, divided by total enrollment in all degree-granting institutions).

In particular, how exactly do people expect that 4-year institutions cut costs to that degree, given their higher share of both costs and enrollment?

 

[neurosisxeno]

I'd just like to add one more thing to this discussion, if you don't mind: as of the 2012-13 academic year, all institutions granting 2-year undergraduate degrees cost an average of $9,461 per year for all institutional fees (tuition, room and board, etc.), and all 4-year institutions cost an average of $23,409 per year, for an average cost per undergraduate student of $19,741. Additionally as of 2012, undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting institutions totaled 18.1 million, for a total extrapolated cost of $357.31 billion.

Sanders' plan, on the other hand, presumes that the cost per student falls to about $4,143 (the $75 billion cost figure his campaign gives, divided by total enrollment in all degree-granting institutions).

In particular, how exactly do people expect that 4-year institutions cut costs to that degree?

As far as I know Sanders' plan only covers State schools, not private institutions. Also, that 18.1 figure is inaccurate, it's the figure from 2010, the figure from 2012 (the most recent year) was a lower than expected 17.7;

Between 2002 and 2012, undergraduate enrollment rose 24 percent overall, from 14.3 million to 17.7 million

The line after that references 2010 having the higher 18.1 million enrollment.

EDIT: You updated the number I mentioned as I was typing :x

 

[cartoon_soldier]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/meganapper/...a-ad-appears-t?utm_term=.gj8K6G0yb#.jdRRWVB1D

Other than that, pretty good ad from Marco RUBOTIO

 

[shinra-bansho]

I've found slightly different figures in terms of cost. These are in-state enrollments.

While I think your enrollment figure includes private university enrollments.
The 2013 enrollment figure I can find for public institutions was 13.3MM. I don't know whether and how this breaks into part- and full-time enrollment.

But my query actually revolves more around whether this number would be expected to remain stable, or grow at the same rate as it has, in the event it becomes free.

 

[eBay Huckster]

As far as I know Sanders' plan only covers State schools, not private institutions.

That's good to know!

In that case, given the public-school average of $14,616 and total public enrollment of 13.5 million, the total cost would be $197 billion.

So we're still talking a fairly sizable decrease in costs, just not as comically sizable.

I've found slightly different figures.

While I think your enrollment figure includes private university enrollments.
The 2013 enrollment figure I can find for public institutions was 13.3MM.

Yeah, I was looking at total at first when this chart in particular breaks it down by institution type.

Doesn't seem to have a breakdown for full- and part-time students by institution type, though, which is kinda limiting.

e: Also, my cost figures include room and board as well as out-of-state students whereas that College Board chart counts tuition and fees unrelated to housing only among in-state enrollments; the former of those probably accounts for most of the discrepancy.

But my query actually revolves more around whether this number would be expected to remain stable, or grow at the same rate as it has, in the event it becomes free.

That's a reasonable query to make - what I'm wondering is even in the event that enrollment remains stable, how exactly do you lower costs by that much?

 

[neurosisxeno]

That's good to know!

In that case, given the public-school average of $14,616 and total public enrollment of 13.5 million, the total cost would be $197 billion.

So we're still talking a fairly sizable decrease in costs, just not as comically sizable

It would be interesting to see if they scaled it back further to only 2 year degrees. That would put them at about $102 billion.

 

[dabig2]

It would be interesting to see if they scaled it back further to only 2 year degrees. That would put them at about $102 billion.

Does his plan cover room&board, books, etc. and the like? Thought it was only tuition, similar to the UC schools in California being tuition free until St. Reagan put an end to that godless commie nonsense.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Does his plan cover room&board, books, etc. and the like? Thought it was only tuition, similar to the UC schools in California being tuition free until St. Reagan put an end to that godless commie nonsense.

If it's just tuition/fees as shown in the CB chart, then as far as I can tell we're talkin' about $130 billion in total across all public institutions, and I'm gonna guess the majority of that comes from the 4-years (given the costs shown in the other NCES data).

(Also, as far as I can tell none of this actually accounts for books.)

(Also also, please for the love of god read this caveat: that $130 billion is multiplying the College Board's actual figure with the NCES's projection for 2016 enrollment. Could be higher, could be lower, could be a number that cannot be perceived by man.)

 

[Farmboy]

Interesting, but that South Carolina result would be pretty bad for Clinton. Here's my take at the moment.

NV: 52-48 Clinton
SC: 61-38 Clinton
VT: 72-27 Sanders
AR: 59 - 41 Clinton
OK: 57 - 43 Clinton
MN: 55 - 45 Sanders
TN: 59 - 40 Clinton
TX: 61 - 39 Clinton
VA: 58 - 42 Clinton
CO: 53 - 47 Sanders
MA: 54 - 45 Sanders
GA: 63 - 37 Clinton
AL: 61 - 38 Clinton

Seems reasonable (at least if Clintons position doesn't deteriorate any further). How would that that translate to delegate numbers?

 

[Black Republican]

godamn, these poll numbers on Morning Joe, all of them have Trumpy in the lead