Still a strange reason. Regarding the domain name I tried many others, but they were all taken so you take what you can get. You can always go to www.thetollingbell.com if if makes you happier. The bold is in place in case you don't want to read a bunch of boring stats, but just the highlights.
I think you're looking at it from a volume vs percentage aspect, in which you are correct, whereas what the commenter really meant is that startups are far more volatile and likely to fail.
You're right, when private property included people, nobody questioned the right of the owner to take 90+ percent of what his serfs produced.
I'm being sarcastic of course, I know what you meant. But after you've crossed over the 50% threshold, it feels more like your arrangement with the government is to be milked for tax rather than consensual mutual agreement to protect my rights. I'm working for the government instead of it working for me.
That's not income tax. That's income tax added to payroll taxes added to capital gains taxes added to dividend taxes.
If you're making enough money from dividends and capital gains that you have to pay taxes on them, great! Pay your fucking taxes and don't complain, because most of us don't have investments at all outside our retirement accounts. Ha, that's if we're even fortunate enough to have proper retirement accounts!
And payroll taxes are more or less flat, or even regressive, yeah.
I say all this as someone who already looked at his paychecks once and found that after all the income and payroll taxes came out I was only getting 2/3 my nominal salary in take-home pay. You know what that taught me? Negotiate for net salaries.
You know what it didn't teach me? To complain about how a fortunate person like me has to pay into society to get the public sector out of debt and enable it to afford to help society again.
I found it frightening that you would approach such a topic as property from a historical perspective rather than a philosophical one. Simply because something has been the case throughout most of history doesn't mean it should be.
My first point was the philosophical one that the notion was absurd; that it is artificial and ahistoric were pre-emptive counters to claims that it's natural or traditional (it is neither).
tumult: As a HFT do you guys (in the gender neutral sense) ever worry about rogue algorithms? By that I mean an algorithm that could be used to harm the market or essentially "blind" other algorithms.
I believe this is the entire quote: "The new electronic marketplace has several structural inefficiencies. These are what have permitted HFT to become a destructive force in the market, rather than a passive liquidity providing mechanism. This should not be construed to say that all HFT is bad, but there are 2 important points to make – the structural inefficiencies present in the market have created a massive misallocation of resources into technology that provides no social benefit, and structural deficiencies in market structure have allowed for nefarious or accidental actions to disrupt the market". I agree there are some contextual problems with the citation in the article. Retrieved from http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearin...
