/sci/ - Science & Math

Just 20 minutes until the job reports are released.

how about none, considering people aren't done freaking out over the debt crisis

I'm buying gold baby, gold!

>>3512168

It's so expensive though

Brace for impact.

>>3512165
The best time to buy is when people are still freaking out, but they will stop doing so on a short term. Then they still want to sell (so cheap stocks), but they'll want them back soon (so becomes expensive).

Whoa. Payroll is up.

I hope stock exhanges around the world will be closed real soon . This shit is the poison of capitalism

when do american markets open? in an hour or so?

looks to me like the 'gonna be watching the apocalypse tomorrow' fags were wrong so far.

Ewww, I look at op's picture and think of all the people who have already used that money.

Anyway, individual stock swings are too scary. Go with index funds.

>>3512254

Index funds? Such as which?

>>3512248
you're looking at the begining of a long term slump, the debt deal will reduce GDP growth by 1% enough to bump us into negative growth

market will remain down for a while

Explain to me why is it impossible and or a bad idea to close stock exchanges and to end this insane speculation .

So, with the payroll out and being better than expected, is anyone else expecting the dollar to be up vs the euro?

>>3512258

Profunds has some great index funds.

>>3512264
Speculators, that is short term investors, have little to no impact on economic trends. They may exacerbate a trend a small amount but they are really not the problem. The problem is structural as much as anything else, closing stock markets will not help at all.

>>3512280
Which problem?

>>3512281
Well the current economic slump...

>>3512288
That is the effect of the mentionned-by-you problems. What are/is the problem itself?

>>3512288
>the economical slump
>structural

>>3512280
Actions... action holders are scared = we fire people so we raise profit = action holders are reassured.

Effect: unemployment

That is ONE effect of stock exchange. And it is a fucking societal nightmare

I say, close this shit.

>>3512291
>>3512295
The current slump is a response by markets to structural debt problems in several EU countries, amongst other things of course.

>>3512298
Let me turn this around.
>I am a company
>I want to grow (hire more people)
>I don't have any money
>I allow anyone to invest
>I hire more people
This is why stock markets are created.

>>3512302
So, then the slump isn't your problem. You have a different one. Which?

>>3512306
wtf I don't even. I have no interest in explaining to you what you can read for yourself on any good news website. stop trolling and die slowly.

>>3512305
Ok.That's one side of the medal, my post was the other side of the same.

People employment rates shouldn't be dependant on the mood and will of share holders .

>>3512291

The problem is that the wealthy have too much money. They were loaning it out to anybody no mater what their credit rating and when they saw what a mistake that was, they quit lending which produced the credit crisis. The wealthy also refuse to pay their fair share of taxes which produced this huge national debt we now have.

I expect the dollar to gain against the euro. The franc to gain against both as well. Just a guess.

>>3512317
French here
You're talking about swiss franc?

Or are you simply a front national ignoramantus?

>>3512314

> not collecting as much money is spending money

Yeah, nah.

>>3512323
So, the money that the state is spending comes from...nowhere, right?

Yes, spending money you don't get back in taxes is spendiong money, at a lost.

Are you retarded?

>>3512326

It comes from 53 percent of Americans. 47 percent pay no income tax, and none of those 47 percent are rich.

>>3512323

When the government collects money, they pay Americans to do work
When the wealthy keep money, they play the stock market

>>3512328
So: you tax wealth, you gain more money. No?

>>3512331

No, because after a certain rate, a decrease in revenues begins.

>>3512329

When the government pays people there is a net loss of money.

>>3512333
Now tell us, what is that rate oh wise one?

>>3512338

Below Clinton rates and above 0 percent.

>>3512333
Incredibly, taxing the vast majority of poor people didn't seem to spawn this issue.

My guess is that you are a servant to the cause of ultra capitalism, a dependant vassal.

>>3512336
>Government is a magical demon which destroys money by touching it.

117k

>>3512346

You mean not taxing. If the problem is less revenue. Clinton rates for the lower brackets were higher. The Bush rates, for example, lowered the bottom tax bracket from 15 to 10 percent.

In reality, I support no taxation from any state.

>>3512346
Incredibly, when the US had higher tax rates, the economy was more stable, had greater growth, and the less wealthy earned more.

>>3512347

According to history only.

I blame the Smurfs. Since they rang the opening bell on July 27th, the market has plunged 10%.

Yes, I'm being facetious.

>>3512322

Yes Swiss.

>>3512369
Ok.

Back to your post then :no.

Switzerland will join the EU, once the work is done of course!
Stay classy Swisses

F, BAC, GOOG and other large cap guys will get 2% or so

Foreign banks are still volatile and work a watch, AIB, IRE, NBG

Then there are small cap guys that will bounce largely... keep an eye on FEED, MILL, GLBL, EGHT, etc.

>>3512359
According to your brainwashed economics teachers.

>>3512358

The 68 percent top bracket during the great depression did keep the economy stable, the economy stayed at a nice 15 percent unemployment rate. Except for that 21 percent time period, it remained stable and terrible.

>>3512359
>>3512356
Rand retard spotted.

Humanity funded itself on taxes.

that is REAL History.

>>3512381

Privately employed person makes 100,000, pays 30,000 in taxes. Net gain of 70,000. Publicly employed person makes 100,000, pays 30,000 in taxes. Net loss of 70,000.

>>3512378

What are your thoughts on TVIX, the euro, and swiss franc?

Oh and also gold.

>>3512385

Rand is a better use of land means ownership person. If a group of people can better use land than the current population, they can simply take it. In other words, she is silly statist.

>>3512387
>Net loss
Oh my god, are you such a retard?

You think these 70 000 vanish into thin air? These aren't reinjected in economy by being spents on goods and services? lol
You're a fucking waste of meat

>>3512387

Ha ha, no. You also gain stuff like highways which are good for business.

>>3512401

The loss is from taking from other spenders. You want to count money twice, which is illogical.

>>3512406

Roads built without theft of labor, or with consent, are better.

>>3512401
but taxes create dead weight losses.
Even perfect reallocation and a self-sustaining taxing institute would still have a net dead weight loss .

>>3512388


TVIX, I'm not sure on. I think we could end up in a slide which for a day or do would be high volatility on a sell off. Then volatility will be low. Could pay off, but I'd rather get in Direxion Bull or Bear 3x ETFs depending on what you feel will happen in the next months (FAS and FAZ). I recommended these last night.

Euro is dead. I would not put my money into the euro longterm. I'm trading IRE and other european banks, but no way would I put my money into a currency that would eventually evaporate. Dollar has too much upside in getting stronger.

Swiss Franc I can't speak on. They may be a safe haven, but I think there is too much money to be made right now to just stash your money away without work. Although there is a good chance you'll misstep and lose money...

>>3512417
>Euro is dead.

Luckily for us, we have you, a renowned nobel prizes in economics (they invented this one just for you) to warn us against this storm to come.

You know nothing kid.
Stop pretending.

>>3512410

Who else builds roads?

>>3512430

Private companies of course.

>>3512423

Okay. He asked my opinion. I've only made $48k on the last 10 day slide in the market.

Kid.

If you want to talk about how the Germans and French are tired of forking over money for PIIGS than we can talk. If you want to talk about how the top tier european countries scoffed at Italy's t-bonds then we can talk.

>>3512436
What a horrible, horrible idea.

>>3512436

No, private companies get the government to build roads.

>>3512447

It happens today.

>>3512449

Yes sort of, through forced taxation.

Exxon. Deal with is greenies. Oil is here to stay and Exxon has the best minds in the industry. It is a multinational corporation that is poised to navigate through the turbulent times and the limited supply of oil coupled with the increasing demand of emerging economies tells me that oil prices will go up.

And the fact that apple is almost the same price as exxon is laughable and it tells me that either we are in a technology bubble, or exxon is undervalued. Hopefully the latter.

>>3512436
Nothing vital should be in nthe hands of greedy private corps

Water, Electricity , FUCKING NUCLEAR, food, roads, post office ....

>>3512457
I've heard of private contractors hired by the government, but never of an entire private road. Are you speaking of America?

>>3512462

Nothing vital should be in the hands of an inefficient government (redundant) you mean.

>>3512445
Still, you can't say that .

>>3512457

When the Corvet plant was moved to Bowling Green, KY, the government built roads for them and agreed not to tax them for ten years.

>>3512466
Capitalists are efficient in making profit, not to raise the quality and reliability of services.

Profit goes against safety and human ethics.

"efficiency" isn't only economical. Money isn't the goal, it is only a mean.

>>3512464

Private companies build roads in America, yes.

Jobs report seems to have worn off on the market now. Nasdaq down almost 2 percent now, dow down .5 percent.

>>3512462
if somebody wants to build a nuclear power station and ask people if they want to pay for the electricity, who the fuck are you to stop them?
typical socialist dictator.

>>3512478
>Private companies build roads in America, yes.
Explains a lot, really.

>>3512474

They either payed a private company to build the roads,m or took money from private companies to build them with public workers.

>>3512475

Quality and reliability, if wanted by the consumer, will lead to higher prices and increased profit.

>>3512484

Not all roads, although private companies are always involved as they are taxed to build them.

>>3512487
So what?
Private companies use public infrastructures to generate profit. They are made possible because of an established society.
This society has a cost.

>>3512495

Profit existed before government roads existed.

>>3512417

Are you the guy yesterday that claimed to have made 5 figures on Euro dropping against Dollar/Swiss Franc?

>>3512460
it's the former, everyone knows.

>>3512487
Wrong.

Example: railroads in UK : "recently" privately owned => number of petty and severe accidents goes trough the roof.
When people have choice, concurrence may play its part, but on big things like nuclear plants, water treatment etc, people have no say in the matter and giant corps hold meetings in order to come to an agreement of "economical non-agression" treaty and we're fucked.

>>3512501
You aren't preaching personal liberty, you are preaching enslavment of people by 1% of the wealthiest.

You are a servant to the powerful.

Protip: they won't let you have a share of their cake, stop trying.

>>3512469

Not the guy you're replying to but

http://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-funds-profit-euro-shorts-2011-8?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medi
um=social&utm_campaign=clusterstock

Seems a lot of people are making money on shorting the Euro.

>>3512506

Recently privately owned?

>>3512512

I have a share, but I am only in the top 10 percent currently. The top 10 percent also pays about 70 percent of all taxes, clearly more than our fair share.

>>3512457

I'm not trying to argue with you, but I am curious. If the state can't employ coercion then where does the right to property come from? Essentially ownership itself is only made possible through coercive action. Of course I don't think it's a bad thing that people have property rights. I just think that ultimately the state can justify the initiation of force.

I think that history has shown us pretty clearly that government is well suited to control and invest in all arterial systems in a country. Power grids, roads, Internet connections, airplanes, railroads. Government intervention in arterial systems can be justified as "for the greater good" because it really is.

I'm not a liberal by any means but I think that we need to be practical. There are some things that government is good for. Instead of making the institution itself our enemy we need to make it smarter and more efficient.

>>3512436
Some things do not work on a free market.
Most notably, things which tend to be easily monopolized.
I can not choose who put the electricity wire into my home (although I might choose who I want to pay for the electricity going through the wire). I cannot (or generally not) choose which public transportation company I take. I cannot choose which highway to take (if I need to travel from A to B).
If any of the aforementioned companies decides to triple their costs, I still would not (rationally) be able to cancel their services, nor would any other company be able to push them out of the market.

>>3512529
>on 4chan
>thinks he's in the top 10% in income
lolno

>>3512529
>Top 10% pays 70%.
I'm from a progressive country, and even there that's not true. Where are you from?

>>3512512

You are preaching mob rule. Tyranny of the majority. Punishing virtue and rewarding vice.

>>3512529
>The top 10 percent also pays about 70 percent of all taxes, clearly more than our fair share.
You fucking faggot. How much of the total INCOME goes to the top 10%? THAT is how much the top 10% should be paying, if you want a "fair" flat tax rate!

>>3512529
>I am only in the top 10 percent currently
>on 4chan

Yeah right.

>>3512544
>Punishing virtue
...
I hope you're not saying "profit is a virtue". Our system is too broken for that to hold.

>>3512534

There is no coercion in private property.

I have yet to see one thing gubbmint is good at.

>>3512535

> against monopoly
> for the one government monopoly

sigh

>>3512538

The top 10 percent is only 115,000.

>>3512543

'merica

It is not that hard to believe as 47 percent of americans pay no income tax.

>>3512544
Tyranny of the majority is better than tyranny of the minority.

>>3512548
Flat tax (fixed percentage) is not even fair.
Lrn2utility of money.
first buck > second buck
first k > second k
first mil > second mil
first bil > second mil
etc.
The more money you have, the more percent you can spare.

Progressive taxation does not work. It impedes Our brightest and hardest working people from becoming rich but it doesn't stop those who are already rich.we have had an I credibly "progressive" tax structure in this country for a long time and all I hear is that income disparity is always rising.

>>3512548

Not enough to warrant 70 percent.

>>3512556
>The top 10 percent is only 115,000.
Exactly. I call bullshit.

>>3512535
>can't tell the difference between public monopoly and private monopoly

>isn't aware that public monopoly still obeys political power while private only obey rules of profit making.

You are not educated enough, I'll stop arguing with you.

>>3512566
You're create the appearance of liking numbers. Tell me what the number should be, for a flat tax.

>>3512556
> against monopoly
> for the one government monopoly
Corporation, a body set up to maximize profit.
Government, a body where people can vote out (groups of) people who fuck up.
A corporation should rationally triple costs when they have a monopoly.
A government body should rationally try to lower costs when they have a monopoly, as it increases there chances of success (= more power, more salary).

>>3512564
Because they cheat : economic escapism, finanacial loopholes etc.
Because your progressive tax wasn't really progressive, it was a placeholder, it was there to pretend while rich people could keep on stealing everything they can from others

>>3512570

If I made no money I would argue against freedom, choice, and consent.

>>3512572

> i like monopolies if they are public

haha

>>3512576

To cover current and debt spending? 30 percent across the board. To cover ideal spending? 15 percent.

>>3512564
Try again, the facts calls bullshit. Look at the scandinavian countries. Their system, which includes a progressive tax, is limiting income inequality quite effectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

What were you going to suggest as an alternative, anyway?

>>3512554

Yes profit is virtuous. Non criminals can only profit one way: providing goods or service to other people. A persons income level is equal to their value the economy (in the private sector)

>>3512584
What's all this bullshit about spending? I was asking for your estimate of just what percentage of total US household income goes to the top 10%.

>>3512584

The fair tax (consumption tax) is much more desirable than a flat income tax.

>>3512587
Oh, I agree. But as I said, our system is too broken for you to assume that being non-criminal is even the best way to make profits, much less the only way.

I like the idea of making sure that profit = social benefit. But the current system is failing in that regard.

>>3512578

> corporation: child of the state, only exists within a state
> gubbmint: control of forced taxes by millionaires and billionaires
> i choose gubbmint

Yeah, nah.

>>3512581

You cannot cheat by using the loopholes government chose.

>>3512593
I'd support it, as long as some basic necessities are exempt, like food.

>>3512584
>>3512556
Laughing it off. That's a convincing counter argument.
I had a valid argument. Attack it fairly.

>>3512529
You are aware that it, by essence , isn't possible for the remaining 90% to cross the gap and be a part of the 10% ?

So, what are you preaching? Nothing.
More wealth for alrerady wealthy people.

Know what? We outnumber "you" and we can kill you, rape your family and steal back everything you stole from others and there is nothing you can do to stop us.

That is the only reason intelligent people should understand why social disparities that big is a real, serious issue.

If you don't want to share, we WILL take it by force.
You just wait

>>3512589

Not sure. A lot?

>>3512593

Negative income taxation is usually silly

>>3512597
I don't even understand your point.
How is giving complete control (monopoly) over a resource/service to a body of which you have no control (company) a better idea then giving it to a body to which you have limited control (government).
Obviously, the best choice is to have an open market, without monopoly. But it cannot exist for some resources and services.

>>3512586

The Scandinavian countries are small and government owns a huge amount of their GDP and employs lots of their people. If more things were owned by individual citizens there would be more disparity.

And honestly. There are less people in The country of Norway than Philadelphia. Only five million people, and lots of oil and natural resources to fund things. Norway and America are just so apples and oranges.

>>3512556

>There is no coercion in private property.

Let's say I'm a very wealthy person, and I covet some land adjacent to mine. However, I cannot immediately buy up all the land I wanted because someone lives next to me that absolutely refuses to leave or to take payment for his property. Says some bullshit about how he "built this place with my own two hands" and that it has "sentimental value" or something.

What if I buy all the land around a man's house, and wishing to ruin him and drive him out, I then cut off a electricity, water, sewage, internet and television connections with that house? Is this coercion?

To give another example, in free market fantasy land, let's say I control a massive firm that makes a killing off selling coal and oil products. However, my employees want to quit because I take cost-saving measures that increases the chances of death and injury on the job. To prevent the loss of workers I implement a propaganda program, make it extremely difficult to physically leave with barbed wire, checkpoints, and armed guards, and I sue anyone who leaves on trumped-up civil lawsuits. Is this coercion?

Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, and he's not even trying to find loopholes. Even he calls bullshit on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s

>>3512622

Last example: as before, I am a coal industry tycoon. Some stupid scientists keep making noise about how blowing up mountains will have severe consequences for the environment and human health. Furthermore, some retarded driving enthusiasts who want to keep their precious mountain roads, idiots who want to watch birds and go camping in the mountains, and dumbasses working for water utilities who want to protect groundwater from toxic contamination, all keep getting in your way. To make matters worse, another group of scientists says your entire industry is causing something preposterous called "global warming."

Having shittons of money, I hire fake scientists to say that mountaintop removal and global warming are just liberal fantasies and launch lawsuits against any scientist who conducts research that makes my company look bad. Then I pay huge sums to schools and museums to teach children that global warming is a lie, and that the coal industry is the best place to work after they graduate, and that there are absolutely no health issues at all with coal burning or mining.

Is this coercion?

>>3512598

They are not, the gubbmint simply sends out a check each month to cover what you should spend.

>>3512600

What is your valid argument? Give me the exact argument.

>>3512601

People routinely jump and drop brackets. That is what is left out of the statistics. For example (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf)) Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005.

I am well aware that poor people support theft of labor and murder of anyone that has adapted to society by learning how to acquire wealth.

>>3512622
>>3512627
Good posts. But Liberty is going to act like a retarded douchebag in his reply, as always.

>So /sci/ which stocks are planing on purchasing today after the job reports are released

SHORT EVERYTHING YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!

>>3512602

Consumption tax doesn't mean negative income tax.

Although. Milton friedman proposed a negative income tax, so I take it very seriously.

>>3512631
>They are not, the gubbmint simply sends out a check each month to cover what you should spend.
....
What? We're talking about FairTax (replacing income taxes with consumption taxes). WTF are you talking about?

TVIX is doing fantastic, it always seems to jump whenever the market starts mass shorting.

>>3512614

The idea that private monopolies are bad is simply silly. Natural monopolies exist in some markets.

And gubbmint has much more control, you can always leave a place with a private energy monopoly, you cannot leave government.

>>3512622

Stealing a persons property is indeed coercion. You are stealing things that do not belong to you, like the power, water, etc.

>>3512627

Not coercion at all. Fraud perhaps if you sell a product by stating those lies.

>>3512623

Capital gains.

>>3512649
>The idea that private monopolies are bad is simply silly.
>The idea that private monopolies are bad is simply silly.
>The idea that private monopolies are bad is simply silly.
>The idea that private monopolies are bad is simply silly.
>The idea that private monopolies are bad is simply silly.
>The idea that private monopolies are bad is simply silly.
>The idea that private monopolies are bad is simply silly.
>The idea that private monopolies are bad is simply silly.
Nigger, you just went full retard. You NEVER go full retard.

>>3512649
I would much rather have the natural monopoly be held by an organization that is beholden to the people through elected representatives. All the things that make markets great fail when there is a private monopoly.

>>3512637
>>3512635

There are bills that have been proposed in congress called the fair tax, and those are the policies of the bills. 23 percent consumption tax, everyone gets a check.

>>3512649
>Capital gains.
Fuck your shit. That's the POINT I'm making. The tax he pays is ridiculously low, chiefly BECAUSE of capital gains!

>>3512652

> i am an emotional woman when it comes to economics

troof

>>3512655

They are not beholden though,m they can do whatever they want. Much more than any private company could do.

>>3512649

>Stealing a persons property is indeed coercion.

Hey, I didn't STEAL that man's road/internet/water/electricity/phone connections. I want him to leave but he won't even take my fucking money. So I did what I have to do. With my hard-earned money I bought out all the land around him and got rid of all those power lines and water mains. It was 100% legal. See here, it's all the title deeds I bought. Calling me a thief? You fucking communist

>Not coercion at all. Fraud perhaps if you sell a product by stating those lies.

So fraud is fine?

And so is preventing your employees from quitting

>Capital gains.

Of course wealthy people make more money through capital gains than through a salary. That's the whole fucking point.

>>3512665
>They are not beholden though,m they can do whatever they want. Much more than any private company could do.
Only if I have enough money to buy a significant share in the company stock.

A monopoly doesn't need to publicly sell stock at ALL.

>>3512627

Oh it's more fundamental than that. Simply taking a plot of land as your own, and having the government enforce that claim on anyone else who wants to use that land is coercerion. All ownership comes from the state because the state, being an institution with a monopoly on physical force, essentially owns everything through coercion. Anything a citizens owns is only his because the states uses it's power in his defense.

Property ownership is a good thing, nobody wants to live in conditions where they are not allowed to own things, but nothing is sacred. Government must sometimes use it's power in the name of the common good.

There are many elements of "free market fantasy land" that are perfectly valid. We do need less government intervention in many aspects of our economy to improve efficiency. But we cannot accept the notion that the government can't have the right to action.

>>3512658

Capital losses are not given back to the investors, silly.

>>3512672
Quit fucking dodging the point. Warren Buffet pays a lower total tax rate than his fucking secretary!

>>3512666

The land would have been bought with the easement of those things included. He would have to buy those companies first, then he could simply not supply those things.

How did you get fraud is fine?

Again, you do not get money back for capital losses. Have any of you SS heard of risk?

>>3512670

Ownership existed well before government existed

>>3512670
Not that guy, but the key difference is that the government is beholden to the people in general. "Private" business deals generally are not.

IMO all the abuses he brought up would be common.

>>3512680
>Ownership existed well before government existed

Bullshit.

>>3512674

His salary is taxed much higher than capital gains, as is the rule.

>>3512680
>Again, you do not get money back for capital losses. Have any of you SS heard of risk?
Wait, are you saying that it's OK that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than this secretary, because of some idea of business investment risk?

>>3512684

The idea that before gubbmint everyone lived in a beautiful utopia commune and nobody owned anything is hilarious.

>>3512685
>His salary is taxed much higher than capital gains, as is the rule.
How fucking dense are you? HE SHOULD NOT BE PAYING A LOWER TOTAL TAX RATE THAN HIS SECRETARY.

I don't give a fuck how it is split up between "salary" and "capital gains"! Capital gains shouldn't be so damn low!

>>3512689

He pays more for salary. If she invested her capital gains tax would be the same.

>>3512694

He doesn't, his salary taxation is higher.

I am well aware of your emotional want for dem dere rich people to pay more.

>>3512684

There is no "before government". The chief, the tribe, or even the father of a farming household. There is always a government in any given area.

>>3512680

>The land would have been bought with the easement of those things included. He would have to buy those companies first, then he could simply not supply those things.

Need I remind you that we're in free market fantasy land, and there is no enforcement of silly things like easements?

>How did you get fraud is fine?

You apparently have no moral or practical objection to suing scientists, paying schools off, etc.

>Again, you do not get money back for capital losses. Have any of you SS heard of risk?

Ever heard of Godwin's Law? Or golden parachutes?

Anyway it's hilarious seeing you bend over backwards trying to make it seem like the extremely rich have such miserable lives having to deal hiring professionals to deal with risk management. How awful that must be!

>>3512700

I agree that there was hierarchy and gubbmint with tribes.

>>3512695
> If she invested her capital gains tax would be the same.
Sure, it's Joe Bluecollar's fault that he doesn't have the bulk of his income coming from capital gains. Silly me. Surely he could have found an odd half-million to invest in a diverse portfolio that would produce gains easily outweighing his yearly salary. Of course.

>>3512699
>I am well aware of your emotional want for dem dere rich people to pay more.
I want them to pay the SAME. They pay LESS.

>>3512700
I agree. That's why Liberty is full of shit.

Also, I can't tell whether to facepalm, rage, or cry that Liberty thinks it's fine that capital gains tax is so much lower than income tax.

>>3512703

Theft happens with the government, silly. If your argument is that theft happens in a free market, but the theft with the government is fine, then you are illogical.

If a scientist makes a claim, and that claim may be libel or slander, of course they can be sued.

The poor also have shitty lives given the want to advance is beat out of them with nonstop welfare.

>>3512706

> emotion

What is the argument?

>>3512709

They pay the same for capital gains, silly. They pay more in relation to salary also.,

>>3512713

I am more than willing to have taxes dropped to 14 percent.

>>3512713

Agreed. We need to be taking more from Paris Hilton and trust fund degenerates. Not doctors and lawyers and entrepreneurs.

>>3512649
>The idea that private monopolies are bad is simply silly.
Did nobody catch this?
Why even keep arguing.
Full retard. Right here.

>>3512724

>Theft happens with the government, silly. If your argument is that theft happens in a free market, but the theft with the government is fine, then you are illogical.

Tell me how theft is punished in absence of any government.

>If a scientist makes a claim, and that claim may be libel or slander, of course they can be sued.

Wow! You're denser than a fucking black hole. The point is that the scientists are merely conducting research. They have no intention of libel or slander. But if someone can afford all-star lawyers, then they will probably win a lawsuit, whether they're right or wrong.

>>3512736
If you can't see the argument, you really are a retard.

Because they are rich, the rich can make the majority of their income in capital gains, for which their only effort is to invest, and for which their taxes are significantly lower than they would be if this were taxes at the same rate as income.

You end up with total tax burden being regressive. This is bad. Or do you need an argument for that, too?

Or, maybe I should just reiterate the point you have never addressed: Warren Buffet pays a lower total tax rate than this secretary, and NO, nothing his secretary can do will change that, because she's not rich enough.

Mfw a rand-following libertarian who believes that wealth trickles down, that the laffer curve has evidence supporting it, that investment can drive economic growth without paying workers enough to consume the shit they produce, that everyone gets what they deserves in life, and the poor are that way because they're lazy and should get a jerb.

Sure is america in here.

>>3512741
Yes, it was caught. And I was among those who raged.

You're right though. Why am I arguing with a retard? I mean, really? Thanks for the wake-up.

[url=http://www.perevozki.ltd.ua/]Грузоперевозки[/url]

>>3512750
>sure is Liberty in here
Fixed. But also, I must admit that there is too much of this in America. Far, far too much.

>>3512741

> public monopolies are preferred to competition
> private monopolies where a natural monopoly market exists are so insanely silly that i will run away from debate when mentioned

>>3512747

Self-defense usually.

If the research backs it up, there is no problem. If there is personal opinion included, there can be a problem.

>>3512759
>run away from a debate
Not that guy, but fuck you. Private monopolies are the worst possible scenario out of the options, where natural monopolies are concerned.

>>3512749

> people all paying the same is meanie pants, and i am against it
> i am against it because it is mean

No logic here.

She hasn't picked up any tips from working for Buffett? facepalm needed for that

>>3512750

> thinking i like rand, or support her silly arguments in anyway

Sure is msnbc in here.

>>3512741

In his defense. Private monopolies are almost impossible in a free market. For example, if there are 5 coal mines in America, and you want to monopolize the coal industry, you begin buying these coal mines. For each one you buy, the more expensive the next one becomes. When you own 4 and you want to buy the fifth, the owner of that mine can sell it to you for an astronomical price because they know that you need it.

Now that you have all five coal mines you can sell coal for whatever you want right? Wrong. Other people will see the price of coal rising and they will make new coal mines. Your monopoly will disintegrate or you must buy the new coal mines for ever increasing prices until you run out of money.

Du bois and their diamond monopoly is the only true monopoly that has ever developed without government intervention, to my knowledge.

>>3512766

Given that gubbmint is defined as inefficient, private monopolies are the best.

Example of a natural private monopoly: 500 person town, one diner to eat at.

your response: OMG THAT IS SO EVIL KILL ALL RICH PEOPLE

sigh

>>3512759

>Self-defense usually.

So you're an anarchist?

How is murder punished?

>If the research backs it up, there is no problem. If there is personal opinion included, there can be a problem.

You're dodging. If a powerful and wealthy firm uses systematic lies and disinformation to protect the industry at the expense of society, how will the free market fix it? What kind of protection can scientists afford, assuming they have their usual meager salaries?

>>3512769
Don't you fucking get it? SHE DOESN'T HAVE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO INVEST, YOU ASSHAT. It's not "fair"! Nothing she can do will get her a tax rate as low as Warren Buffet's!

It's not *fair* when the rich can shift their income to a format that gets them a much lower total tax rate, while the middle class and poor cannot! It is MORE than just emotionally abhorrent, it will end up destroying the economy!

>>3512759
I'll run away.
Just after this argument:
Private monopolies are the worst of all worlds.
The best is a private, open, competative market, where a governement does not step in, unless foul play is applied by any of the parties.
It is important to note why this is the case. Anyone with hs economy should know why this is the case: efficiency. By having an open, transparent and informed choice, you'll do what is most efficient; because it pays more.
If there is no competetion, then the market no longer strives efficiency. Anyone who is out for private gains no longer accidentally serves society.

>>3512779
>Given that gubbmint is defined as inefficient, private monopolies are the best.
>I define my position to be right, so I am right
No. Private monopolies are much less efficient than public ones (government).

>Example of a natural private monopoly: 500 person town, one diner to eat at.
That's not a natural monopoly, because it's fairly easy to open another diner. Try "only one phone service provider".

>>3512770

This assumes that there are infinite coal mines in the universe and that opening up a new coal mine is easy. Some industries are protected by enormous barriers to entry.

The most obvious example is the PC CPU business. You've got Intel, and you've got AMD which is only protected by anti-monopoly laws. Not anyone can just ask the bank for a big business loan and say "welp, let's open up a chip fab" and compete head-to-head with Intel.

>>3512784

> self-defense is an anarchist only policy

sigh

Murder can also be dealt with through theft through the murder, or simply by a family member.

I would question that society is better off without coal, and thereby much much higher energy prices.

Are you asking me how a scientists protects society if a company is lying? Providing a source might help.

lol

>>3512779
Bad example of natural monopoly.
If the restaurant triples their charges, it's economically viable to start your own (competing) restaurant. You can provide food at prices that allow you to profit, while still undercutting your competitor.
Also, people can drive to a nearby village. Also, eating out is a luxury, contrary to infrastructures. I do not consider electricity, water, and basic transportation a luxury in this society.

>>3512793

> not fair

Stop reading there, I am not interested in your emotions.

>>3512807

Incorrect, the one diner is operating at equilibrium. Another one would kill both companies, or the new one would only last a short time.

>>3512809

>Murder can also be dealt with through theft through the murder, or simply by a family member.

What? That sentence is torturous. What the hell do you mean? And murder can be dealt with "simply by a family member?" So there's just a blood feud?

How is this NOT anarchy?

>I would question that society is better off without coal, and thereby much much higher energy prices.

What are you even doing on /sci/ if you don't know the answer to this already?

>Are you asking me how a scientists protects society if a company is lying? Providing a source might help.

http://ebookee.org/Merchants-of-Doubt-How-a-Handful-of-Scientists-Obscured-the-Truth-on-Issues-from-
Tobacco-Smoke-to-Global-Warming_711105.html

>>3512822
>Stop reading there, I am not interested in your emotions.
No, but you should be interested in the argument, you asshole.
> It is MORE than just emotionally abhorrent, it will end up destroying the economy!

Also, for the record, are you seriously arguing that it's OK that the ultrarich have a lower total tax rate than their secetaries?

>>3512811

Which is exactly why they will remain at equilibrium prices. One of the checks on an evil private monopoly like a diner in a small town.

What you feel is a luxury is irrelevant. Positive rights do not exist. You do not have a right to a product or service that has a cost.

>>3512822

>Stop reading there, I am not interested in your emotions.

Fairness is one of the five central pillars of human morality.

I dunno, maybe you're not interested in morality either.

Get into TVIX now while it's still going up everybody.

>>3512808

Intel is part of a chain of industry though. Apple and Microsoft are competing with eachother. They will ensure that intel is making products that are reasonable or they will start up a competitor with their billions.

You example was bad but yes I understand your point and I will not argue against you. There are instances where government must break up monopoly in the name of the broader economy.

>>3512839

>Positive rights do not exist.

That's just your opinion. Most likely, it is based on your .... feelings on the matter.

>>3512839
Now you're just denying that natural monopolies can exist, going back on your previous position.

>>3512840

>Implying objective morality

>>3512832

> respond to murder = blood feud

> state kills them = fine and dandy no feud

sigh

Removal of coal would not raise prices? You must hate economics.

> link

What in it is relevant?

>>3512834

> emotional argument, respond to it

Why, it is hilariously subjective. Cool, you dislike wealth.

They don't have lower rates, they pay more rates for payroll income, and pay the same for capital gains.

>>3512856
>Why, it is hilariously subjective. Cool, you dislike wealth.
>They don't have lower rates, they pay more rates for payroll income, and pay the same for capital gains.

Because capital gains are so much lower than income taxes, the total effective tax rate is regressive.

Regressive taxes are bad.

>>3512846

But do you agree that, in the hypothetical sudden absence of government intervention, Intel would be an example of a private monopoly?

I'm not so sure that Microsoft and Apple have much of a choice. They have to make sure their software works on all major processors. Well, maybe not so much for Apple. Either way I don't see how they could regulate Intel's behaviour.

>>3512855
Say what you like, but powerful people who ignore ideas of morality with apparent impunity sometimes end up with their heads on pikes.

>>3512839
No, that's why your example is bad.
A restaurant is not a natural monopoly. Which is why the price will stay slightly above the theoretical equilibrium price, provided open competition.
What if there is one company in town, which happens to maintain all the roads going to/from the village. No-one can afford to build new roads, as it simply isn't cost-effictive (as soon as you built it, the competetor will drop his prices to the correct price, as he still wants to turn a profit). Furthermore, the company could simply deny access to all road-construction workers, disallowing anyone from building new roads.

>>3512840

I am not interested in subjective morality, no.

>>3512853

> you have a right to make other incur costs.

Haha, good one Marx. That is theft always.

>>3512854

There was no going back, a monopoly is not defined as always existing no matter the price it charges

>>3512867
Not that guy, but AMD is a competitor in the same market, and ARM is also entering one portion of the market (mobile phones, etc).

>>3512862

I think there is something to be said about inflation in all this. It is the ultimate regressive tax.

>>3512874
>There was no going back, a monopoly is not defined as always existing no matter the price it charges
There is a stable equilibrium for privately held natural monopolies, and it is not remotely optimum.

>>3512862

> "regressive" taxes are bad
> why?
> because they are bad/it is not fair (it is bad)

The wheels on the bus go round and round...

>>3512868

I am well aware that people who claim to be moral are very immoral.

>>3512872

You are ignoring the fact that the monopoly, because it is a monopoly, has no room for a drop in costs.

>>3512880

Is it optimal by definition.

>>3512855

It's not objective, but it is universal. Any mammal with higher cognitive functions (dogs, apes, dolphins, etc.) values morality. One of the few genuine scientific paradigms in the much-maligned field of psychology.

>>3512856

> state kills them = fine and dandy no feud

Where did I imply that the appropriate response to murder is for the state to execute them?

Internet-sighing is not exactly making your case here.

>Removal of coal would not raise prices? You must hate economics.

Again, implying things that I did not imply. I only mentioned that the coal industry uses fraudulent PR tactics and that they have severe negative consequences for society. Did I say, "coal must be eliminated 100% immediately?" Did I say "coal is very expensive" or "coal is not a useful source of energy"? Lrn2 stick to the argument.

Speaking of which, nice dodging there. You didn't address any of the central points, namely, the ability for the wealthy to abuse civil lawsuits (and criminal too, I suppose) by have the cards stacked in their favour through affording better lawyers.

OTOH there probably wouldn't be any courts at all given our hypothetical environment.

>>3512867

Yes but it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing either. In attempts to maximize it's profits in concert with it's big customers. Intel still works in the common good. Much better than if the government tried to run it.

>>3512899

>values morality

Values fairness, my bad

>>3512689
>>3512695
>>3512706
>>3512736
>>3512749
>>3512769
>>3512793
>>3512822
>>3512834
>>3512856
>>3512862
Holy shit, this exchange.

>Warren Buffet pays a lower total tax rate than this secretary because capital gains taxes are so low
>Liberty: But they pay the same capital gains rate, she should have invested
>But only the rich can shift the majority of their income there
>Liberty: But they pay the same capital gains rate, she should have invested
>It makes the total tax regressive
>Liberty: But they pay the same capital gains rate, she should have invested
>But she doesn't HAVE milliions of dollars to invest
>Liberty: But they pay the same capital gains rate, she should have invested

Like talking to a fucking chatbot.

>>3512895
>Is it optimal by definition.
Full fucking retard. Private monoplies are even less efficient than public monopolies, and for natural monopolies the only solution is to make them public. Or have a bloody revolution.

>>3512895
Not if efficiency is your measure.

>>3512875

My example was purely PC processors, so ARM is not a consideration. AMD is kept alive by anti-trust laws and Intel's desire not to be hounded by federal prosecutors. So that's why I'd say Intel would be a natural monopoly if we assumed that government magically disappeared tomorrow.

>>3512886
>Arguing regressive taxes are not bad
You can't be fucking serious. A few trillionaires lording over a billion dirt farmers is not prosperity.

>>3512899

> The wealthy abuse others through the government.

FINALLY, you get it. Kudos.

>>3512918
Yeah, Intel might find a way to kill AMD that would currently be illegal.

ARGUING ABOUT FREE MARKET ECONOMICS TODAY IS KIND OF LIKE DISCUSSING THE VAGARIES OF SHIP DESIGN ON THE BOW OF THE TITANIC

PIC UNRELATED

ITT: People trying to reason with Liberty

He's already claimed ITT that "The idea that private monopolies are bad is simply silly", why even argue after that?

>>3512943
I laughed, thanks for the post

>>3512913

> tax everyone
> run company that way
> more efficient

wut

>>3512923

> it is bad

Why is bad relevant?

>>3512978

People avoid the bad and seek the good.

You fucking imbecile.

>>3512978
You're sitting a fuckhuge pile of gold/cash/monetary unit of choice.

Everyone else is a dirtfarmer.

Are you wealthy?

(I feel like I'm talking to a child here, BTW, this is blindingly obvious).

>>3512943

Here's a pic that's actually kind of related

>>3512845

What exactly is TVIX?

>>3512983

> it is bad
> bad is relevant because people don't like bad

It is not objectively bad, ss.

>>3512991
It is if you like having physical wealth.

ITT: Liberty tries to argue that regressive taxes and private monopolies are good

>>3512990

I second this question. Although the gains do look quite nice I don't see how it can last...

>>3512845

whoa, earlier when I was looking at it it was only at like 29 or 30.

You uagroope

I'm dead even this year, my tech gains were wiped out by other losses. I would be mad but I know it could be worse.

Anyone else believe we should have a stock trading general about just the market and such pop up at 9:00 and die off at 3:00 every day or so.

We could become a well oiled internet money making machine if we all put our minds together.

>>3513004
I invested too heavily in Chinese agriculture and am now at a a 5% loss since the recent crash.

>>3513014
Possible. But I fear trolling, or even sabotage.

It would be a great way to set up a penny stock scam.

>>3513014

I was just thinking about the same thing.

Economics has been a fairly popular topic on /sci/. The only problem are the trolls. They could cause some serious harm.

>>3513014

Sounds good to me

>>3513020

Yeah, but I'm sure if you shifted through all the info something good would turn up. Hell I just made +7% thanks to the guy in this thread suggesting TVIX.

>>3513014

Would something like that be legal?

>>3513020
>It would be a great way to set up a penny stock scam.
Don't give them ideas!

>>3513030
The only possible illegality I can think of is insider trading where an employee with privileged information leaks it on 4chan.

>>3513027
>>3513027

Can I ask which post you are referring to and at what time you started trading TVIX?

Jesus, look at C freefall. I never want to play the bottom guessing game.

>>3513036

How difficult would it be to even trace something like that on this type of site?

>>3513038
C? You mean Citigroup?

>looks it up.
Oh wow, down 8% today so far.

>>3513043
Depends on whether anyone who gives a shit is monitoring 4chan. Also whether the trading has a significant impact (no one here is rich enough for that).

I doubt it. But I still don't know whether I would act on supposedly leaked information from an anonymous image board, even if I am behind 7 proxies.

Fuck. I wanted to invest in TVIX last night but it takes time to transfer money to a new account.

Could've made almost 50% profit. Now it's probably going to stay where it is.

I think I should really be shorting but I really don't like to borrow money.

>>3513047

I just read a news article saying that Bank of America isn't doing so hot. Should probably keep an eye on that.

>>3513056

How could you have made 50%?

Also, yesterday someone recommended TVIX. But they said it would do very well if job numbers were low and do very poor if job numbers were high.

>>3513037

I looked into it and bought it a little after seeing post linked below when it was right around the 33.00 mark. Sold it at close to 40.00

>>3512642

>>3513068
lol

>mfw when I took /sci/'s advice and bought a shit ton of VIX

>>3513120
Don't sit on it for too long though. I don't know nearly enough about it to decide how or when it will come back down.

BAC would be an awesome long position if you get in below 8.50. No way it stays below 9 for long. They have minimal interaction with eurozone and should not be affected by it. They are a victim of investors looking for liquidity right now.

Like I mentioned before like an hour ago, TVIX or any other volatility fund is not the same as betting against the market. If you think we will slide, I'd go with a high risk (high yield) bear market fund, like the Direxion 3x Bear Market (FAZ). This captures value during the whole slide, not just sell offs like volatility will.

Keep an eye on a lot of these big guys that are hitting the bottom. Also, I would not hold anything through the weekend and watch the upcoming talk from Berlusconi at 1PM EST. Learn how to read candlestick charts and watch reversals off the bottom.

You can make money off this, it won't be easy but it's possible.

>>3513130
>>3513120

Definitely don't sit on it for a long term. Could pay off through next Tuesday though. See...

>>3513154

>>3513130
Yeah, it seems to be leveling off I guess. But I'm no expert.
>>3513120
Haha.

How much money would you recommend for starting to fuck around with stock exchanges and index funds?

Would I be able to educate myself quickly enough to take advantage of the current climate? I know very little.

>>3513171
A few thousand is enough to start. I personally pay for access to a stock tips site (I basically pay them to do the legwork in picking good investments), so I'm not the best source in learning how to play the market yourself.

>>3513154
Are you a wizard?

>>3513014
>>3513020
>>3513021

Ok. So, how would we go about making this happen? I would be very curious to learn about this stuff.

>>3513171


Don't do it. The people in it right now are traders, not investors. If you don't know how to make money here, just leave it in your pocket.

Right now isn't the best time for a new person because we literally don't know if the market wants to tank or if this is just a correction with a good climb ahead. There is a bank in NY that is charging a fee to deposit a large sum, so in effect, a reverse interest rate. This is because people are pulling money out of the market and depositing it to sit.

Be careful man. Emotions will fuck you, trust me, I've learned the hard way.

To answer your question about funding, I'd say 10,000 is a good start. Let's say you bought a stock that was up 10% YTD. If you put $2,000 in it August of last year, you'd be up $200 profit. Not that much.

>>3513171
Read some good books on the subject.

>A Random Walk Down Wall Street
>The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing
>The Intelligent Investor
>The Intelligent Asset Allocator
>The Black Swan

>>3513192
>Let's say you bought a stock that was up 10% YTD. If you put $2,000 in it August of last year, you'd be up $200 profit. Not that much.
Very true, but stocks still do better long-term than sitting in a bank savings account.

I've got half my investments in a long-term growth mutual fund, and I'm investing in stock picks with the other half ATM. Getting slaughtered on the stocks lately, unfortunately.

>>3513191

Yes I am.


And i'll start the daily thread beginning next week. I'm trying to make this my day job. There are places that charge $100 a month to subscribe to a chat. But we can do it here. The only problem is that some faggots come in and start ranting about fascism and capitalism and they will ruin it for everyone serious about doing this. No way to control it unfortunately.

>>3513192
If I only have 500 bucks. Would it be better to try to find some "safe" mutual funds or something instead of just letting it sit in the bank?

>>3513180
If you don't mind me asking, how much do you pay and how good is the info?

>>3513204

Can you use the OP's pic or something similar so it's easy to find. I think it's pic related.

>>3513204
It will probably be largely troll-free if it's all actual SPECIFIC economics like stock picks, rather than just ideology.

>>3513205

>If I only have 500 bucks. Would it be better to try to find some "safe" mutual funds or something instead of just letting it sit in the bank?

Just let it sit in the bank. 500 dollars is absolutely nothing.

>>3513205
If you really want to invest just $500, Schwab has some index funds that only require a $100 minimum to start.

>>3513202


That's very true, better than sitting in a bank account, until yesterday.

Most stocks up on the year are now trading below their 200 SMA, which means they are worth less than they were 200 days ago. Their YTD gains have been wiped in a handful of hours.

Best advice I can give about funding is this: Don't put in what you can't be without.... just like the ol' gambling advice.

>>3513205
>If you don't mind me asking, how much do you pay and how good is the info?
I actually go in with several other people in paying for a subscription, and it varies based on how many people are sharing the cost (I'm not the one managing the subscription). It's on the order of a couple hundred a year, for me personally.

As for the quality of the picks... well, I haven't followed their portfolio as closely as I might have, and have suffered from overinvesting in Chinese agriculture stocks. Some of the picks have done very well, but they're just not where I put the most money. I'd be doing OK if I had followed the portfolio more closely, but those Chinese agriculture stocks might pay off eventually.

It's the Motley Fool, BTW.
http://www.fool.com/

>>3513208
Yeah, I'll find a picture so you'll know.

>>3513213
Every economics thread I've seen, I talk straight strategy and picks. Yet there are always idiots that want to talk about corporate fascism and blah blah blah. It's hard to fight that cancer.

>>3513218

Schwab charges like $10 a trade man and probably actually requires more than $500 to fund an account. Keep saving up until you have at least $2000.

>>3513223
SMA means the average of the past 200 days, not the price 200 days ago. Just a minor correction.

Okay, so I have $5000 I'm willing to throw in, but I'm totally new to this. I made a Scottrade account just now, and it's going to take a day before I can actually use the money. So I'm probably going to miss the big swings and thus profit (or losses).

What should I be doing right now? Don't know SHIT

>>3513250

Haha, yes it's a moving average through 200 days. But for the sake of helping people that have no clue about this stuff, it's a general idea that gives them the vision of worth after this pitfall.

>>3513251

If you wish to make an economic portfolio from scratch...

>>3513251
just so you know read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_day_trader

>>3513251
You'll have to rely on other people's picks until you know what makes a good pick.

Ultimately, it's all about predicting what will happen in the future. I'd like to think it's about finding where money does the most good (what investments benefit society most effectively, and thus generate the most profits), but there seem to be a lot of speculative traders rather than long-term investors.

>>3513233
Check Schwab's fundamental indexing funds. No fee, and only $100 to start. Some of their newly-launched ETFs beat Vanguard on ER.

>>3513251

You won't be able to trade more than three day trades a week, which means buying and selling the same equity in 1 day. That's how you will make money. Buy at impact and sell after peak of bounce.

Start reading on investopedia.com to learn the basics. Pick a trading strategy. I suggest scalping since that tests people's emotions first. You'll learn when you are getting too greedy once you get burned once or twice.

>>3513295

How would one scalp if you can only do 3 trades a week?

Fuck day trading.

Learn to invest.

>>3513317
This, I don't have time to be a day trader anyway.

>>3513317

No one says you can't do both. It's called diversifying.

>>3513314

You do it three times a week until you have $25k sitting. It sucks, but I suggest getting started on that first. Start studying swings and maybe shorting. Shorting is for people that know what the fuck they are doing because there is technically infinite risk.

Just start reading and find a strategy/plan that works for you. You know yourself and limitation better than I do, anon.

>>3513317
nah, daytrading is a lot of fun. i work at the proprietary desk at a european bank, and we are mainly doing daytrading(fx and commodities mostly). we are also one of the most profitable groups at the bank. daytrading just has a bad reputation because of all the "hurr durr im gonna turn 1k into millions in a year"-people.

>>3513317

Well now may not be the time to invest then. If you aren't willing to trade in these times, then just keep your money in the account.

Only advice I can give on investing would be watching certain eurobanks like IRE, AIB, NBG... check on pork, yes, pork, especially from Chinese agriculture like FEED.

I think F is way fucking oversold and way undervalued but they basically follow the market unfortunately. BAC is one to keep an eye on, oversold and has no ties to european problems except investors as a whole are skiddish. Energy and food are necessities so not a bad choice in a recession if that's imminent.


Or you could just put your money in a well researched ETF where someone professional is doing the picks for you.

>>3513327
This is true. If you have adequate funds, take 5% and play the market. If you had a cool million, take 50k and see how you do day trading.

Personally, I prefer index funds. No big gains but no big losses because someone blew up. Also, low expense ratios and no fees from to the high frequency of trading. It suits my personality if anything because I'm lazy like that.

So what's everyone looking at now?