Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Like a centipede waiting for the other shoe to drop in [The Economy] thread
Posts
I disagree, while workers rights and unionization were a boon for the poor and the middle class, they were also a boon for the wealthy. The wealthy (excluding like, the pope or kings and queens) came out the other side with a healthier and more committed workforce, who were more productive in fewer hours, more educated, and less likely to steal or defraud the rich. They could spend vastly less money on guard labor, and instead could outsource law enforcement to the public police and the strength of the social contract. When you raise up and strengthen the poorest, the richest also benefit.
The rest might see some numbers go down, but since they are only using the numbers to compare themselves to other rich people (whose numbers are also going down) no big deal.
They don't have to sacrifice anything material, even to the extent of building a smaller yacht, because after a certain point, wealth is used like a high score. They can't spend all they have. They just want to have more so that other rich people admire them.
That's the rational read on the changes, of course. But the reality is that the wealthy have spent decades trying to undo those reforms, railing against the government intrusion they represent, because accumulating vast hoards of wealth and power is not actually a rational activity.
Yeah the jump in here is that the wealthy don't care about productivity increases. They care about power. It's a pretty short wealth ceiling before you have more then you materially do anything useful with, but there's always another person's will to subjugate to your own and feel entitled to do so.
They also get bailouts while the rest of us face foreclosures
if you're everyone else, market downturns are when you lose your job or your income doesn't rise with inflation or you lose your house.
I would argue that other than the VERY wealthiest and most powerful before the reforms to society, the fact that the reforms made society so much stronger and more cohesive also gave the rich more power and influence. Prior to the late 18th century the state was a vaguely ephemereal thing in peoples lives. There were some huge national, and international, companies but the weakness of the state and the challenges of enforcing law made them rare. Those who owned those companies, became immensely powerful but (for example) their influence in the daily lives and thoughts of the poor and those who lived outside the biggest cities were limited. The reforms of the late 18th and early 19th centuries created the functional state, and the functional state enables the creation of vast amounts of power for the rich to control.
If you are looking for something for the rich to be upset about there then it can only be expressed as...
1) The challenges of the rise of an alternate power, national governments, which could clash with them on a stage they previously had the only hand in. They had more power and influence over more people, but they were not the only ones who had power and influence in the domestic sphere. However, the stability of the national governments gave them new international influence.
2) The loss of power for those who were the very tippy top in the old structure
Bill Gates influences and informs more people than Rockefeller ever did.
As the saying goes, if you want to stay rich, you use other peoples' money, not your own.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Depending on your definition of labor force and employed.
The S&P mini flash crashed this morning and the CME's velocity controls kicked in. Total volume in this market was over 36,000 contracts in the first 10 minutes. The normal volume is on the order of 1000. S&P mini futures dropped from 2713.25 to 2649.75. This would roughly correspond to an expected 650 point drop in the S&P 500...on top of the 800 point drop on Monday.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Curse those Democrats.
Edit: nah, it was the shitty widget issue, we only started with a 1.7% drop
Ok this is fucking funny
How unexpected!
the answer is automated trading
One of the biggest blights on economic progress. And ine that seems destined to cause a massive crash all on it's own.
I mean yeah to some extent, the thing is automated trading happens every day, and normally the trend lines don't synch up like they are today. Like arca oil following the general trend lines is just fuckin weird fron my totally casual and by no means regular observation. The reason I usually ignore that index is because nothing crazy usually happens there, it fluctuates like other indexes but usually not drastically, and usually in a way that seems almost disconnected from the rest of the indexes.
Enh...the whole CTA industry is like $300 billion AUM. That's substantial but not dominant.
The real issue is, in my book, the over-reliance on modeling. Large firms have everything dictated by complex models (which is great because when it goes wrong, no one is truly responsible) and what winds up happening is that everything just starts trading in sync, like clockwork, until something insane happens and the models break.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Most trading is already much slower than people commonly believe. The HFT craze is largely over in the industry. People have HFT desks to get information about market microstructure (depth of book, etc) not to execute their main trading strategies.
Right now it would not be uncommon to see strategies that limit trading to something like 1% of open interest in the market per minute. So on a typical day for the S&P 500 mini, you are talking about the algo being limited to trading 10-20 contracts per minute. Even at a penny a contract, you wouldn't make much difference. That's barely noticeable slippage.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
We already have a selling tax.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/secfee.asp
Maybe we luck out and get a repeat climb tomorrow and erase tuesday's losses but at the moment all the indexes are pretty much sitting within 1% of where we started the year, and not all of the indexes are positive in that 1%.
Just so i can get reassurance from someone smarter than me... drastic multi percentage point movement like this in a single day is just both uncommon and generally bad right?
Like it inserts uncertainty and volatility into something you want to try to predict.
The market will fluctuate.
Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
One of the most significant factors keeping the market stable is the fact that in all honesty, the stock market is basically worth what the people involved in it want it to be worth. Automated trading cuts human whims out of the picture.
He was using it to see he did a good job early in his Presidency so now he's stuck using it because he's a manbaby.