Honest discussion of his econ policy

[Anonymous No.1146317]

I hate all of the presidential candidates pretty equally. That said, give me your reasons why Bernie is a good or bad choice for president.

Here is the way I see it:
His tax proposals only affect those with disgusting amounts of money who use it to buy elections.

Wealth is better off in the middle class than in an offshore bank account.

Taxing the ultra rich will not cause them to ever want for anything. They will still always be rich as fuck.

The middle class is dying. How else can we save it if there is not enough wealth to go around? I don't see why this wouldn't work.

[Anonymous No.1146326]

>>1146317
Troll thread, but seriously Sanders is the best candidate we've had in.. probably my whole life. That said, they're not going to let him him of course, even if he would have otherwise won.

In addition, they've got the masses so hypnotized into just accepting shit that people will actually viciously demand more shit instead of better treatment. I'm sure we'll be seeing some examples of what I'm talking about here any minute.

[Anonymous No.1146336]

>>1146317
>His tax proposals only affect those with disgusting amounts of money
Ok, I have nowhere near a disgusting amount of money, yet Bernie's FTT proposal would wipe out my job (daytrading).
I'll be impressed if you can tell me why he has to fuck me along with his investment bank/high frequency trader targets (you know, other than 'you deserve it'). And please don't argue the tax unless you understand it. Given how much it would affect me, I can guarantee you that I've run the numbers and know exactly how it works.

[Anonymous No.1146350]

>>1146336
Because you're making money through asset inflation. In other words, thanks to your price speculation, you artificially raise the cost of goods people need to live, e.g. food, energy, and housing, despite offering little if any economic value in return. The money comes from making everyday things necessary for life and commerce more expensive, and then skimming some profit off the top, so it's a net economic burden.

[Anonymous No.1146362]

>>1146336
you don't create any value whatsoever. Your gain is some else's loss.

[Anonymous No.1146363]

>>1146350
Did you hear this from someone on his campaign?
I don't "artificially raise the cost of goods people need to live", good lord, where do you get this stuff.
Please explain how offering my shares of Tesla to someone who wants to buy them "artificially raises" the cost of anything.

[Anonymous No.1146364]

>>1146362
>Your gain is some else's loss
You mean that if you sell me stock you want to get rid of, and it goes up in price, that's somehow my fault?
Fascinating.

[Anonymous No.1146373]

>>1146363
In addition to the commodities market, dividends also raise prices across the board. More money is fueled into nothing other than appeasing shareholders. There's also the increasing economic risk associated with the cult of shareholder value, where companies are now liquidating highly innovative and economically productive divisions of their business just to boost short term financials.

All of these perverse incentives are slowly but surely killing our economy and destroying our industry.

[Anonymous No.1146385]

>>1146373
>All of these perverse incentives
All of these perverse incentives are utilized by any American with a retirement account (you included, I would assume). What you're talking about is a reform of corporate structure and business practices, which has nothing to do with singling out home traders to be screwed.
So why is he doing it?

[Anonymous No.1146391]

>>1146385
That's an innacurate characterization to say that the market is just people's retirement accounts. That's a minority share of it.

The point of the tax is to bring the financial sector back in check and reduce market speculation. The entire system is highly interconnected, so reducing the frequency trades and profitability of speculation will have network effects which will reduce the severity of all of the aforementioned issues.

[Anonymous No.1146400]

>>1146391
>reduce market speculation
The tax he's proposing would do a lot more than that.
If you understood how it works (I guess you don't), you would realize that it is an untenable situation for a business owner. Taxing someone at 200, 300, or 1000% (even on losses!) is an unacceptable structure, and your planned targets would cease trading or move their operations elsewhere.
Before you question my numbers, realize that his tax is not based on profit, and thus has no connection to it, making these numbers commonplace.
Then ask yourself what business owner would continue to operate under these rules. They won't, and they do have other options.

[Anonymous No.1146407]

>>1146400
But you're not a business owner. What are you producing? You're simply leeching off the financial lifeblood of businesses that produce real products and value. I'm sure you're a decent person, but what you're doing is a detriment to the economy and society.

[Anonymous No.1146418]

>>1146407
>You're simply leeching off the financial lifeblood of businesses
That's a talking point, and you should be intelligent enough to know it.
What is the grocery owner who buys at wholesale and sells to you at retail producing?
It's the same thing and you know it. Your candidate has a bias against anyone remotely connected with finance, and it's pretty apparent.
It would be literally impossible for everyone connected with it to be detrimental to society, but that's what he's claiming, and that's what you're going to parrot.

[Anonymous No.1146419]

>>1146364
You don't create value. Make as many excuses as you like but it'll never change that fundamental fact.

[Anonymous No.1146422]

>>1146419
Yeah, like the guy playing a banjo and begging for change creates value.
Wow, the arguments around here.

[Anonymous No.1146426]

>>1146418
A grocery store adds value because of its extensive supply chain which transports food from farms to individuals. What exactly do you do that adds value?

Unless you exclusively buy IPO stocks, the businesses you're speculating on never see a cent of your money.

[Anonymous No.1146433]

>>1146422
The grocer is involved in distribution of food. The musician plays music that somebody may have use for.

You don't even trade paper back and forth.

[Anonymous No.1146436]

>>1146407
But why is it detrimental? Essentially, its a currency exchange service. Say you want to play at a Blackjack table in Vegas, you don't play with money, but chips. To turn those chips back into cash, you have to go to the cashier. The cashier didnt add any value to the transaction.

[Anonymous No.1146441]

>>1146436
Read a few posts back. Asset inflation and the cult of shareholder value.

[Anonymous No.1146442]

>>1146426
Pretty sure anyone who has taken an Econ 101 class can tell you that the more traders you have, the closer your prices will be to "fair market value".
Take away the traders (like me), and your liquidity dries up, meaning fewer people buying and selling, and much worse spreads.
That means the average person will pay more when buying and get less when selling.
That's how I add value.

>>1146433
And I'm involved in the buying and selling of securities. You know, a product that every adult in this country purchases at some point or other.
Why are you trying to dismiss the comparison?

[Anonymous No.1146447]

>>1146441
>cult of shareholder value
That's based on delivering higher and higher returns over time, which is the demand of investors, not traders.
But nice of you to try and pin that one on us too.

[Anonymous No.1146452]

Don't give me that "I help the market find price equilibrium" line either. Every dummy who goes shopping does that.

[Anonymous No.1146453]

>>1146426
Part of the problem is that you would never deny yourself the ability to spot a valuable company (like Apple), purchase their stock, and sell it at a profit. You would consider the profit a reward for your acumen.
Yet you would deny it to me, based on some idea about appropriate time frames?

[Anonymous No.1146456]

[Anonymous No.1146459]

>>1146442
The security itself is worthless, unlike a real product, and the company's workers create every ounce of value extracted from it.

[Anonymous No.1146460]

>>1146442
Here we go again.
>muh liquidity
And what benefit does that provide us other than promoting even more trading and speculation?

Also, you have to recognize that by relying on such elementary economic assumptions, you're oversimplifying the problem to the point where your assumptions are no longer accurate. If more participants actually meant that fair market value was reached, then we wouldn't experience bubbles. However, back in the real world, we know that isn't the case, since as more speculators enter market prices continue to climb which causes even more speculators to enter the market and so on until everyone finally realizes that the value isn't realistic and the market crashes.

[Anonymous No.1146463]

>>1146441
Looking back at >>1146373 it looks like the big problem is the companies that liquidate divisions of their business for short term gain, which I dont believe would be possible or probable to control by any presidential policy. And doesnt currency and cryptocurrency have the same issue of prices being raised for petty reasons.

[Anonymous No.1146468]

Wouldn't a Barnys trade tax just turn day traders/ high frequency traders into once a week traders?

His faggot tax does nothing but slow liquidity, and it only does that to finance masters degrees in music history.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take the liquidity dudes.

~an American manufacturer with employees

[Anonymous No.1146470]

>>1146407
>being this retarded

So when a business floats money on the stock exchange to create a new product, investors that buy the stocks arent creating value. Go suck a dick you wannabe faggot

[Anonymous No.1146472]

>>1146447
>>1146453
You're trying to go off on an unrelated tangent in order to distract from the fact that institutionalized speculation is hurting industry. Nobody cares about your supposed "right" to leech money from productive businesses and individuals.

>>1146470
Unless it's an IPO they aren't seeing anything from your speculation, dumbass. Meanwhile they're handing out dividends and liquidating their business to appease you.

[Anonymous No.1146474]

>>1146472
>Wouldn't a Barnys trade tax just turn day traders/ high frequency traders into once a week traders?
>His faggot tax does nothing but slow liquidity, and it only does that to finance masters degrees in music history.
>Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take the liquidity dudes.
>~an American manufacturer with employees

[Anonymous No.1146476]

Consider something: if our elites are shortsighted and greedy to cause a problem through their collective behavior, do you really think that they will allow their short term profits to be interfered with in order to head off a major problem that they haven't bothered to actively try to avoid up to this point?

Bernie be great for America, and he would legitimately revitalize America and trim some of the dead weight that's killing America by clogging it's financial heart. That's why they'll never let him be President, not in a million years. In the off chance that he became President Congress would rapidly become so obstructionist and dysfunctional that the Obama and Bill Clinton years will look like a model of happy bi-partisan governance.

This country is used to a free meal. We're used to unskilled blue collar labor paying enough to support a family. We're used to housing prices going up long term instead of down. We're used to insider connections getting us jobs at our friends' daddies' firms. We're used to slim taxes on certain sectors of the economy that allow gamblers to profit at the expense of stability in the name of keeping the market thick.

The reality is that as we've globalized we've exposed our nice, cushy economy to the pressures of global capitalism, and for the average person things are going to start getting very nasty before they get better. We need somebody like Sanders who is willing to bring the elites to heel, because if we don't they're going to push the consequences of globalization off onto the poor, working, and middle class until they no longer can.

[Anonymous No.1146477]

>>1146474
Read the thread. Liquidity is pointless and only promotes more speculation.

[Anonymous No.1146482]

>>1146476
Your id is mtgox

[Anonymous No.1146486]

>>1146472
>institutionalized speculation is hurting industry.
I'm not part of "institutionalized speculation", so how am I "hurting industry"?
Go ahead, claim the people at home buying 500 shares are "destroying the country".

[Anonymous No.1146490]

>>1146477
Still take pointless liquidity over centrally planned bachelor's of art degrees, and I run the books for seven employees that stand to lose from this shit.

[Anonymous No.1146491]

>>1146477
>Liquidity is pointless and only promotes more speculation.
Says you and Barney. I see you bought his "all speculation is evil" story hook, line, and sinker.

[Anonymous No.1146495]

>>1146486
Yes, it's artificially raising the price of commodities and finished goods, making it harder to do business.

>>1146490
What does that even mean? Can you form a coherent argument?

>>1146491
Well I've thoroughly explained the negative economic effects and now you're just calling names, so I think we're done here.

[Anonymous No.1146496]

>>1146317
you have to understand that every candidate has to appeal to a certain group of people, and sanders is trying to appeal to the middle class by saying hey lets all the tax the filthy rich!!.. truth is the rich donate as much as possible but on the down low...many of them create organizations for people who are underrepresented or for diseases. when it comes down to it, everyone in economics knows that the poor must stay poor and the rich must stay rich. We just need a leader to reiterate that every four terms.

[Anonymous No.1146498]

>>1146496
the middle class is the not the poor, but they will be under the current system.

[Anonymous No.1146500]

>>1146498
Why?

[Anonymous No.1146502]

>>1146477
I'm somewhere between you and >>1146491
but at least >>1146491 has some skin in the game.

As an employer, who sold his soul to set up the structure with which 7 dudes earn their living, I'll side with the guy who puts his own bones on the line every time.

Sorry about your student loans anon.

[Anonymous No.1146504]

>>1146459
>The security itself is worthless, unlike a real product

your a fucking moron. The security is a representation of owning part of that company. If the security is worthless, then the company is worthless.

>>1146460
Bernie's solution of tax .5 percent of every financial transactions is retarded. It would complete destroy how everything currently functions. The fact that your in here arguing that price discovery isn't worth the amount of energy that get put into it is a minor point. Your solution to the problem shows that you don't know enough about the problem to even suggest solutions to the problem.

[Anonymous No.1146506]

>>1146495
>I've thoroughly explained the negative economic effects
I don't believe that for a second. I doubt you really care about how your buddy's policies would affect those you don't give a fuck about. And raising the price of a stock doesn't raise the cost of finished goods, that's just idiocy, and a big part of why you aren't believable.
And I never called you any names, I just said you believe all speculation is evil.

[Anonymous No.1146507]

>>1146495
>What does that even mean?

Confirmed for sophomore liberal arts major.

[Anonymous No.1146511]

>>1146504
So you're saying boils down to
>it's bad and scary because it's new and different

>>1146506
>what happened in the thread didn't actually happen
K

>>1146507
You're just stringing random words and phrases together.

[Anonymous No.1146514]

>>1146504
>Your solution to the problem shows that you don't know enough about the problem to even suggest solutions to the problem
Yep, that's par for the course around here.
I haven't found one supporter of his who can explain how his FTT works, yet they all try to argue its merits.
The difference between taxing value versus profit is completely lost on them.

>>1146511
>>what happened in the thread didn't actually happen
Ok, point out where I called you any names.

[Anonymous No.1146519]

>>1146511
Get a load of this guy.

Shut down left and right, in every possible way, but it's not him who's wrong; it's the world.

This is what Barny wants us to pay for...

[Anonymous No.1146525]

>>1146476
most correctly correct truth i've read on this forum

[Anonymous No.1146526]

>>1146482

It is. Also thanks to editing I said "Bernie be great" like I'm speaking in ebonics.

[Anonymous No.1146531]

>>1146511
>its bad and scary because its new and different

It would complete stop the financial markets from functioning. Its obvious you don't know shit about the stock market so I don't know why your in this thread trying to convince people who do.

[Anonymous No.1146533]

>"but it'll ruin our economy!"
No, it'll ruin your job, which sucks, but is well worth the billions of dollars of revenue it'll bring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax#Implemented_financial_transaction_taxes
The LSE, the third largest stock exchange, taxes security purchases at .5%, exactly what Bernie is proposing, and it seems to have worked quite well for them.

[Anonymous No.1146538]

>>1146526
If you're praising the policies of a dude who didn't work till he was 40, and since then, has cost the American taxpayers $1.3million just to rename a few post offices, you are Ebonics incarnate.

[Anonymous No.1146539]

>>1146317

His economic policies undermine free market capitalism which is what made the US an economic powerhouse to begin with.

Socialism isn't the way to go, it's counter intuitive to how humans evolved as a species.

[Anonymous No.1146543]

>>1146373

Are you stupid? Companies need money to expand their operations and boost the economy. Companies can raise money through debt (banks or bonds) and equity (shares). And if I give my money to a company I expect something in return aka dividends. What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you even think before posting? We don't live in wonderland this is real life where your arguments make no sense

[Anonymous No.1146545]

>>1146543
The .5% tax on that then is largely inconsequential, as you're implying you'll be holding it for at least a few months, which by then, would have had the value increased by more than .5%. The tax almost exclusively effects day trading.

[Anonymous No.1146552]

>>1146538

And if you have no actual reply to what I'm saying except some name slinging and ad hominem aimed at Sanders then I can't say that I really care about your nonsensical opinion.

[Anonymous No.1146557]

>>1146495


You are an idiot. Stock trading doesn't increase finished products price. Instead commodity trading likr corn, sugar and coffee do. Those are the only cases trading should be regulated bc it has a durect impact on people life but stock trading? Did you assist to Brainwashed 101?

[Anonymous No.1146559]

>>1146533
>it seems to have worked quite well for them.
You must not know shit about equity trading in the UK.
No one does it, specifically because of that idiot tax.
Instead, traders trade dodgy-ass "CFD's", an under-regulated, asset linked product. Lots go broke in the process.
Just another "unintended consequence" of a "necessary tax".

[Anonymous No.1146566]

>>1146545
>.5% tax on that then is largely inconsequential
Why don't you just admit that you can't demonstrate how it would apply to equity purchases, and you're only claiming this because it wouldn't affect you?

[Anonymous No.1146592]

>>1146559
Ok? Mind telling me how that effects the financial market at all? You said it would be catastrophic for the financial market, I said it wasn't, otherwise they wouldn't have been doing that for hundreds of years, and other countries wouldn't have instituted theirs without repealing it shortly after.

>>1146566
Wow, it's almost like I didn't say that exact thing. I don't give a shit about your job. Let's say there are 100K day traders in the US. Going off of the rate that Britain gets their revenue, we should be able to get $12 billion from this tax. That's $120K per potential person displaced, more than enough to make up for it, and even better, we'll now have less day traders, and more people (i.e. college grads after the tax is implemented) going into productive positions, which will still pay tax.

[Anonymous No.1146598]

>>1146592
>That's $120K per potential person displaced
Wow, bud. You must really be thick.
Not I, nor any other trader, will pay you $120K.
You will just lose our business, which is the point anyway.
Oh where will I go to trade in this primitive world of no internet?

[Anonymous No.1146604]

>>1146598
You, pay the government $120K? Where did that come from? Where did you get that from my post? The reason why I pointed out that figure was to show that the government could still give every single day trader (even the ones that still made money, just less!) a middle class income while still generating extra revenue.

[Anonymous No.1146612]

>>1146604
Look man, it's pretty simple.
The tax you speak of is literally so draconian that No One Will Pay It. Understand?
100% of $0 is nothing. No revenue. None.
This is how we know you don't even know the mechanics of it. If you did you would understand why less than 1% of Senators or Representatives support this idea.
Care to explain that one away?
They're all just corrupt, right?

[Anonymous No.1146614]

>ITT day traders frightened at the prospect of having to get a real job

[Anonymous No.1146621]

>>1146612
That's funny, because every single country that has implemented this, despite having much smaller stock exchanges than us, has been able to generate millions and billions of dollars. Care to explain that?

[Anonymous No.1146626]

>>1146621
Cite some examples.
As explained, the UK's has spawned a horribly regulated parallel industry.
Sweden's revenue fell so much from implementing this that they turned around and repealed it.
What have you got?

[Anonymous No.1146636]

>>1146626
UK's is STILL generating $3-4B A YEAR. That sounds successful to me. Sweden's fucked up because it only applied to Swedish brokerages.
Anyways, Italy, Poland, Taiwan, Switzerland, and formerly, the U.S, all had .2%+ taxes on the sale of securities.

[Anonymous No.1146655]

>>1146636
All of the countries you listed have either carve outs regarding income (meaning they wouldn't apply to me), or are a profit based tax, which no one here is objecting to (and is not what Bernie is proposing).
So no, not the same at all.
And If I could derive $3-4 Billion in revenue by taxing doctors, does that somehow make it just, or right?

[Anonymous No.1146656]

>>1146326
:(

[Anonymous No.1146660]

>>1146655
Doctors provide useful services that keep people from dying. You provide "liquidity."

[Anonymous No.1146663]

>>1146552
I've made multiple replies and all of them have ruined your points. This ruins the source of your points.

[Anonymous No.1146665]

15/hr min wage is insane and wouldnt pass through congress, he knows this so hes probably just foght for 11-12/hr min wage which is still very high. Although its still not enough to live in cities.

Remember that 12/hr min wage means the country would make less money due to export prices, ao national wealth would go down.

[Anonymous No.1146666]

Also be careful comparing the u.s. economy to other countries, it ismuch more momentum dependant.

[Anonymous No.1146676]

>>1146614
>tfw bernie is gonna lose vs sillary
>tfw another decade of smart work making you superior to white trash

[Anonymous No.1146677]

>>1146655
I don't see those mentioned anywhere, but even if that is the case, the UK isn't.
>And If I could derive $3-4 Billion in revenue by taxing doctors, does that somehow make it just, or right?
See >>1146660
There's also the fact that there are many, many, many, more doctors than there are day traders.

[Anonymous No.1146680]

>>1146660
>Doctors provide useful services that keep people from dying. You provide "liquidity."

Just finish your thought.
"...so it's okay to fuck you guys".

[Anonymous No.1146688]

>>1146677
>>1146660
I realize what you two have in common.
You both favor a system where the "value" of people's occupations can be arbitrarily decided. By you.
Very egalitarian.

[Anonymous No.1146693]

>>1146680
>>1146688
Yes, essentially, because the world would be no different if you weren't doing what you're doing right now. Tell me, what have you done to benefit society?

[Anonymous No.1146695]

>>1146663

Your weird sidebar arguments with some other anon are meaningless and counter nothing. You're another day trader who doesn't want to see the majority of your gambling opportunities go up in a puff of smoke. To the majority of people this is irrelevant, and to the big holders of capital it is also irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.1146696]

>>1146680
Basically. Nobody is actually benefiting from what you do, so no harm will be done either.

Worst case scenario is we get fewer speculatory bubbles which causes the market to move upward more slowly.

[Anonymous No.1146716]

>>1146693
>>1146696
That's what I figured.
One wants evidence of "beneficial societal actions", and the other wants to be able to declare others' jobs as being without benefit.
Truly, a pretty totalitarian viewpoint.
I believe we are done here.

[Anonymous No.1146717]

>>1146614

Or maybe they'll do what every other unemployed individual does and collect government subsidies?

Bernie doesn't want to rebuild the middle class, he's trying to push everyone down to the point where they HAVE to take on government aid.

[Anonymous No.1146724]

>>1146716
Tell me, are you a libertarian by chance?
And yes, your job is literally worthless unless you can prove otherwise.

[Anonymous No.1146725]

>>1146716
So you think it's justifiable to do something for your own benefit that harms others? Why not just go into petty theft instead anon? You would have more reliable returns.

[Anonymous No.1146781]

>>1146695
I don't day trade. Never have, and I'm actually philosophically opposed to the practice... but you communist kids make the day traders seem like upstanding gentlemen by comparison.

[Anonymous No.1146793]

>this thread
no wonder you guys arent rich

[Anonymous No.1146801]

>>1146317
If his tax plan went into effect, people making $75,000 would spend over half their money on income tax.

Socialism has never benefited the middle class, it benefits the welfare class.

The truth is regardless of how you tax wealthy people, they will be able to allocate their money to avoid taxes. The middle class is hurt the most by taxation. That's just reality.

[Anonymous No.1146804]

>>1146801
Bullshit. He doesn't want to raise income tax for anyone making less than $250K. Many people below $60K (if I recall correctly) will actually see reduced taxes.

[Anonymous No.1146811]

>>1146781

>you communist kids

I'm a monarchist actually.

[Anonymous No.1146824]

I want a bernie supporter to humor me with what he thinks the downsides to "taxing the rich." Could be.

[Anonymous No.1146826]

>>1146801
>you mean someone would go onto the internet and just tell lies?

[Anonymous No.1146828]

>>1146804

Yeah everyone is fed their opinions, which they then regurgitate as if they were original and personal. Nevermind the truth, who gives a shit? If it sounds good and it sounds like something I want to believe, that's good enough for me to repeat it, like a goddamn recorded message. That's why I don't even bother trying to convince anyone who demonstrates such behavior. But I know what I know, and all the smoke and mirrors don't throw me off.

[Anonymous No.1146831]

>>1146317
>I'm a moderate
>here are a bunch of retarded progressive ideals I like about about this socialist candidate

Kek, bernie supporters are so fucking scummy I'm glad hillary is wiping the floor with him. Sanders is the /r9k/ of politicians.

[Anonymous No.1146834]

>>1146824
>expecting anything but trap porn and whining from bernie pussies

Man, you're in for some disappointment.

[Anonymous No.1146851]

>>1146407
I used to lurk this board a lot before I got a real job at a bulge bracket bank. This whole thread is a fucking disaster but I'll at least try to clear some ridiculousness up.

Everyone always forgets that capital and financial markets and the larger economy is not a zero sum game. If I generate revenues from taking commissions from other people trading, I can then go to a business that sells real products and buy something. They can then take my cash and deposit it into another bank, where that money will be packaged into a loan to fuel another business that sells real things.

Me getting rich does not impose a limit on other people getting rich. Day traders are gamblers, yes, and 90% of them are not smart enough to secure their retirement (this is an extremely generous figure), but they generate value all the same.

Also, the financial system is absolutely necessary to provide an intermediary between savers and borrowers. And to facilitate an equilibrium rate between equity and debt.

Also to your IPO shitpost a few replies down, sure the company is not literally using the exact money that you bought the stock with. But the previous shareholder's investment is being rolled over to you, just as debt would be. You're sacrificing principal and being compensated by a corporation's required return on equity. Just because you are not LITERALLY exchanging the cash with the fucking CEO doesn't mean your money isn't being used.

You think this shareholder cult bullshit is a revelation because it was news to you. But the secondary market isn't meant to fund a company with cash. It's to provide transparency so that the company can find cheap credit to fuel operations. You're essentially buying in and vouching for the corporation that you have shares in. If you didn't, the shares would fall enough that some rich fuck could swoop in and LBO their balls off.

[Anonymous No.1146865]

>>1146363
Do not bother with this >>1146350 fool. He does not understand the mechanics of trading.

At any rate, politically speaking, Sanders is wrong, because he does not have a right to yours or mine money. Nor any politician or any amount of people. If we want to discuss the mechanics of a proper taxation system we first need to stablish a proper philosophical foundation that validates and limits the nature of a goverment. Then, any kind of analysis necessary for stablishing an objective taxation system needs to be according to actual facts, such as what is the easiest and most efficient way of collection taxes, according to actual math and economic analysis and *not* according to any kind of ideological ground, specially any kind derived from a socialitic party. A goverment is a very delicate machinery product from our modern civilization and should not be used to advance anyone's ideological wet-dream. A goverment is not a toy

[Anonymous No.1146867]

This thread is a great example of how fucking stupid your common street liberal is.

We have people in this thread unironically arguing that traders should be eliminated simply "because they don't produce anything", even though they pay taxes for all these gimme dats programs.

For those of you who say /pol/ is a bad board, how long could you put up with these kinds of threads daily before you just started shit posting in every thread like this? This is what we put up with daily over there

[Anonymous No.1146869]

>>1146851

Also, the securities transaction tax is neither here nor there. It's often misunderstood.

It is mostly a transfer of wealth from the private to the public sector. Is that good? I don't think so. The Ricardian equivalence is such that it doesn't matter whether or not government expenses are funded by taxes or by running a deficit. It comes from excess savings over investment anyway.

It's not even empirically clear if it reduces volatility or not. It could, in certain cases, increase volatility by reducing liquidity sharply in times of need.

And logically, there are two points of weakness that I personally dislike:

1. Banks are financiers because people need them. If you come to me and want to buy security A, then it's my duty to give it to you. I have to then turn around and find someone else to short security A for the same amount. By imposing a tax on transactions, you would increase the cost of doing business and decrease market movement, decreasing the velocity of money, decreasing aggregate demand (GDP).

2. The top brass on Street are pretty fucking smart. People think bankers are idiots and anybody could do the job if scheisty enough.

The truth is bankers are very smart, but almost nobody can do the job. They are/I am just the person you want steering the ship through impossible waters.

It is INSANELY difficult to grasp macroeconomic concepts, currency swaps, different industries' conventions and cycles, corporate finance, derivatives, regulations/compliance, all the while focusing on your real job and your day to day.

I'm sure that, in the U.S. at least, we'd figure out a way to fuck the retail investor/pension plans to retain profits. It's a sad truth (especially because I'm not in this industry for the money--I just like the impossibility of the game), but whoever has the most inelastic demand will bear the burden of the tax. And news flash, that's not the BB firms.

[Anonymous No.1146872]

ALERT! This thread has been contaminated by /pol/ groupthink and is now under QUARANTINE!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/pol/pol/pol/pol/pol/pol/pol/pol/pol/pol/pol/pol/pol/pol/pol/pol
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please stay back from the yellow tape and DO NOT RESPOND to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.1146877]

>>1146867

No. Only a handful of people are arguing that, which the anti-Bernie folks are rallying against while ignoring more reasonable discussion because they know that it's a dead argument.

There are all calibers of intellect that support virtually every position for virtually every reason imaginable. Tilting with windmills on the internet doesn't really prove anything though, just convinces you of your own position.

[Anonymous No.1146881]

>>1146869

AND Bernie's insane 15% credit cap on APR wouldn't "help the common man" who needs it. Credit companies would not lend to someone whose risk profile is not compensated by 15%. They just won't make loans and issue cards to the people Bernie is trying to help.

That, or the government would have to further subsidize the cards. Which is shitty, but not something I want to explain right now as I've already wasted enough time trying to peddle pearls before swine.


P.S. I'm not as assholish as I seem. I'm just coming off a ridiculous work day and HATE HATE HATE the spreading of absolute fucking dogshit.

To people who are actually interested in finance/economics/markets and read this board because of that reason, good for you. Keep on keepin on.

[Anonymous No.1146882]

>>1146865
and I should add, "how much a job contributes to society" should *NOT* be a metric of how much such job should be taxed. Not only it is open to interpretation the meaning of contributing to "society", but as I remarked, the science of a proper taxation system under a proper objective review of law should only take into account what is the most efficient way of collection taxes, no more or less. A goverment is not be a tool for egalitarism, it is not its job to determine and execute policies for economic egalitarianism.

[Anonymous No.1146886]

>>1146877

Point to the "reasonable discussion" in this thread in support of Bernie.

[Anonymous No.1146890]

>>1146881

And speculation isn't the cause of bubbles. Leverage is.

And I'm not arguing vs. big banks fucking you. They do. But it's not on purpose. It's just a fact of life that people who have access to capital will benefit the most from it.

And breaking them up will do nothing. What do you do when the broken up small banks bolster their business and become big banks in the future? That sure sounds familiar....

Oh wait. That's what happened with Glass splitting up JPM and Morgan. And look how they're both doing now.

[Anonymous No.1146892]

>>1146886
All of it except for the /pol/-tier ad-hominens against anyone who says something in his support.

[Anonymous No.1146901]

>>1146892

As I thought, you're just shit posting

[Anonymous No.1146902]

>>1146901
>anything that disagrees with me, no matter how calmly and concisely worded is shitposting
See what I mean? You did it again.

[Anonymous No.1146931]

>>1146869
>truth is bankers are very smart
Lolno. Not really. They just handle lots of liability and are compensated to do so.

[Anonymous No.1146961]

[Anonymous No.1146971]

>>1146902

God, you Bernie supporters so fucking dumb.

I asked you legit questions, and then you wrongly accuse me of the same fallacy that you have now committed for three posts in a row

No wonder you cucks are a joke and your candidate lost so hard

[Anonymous No.1146979]

>>1146971
Please explain how
>God, you Bernie supporters so fucking dumb.
and
>No wonder you cucks are a joke
are not considered ad-hominem attacks, but me pointing out your use of them is an ad-hominem attack.

[Anonymous No.1146980]

>>1146867
As long as the rich swear fealty to Israel and squeal for more wars fought by others, their tax rate should be a hundred fucking percent.

[Anonymous No.1146983]

>>1146881

Thank you. I appreciate you wisdom articulated in a very lucid manner

[Anonymous No.1147006]

>>1146336
Under Bernie's plan the only jobs that pay are the jobs that benefit from society. Go out and do something with your life that betters humankind.

[Anonymous No.1147112]

>>1147006
who are you to say which jobs do and don't benefit society?

[Anonymous No.1147115]

>>1146890
all of your posts in this thread were really informative and a bright spot in the shithole that is this thread. you're doing the lord's work

[Anonymous No.1147117]

>>1146979

You were the first to start using fallacies, and you're still doing it.

You don't get to be fucking retarded and then call it a fallacy when someone calls you fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.1147162]

>>1146890
Hey any reccommended reading for getting a deeper understanding of all this? I've got a BA in finance so I get the gist of capital, debt/equity structuring, etc, but the school was pretty shitty so I feel like I could learn more.

This bit:

>It is mostly a transfer of wealth from the private to the public sector. Is that good? I don't think so. The Ricardian equivalence is such that it doesn't matter whether or not government expenses are funded by taxes or by running a deficit. It comes from excess savings over investment anyway.

makes a lot of sense and is pretty insightful. One day it might be nice to help steer the boat, but there's a lot of bullshit to wade through. What school's cirriculum do you reccommend?

[Anonymous No.1147451]

>>1146931
I have no idea what you're basing this off of. I feel like if you were front office at an important bank, you wouldn't have this opinion at all. Sure, some people are shoe-ins from daddy's hedge fund, but favoritism exists everywhere.

[Anonymous No.1147473]

>>1146983
>>1147115

Aww, thanks guys. I really appreciate it. I love investments and economics, so I'm used to talking people's ears off about this stuff.

Oh, and I obviously am not arrogant enough to claim that I'm 100% accurate always, but I am often correct about these sorts of things.

>>1147162

Hey. Sorry I missed you. I've been working on something since I posted last, haha. It really depends on what you want to do.

The Intelligent Investor is a good start, but there's so much interesting material out there that you could probably spend your life studying and not come close to covering it all.

For example, you could be a CFA who specializes in real estate asset management; for that, it'd be useful to learn about valuation, cash flows, volatility vs liquidity in high dollar item markets, etc.

If you're interested in stocks and markets, I'd recommend first absorbing all of the knowledge you can about appraising financial statements and looking for fundamental value. It'd also be good (i.e. necessary) to have a solid grasp of either a specific industry (like media/telecom or healthcare) or macroeconomics/currency exchange as a whole.

I'd even read up on some popular technical analysis stuff. That's where traders buy and sell based on trend lines, support and resistance... basically what shapes the S&P500 is making.

In my opinion, technical analysis is mostly a joke. I think a lot of the reason that technical analysis sometimes works is that enough people in the world believe in it to cause some price movement when certain patterns arise. And also because short covering/profit taking looks a lot like you're slamming into some mythical resistance level when it's really just that the options are priced based on market consensus for where the target price of an index/security/commodity should be.

My best advice would be to do what makes you happy. Study what you're interested in. If you love what you do, you'll naturally become pretty fucking good at it.

[Anonymous No.1147494]

>>1146317
>His tax proposals only affect those with disgusting amounts of money who use it to buy elections.
No true. He will also affect start-ups, and make those who are already rich (job creators) go overseas due to the tax increase. He will devastate the American economy, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.1147512]

>>1146496
>everyone in economics knows that the poor must stay poor and the rich must stay rich.
Very untrue.

Comparatively there will always be rich and poor; the gap has been measured and we now have the knowledge to shrink it.
Also there is nothing in Bernies policies about eliminating poverty or extravagant wealth. So that is not really very relevant.

>>1146867
I am legitimately disgraced as Bernie sanders supporter about how retarded the people who make up his base truly are.

They only seem to sense something is wrong and want to elect ANYONE to fix it.

They seem to want the big banks to be broken up out of revenge rather than in an attempt to remove monopolies or spread risk.

Sometimes I question if democracy is the best system.

[Anonymous No.1147525]

>>1146881
I think you are missing the point of some of Bernie's policy proposals.

Several of his specific policies exist to completely remove certain industries.

His 15% apr cap would destroy the entirety of payday companies. He plans to replace them with government subsidized loans offered from the post office.

What you any many other people seem to miss about Mr.Sanders is that he is a paternalist. He knows that 15% credit cap would prevent many people from getting loans; he believes that those people should not be getting those loans in the first place.

[Anonymous No.1147542]

>>1146317
>His tax proposals only affect those with disgusting amounts of money who use it to buy elections.

His tax proposals effect everyone who works. Payroll tax increase and income tax increase are not simply aimed at the highest earners. He simply aims to increase the "progressive" part of our tax system.

>Wealth is better off in the middle class than in an offshore bank account.

Wealth is also better off in the hands of the poverty stricken than flying into the overpriced car notes of the middle class. But that isn't quite a trade off your as happy to make I assume. pic related.

>Taxing the ultra rich will not cause them to ever want for anything. They will still always be rich as fuck.
True, but you need to explain why we should increase their taxes in the first place.

>The middle class is dying. How else can we save it if there is not enough wealth to go around? I don't see why this wouldn't work.

Define middle class. You cant. Its a buzz word used by politicians to appeal to every-man who considers himself an every-man, which ranges from people making 200k per year to people making less than 40k.

The only "class" that is dying are unskilled factory workers who benefited from our unique situation at the end of world war 2. NO CANDIDATE CAN STOP OR EVEN DRASTICALLY SLOW GLOBALIZATION. THERE IS NO WAY TO COMPETE WITH INDIA AND CHINA FOR MANUFACTURING UNLESS YOU CAN TURN BACK TIME.

Or I guess you could start a war and shut down major shipping lanes.

[Anonymous No.1147545]

>>1147542
Forgot pictures.

[Anonymous No.1147583]

>>1146476
Thanks for bringing this paid advertisement to us

[Anonymous No.1147604]

>liquidity is bad
>stocks have no real value
Where did this shit come from?

[Anonymous No.1147626]

The welfare state is a fucking atrocity. Personally I blame its appearance on giving women the right to vote. Fucking socialists the lot of them.

[Anonymous No.1147679]

>>1147473
Thanks man! On other question: If I got a poor gpa at a non-target school, would I ever have a shot athe bulge bracket? I'm (hopefully) about to be working as an intern for a small but very popular, quickly-expanding company helping them with project valuation and capital decision making. Suppose they gave me a really stellar reccommendation? I'm not dumb, I just spent all my attention in school on personal projects.

As for Bernie, I think he's the most trustworthy candidate, with people's best interests at heart, and absolutely the wrong idea of how to help. I think it would have been interesting if he made it to the general, to see if he'd hire some good advisors and change his tune toward center at all.

>>1146400
Actually, can you explain where you're getting 200-1000%? Do you mean a situation where I buy at $10,000, sell at $10,001 and am taxed ~$100 round-trip?

[Anonymous No.1147733]

>>1147626
>The welfare state is a fucking atrocity
Yet everything else tried up to this point has either failed or morphed into a welfare state because the demand and supply of labour never actually equilibrates and you're left with a buffer of individuals with noting to do but cause problems.
Markets on their own can't distribute wealth in a fashion that won't prevent a societal break down and state socialism results in a totalitarian mess, that's why the mixed economy won out.

[Anonymous No.1147735]

>>1146326
>in.. probably my whole life
>is underage

[Anonymous No.1147820]

>>1147733
Pretty much.

[Anonymous No.1147886]

>>1147679
>Do you mean a situation where I buy at $10,000, sell at $10,001 and am taxed ~$100 round-trip?
Yep.
Or, you buy at $11,000, sell at $9,000, and are taxed $100 on your $2000 loss.
That's the point. Your profit (or lack thereof) is completely unrelated to the tax.

[Anonymous No.1147906]

>>1146724
Except for the fact that investments come down to "hey I need some cash. Give me $5 today and I'll give you $7 tomorrow."
If you in any way would like to argue that loans are bad, then by all means.

>>1146362
>two people willing get involed in the market
>one does his analysis and understands that company X is overvalued
>the other rides the hype train until it goes off a cliff.
The stock market is just a financial natural selection. A purchase of stock is a purchase of potential earnings.

[Anonymous No.1147916]

>>1146459
Ahhhh you're one of those.
>the stock market has no physical value so it must be worthless!

Whenever you want to take out a 401k let us know.

[Anonymous No.1147928]

>>1146317
The fact that anyone would believe that ANY of these candidates COULD bring any change is preposterous

If Trump wins, nothing will happen because everyone in the Government hates him

if Bernie wins, Nothing will happen because the rich-fags control the government, (pocket-veto anyone?)

If Hillary wins...well it won't matter, she'll end up in jail like a week later anyway because she's got a damn graveyard in her closet

[Anonymous No.1147932]

>>1147886
if you have a loss it's tax deductible, you offset capital gains with losses
source:
Accounting major

[Anonymous No.1147937]

>>1147932
Uh, we're not talking about current tax structure.
We're talking about his proposed FTT.

[Anonymous No.1147957]

>>1147937
oh... oops

DESU I think his proposed tax plan will go like this though >>1147928

[Anonymous No.1147977]

>>1147957
Yeah, it won't go anywhere.
But that has less to do with rich-fags in the government, and more to do with the fact that it's about as brilliant an idea as when Russia doubled the price of vodka (you know, to get people to stop drinking).

[Anonymous No.1147983]

>>1147977
yeah.... Sometimes he feel like he just says things and hopes it sticks, which, people being greedy, it always will

I saw an article about his plan, tell me if I'm wrong but it only benefits people with a combined salary under $125k, is that accurate or is way more ludicrous than I think it is?

[Anonymous No.1147995]

>>1146317

Fuck no and fuck Bernie.

I made a cunthair under six figures last year and a fuck ton of it went to taxes that weren't there even a few years ago.

They talk about only taxing the rich (which is stupid anyway for different reasons) but these people ALWAYS and when I say always I mean like 100 percent of the time end up taxing the middle class.

These tax the rich increases are nothing more than a Trojan Horse on a slippery slope covered in grease.

[Anonymous No.1148000]

>>1147983
>says things and hopes it sticks
Like most pols, he has realized that low-info voters look at the actual ability to accomplish proposals as "secondary". It's much more important to them that it "sounds good".

The only part of his plan I'm familiar with is the FTT part. Once I realized he couldn't even be honest about who he wants to fuck, I stopped reading.

[Anonymous No.1148080]

>>1146350
>>1146363
inflation caused by trading stocks is very hard to discern.
To artificially inflate the price of a stock you would have to purchase a ton of the same stock or be a famous entity who publicized the buying of the stock.
Trump did it with Holiday Inn in the 80s, Warren Buffett can do it with any stock ever and those news "gurus" do it.

Stock prices are based on earnings, assets, liabilities, and ratios.

[Anonymous No.1148127]

>>1147995
>>1147983
You realise the median household income is 55k right?

Middle class does not apply to you if you make almost double the national average.

[Anonymous No.1148430]

Even by just looking at expenditure multiplier - taxing the faggot billionares and giving it to poverty stricken rednecks means higher overall growth.

The marginal propensity to consume is higher for minimal wage slaves than the wealthy, who just save most of the income they get.

[Anonymous No.1148495]

>>1148430
Even by just looking at crime rates - exterminating African Americans and giving their money to poverty stricken rednecks means lower prison populations and higher overall growth.

The marginal propensity to commit crimes is higher for African Americans than Caucasians, who tend to have lower incarceration rates.

[Anonymous No.1148503]

>>1148495
your point?

[Anonymous No.1148506]

>>1148127

top kek

Middle class is defined by the government as anyone making 250k or less

[Anonymous No.1148509]

>>1148503
Oh, I was making your point.
"Even in the absence of net positive effect, a plan is a good idea if it has ANY positive effects".

[Anonymous No.1148517]

>>1148503
Also, we could behead homeless people to sell the gold in their teeth.
They'd have to be old enough to have gold in their teeth, though.

[Anonymous No.1148606]

>>1146422
This is just a Bernie-fag raid bro don't worry they are all hardcore socialist who deserve to die

[Anonymous No.1148635]

>>1148506
But that would put you in the top 5% of the country.
>The government defines the middle class as 90% of the population so they can put minimum effort into pandering

Government also defines pizza as a veggie. Try using a non political source

[Anonymous No.1148644]

>>1146317
>i hate all of the presidential candidates pretty equally
>now let me explain you why i don't like the candidates equally and what a millennial mindset is like

[Anonymous No.1148648]

>Wanting an economic discussion with people who have no formal training in economics

Don't waste your time

[Anonymous No.1148651]

>>1148648
>shitposting while bitching about quality of posters on biz

Just fucking leave.

[Anonymous No.1148654]

>>1148651
You are exactly who I'm talking about. That was your butthurt reply because when it comes to these discussions you are a NEET who talks out of his ass.

[Anonymous No.1148659]

>>1148654
Leave cry baby.

[Anonymous No.1148681]

>>1146826

>implying that isn't just to lure people in

In order to afford all of these programs he is proposing he has to increase taxes. He isn't going to stop the wars overseas and he isn't going to cut spending.

IF increasing taxes on the rich were to help balance this, the rich will take their money to other countries were they are not persecuted for their wealth. And who are the job creators with capital? That $2mil to $10mil bracket.

[Anonymous No.1148688]

>>1148659
NEET confirmed

[Anonymous No.1148702]

I'm a democrat, and I'm laughing at all of these bernie supporters who have no validity in their statements of literally anything they're saying in here. You people are retarded. I can see why you want socialism so bad, you don't understand anything, let alone economics well enough to fend for yourselves. I guess America really is 85% sheep, 10% shepherd and 5% wolf.

[Anonymous No.1148706]

>>1148688
Bitch be gone

[Anonymous No.1148721]

Hillary is actually a great, and I mean seriously great candidate if you trust economists.

[Anonymous No.1148786]

>>1148702
I wanna be a wolf senpai :3

[Anonymous No.1148850]

>>1148681
You would think they'd never seen a Laffer Curve.

"If taxing at 50% brings in a lot of revenue, upping it to 80% will bring in even more".

And they say this shit with no irony whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.1149478]

>>1147733
>Markets on their own can't distribute wealth in a fashion that won't prevent a societal break down and state socialism results in a totalitarian mess, that's why the mixed economy won out.
Time human society has existed sans welfare state:
~6000 years
I don't see the problem.

[Anonymous No.1149528]

>>1148127
You said median, not average....
why do we care about the middle value of all incomes versus the actual average of middle class income?

[Anonymous No.1149597]

>>1146422
you sound like a colossal faggot and for you to go poor and wander the earth for a bit wouldnt bother me an iota

[Anonymous No.1149598]

ITT people not understanding the importance of liquidity

Tell me how your company handles sending out paycheck a when they had zero access to commercial paper because liquidity doesn't matter

[Anonymous No.1149614]

>>1146373
Its actually the opposite. Stock prices will always decrease by the amount of the proposed dividend. Nice try though

[Anonymous No.1149985]

>>1149597
That's ok, I'll leave the wandering/begging and playing banjos to broke asses like you.

Stay poor and mad, bro

[Anonymous No.1150030]

Can't believe there are actually 171 posts above.

There is absolutely nothing to discuss about 21st Century Marxists without hindsight and the ability to think comparatively.

Nothing.

[Anonymous No.1150051]

>>1149598
>people not understanding the importance of liquidity
It's because they can't physically touch it, so its "worthless" to them.
You know, like a song.


>>1149614
>Nice try though
Sucks for them when they run in to people who actually know how markets work.

[Anonymous No.1150082]

>>1146407
wow you are retarded...

[Anonymous No.1151393]

>>1146851
Fightin' the good fight. Bernfags btfo

[Anonymous No.1151409]

Economically he has very sound policies that have worked wonders everywhere it has been tried. (like Norway and Sweden) Norway used to be the poorest country in Europe 100 years ago. People blame oil for why Norway is rich now, but when oil was found Norway was already on track to be the richest country in Europe. Everyone could read and write, the education was world class, healthcare was comparatively great, there were no homeless people and it was unusual to see someone poor anymore. It was pretty much only rich and middle class. Then Norway found oil and the policies benefited the people greatly.

Same with Sweden and to a lesser extent Denmark except without the oil. They did apply the same kinds of policies as Sanders want to adopt and it led to a economic rise and MUCH LESS crime. If you meet a gang of criminals in Scandinavia they are much likely to be doing some sort of fraud, tax evasion or scam than violence or any "poor people" kind of crime.

[Anonymous No.1151417]

>>1151409

"Even though the tax on fixed-income securities was much lower than that on equities, the impact on market trading was much more dramatic. During the first week of the tax, the volume of bond trading fell by 85%, even though the tax rate on five-year bonds was only 0.003%. The volume of futures trading fell by 98% and the options trading market disappeared.[1] 60% of the trading volume of the eleven most actively traded Swedish share classes moved to the UK after the announcement in 1986 that the tax rate would double. 30% of all Swedish equity trading moved offshore. By 1990, more than 50% of all Swedish trading had moved to London. Foreign investors reacted to the tax by moving their trading offshore while domestic investors reacted by reducing the number of their equity trades.[2]"

Sure, bud.
Sweden.

[Anonymous No.1151447]

>>1146317
You just described trump's policy except replace taxes with taking away jew regulations. High taxes make things stagnate.

[Anonymous No.1151600]

Socialism is the economic system where poor people get free shit. Have I got it right?

[Anonymous No.1151693]

>>1147525
Did you even read my post? I said that governments would have to subsidize cards/APR linked loans and that would be bad, and you go on to say "oh don't worry, the government will offer subsidized loans from post offices!" Exactly. This shit is bad.

Subsidies from the government don't just materialize from nothing. The savings investment identity and ricardian equivalence shows that if the government is going to finance benefits, it has to do so from the net excess savings over investment. Which means that the tax payer will either support these subsidies from aggregate income, or we will run up our national debt and save this problem for the next generation to deal with.

By offering what is essentially government insured credit, i.e. the government putting up principal to allow "the common man" to get a "fair" loan, the private piece of the funder is incentivized to originate as many loans as possible because their effective cost of leding is lower than what would occur in an efficient market.

The only people who wouldn't be getting loans with the 15% credit cap are the very people he is trying to help from being cannibalized by the payday company structure.

I am not missing the point of Bernie's policy. You would be fucking surprised as to how retarded most of Congress is. My old derivatives prof's side job was to advise the house with enough background information to debate Dodd Frank... he gave up on that and admitted to me that the average third year economics student had a better understanding than the average elected official. It's insane and frightening.

[Anonymous No.1151706]

>>1147679
No problem. Anything can happen. But the classic convention is for BB's to recruit directly from undergrad target schools and business schools. The easiest way to get a permanent position is to be converted from an internship.

That being said, it doesn't make it impossible for you to make it. I didn't come from a target school, but I did graduate with a stellar GPA and a lot of support from faculty. Even with that, I had to struggle a lot to get where I am now.

You have to show them that you've got the chops if you want to get hired, essentially, and that only comes after networking enough to get someone to talk to you in the first place. Trading/sales/ER/IB folks have no reason to give a shit about you and there's a constant inflow of willing fresh grads, so you have to really bang the doors down if you want a job.
Working for your aforementioned company and showing REAL evidence of your investment know-how/charismatic sales prowess/fundamental finance knowledge driving revenue would be great, but you need more. Do you know anyone that already works for a big bank in real life?

By the way, if you only want to do it for the money, it's unclear to me whether or not it's worth it. You should think about why you want to be in the industry. It's very possible to make a comfortable and respectable living doing general business in a big corporation (haha as grimly white collar capitalist as that sounds).

[Anonymous No.1151719]

>>1148850
Damn, Laffer Curve. That really takes me back, man. Thanks for the nostalgia bump; I remember learning about this and being starry eyed in intermediate macro.

This dude is kind of right. There is an efficient range where you can tax your people to generate the most revenue. If you keep driving it up, steadily more and more of your population will just leave. Or will have reason to not work and collect welfare. There is such a thing as the "welfare wage," and if it's too high compared to the average lower class wage, it's just reasonable for all of those people to stop working (as the calculation they are all intuitively making without realizing it is minimum wage - welfare wage = X. X = value of my leisure time of 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year).

However, the important counterpoint to be aware of is that empirical data shows that the effective tax rate with peak revenue is about 70%.

However, you must also realize that this is ceretis paribus (all else being equal--super common and necessary phrase in macro analysis). The current global picture, rate environment, and sentiment matters. Everything matters. So we have to consider everything.

[Anonymous No.1151722]

>>1151393
For the record, I don't dislike Bernie. His heart is in the right place. And none of the candidates have a strong grasp of economics. I'm just trying to spread correct and relevant information about the underlying economics. That's all I can really do, and a more educated voter base is always a good thing.

I actually have pretty crazy ideas about political reform, but I won't express them here as they're very unique, and I'd like to avoid the very slim chance that someone might be able to identify who I am.

[Anonymous No.1151911]

>>1151719
>empirical data shows that the effective tax rate with peak revenue is about 70%
Yeah, well, arguments over what the peak is aside, my point was regarding the efficient range, that a higher percentage does not necessarily equal more revenue.

Something that seems to be lost on those whose standard response is "You're greedy, and don't want to pay a higher tax rate".

[Anonymous No.1151913]

>>1146476
You could just as easily consider Trump a solution to global capitalism's flaws as he supposedly is after isolation

[Anonymous No.1152036]

>>1151409
We subsidize their military that's why it looks like they're wealthy, money not spent on the military is spent on education.

[Anonymous No.1152488]

>>1151722
I get you don't want your expressed opinions associated with an actual person, but as someone who is not educated enough to participate in this discussion I would be delighted to be taught by you.

Thanks for your lucidity and candor in what has been a wild ride of a thread

[Anonymous No.1152530]

>>1146350
This. A thousand times, this.

This is why Bernie is needed. Goldman aren't paying Shillary half a million for nothing. It's pure corruption but un-provable. The GOP are all mental and one man who won't be stumped is pandering to those who believe monarchy would be a good idea.

[Anonymous No.1152547]

>>1146456
the creator of monopoly intended to show the fundamental fact of capitalism which is that the one that has the most money succeeds at a highly accelerated rate.

Thomas Piketty's book capital in the 21st century shows that (rate of return) > (economic growth) leads to concentrations in wealth. Companies such as Goldman lobby for increased rates of returns. Therefore, we may need traders for liquidity>>1146468
but we don't need the level that we have today.
I'm also assuming that income inequality to the shocking levels today is bad for the overall health of the economy, which I believe could be demonstrated.

[Anonymous No.1152558]

>>1151913
mate do you even hear yourself sometimes. A billionaire that hasn't donated hardly any of the money to charity looking out for the poorest. I see why isolationism could make you less succeptable to global capitalism in regular countries but your country is already the epitome of corporatism so you may just be insulating yourself with the hellfire of the rich in a warm comfy coat.

[Anonymous No.1152572]

>>1152530
>It's pure corruption but un-provable.
Well how are we gonna fucking argue with that?

[Anonymous No.1152689]

>>1152572
Try defining corruption.

From Transparency International:

"Abuse of public power for private gain."

You argue by trying to demonstrate that her contribution is purely out of some non-reciprocal relationship that she has with major wall street firms which spend millions on her campaign. From their hearts or love of her politics? I doubt.

Unless there's an E-mail from her lobbyist saying "Hi Hillary, I hope you enjoyed the half a million we sent you, so I expect that you'll cut just our tax burden please" but lobbyists know their shit and would have said it in person.

[Anonymous No.1152752]

>>1146317
>The middle class is dying

It is? I guess someone forgot to tell the middle class which is enjoying the best standards of living ever achieved by their class in human history.

The rest of this garbage is just as idiotic and based on nothing but popular lies believed by fools. You want to know what socialism brings, turn to history and see for yourself.

[Anonymous No.1152755]

>>1152752
>It is? I guess someone forgot to tell the middle class which is enjoying the best standards of living ever achieved by their class in human history.

evidence?

We know that the growth of the super-rich has grown exponentially. Unless the poor are not much poorer, the middle class is losing out too.

[Anonymous No.1152760]

>>1152755
Who the fuck cares if the super rich are getting richer. If I am living next to fucking Bill Gates and there is a wealth gap of 78 billion dollars, I am still a billionaire.

[Anonymous No.1152769]

>>1152755
Read a fucking history book and see how people lived before your pathetic self centered existence came into being.

Hopefully after seeing how much harder their lives were compared to yours you grow ashamed that they struggled so hard so that you could live. Perhaps you come to the sudden realization that having to work to get a college education which was entirely out of reach of your ancestors isn't so bad.

[Anonymous No.1152804]

>>1152752
>the best standards of living ever achieved by their class in human history.

Can you provide a source for that? Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass?

I'd highly doubt it has improved much since the 1950s

[Anonymous No.1152811]

>>1152769
>Read a fucking history book and see how people lived before your pathetic self centered existence came into being.

>Hopefully after seeing how much harder their lives were compared to yours you grow ashamed

Obviously. That's not to say income inequality is good.

>>1152760
>Who the fuck cares if the super rich are getting richer.

Anyone who cares about the general well being of humanity. It's a shame you're not one.

> If I am living next to fucking Bill Gates
But you're not are you. You just wish that you do.

>>1152804
He cannot. Obviously technology since the 1950s has made us much better but on a purely statistical level of what resources are owned by who, this is the most unequal time in almost all of history relative to total wealth (besides ofc entire slave societies but they're not a barometer of a good civilization).

[Anonymous No.1152824]

>>1152811
>Anyone who cares about the general well being of humanity. It's a shame you're not one.
how is that a fucking argument against living standards? lmao wut

You subhuman socialist act like the rich getting richer means that they are taking a larger part of the money supply that is rightfully yours. Well you're wrong. They get richer because they have more merit than you do, and they can provide a better service than you can. It's as simple as that.


Free market was the single thing that cause the USA to grow faster than any nation had before form 1870-1910.


Wealth inequality is a good thing when everyone's living standards are increasing.

[Anonymous No.1152881]

>>1152804
Go talk to someone who lived as middle class in the 50's and ask them how they did their laundry, where they went for vacation, how often they bought new clothes, and how many hours a day they had to truly do as they pleased.

You and all the fools like you have fallen into a very old trap set by people who wish to exploit your foolishness. They have made you feel hard done by, convinced you that someone has taken advantage of you. As your only metric of what life should be like is what you see on television (since you never bothered to read how people before you lived) and your life is not living up to that standard you gullible idiots jump on the "not fair" wagon and crusade for your own enslavement.

[Anonymous No.1152883]

>>1152881
>how many hours a day they had to truly do as they pleased.
The working week was still, 40 hours back then cuck

>how they did their laundry

bruh they had washing machines. sure they were low tech compared to today. they also used basins

>>1152881
>how often they bought new clothes
bruh there were department stores back then...

[Anonymous No.1152889]

>>1152689
>You argue by trying to demonstrate that her contribution is purely out of some non-reciprocal relationship
I don't believe I ever argued any such thing.
I can speak for myself, thanks.

[Anonymous No.1153927]

read this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-nordic-countries/473385/

[Anonymous No.1153938]

>>1153927
Fucking Finland.
That's where they charge you for speeding tickets based on your income.

[Anonymous No.1153979]

Brit here

we cut top rate of income tax from 50 to 45% not long ago and tax revenue went up


you people need to realise that the highest earners choose how much they pay, it is beyond easy to avoid tax for businesses and also people

Facebook paid less tax in the UK than me last

If we had all the companies you do we wouldnt be trying to piss them off until they relocate

[Anonymous No.1154264]

>talking about my latest daytrading escapades with my coworker (who does not trade at all)
>"you know anon, its people like you who are responsible for this economy being so messed up. youre gonna cause another housing bubble!"
>ask him to explain how me holding shares of mcdonalds is going to wreck the economy
>he cant explain but hes sure I'm the cause of some problem somewhere!!!

liberals, everybody

what about professional poker players, how do they contribute to the economy any more than a daytrader?

[Anonymous No.1154521]

>>1154264
>how do they contribute to the economy any more than a daytrader
They contribute less than daytraders.
But people are morons if they compare the two, that shit is apples & oranges. Yeah, you can gamble with the stock market, but no one who trades as their sole job or works for a firm approaches it that way. They'd go broke pretty quick (or get fired) if they did.

[Anonymous No.1154533]

>>1154521

They contribute the same if they are both paying taxes

If we want to get really technical about it, then every one making minimum wage contribute the least because they pay no income taxes.

But the liberal definition of contribute is anyone that isn't a farmer, doctor, or teacher, so how do we even compare "contributing" to the economy

[Anonymous No.1154567]

>>1154533
>They contribute the same
I'd give the edge to traders because of the liquidity they provide. You can debate the monetary value of that (I'm not going to), but it's certainly something poker players don't provide.

[Anonymous No.1154588]

Bernie is death by whimper. Clinton is death in confusion and fear. Trump is death in glorious hell fire. Pick your poison.

[Anonymous No.1155396]

>>1147626
This feels like bait. Giving women the right to vote was nothing bad, and a right they had already in several of the states before suffrage protesting. It just wasn't on a national scale before then.

[Anonymous No.1155416]

>>1152889
You can but you asked me a rhetorical question in which you expected no answer when there really is one.

[Anonymous No.1155441]

>>1152824
>Wealth inequality is a good thing when everyone's living standards are increasing.

Firstly, there's no evidence to support that as this book shows: >>1152547
But if you've tried writing a best selling book about income inequality, come back to me and we'll talk.

>You subhuman socialist act like the rich getting richer means that they are taking a larger part of the money supply that is rightfully yours.

Ignoreing the "rightfully yours" as that's entirely subjective and belongs to politics, not economics. That's not what I said. I said that the rich have taken a larger proportion of the money compared to the total. So as you say, if living standards or GDP goes up, then the "cake" gets bigger. I'm arguing the "cake" is going more to the rich, which is categorically correct if you look at the data.

The fact that you couldn't even comprehend what we were arguing and with that Sanders economics book is so ironic it's laughable, as are you.

Like it matters but i'm an economics student as well so this is even more hilarious to anyone unlike you who understands both what I was arguing, and the truth.

TLDR: Get Shrekt mate

[Anonymous No.1155452]

>>1155416
>when there really is one
But there isn't. Yours is a simple argument from ignorance. You expect your claim of corruption to be taken seriously simply because no one has stepped forward to debunk it. That's not how logic works.
Claiming corruption that's "un-provable" (by your own admission), is a meaningless accusation.

[Anonymous No.1155461]

>>1153979
>Brit here

>we cut top rate of income tax from 50 to 45% not long ago and tax revenue went up

Brit here. that is Tory lies and simply wrong. The laffer curve may suggest that but at such a low rate it's more costly than beneficial. Also, if we lower the rate we inventivize other countries to do so too and in the long-run we all get lower tax receipts. Can it work, yes. Does it work in high tax countries, yes. Does it help in the long-run to collect tax, certainly not.

>you people need to realise that the highest earners choose how much they pay, it is beyond easy to avoid tax for businesses and also people

And so we play hard ball rather than being bullied by corporations: "If you don't subsidize me, i'll move away despite it being your strong, stable, well-funded country that attracted us here"

[Anonymous No.1155477]

>>1155452
>You expect your claim of corruption to be taken seriously simply because no one has stepped forward to debunk it. That's not how logic works.

No... I didn't. Okay, it's provable but you'd have to get extremely lucky like when Nixon was recorded talking about Watergate. So although not "un-provable" but basically i'm saying 99% of corruption is un-provable in court but not impossible.

I've just finished a module on corruption and I can safely say that it's something that can be argued against as i've done two essays of 2500 words each.

You've straw-manned my argument, even when I gave you the framework to start it. Obv you're not gonna accept my word as we're arguing but I was genuinely starting you on the right path.

[Anonymous No.1155491]

>>1155477
>but basically i'm saying 99% of corruption is un-provable in court but not impossible
Great. The difference between that and your personal subjective opinion is one that lacks distinction.

>>1155477
>You've straw-manned my argument
Nope. All I'm saying is that stating "so-and-so is corrupt, I just can't prove it" is a pretty weak argument.

[Anonymous No.1155523]

Here's a protip for you Berner idiots who can't into economics.

No corporation has ever paid a penny of taxes. Ever. The cost of corporate tax is reflected in the price of their products and services.

[Anonymous No.1155969]

>>1146680
Well, he's not wrong. Fucking you over would affect my life much less than fucking over a doctor.

[Anonymous No.1156049]

>>1155969
>would affect my life much less
If you really believe one would affect you while the other wouldn't, then you're just desperate, and clinging to whatever feeble excuse you can find to justify fucking over other people (as long as those other people aren't you).

[Anonymous No.1156082]

no one has provided evidence that a .75% increase in medicare FICA is going to fund single payer

or that the market can even thrive and perform well with a robin hood tax

or that the raised tax brackets will be successful in providing higher revenue

or that his limpdick foreign policy wont leave the country totally bereft anyway

[Anonymous No.1156087]

>>1156049
Lol, holy shit, you're still actively being butthurt in this thread after almost a whole week now? God damn, I didn't realize I buttblasted you speculator NEET's so badly. Top fucking geg.

[Anonymous No.1156106]

>>1156087
>I buttblasted you
Save your gay fantasies for another thread, ok?

[Anonymous No.1156133]

>>1156106
You've been crying in the same thread for almost a week now that you think it's not fair. Never in all my years of 4chan have I ever seen this level of butthurt.

[Anonymous No.1156248]

>>1156133
Sounds like about as long as you've been here.
Go find some people to steal from.

[Anonymous No.1156310]

>>1155416
>>1155441
>>1155461
>>1155477
Jeez when did you leak out of Reddit,

You're in the wrong place buddy, this is a business board


>>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.1156435]

>>1156133
Back to Redit, Bernie

[Anonymous No.1156465]

>>1146826
i write financial plans and most people i see who earn 200k per year and more work a shitload more than the majority of other clients. i wrote a case recently for somebody at msft who was making about 400k per year with salary, bonus, and vesting stock awards....guy probably worked 70-80 hours per week. while lots of these people don't directly employ anybody and aren't necessarily "job creators".....someone working that much who is earning a lot of money should be left alone, that is why I don't like these huge tax rates.

[Anonymous No.1156483]

>>1156465
Good for him, but he should slow down anyways, Jesus. If the goal is die with biggest pile, then ok, but you're still dead at the end. The money makes no difference at that point.

tl;dr: money makes no difference when you're dead.

[Anonymous No.1156490]

>>1147928
>If Hillary wins...well it won't matter, she'll end up in jail like a week later anyway because she's got a damn graveyard in her closet
If it were to be outed it would have come out already, once she's in she only has more power to hide anything, window of opportunity for that is closed.

[Anonymous No.1156860]

>>1152547
funny, because everyone ends up with more than what they started with

[Anonymous No.1157551]

>>1146317
Why should I want my money to be taken to pay for others?
I succeded and they didn't. Are you trying to tell me we should incentivize failure?
My money is just that: Mine. I want to keep as much of it as I can, and that requires a goverment limited to the most basic functions, not spending a fuckton of my money to pay for someone eles life

[Anonymous No.1157569]

>>1146317
>socialism
>good

aw, you precious, ignorant moron.

[Anonymous No.1157702]

>>1146495
>>1146495
Horseshit. What about commodities like soybeans. Higher prices help the producer. America was built on farms, if agriculture wasn't "speculated" farmers would be fucked on bad years

[Anonymous No.1157854]

>Socialism

[Anonymous No.1157917]

>wanting a "democratic socialist" who spent his life praising commie dictators to be president

>wanting a man who earns 174k a year yet only has a 320k net worth at his age to be president

>wanting someone who spent their entire life suckling the government teet and who only got a real job (in government) at 40 to be president

>wanting somebody who is obviously completely financially illiterate to be president

[Anonymous No.1158723]

>>1157854
authoritarian socialism

>>1157917
> who spent his life praising commie dictators to be president

At least he answered properly rather than just saying what the people wanted to hear: "No."

>>wanting a man who earns 174k a year yet only has a 320k net worth at his age to be president

If it's true, it's either because he doesn't aspire to be rich in his life or he's given it to charity. If he was rich, he'd be going against his political ideology.

>>wanting someone who spent their entire life suckling the government teet and who only got a real job (in government) at 40 to be president

someone who has been an activist his entire life and thinks that the best way to achieve his poltical goals is within the system. He is responsible for the most bi-partisan legislation of all houses, because both respect his dedication and pro-active nature.

>>wanting somebody who is obviously completely financially illiterate to be president

C'mon now. We all know wall street is much more harmful than beneficial, so taxing it for the benefit of the general public is a rather financially literate thing to do.

[Anonymous No.1158741]

At least he's not as socialist as Trump and his commie tariffs straight from the 1960's cold war era.

[Anonymous No.1158795]

Bernie and his fans believe in the Labor theory of value, that alone means that any idea they have on economics should be responded with laughter and mockery

[Anonymous No.1158936]

>>1151693
>he gave up on that and admitted to me that the average third year economics student had a better understanding than the average elected official. It's insane and frightening.
thats probably because it's carreer politicians debating highly complex financial shit instead of, yknow, people who study and understand that shit

[Anonymous No.1158945]

>>1152752
>It is? I guess someone forgot to tell the middle class which is enjoying the best standards of living ever achieved by their class in human history.

[Anonymous No.1158974]

>>1158723
Slapping the word Authoritarian on it just makes it sound even worse, famalam.

[Anonymous No.1158987]

>>1152752
>Stalin SAID it's socialism, why would he lie?
>Mao SAID it's socialism, why would he lie?

Trump SAID he's going to make this country grate agen, why would he lie?

[Anonymous No.1158993]

>>1155477
>as i've done two essays of 2500 words each

Holy shit guys, he wrote two essays, there is no way he can be wrong!

[Anonymous No.1158994]

>>1146317
Capital gains should be taxed less, not more.

[Anonymous No.1159513]

>>1158723
All socialism is by definition authoritarian. You can call it "democratic" if you want, but at the end of the day, someone in a position of authority is deciding which industries thrive and who eats and who pays for it. Representative Republics are probably the worst candidates for socialist policies.

>"Hey, you know how government offials are corrupt and hand out taxpayer dollars to their business friends? Let's give them lots more money and a bunch more power!"

[Anonymous No.1159672]

>>1146419

Does anyone want to "create value?"

No, people want to get paid.

I'm not the day trader you were talking to but an investor nontheless and I could give two fucks about creating value.

I have high impulse control and expect to take advantage of those who don't.

[Anonymous No.1159700]

wow, I didn't know there were so many socialists that still believe in the labor theory of value here.
You'd think /biz/ would be filled with, you know, business minded people.

[Anonymous No.1159824]

>>1146362
>You gain is some else's loss
But that's entirely what Bernie's plan is founded on.
You can't criticize this if the man you support does the same.

[Anonymous No.1159850]

>>1146317
As long as he conducts fiscal policy according to the principles of functional finance I'm willing to support him.

Functional finance basically is the idea of keeping aggregate demand at the full employment level at all times, irrespective of whether conservative types might say it's "fiscally irresponsible" or whatever other objections they have. New dollars should be issued whenever the government needs to spend or destroyed by taxation and if the government wants to set interest rates, then it can also issue bonds to do that. (By the way, this is more or less how the modern system works anyway, but policymakers don't usually realize it.)

Functional finance comes from Abba Lerner, a contemporary of Keynes. It's a fiscal policy approach that pretty much every MMT (a post-Keynesian school) economist will endorse including Sanders advisor Stephanie Kelton.

The Sanders platform includes infrastructure spending to create 13 million jobs New Deal style. This excites me very much.

[Anonymous No.1159862]

>>1155396
>This feels like bait. Giving women the right to vote was nothing bad, and a right they had already in several of the states before suffrage protesting. It just wasn't on a national scale before then.
Spotted the roastie.
No, it was terrible. Worst thing that has happened to the western world, and will be our downfall, erasing numerous centuries of hard work and sacrifice we had on other societies in the blink of an eye. Our descendants will look back on our error and curse our names for what we've allowed happen. We had the world handed to us, and we pissed it away for nothing. Mark my words.

[Anonymous No.1159866]

>>1159850
>13 million government jobs
>@ only $65k/year
> $845 billion in wages alone
It's like you're retarded or something

[Anonymous No.1159872]

>>1146665
At 15/hr you will get skilled workers taking part-time jobs to earn extra money. Then, people will complain about that.

[Anonymous No.1159876]

>>1159872
I know I sure as fuck would, that's 3/8 of my current pay for any shitty job I want, but none of it goes towards cost of living as that's already covered. In reality it would essentially be a 50% income boost

[Anonymous No.1159910]

>>1146419
What the fuck do you create? You're going to leech off what Bernie takes from others. Capitalism is what made America great not socialism

[Anonymous No.1159973]

>>1158936
I suppose because you couldn't argue my point you're just going to smugly drill down on it, even though your assumptions are incorrect/drive my ideas home.

Yes, career politicians are not fit to speak on any major economic matter. Bernie is a career politician. Hmmmmm.

And the stuff he was teaching was not highly complex. Read my post again and notice I made the distinction of "average third year economics student." That's considering that your average college student drinks and smokes away all his/her brain cells at weekend party du jour.

You're essentially saying that someone who studies and understands "that shit", i.e. me, should debate the facts (as I was doing throughout the entire thread) instead of Bernie. Congratulations. We're back to square one. Thanks a lot.

[Anonymous No.1160484]

>>1159866
>Posts some numbers
>Calls me retarded
Have you ever heard of a non sequitur?

[Anonymous No.1160645]

>>1159824
>You can't criticize this if the man you support does the same
True.
But somehow they keep doing it anyway.

[Anonymous No.1160647]

>>1159850
>conducts fiscal policy according to the principles of functional finance
Except that's not his plan.
So fuck that senile old shitbag.

[Anonymous No.1160676]

>>1146865
>trying to talk math and logic with people from politics and humanities

Ah, to be young and naive.

[Anonymous No.1160736]

>>1160647
>Except that's not his plan.
Please tell me then, what is his plan? You seem to be privy to information I don't have?

Or are you just some econ-illiterate /pol/ guy who writes off Sanders because you think he's a communist?

[Anonymous No.1160802]

>>1160736
Maybe you should read the second post in this thread before you comment.

[Anonymous No.1160833]

>>1160802
Okay, so you're a financial sector leech and that's why you have nothing but blind insults for Bernie Sanders. Got it.

[Anonymous No.1160844]

>>1160833
>please don't argue the tax unless you understand it
That was the part you were supposed to read.

[Anonymous No.1160847]

>>1160484
>doesnt understand basic math
>Bernie supporter
Yep! It checks out!

[Anonymous No.1160852]

>>1160647
>>1160736
>>1159850

I don't really follow politics, but I do know more than enough formal financial theory

Bernie plans on paying for everyone's college education by placing a minor tax on all stock trades. This will objectively increase volatility in our markets (bad) and decrease liquidity (bad).

You can say what you want about whether the trade-off is worth it (a gimped stock market to send a bunch of losers to college, in my opinion) but it is not acceptable to say that this will make markets safer and less volatile, that is absurdity that goes against both financial theory and real life examples.

I prefer Obama's route of cutting federal loans to students going to shitty unaccredited schools. Under Bernie's plan it seems like we're just asking for a myriad of shitty schools to pop up and take that sweet sweet "free" money

[Anonymous No.1160855]

>>1160847
Maybe if you state your point then I could address it.

[Anonymous No.1160858]

>>1160852
>Bernie plans on paying for everyone's college education by placing a minor tax on all stock trades.
I don't know why Bernie phrases it like this but the fact of the matter is that taxing stock trades and funding more public education are not operationally related. They're two different policies and one doesn't "enable" the other. Anyway, I'm not surprised that someone admitting to being a financial sector leech happens to think the tax is a bad idea.

[Anonymous No.1160863]

>>1160855
Explain where the money for "13 million jobs" comes from.

As I showed earlier, even at $65k/year, in wages alone, that is $845 billion. Before any benefits, materials for infrastructure building, or any other expenses. Nearly $1 trillion for just one year just in wages.

Total federal budget is currently ~$3.5 trillion.

Explain

[Anonymous No.1160867]

>>1160863
>Explain where the money for "13 million jobs" comes from.
The federal government, dickhead. Where else do dollars come from? Do you think they grow on rich people?
I don't want to give you a flippant answer but that's what happens when you ask a stupid question.

[Anonymous No.1160874]

>>1160858

Lmao, brev my ID is fresh I just posted in this thread for the first time.

It's even worse if his stock market tax isn't for the college tuitions. Then it's just stupidity in action

[Anonymous No.1160882]

>>1160874
>Lmao, brev my ID is fresh I just posted in this thread for the first time.
I meant nXKbghZ6 actually, 2nd reply in the thread

Sorry that it wasn't clear.

[Anonymous No.1160912]

>>1160867
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you weren't retarded for a second. If that was a good plan, why not just print up a few trillion and pass it out to everyone?

[Anonymous No.1160932]

>>1160912
Paying people to fix infrastructure across the country is not the same as giving out trillions of dollars for no reason, but nice strawman. I totally haven't heard that one before.

[Anonymous No.1160944]

>>1160882
>Okay, so you're a financial sector leech
>someone admitting to being a financial sector leech
Yep! It checks out!

[Anonymous No.1160963]

>>1146442
You add liquidity that's not needed by the average person. Big deal, you make bid and ask spreads down to a fraction of a penny instead of 5 cents. You make transactions occur in fractions of a second instead of a few seconds. It gets to a point where physics and biology of a human being don't require any increase in speed or liquidity in order to exchange hands. Computing and the internet were the latest great achievement in this field.

Honestly, why would I need you? You merely arbitrate the spreads which would be of minimal cost between two parties. You're not a wholesaler aggregating multiple goods for retailers. The internet is the free medium. You're just a faggot skimming off the top. I love how no trader can show what true value they actually bring.

That being said, I don't mind you doing what you do. Any way to make money, go for it. But don't think you're somehow giving me value when I buy and hold an oil stock that it occurred in 0.001 seconds at 50.01 instead of 5 seconds at 50.10 because someone from the two parties would have made the transaction eventually and either party would've profited instead of a useless middleman.

[Anonymous No.1160972]

>>1160963
>Honestly, why would I need you?
Great argument.
I'm not going to be able to compete with that, so congratulations, and hats off.

[Anonymous No.1161042]

His economic policies are terrible.

OK, you've moved the burden of paying for college from the individual to the taxpayers. What now? Drop-outs and liberal arts degrees abound.

OK, Sanders hits Wall Street. Who drives the market? You think stock trading is responsible for your economic woes? So now the stock market is crippled and we have free liberal arts degrees to show for it.

He is not any better than any other candidate on American interventionism. You put him in the room with the WAR button, put him under the pressures a president has to face every day, and surround him with Washington politicians, and you think this man, who was dominated at his own rally by people off the street, is going to stand for principles? Nope. Any federal politician is going to be equally susceptible.

Sanders raises taxes. People leave the country. Businesses leave the country.

Why do you want him as president? Because he is genuine? I will grant that he genuinely believes in his ideology, but he is a disaster of a candidate and was never viable in the first place. However, I appreciate Sanders for hurting Hillary. That was his role and he performed it well.

[Anonymous No.1161044]

>>1161042
Ah, and $15 minimum wage. Australia has this, Seattle has this.

Both places are so expensive that they are it is very difficult to live even at $15/hr.

[Anonymous No.1161088]

>>1146326
I'll sum up for you silly liberal.

> people got their way with a populist in Argentina and Venezuela
>Argentina & Venezuela now in shambles
>we don't have the same infrastructure as Europe so fuck off with free college
>nothing is free, expect a tax.

>B-but feel da bern

[Anonymous No.1161091]

>>1159672
>Does anyone want to "create value?"

>No, people want to get paid.

By your logic, welfare recipients who get $1m per year from the government, along with day traders deserve "their" money.

In fact, theft and burglary are acceptable by your argument.

I suppose you are amoral and therefore immoral but as long as you realize that if we were to listen to people like you, we'd be living in Somalia. At least Somalians wouldn't murder each-other's friends for minimal gain. You must be insufferable.

[Anonymous No.1161095]

>>1160963
>You add liquidity that's not needed by the average person. Big deal, you make bid and ask spreads down to a fraction of a penny instead of 5 cents.

>You're just a faggot skimming off the top. I love how no trader can show what true value they actually bring.

This. Well done mate, you're calling out these shills and they have no reply. We know you've won, and all they can do is make ad hominem attacks and point to some liquidity which surely isn't worth the billions in costs of the financial sector let alone the moral hazard of the public paying for these cunts artificially raising the prices of investments.

The real irony is that these /biz/raelies are the real benefit scroungers, stealing from pension owners and the general public.

[Anonymous No.1161098]

>>1160932
He obviously doesn't understand such a basic point.

>Yes, career politicians are not fit to speak on any major economic matter. Bernie is a career politician. Hmmmmm.

You're telling me that economists and the world's chancellors and financial experts in government by necessity have to have no idea of how economics works?
Sure mate. I bet when political parties pick their chancellor or equivalent they look at all the MP's (or equivalent) Cvs, and go: "Sorry Dave, that PHD in Econometrics isn't any use here, we need a career politician to run the economy, not somebody who somewhat understands it."

Secondly career politician relates to someone who goes into politics as a means to a living. Sanders has been an activist all his life, and joined politics to work on the inside and he has done. No other politician has passed as many bi-partisan amendments.

[Anonymous No.1161300]

>>1161098
>joined politics to work on the inside

At a lifetime cost of just over $1million, comrade Sanders renamed two post offices.

An amazing legacy of activism...

[Anonymous No.1161421]

>>1161095
>surely isn't worth the billions in costs of the financial sector
I know man, the day trader down the street cost my family $300,000.
Another one ruined Portugal.
This is how I know trading is evil.

[Anonymous No.1161457]

>>1146317
>Tell me why socialism is bad
Just take Trump and sod off. He's already shown real muscle by getting Ford to personally respond to his tariff plans. We need someone that'll get us out of the QE bubble cycle that understands how the economy actually works. If Obama and his understanding of the economy wasn't enough to deter you from the socialists you'd rather have someone thats worse?

Unless dollar bottom is your end goal.

[Anonymous No.1161492]

>>1160963
This post is a great example of how normal people have no idea how markets work and participants are incentivized.

[Anonymous No.1161533]

>>1146865
>my money

I regret to inform you that the issuance of proprietary money has been illegal for some time, sir. Remember 1913? 1933? It's decidedly their money now. They have us cornered.

"Render unto Caesar..."

[Anonymous No.1161566]

>>1149478
You're clinically retarded. You do know the Roman Empire handed out grain, right? Welfare programs have existed in the past, usually at the largesse of near-dying empires. Even the Arab Empire had free hospitals and schools in Baghdad until the wealth ran out.

[Anonymous No.1161598]

>>1161091
>If we were to listen to people like you...

You're not far from the truth, except for the fact that we've been listening precisely to people like him. It's not about what's right, it's about what can be gotten away with. This is how real people think, because they understand that rules only really exist in the minds of the ruled. This is clearly how the United States government thinks. Why else would it confiscate gold in 1933, intern Japanese citizens in the 1940s, and spy on everybody today? What is the pattern? Is it honoring its own constitution in letter and spirit, or does it seem to lurch from crisis to crisis, grabbing what it can along the way?

If those at the top do what they can get away with, it would take no less than a saint to defy them. Once the elite has lost its will to rule and devolves into a group of bandits fighting over its share of the loot, you'd have to be mad to try and argue for truth, beauty, and justice with such foul beasts that create money from nothing and stuff it into their friends' pockets. They're operating in savage mode so why aren't you?

[Anonymous No.1161689]

>>1161598
>we've been listening precisely to people like him
lol.
better than listening to people like you, who want to redistribute based on some arbitrary idea of who "deserves" what.
Go find a pile of sand and pound it right up your ass, loser.

[Anonymous No.1161892]

>>1161457
> If Obama and his understanding of the economy wasn't enough to deter you from the socialists

Confirmed for ignorance of socialism.

[Anonymous No.1162193]

>>1161892
>removed worksearch requirements from foodstamps
>Obamacare
>multi-trillion dollar handouts to pet companies
>use EPA to shut down industries he doesnt like
>tax the shit out of anything he doesnt like

It's like Obama skipped the 20 or so years where socialism seems like it's working and got straight to the societal collapse where only government-approved industries are allowed to operate and the middle class drowns in a sea of poverty while the rich and well connected thrive off special treatment and backroom deals

[Anonymous No.1162210]

>>1156860
What? No they dont.

People lose at Monopoly by owing more than they can afford to pay. Basically they go bankrupt, have to liquidate all their assets to pay some rich guy, and then are out.

[Anonymous No.1162233]

To be honest I don't think we should be listening to a Pol Sci major on what our Economic policy ought to be. He is going to get caught up in ideological nonsense and remain out of touch with reality. I think we should employ an Economics major, like Donald Trump.

[Anonymous No.1162247]

>>1162233

[Anonymous No.1162505]

>>1146539
that's not the worst of it the worst of socialism is EVERYONE HAS TO SWIM IN THE SAME CRAP except the leaders of course they live like poor monarchs and everything goes to shit and there is a huge black market economy for meaningful stuff and work and there is huge corruption nothing gets done unless you pay for it or do favors for it bureaucracy just suffocates everything. and it's very ineffective.

[Anonymous No.1162525]

>>1156860
You can only say this because you don't consider the bank. Is the money collected by passing GO produced from thin air? And when it runs out, do you treat it as a fixed pool or do you create more from thin air?

[Anonymous No.1163060]

>>1146979
Calling someone fucking retarded isn't ad-hom unless you're using it as the reason why they're wrong, retard.

[Anonymous No.1163086]

It would be a trainwreck for the poorer states if a mandatory $15 minimum wage was enforced.

He's good at manipulating his voterbase though. They don't understand why asset-backed loans like mortgages or car payments have lower interest rates than riskier student loans.

He's way outlandish in other areas like the Fed. Dumb idea to replace bankers and economists in regional boards with farmers and those who have little to no financial experience.

Speculation tax will only hurt the market as the country is seen as a "bastion of capitalism". Not to mention the millions of retards that will be surprised when their socialist jesus taxes them over their retirement accounts.

I'm more annoyed with his supporters than the guy himself, but learning about how he's a pain in the ass to work with in Congress and his inconsistencies in gay marriage and racial equality, he's more of a running joke to bolster Hillary's campaign.

[Anonymous No.1163111]

>>1146422
Technically he's creating soundwaves.

Maybe changing some moods. I'm just arguing the conservation of energy here though, by all means continue being retarded.

[Anonymous No.1163129]

>>1163111
>I'm just arguing the conservation of energy here though
Oh, I see.
Good to know.

[Anonymous No.1163163]

>>1146362
You are so dumb it hurts. I hope you develope anal cancer.

[Anonymous No.1163184]

>>1163163
Tell me exactly how day trading creates value, i'm interested and I have to say I didn't choose sides yet cause I'm not informed in this matter so it's not a rhetorical question

[Anonymous No.1163188]

>>1156483
eh, if he has a family...

[Anonymous No.1163253]

>>1146317

[Anonymous No.1163268]

>>1146326
Are you 3 years old? RON PAUL was the real deal.

[Anonymous No.1163272]

>>1163184
>creates value
You apply this litmus test to all jobs? I don't recall any other professions being required to prove "creation of valuef" in order to not be mauled by taxes.
Or are you singling out traders for special (mis)treatment?

[Anonymous No.1163282]

>>1163253
Yeah that graphic is bullshit, some made up crap.

But what do we care about the truth around here right? It sounds like something we want to believe, it fits what we hear day in and day out on the sites we frequent, so that's good enough for us! Ain't it.

[Anonymous No.1163290]

>>1163268
Nah I'm 45, and I seen a lot of candidates come and go and I haven't seen a single one with the heart and soul that Sander's has. I liked Ron Paul too, fwiw.

[Anonymous No.1163292]

>>1163282
Hear a lot of bitching but no real argument

[Anonymous No.1163299]

>>1163272
That's not my question, I just want to know how it generates value, I'm not talking about taxes and lets steal form the rich.

[Anonymous No.1163305]

>>1163292
Don't really care to present an argument. I just happen to know that information is bunk. Call it what you want.

[Anonymous No.1163394]

>>1163299
>how it generates value
Liquidity, that's how.
Those disparaging this are unaware of the "value" it provides, because they don't utilize it personally.
They are happy to vilify or minimize it, however.