Gas Holiday this Summer
-
bwilhite wrote:
To be fair, I must first say that I actually trade for a living and I've been trading for years, so obviously I'm coming from a certain perspective (not feeling good today, so I'm taking it easy).
Great. I am curious about your involvement with software development though. I have been creating trading systems (including automated trading systems) for US equities markets for the past few years.
bwilhite wrote:
the existing trading does benefit both producer and consumer.
Yes. In the context of the United States, yes. If the players involved are big corporates, then the system is fair. But in the perspective of a farmer in a developing country, this is hardly happening. There have been complaints of price dropping near harvest season to aid procurement at lower prices. As I said, markets are not efficient now because players are not on the same level; a farmer in a developing country has no access to take advantage of the system. Farming has been damaged by the intention of the governments to keep prices under check for the middle class (so that they can win votes). The price rise on food may be an order of 10 less than others. For example: Check home prices increase in the last 20 years and compare it to prices of wheat on the same time horizon. Farming can be encouraged only by letting farm produce prices appreciate the same way as everything else does. Subsidies and import/export duties have kept the prices from appreciating similarly.
bwilhite wrote:
capital gains taxes
Something or the other have to be taxed. Income taxes, capital gains taxes, goods and services taxes, sales taxes -- all are here to stay. In my opinion, the welfare agenda needs to be toned down. Converting everything to traded securities can be a problem too. In the sub-prime crisis, the initial lenders did not do enough checks before loaning money. Why? because they probably realized that they would sell it off to a greedier market participant.
I understand and agree completely with what you're saying as far as the farming goes. And I agree there is hardly a level playing field (I could give numerous examples that apply to US markets and the individual investor as well). The thing that always bugs me is that more regulations usually actually end up hurting the individual. The restriction of hedge funds to 'sophisticated investors' is a good example. This year has been tough for me in some ways, but I've still managed to make money while "Main Street" has been taking a bath. Why are they taking a bath? Because most people's investment vehicles are only allowed to go long stocks. To make it worse, most mutual funds have limits on the amount of cash they can hold...so the only option is to get into the least losing stock they can. The best option would be to get into cash. The irony in all of this is that the restrictions on investment vehicles are supposed to be there for the protection of "Main Street." I think you're probably right about the sub-prime problem. This may sound cold, but I believe that the debtors are also responsible. That's a tough pill to swallow, but true. The lenders and the debtors deserve each other. My wife and I just put an offer on a house. We didn't even negotiate on the asking price at all, instead we're asking the owners to finance (and at a higher than average rate, I'll add). But I think they're going to sit on it instead...I wouldn't be surprised to get a phone call in 6 months. If they do call, would it really be unethical of me to lower the price? No. They're the ones that decided to take the risk of holding, and they should man-up to the consequences. I was a CS major for awhile in college...then studied numerous other topics (it's been a winding road)...I started programming again about 2 years ago in order to automate my trading (talk about jumping into the deep end). Now, in addition to working on my own trading projects, I also have started doing some freelance programming for others. I try to stick to trading related projects, but occasionally take on other projects. If you're interested maybe we should talk...I've been thinking about looking for a partner to help work on our proprietary trading software.
-
bwilhite wrote:
To be fair, I must first say that I actually trade for a living and I've been trading for years, so obviously I'm coming from a certain perspective (not feeling good today, so I'm taking it easy).
Great. I am curious about your involvement with software development though. I have been creating trading systems (including automated trading systems) for US equities markets for the past few years.
bwilhite wrote:
the existing trading does benefit both producer and consumer.
Yes. In the context of the United States, yes. If the players involved are big corporates, then the system is fair. But in the perspective of a farmer in a developing country, this is hardly happening. There have been complaints of price dropping near harvest season to aid procurement at lower prices. As I said, markets are not efficient now because players are not on the same level; a farmer in a developing country has no access to take advantage of the system. Farming has been damaged by the intention of the governments to keep prices under check for the middle class (so that they can win votes). The price rise on food may be an order of 10 less than others. For example: Check home prices increase in the last 20 years and compare it to prices of wheat on the same time horizon. Farming can be encouraged only by letting farm produce prices appreciate the same way as everything else does. Subsidies and import/export duties have kept the prices from appreciating similarly.
bwilhite wrote:
capital gains taxes
Something or the other have to be taxed. Income taxes, capital gains taxes, goods and services taxes, sales taxes -- all are here to stay. In my opinion, the welfare agenda needs to be toned down. Converting everything to traded securities can be a problem too. In the sub-prime crisis, the initial lenders did not do enough checks before loaning money. Why? because they probably realized that they would sell it off to a greedier market participant.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Ilíon wrote:
and if Americans wanted to use mass transit ... we would have it.
We do want it, but again, if you look historically at why cities like LA and NYC don't have efficient mass transit, you will find corporate America sabotaging the interests of the citizens for their own profits.
It's not quite that simple, although that's part of it (for example, here in the DC area, the conglomerate that owns the Dulles Greenway is continually raising the toll while at the same time lobbying HARD against expansion of the Washington Metro - and of course they only care because all expansion efforts are into the exact same area where the Greenway services). The other part of it is that America has alot more sprawl than your token European nation. European nations were built before cars could carry you long distances, so landmarks, roads, etc. are all built with short distance travel in mind - the perfect environment for mass transit. Much of America's growth, on the other hand, has been fueled by the automobile, making sprawling suburbs possible to feed growing cities. It's simply not reasonable (in the short or near-term) to build mass transit over a distance of 50+ miles. That's probably the biggest problem America faces - we're too spread out, and we have the car to thank for it.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
the conglomerate that owns the Dulles Greenway is continually raising the toll
Just out of curiosity, how much is it now? It used to be $0.25, or $0.50 when I was there, and the smart tag was under $100/month.
Patrick S wrote:
It's simply not reasonable (in the short or near-term) to build mass transit over a distance of 50+ miles
You're right about the differences on how the cities have evolved over time. But I think mass transit can be built over large areas. In fact, this makes perfect sense to use mass transit over long distances. For a single person this is inexpensive, more secure, and allows for free time. On the other hand it just plain sucks to be stacked up on each other, and to cope with the lack of seats when you have to travel standing for a long distance. And when several persons are travelling together, nothing beats the confort of a car.
-
Ilíon wrote:
That was then, and this is now.
So... what? Then we cared about getting around efficiently, now we'll pay through the nose? I've got news for you - plenty of people walking today because they can't afford automobiles and don't have access to any other form of transportation. There is a point where public transportation becomes a no-brainer; not saying we're there yet, but we are headed in that direction. Closing your eyes and wishing otherwise doesn't change anything.
Ilíon wrote:
And you're clearly a fool who doesn't want to think.
And you clearly don't want to read. Frankly, i'm disappointed - i expected you to know your history. Let's try a few other examples, actual quotes this time, stop me if i hit one you recognize:
"If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." "640K ought to be enough for anybody" "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
:-\
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
You know what? I have had the great chance to live within walking distance of my office, for over a year. And this is so great! No need for a car, no need for mass transit! In one word, this is freedom! <edit> And also one might wonder why we do not do more telecommuting? </edit>
-
I was not even thinking about the efficiency of such a scheme. I was thinking about the authority that Ms. Clinton or Mr. McCain would have this summer to implement this scheme. Here is what I think about it. Investment bankers speculating on commodities is not supply and demand. If commodities are not traded as securities on exchanges and are traded only on physical delivery, then prices will come down dramatically. US has one of the lowest gas prices; most other countries tax gas far more than the US does. I think that $3 a gallon is not that bad at all. 18% tax to build road infrastructure is great, no need to change it. Maybe, the taxes for fuels for personal transport can be made higher to encourage use of public transport; but a differential tax rate will bring in administrative overhead and corruption. Using fuel efficient vehicles, car pooling, working a couple of days from home every week, use mass transit to commute to work, switching off heating, cooling, lights, computers etc. when you do not use them are all personal changes that can make a significant dent to energy demand. Instead of making some adjustments in personal life, a vast majority want the government to bring them some magic solution.
Thomas George wrote:
administrative overhead
hehe, yep! That is the problem with every new tax. It seems to take a life on its own. It requires money to exist (to collect it), it requires money to be administered, and some can disappear in the void (corruption). So only what's left can be used sensibly, but often, even a part of those remnants is wasted by a lack of care, or simple cluelessness. So I guess, efficient taxes should be a hot topic of research.
Thomas George wrote:
Using fuel efficient vehicles, car pooling, working a couple of days from home every week, use mass transit to commute to work, switching off heating, cooling, lights, computers etc. when you do not use them are all personal changes that can make a significant dent to energy demand. Instead of making some adjustments in personal life, a vast majority want the government to bring them some magic solution.
Actually some countries have already adopted these changes in lifestyle. The only problem is people do not happily restrict themselves. So to enforce this the governments have to brutally impose restrictions on people (by raising insanely the level of taxes, doing active propaganda, and in the end restricting people's choices). I think, I'd be a little disapointed to see the US lose this little piece of freedom.
-
You know what? I have had the great chance to live within walking distance of my office, for over a year. And this is so great! No need for a car, no need for mass transit! In one word, this is freedom! <edit> And also one might wonder why we do not do more telecommuting? </edit>
Pierre Leclercq wrote:
And also one might wonder why we do not do more telecommuting?
I do as much as i can get away with, which is most days. There is the problem of communication though; i really need to go out of my way to keep people updated on what i'm doing / stay up to date on what others are doing, since i don't get the casual conversations in the halls. It can work though, and frankly i think it should be an option for most of us.
Pierre Leclercq wrote:
In one word, this is freedom!
Yes. :cool:
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Patrick S wrote:
the conglomerate that owns the Dulles Greenway is continually raising the toll
Just out of curiosity, how much is it now? It used to be $0.25, or $0.50 when I was there, and the smart tag was under $100/month.
Patrick S wrote:
It's simply not reasonable (in the short or near-term) to build mass transit over a distance of 50+ miles
You're right about the differences on how the cities have evolved over time. But I think mass transit can be built over large areas. In fact, this makes perfect sense to use mass transit over long distances. For a single person this is inexpensive, more secure, and allows for free time. On the other hand it just plain sucks to be stacked up on each other, and to cope with the lack of seats when you have to travel standing for a long distance. And when several persons are travelling together, nothing beats the confort of a car.
Pierre Leclercq wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how much is it now?
Currently sitting at $3.50 for a full trip from the Mainline to the Dulles Toll Road; $2.30 and up for shorter trips. By 2012 the full toll will be $4.80.
Pierre Leclercq wrote:
But I think mass transit can be built over large areas.
It can; just not quickly or cheaply. When most governments are operating a deficit as it is, the only way usually to be able to raise that kind of money is through a bond, which is basically a loan the public makes to the government that it has to repay in a fixed period of time. Problem with bonds is that they usually end up costing 3x more than they were supposed to or the legislatures vote to retire the bond unpaid. The problem is the need for *cheap* mass transit and that's much harder to do.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Pierre Leclercq wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how much is it now?
Currently sitting at $3.50 for a full trip from the Mainline to the Dulles Toll Road; $2.30 and up for shorter trips. By 2012 the full toll will be $4.80.
Pierre Leclercq wrote:
But I think mass transit can be built over large areas.
It can; just not quickly or cheaply. When most governments are operating a deficit as it is, the only way usually to be able to raise that kind of money is through a bond, which is basically a loan the public makes to the government that it has to repay in a fixed period of time. Problem with bonds is that they usually end up costing 3x more than they were supposed to or the legislatures vote to retire the bond unpaid. The problem is the need for *cheap* mass transit and that's much harder to do.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
When most governments are operating a deficit as it is, the only way usually to be able to raise that kind of money is through a bond, which is basically a loan the public makes to the government that it has to repay in a fixed period of time.
And yet, living in Massachusetts I watched in growing amazement and horror as the Big Dig designed to increase automobile traffic (theoretically to reduce traffic congestion, but, of course, increased usage was never factored in) went from 2.6 billion dollars to 8.08 billion (constant 1982) dollars. Theoretically, Boston and its surrounds were all laid out long before the advent of the automobile making it an excellent candidate for mass transit - especially since the MBTA already operates a system of underground and ground level trolleys and electric trains. So the money was there and the basic infrastructure was there and the environment was there for mass transit - yet we (the state and the country which paid much of the cost) got the most expensive per mile highways ever built.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Patrick S wrote:
When most governments are operating a deficit as it is, the only way usually to be able to raise that kind of money is through a bond, which is basically a loan the public makes to the government that it has to repay in a fixed period of time.
And yet, living in Massachusetts I watched in growing amazement and horror as the Big Dig designed to increase automobile traffic (theoretically to reduce traffic congestion, but, of course, increased usage was never factored in) went from 2.6 billion dollars to 8.08 billion (constant 1982) dollars. Theoretically, Boston and its surrounds were all laid out long before the advent of the automobile making it an excellent candidate for mass transit - especially since the MBTA already operates a system of underground and ground level trolleys and electric trains. So the money was there and the basic infrastructure was there and the environment was there for mass transit - yet we (the state and the country which paid much of the cost) got the most expensive per mile highways ever built.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
So the money was there and the basic infrastructure was there and the environment was there for mass transit - yet we (the state and the country which paid much of the cost) got the most expensive per mile highways ever built.
Yep. Just because the environment is right for mass transit, doesn't mean the governments will be any smarter about it :) It does make long-distance mass transit even that much harder, though. Particularly because you have so many local governments who all want their piece of the pie, and their voice in the planning. Local governments here have been fighting for 10 years about how to add a 10 mile westard span to the current Metro.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Thomas George wrote:
administrative overhead
hehe, yep! That is the problem with every new tax. It seems to take a life on its own. It requires money to exist (to collect it), it requires money to be administered, and some can disappear in the void (corruption). So only what's left can be used sensibly, but often, even a part of those remnants is wasted by a lack of care, or simple cluelessness. So I guess, efficient taxes should be a hot topic of research.
Thomas George wrote:
Using fuel efficient vehicles, car pooling, working a couple of days from home every week, use mass transit to commute to work, switching off heating, cooling, lights, computers etc. when you do not use them are all personal changes that can make a significant dent to energy demand. Instead of making some adjustments in personal life, a vast majority want the government to bring them some magic solution.
Actually some countries have already adopted these changes in lifestyle. The only problem is people do not happily restrict themselves. So to enforce this the governments have to brutally impose restrictions on people (by raising insanely the level of taxes, doing active propaganda, and in the end restricting people's choices). I think, I'd be a little disapointed to see the US lose this little piece of freedom.
Pierre Leclercq wrote:
Actually some countries have already adopted these changes in lifestyle.
I do not favor any government imposed life style changes. I was lamenting the state of affairs where people do not do what they can do, and at the same time look for a magic solution. We all see this with the health situation also. Lifestyle diseases due to bad dietary habits and no exercise places a toll on the health care system. People wonder why it is costlier, and expect the government to come up with a solution. Insurance costs may be rising because more people are getting ill. Hospital bills may be rising because they have to treat far more people at lower costs or defaults.