Search results

Yes, it's also in my self interest to prevent someone who can work more cheaply than me from getting the job I want! So I should vote for a government that will prevent cheaper workers than me getting 'my' job, right? :)

No, in a capitalist model, wealth is transferred from worse to better, in a socialist model it is transferred from better to worse. It beggars belief how you think my view is socialist.

My point was that those who are implementing outsourcing are acting rationally by choosing lower paid workers regardless of race, i.e. they just want to make more money. Those who OPPOSE outsourcing are acting irrationally as they are saying one group is more 'deserving' than another based on race.

On the contrary, wealth redistribution is largely CAPITALIST, not socialist. The market has been dynamically transferring wealth from those with inferior business models and ideas to those with superior ones since time immemorial. It's just that people who usually complain about 'wealth...

Yes, but the essence of my question was why is it ok for people in the third world to live like that but not ok for Americans? The question needs to be asked as outsourcing is the most radical NON SOCIALIST wealth redistribution programme yet devised.

It seems that 'patriotism' - or a particular interpretation of it, i.e. economically favouring people who share the same nationality as yourself - is the only acceptable form of tribalism these days. If you happen to select your universe as the country you live in, then it is probably correct...

There is always going to be some kind of liquidity/systemic risk when a large player in the markets suddenly disappears. What happened at LTCM was certainly unfortunate, but let's face it, its bailout had far more to do with the people it owed money to. So suppose Lehman, AIG and LTCM had all...

No matter how complex a large bank's affairs are, if it's not risking depositors' money, the complexity is purely academic. It'll be up to the shareholders to work out whether or not they're being conned a la Enron (it's quite amusing how seriously we took a tadpole like Enron back then.. a...

There are two fundamental flaws with your obesity analogy. Firstly, it is possible for a bank to be very large and also very well managed, i.e. highly solvent. It is practically impossible for a human to be very fat and also healthy. Secondly, how much an individual eats and exercises is truly...

You're talking about a number of different things here: 1. Citi needed to be bailed out precisely because it was a deposit taking bank gambling in the markets with depositors' money. My suggested 2 steps would have prevented the need for any bank bailout. Its size truly *IS* irrelevant. 2...

In any decent society, banks are *always* too big to fail, no matter how small they actually are. Let's actually look at the underlying reason why the banks *did* fail: the repeal of the Glass Steagal act meant that putting depositors money at risk in the markets was no longer illegal. So, it...

WHY??? The eternal cry of the confused fundamentalist..

So, GS is predicting that the stock market will go up. What business is GS in exactly? Among other things, they like to flog tons of stock to their institutional clients. What if they predicted that the market will fall? What would that do for their stock shifting racket, eh?

And what happens on the other 1%? :)

What are we, traders or socialists? Panic driven contagions are what we WANT, right? That's how we, er, make money, right?

$2500? Well, it's cheaper than Scientology then!

Stop losses. If you're not getting anywhere with a girl, stop wasting your time and money.

No, no, NO! That's an immediate red flag. It's usually the worst systems ever that have a high proportion of winning trades.

I hope you're being sarcastic. This is a disaster waiting to happen. This system is clearly over optimised and will almost certainly lose money in real trading. Can the developer answer the following questions? 1. What slippage cost have you factored in per round trip? 2. What sort of...

The Fed's current "trickle down" (monetary) policy has nothing whatsoever to do with the hugely successful supply side/neo-liberal fiscal policy of the Thatcher/Reagan years. The latter depended on making it more favourable to invest (and therefore produce) by cutting taxes. The current trend...