LOL, Nitro im not sure youve actually done the math on a bernie sanders presidency, if you are actually a trader, you are out of business under Bernie, i dont know anyone elses numbers, but here are mine from last year, I moved an average of 125k shares per day last year, lets say an average share price on those is 15 bucks since i like to trade lower priced stuff for volatility. That means i traded about 1,875,000 dollars of stock every day, which means that If Uncle Bernie was to put on a 0.25% transaction tax id have to pay about 4600$ per day just in taxes, or about a a million dollars a year just in taxes in order to trade, in other words, anyone who actually trades for a living is out of business. I saw this once already when my prop firm got access to the LSE, everyone thought it was going to be a virgin market, ripe for the taking, but low and behold our firm dropped it within a month cause there wasnt a single trader who could make money with the .25% transaction tAX. The liquidity in our stock market would go down by 90% over night, and everyone except the market makers who are in tight with the politicians would be wiped out. Thats not speculation, its a fact. If you vote for Bernie and you are a trader, you are voting yourself out of a job.
Maybe Nitro isn't that good of a trader, and he'll make more money with the freebies that Bernie gives him?
After the Kaiser's intelligence service gave him a train ticket from Switzerland and a suitcase full of cash. Maybe Bernie isn't the best analogy to Lenin.
Yeah something tells me he doesnt actually trade for a living, he just likes the idea of trying to figure the market out, i got about 50 ppl on my twitter feed, only top notch traders, and there isnt a single one pulling for bernie, most are openly mocking him, so unless Nitro has some sort of self mutilation thing going on, i highly doubt he makes his living from trading. If he really wants to pay for some hipsters liberal arts degree maybe he should just donate all of his earnings now.
I really like Bernie, but he is an economic illiterate. You should read up on him. His one lame attempt at non-government work ended in disaster. He was a carpenter/woodworker and the stuff he made was shit. He failed and the decided to run for some local office that he won by a handful of votes. He's been at the govt trough ever since. Nice guy, though.
Bernie reminds me of the crazy uncle a family invites to Thanksgiving every year. The entire family politely ignores him as he rants on about political and economic topics he knows little about. Everyone can't wait till he leaves and feels fortunate that they only need to give handouts to him once each year.
For your pleasure. Enjoy. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/2...-on-financial-transactions.html?referer=&_r=0
From nitro's link. Bernie has good ideas. Fuck the high frequency traders. They are leeching scum. And fuck pure capitalism. Alone, it's a savage, greedy, immoral system. Only as part of a system that includes socialism it becomes a very good thing. ************************ WASHINGTON — LIKE it or not, the campaign season is upon us, and that almost certainly means somebody is going to try to buy your vote with a tax cut — even though average federal tax rates are already low in historical terms, our tax code remains tilted in favor of the wealthy, and our children, neighborhoods and infrastructure desperately need public investment. What would really be interesting is if a candidate proposed the opposite: a new way to raise more revenues. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, has done just that, by proposing a financial transaction tax: a small excise tax, typically a few hundredths of a percent, on trades of stocks, bonds, derivatives and other securities. An itty-bitty, one-basis-point transaction tax (a basis point is one-hundredth of a percentage point, or 0.01 percent) would raise $185 billion over 10 years, according to new estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That would be enough to finance an ambitious expansion of prekindergarten programs for 3- and 4-year-olds and restore funding of college assistance for low-income students. What’s more, a financial transaction tax could significantly reduce the amount ofhigh-frequency trading. This trading, most of it automated, is used to make windfall profits through arbitrage (taking advantage of small differences in price) in milliseconds. It does nothing to help ordinary investors and can destabilize financial markets. Before addressing potential objections, consider this: A one-basis-point tax on $1,000 worth of stock would cost the stock trader a dime. A $100,000 trade would generate a tax of only $10. How, then, does such a tiny tax raise so many billions? Because the base to which it’s applied — the mass of securities traded in United States financial markets — is in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. One concern is that if we tax trades, we’ll get fewer trades, and less liquidity. History suggests that trading volume would in fact decline somewhat as transactions became more expensive. But is this a bad thing? Liquidity is critical in financial markets, both for efficient “price discovery” — quickly discerning the market value of assets — and for the basic market operation of matching buyers and sellers. If a market gets too “thin,” say because increased transaction costs lead to a decline in trading volumes, price discovery gets harder. There is, however, such a thing as too much liquidity, particularly when high-frequency traders get into the mix. Instead of improving efficiency, these traders often insert themselves between normal-speed traders, a practice known as “front-running.” With a transaction tax in place, the sheer magnitude of high-frequency trades and the tiny margins they pursue will become unprofitable. The historical evidence on whether reduced liquidity resulting from a transaction tax raises or lowers market volatility — sharp, distortionary movements in prices — is inconclusive. But high-frequency trading has recently become a much larger share of the market, now over 50 percent in some of our busiest exchanges. So while we should proceed with caution, introducing such a tax is likely to reduce excessive liquidity. Would a transaction tax encourage trading to move offshore, in an era of electronically mobile capital? As the Congressional Budget Office points out, with adequate international coordination, offshore transactions by United States taxpayers could still be captured by a transaction tax, just as an out-of-state Internet purchase can face the sales tax that prevails in the purchaser’s state. Still, a transaction tax would be more effective if it were adopted worldwide. Fortunately, we may be headed in that direction. Eleven countries of the European Union agreed to implement such a tax, in 2013, though pressure from opponents caused the introduction to be postponed until next year. It’s also worth noting that transaction taxes of one type or another have long been in place in countries with thriving financial markets, including Britain, Hong Kong, Singapore and many others. So it simply can’t be the case that they’re unworkable. As you’d expect, the financial transaction tax would be highly progressive, another selling point given our era of high and growing inequality. According to the Tax Policy Center, 75 percent of the liability from the tax would fall on the top fifth of taxpayers, and 40 percent on the top 1 percent. The tax would also fall more on high-volume traders than on long-term investors, of course. And the proceeds could be used for investments to reduce inequality and increase mobility. There are still many issues to consider. Should the tax fall on buyers, sellers or both? Should government debt be exempt? How, for the purpose of the tax, do you value complex derivatives? One insight from the tax in other countries: Whatever you exempt quickly becomes the security that everyone is trading. So if we want to keep the rate low, we’ll need to keep the base broad. I’d recommend a three- to five-basis-points financial transaction tax, preferably introduced in tandem with the European Union’s. (I view Senator Sanders’s proposal for a 50-basis-point tax on stock trades to be too high.) By phasing the tax in by one basis point per year, we can monitor its impact on liquidity and volatility. To opponents, I say: If our financial markets will crumble in the face of a one-basis-point financial transaction tax, then we’ve got much bigger problems than I thought. A financial transaction tax is a smart, fair way to raise urgently needed revenues while reducing unnecessary trading that makes our markets more volatile. Let’s give it a shot.
I'm not even sure Nitro is human...if he is human, he has a severe case of Asperger's...Maybe 5% of the time he will even reply to a post, the rest of the time it's just cut and paste or some new arcane theory about the markets...