I think the idea is that with some wealth redistribution (taxes) free trade allows domestic companies to bring in larger revenues which would contribute to better education (healthcare, infrastructure etc). Then the idea is that we don't have domestic sweatshops, Nikes would continue to be made cheap offshore and the country's population could benefit from better education which would contribute to better innovation and better quality jobs
larger revenues which would contribute to better education (healthcare, infrastructure etc)
Where do you see larger revenues going besides to shareholders? If anything we've seen the opposite of better education/healthcare for the general public.
> Where do you see larger revenues going besides to shareholders
The state takes a much larger share of your salary than the shareholders do, so no you are wrong here. Most money do not go to shareholders, it goes to the state taxes to fund programs and worker salaries, increasing those is a good thing.
> I think the idea is that with some wealth redistribution (taxes) free trade allows domestic companies to bring in larger revenues which would contribute to...
Agreed. I have 1040 as well and it serves me super well, largely because of its battery life (1 recharge on 7day bikepacking trip of ~6hr/day usage), consistency (no disconnects with other data points) and very solid gps (multi band enabled, no issues in forests etc)
UI takes a lot of time to get used to and even then there are many things I hate
This is incorrect. The way shorting works is you borrow a stock (and keep paying premium for the duration) and sell it
Premiums are usually small, so you can make many multiples of paid premium
And since their business model is releasing the findings, which in turn makes the stock drop, they can time their short position very well and don't need to pay premiums for long
I think you misunderstood what I meant by "your money" in "double your money" (and I was unclear). You can only earn the value of the stocks you borrow. When trading long, the gain is unlimited.
According to Investopedia, "the Federal Reserve Board requires all short sale accounts to have 150% of the value of the short sale at the time the sale is initiated" so it's the same principle as going long with margin. You can leverage yourself but there's a limit.
Yes, but borrowing short is fundamentally leveraged. As long as the stock doesn't increase in value, you don't need much of your own cash to secure it - because you're holding the cash from selling it.
But, of course, that gets ugly when the stock goes up; that's when you have to start putting your own money in against the borrow.
Isn't this a bit like arguing that you can make infinite money by borrowing infinite money and going long? You have to maintain margin requirements which limits how many shares you can borrow so again, you can really only double your money (not even double, iiuc your account has to have 150% of the value of your short), unless there's something I'm not seeing.
> your account has to have 150% of the value of your short
yep, people who aren't professional traders, and don't actually have an account with a broker to do shorting with, and dont know the margin requirements.
The thing is, a broker will _never_ put themselves at risk of losing money. If they offer you a shorting service, they require a method to make themselves whole. If you short, they will guess some sort of margin of safety for said short (calculated based on the liquidity of the stock) - if it's very liquid, the margin could be lower, but for illiquid stocks, it's even higher. This margin of safety is what the broker will use to close your short position if the market moves against you - you don't get a choice in the matter. You don't even have access to those funds from the sale of the short - the broker holds onto it until the short is closed.
uhh, no. When trading long your gain is limited by the depth of the order book. Stock price isn't relevant if there are 3 buyers out there looking to buy 2 shares each and you're sitting on 100,000 shares
Back in the days Google notoriously launched turn-by-turn navigation on Android only. They bet on this being a big enough differentiator for people to use Android over iPhones.
Apple then launched Apple maps - which at some point became quite good. Google quickly learned that they can't afford to make Android specific features in their apps or they risk losing large percentage of iOS users if Apple makes a competing product
If Apple didn't respond with making their own maps, then maybe we would see more and more Android specific features, to the point where Android would become the dominating platform
But this is also exactly the same game Apple plays against Android users. It's the same reason why iMessage bubbles are green for Android. Google won the maps round, but such wins are vanishingly rare against Apple.
There are non-Android devices that can send texts as well; they also appear as green. It's probably more accurate to say that encrypted messages are blue and unencrypted are green. Look at the recent AT&T hack to see why the difference matters.
Even if that was more accurate (I don't think it is), it's certainly not the way users see it.
In fact that's NOT the way Apple describes it, either (see the Apple article cited above), because Apple doesn't actually want to enable E2EE -- it only wants to be able to say it offers it.
In practice, ensuring that other users are pressured into choosing iMessage on iPhone is the only thing that matters to Apple.
And, this very simple trick works extremely well: at least 87% of teenagers in the U.S. (https://mashable.com/article/apple-messages-green-doj) are pre-programmed to buy an iPhone, even though they have the lowest disposable income of all. Meanwhile, less than a third of the overall global population owns an iPhone.
Is that because iPhones are better? As an owner of both a recent Pro Max and Pixel Pro, I can unequivocally answer, "no", but I do find all of the annoyances between cross-device communication accrue to the point of just wanting to switch to my iPhone full-time, even though it's arguably a worse experience in many ways.
and services like e.g. SMS text reminders from Internet services do no run on Android. The green is not a signifier of Android, just of non-encrypted. Or non-Apple, if you want to be less precise. (Apple devices where encryption is disabled also appear as green.)
As much as I'd like to see it being more open, a lot of people seem concerned about security and are happy with the current state of iOS/iPadOs and not having to deal with troubleshooting of their families devices
I've also had two Garmin watches and I've always been on Android. I also have had Tiles since long before Airtags existed.
Both Garmin and Tile work flawlessly on my Android devices. I've tried to help my wife add them to her iPhone and it's just not worked right, it's a fight to keep things connected and the Tile app only works when it's open and you can't reply to messages from the Garmin and on and on.
I appreciate the efforts to protect privacy and battery life, I can certainly imagine a different Bluetooth device than the Garmin with a worse app that would use the permissions granted it for nefarious purposes, or a worse tracker than the Tile that would wear down battery life with poorly-coded constant background activity, but Apple are clearly also acting in their own selfish interests.
Insider trading being illegal encourages participation in markets for people outside the company. As well as discourages intentionally messing up within the company and profiting from short selling
The argument against it is that markets would be more efficient if people were allowed to trade on information not yet available to the public
That sounds about right. It is hard to make all information public asap (with all the regulation), so I would assume it would be hard to get rid of the wiggle room between when an insider can place a bet and the information actually becomes public
Matt Levine's most recent article touches on insider trading pros and cons (in relation to sports betting) and is, as usual, a great read - https://archive.is/jJ25g
>>As well as discourages intentionally messing up within the company and profiting from short selling
While I do not agree with the OP on insider trading being good.... I also think short selling is a net negative and should be banned right along side insider trading
> I also think short selling is a net negative and should be banned
Why? The potential losses for shorting are infinite whereas the profit is capped, so entering a short requires high conviction. Stock markets are also a market for information: banning short selling takes away a large amount of information and has negative impacts on price discovery, liquidity etc.
reply