Definitely agree with this.
Economics Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
Definitely agree with this.
sturg33
I
It's never a good idea to give our racist tyrannical government more power and money.
Literally never
High frequency trading and other day traders don’t actually add value to the system. The amount of work one has to put in to earn a dollar via other means is far greater than that of this group.
I’m no fan of big government but I just think we have terrible priorities in spending. You know we don’t agree on areas like this but you are right in that our government has proven it doesn’t deserve any additional funding.
Like anything the devil is in the details. I wouldn’t want to charge this to people under a 500k threshold. But all others plus business entities engaging in these activities could just add another expense line to their financials.
striker42
Well-known member
There are a couple of problems with what is proposed. First, you need to be careful whenever you take money out of investments. If anything, we need to encourage people to invest more. Investments are the lifeblood of growth and innovation. So be careful messing around with stuff like this.
Next, it's bringing a sledgehammer to the problem. A retail investor moving $50K around on day trades is not causing a problem here. A hedgefund using its power to manipulate the market is. However, there are better ways to address this problem than slapping a tax on all trades and saying it will somehow help "income inequality."
Finally, this kind of thing will be another step spooking the market. Right now you have a lot of investors that have very, very little confidence in Biden's economic policy and believe he'll be bad for the market. They're afraid of inflation from the stimulus packages. They're afraid of tax increases. And now you have a group of Senators talking about taxing trades when a united Democratic party could actually push it through under reconciliation. If you keep doing this kind of stuff you'll end up with a crash on your hands. Not something you want when you should be seeing an economic recovery.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
we are gonna have a correction....but its because the market is so far ahead of its skis not because of the reasons you listed
striker42
Well-known member
Agreed, however we don't need the government shoving it while ahead of its skis or throwing up trees in its path.
AT&T will now start counting steaming video on HBO Max towards its customers' data allowances.
The change comes after a federal court said that California can enforce its net neutrality law, which prevents Internet Service Providers from blocking or slowing down traffic to particular applications or websites. California's law also bans "zero-rating" or "sponsored data" plans that allow ISPs to exempt some services from a user's data cap.
AT&T said in a blog post on Wednesday that the new measure means it can no longer provide certain services to its customers for free. That includes the HBO Max streaming service that the company developed when it merged with Timer Warner in an $85 billion deal in 2018.
The telecom company also dismissed as "unworkable" California's net neutrality law, one of a handful of such laws that states have enacted.
"A state-by-state approach to 'net neutrality' is unworkable. A patchwork of state regulations, many of them overly restrictive, creates roadblocks to creative and pro-consumer solutions," AT&T said in its blog post. The change will also be applied beyond California, AT&T added.
Prior to the California net neutrality law, companies in that state were allowed to "sponsor" or pay for the data usage of their customers who are also using AT&T services. Those customers were able to stream applications without being charged from their AT&T data allowance, the company said in the blog post.
AT&T will not offer Data Free TV for free anymore starting March 25, according to CNBC.
Good job California. If this spreads it will impact all of us.
The change comes after a federal court said that California can enforce its net neutrality law, which prevents Internet Service Providers from blocking or slowing down traffic to particular applications or websites. California's law also bans "zero-rating" or "sponsored data" plans that allow ISPs to exempt some services from a user's data cap.
AT&T said in a blog post on Wednesday that the new measure means it can no longer provide certain services to its customers for free. That includes the HBO Max streaming service that the company developed when it merged with Timer Warner in an $85 billion deal in 2018.
The telecom company also dismissed as "unworkable" California's net neutrality law, one of a handful of such laws that states have enacted.
"A state-by-state approach to 'net neutrality' is unworkable. A patchwork of state regulations, many of them overly restrictive, creates roadblocks to creative and pro-consumer solutions," AT&T said in its blog post. The change will also be applied beyond California, AT&T added.
Prior to the California net neutrality law, companies in that state were allowed to "sponsor" or pay for the data usage of their customers who are also using AT&T services. Those customers were able to stream applications without being charged from their AT&T data allowance, the company said in the blog post.
AT&T will not offer Data Free TV for free anymore starting March 25, according to CNBC.
Good job California. If this spreads it will impact all of us.
acesfull86
Well-known member
At what cost? Can she show her work?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
crazy...she should have been in the previous administration
tariffs may have saved some jobs here...but the cost to consumers have far outweighed any benefits
Keeping as much COGS and SG&A on US companies domestic financial statements will be an overwhelming net positive for the country. You cannot put a price tag on being able to support your family from the sweat of your brow.
The cost to the consumer is spread out on such a large scale that it is barely noticeable to the individual consumer. The aggregate number is a misleading figure. What’s most important is that we support the family unit and the principal way to do to that is to ensure there are good paying jobs that aren’t undercut by slave labor across the globe.
The additional costs are just a fraction of the overall benefit to our society to have stable families.
I’m not sure why some are so slow to see this.
The cost to the consumer is spread out on such a large scale that it is barely noticeable to the individual consumer. The aggregate number is a misleading figure. What’s most important is that we support the family unit and the principal way to do to that is to ensure there are good paying jobs that aren’t undercut by slave labor across the globe.
The additional costs are just a fraction of the overall benefit to our society to have stable families.
I’m not sure why some are so slow to see this.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Good thing that person doesnt work for a President who considers it a fireable offense to say anything positive about the previous President. Free speech alive and well now that Trump is gone.
acesfull86
Well-known member
Yeah but Biden views smoking pot as a fireable offense and this woman’s stance on tariffs leads me to believe she’s high.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Probably not on pot.
sturg33
I
I disagree with you on tarrifs.
But I have evolved on my willingness to do business with China in the name of profit. They are using us and infiltrating us at every opportunity, and executing a modern day genocide in the process.
I'm a free market person. But the rest of the world isn't playing. I have to accept that and evolve
“Market efficiencies” only exist because they are borne from slave labor.
They aren’t real.