ConfuciusSay

Companies post fake ads that they never respond to in order to be "in compliance" with visa rules.

Lawyers help them in their deception: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU

Since 1987, higher education institutions have doubled the ratio of nonacademic employees to faculty. There are now two nonacademic employees at public and two and a half at private universities and colleges for every one full-time, tenure-track member of the faculty.

Yet, the universities are pumping out roughly the same number of graduates.

Why such high growth in administrators? Is our education now better than 1987? How come every other industry is cutting costs, while higher education is increasing costs and beaurocracy?

If you're growing like crazy, it's not that hard to turn down offers. Indeed that's what Facebook itself did, so there's your model.

Forget the NYTimes helping to send us to a war that killed over a million Iraqis. Forget FOX News that runs 24/7 propaganda, stoking divisions. GamerGate is truly journalism's death knell. /s

My interpretation of his "insert" comment, was that of 1). My response to that was to preempt the common refrain of HFT defenders who universally trot out the "liquidity" defense.

As for the criticisms focusing on volatility vs liquidity, to me they are linked, because in those instances of flash crashes that are the target of the recent criticisms, the issue has been that volatity increases due to HFT algorithms withdrawing from the market (i.e. reducing liquidity).

Also, there are other criticisms of HFT's beyond those three, including the "coincidence" that HFT firms seem to be responsible for most of the major order spoofing. Regulators have been VERY slow and uneven about enforcing HFT spoofing, but are finally catching on, albeit with slaps on the wrist (excluding Citadel being banned in China).

When people point out that HFT's seem basically like a giant high speed frontrunning operation, as the OP did, the usual counter is that it's all fine and dandy, because they provide liquidity. Indeed right above your reply, is someone replying saying exactly that. Therefore the question of HFT's providing liquidity, or not, is very germane to the question, and if you're willing to be skeptical about what the Fed is saying regarding HFT's, then surely you would be similarly skeptical about what CNBC or Vanguard is saying, or would that go against your confirmation bias?

The big claim with HFT is they "add liquidity", but there's evidence that shows the opposite. Indeed it seems like HFT's only add liquidity when it's already plentiful, but reduces liquidity when it's really needed.

The Fed has said as much recently.

The argument that is made is that because you can entirely abolish a whole slew of agencies and other programs (welfare etc.) it's not as simple as just looking at current budgets, you need to factor in the savings you get from axing the agencies.

To be clear I'm not saying that it's viable, I'm just saying that your calculation is not the one proponents of the idea are using.

Not with that attitude you won't!

Also, less bureaucracy to languish and become inneficient, entrenched, and corrupt.

Are you suggesting that monopolies never occur, or that monopolies automatically lead to bankruptcy? Because history would like to have a word with you...

Even Adam Smith thought monopolies were the greatest threat to a functioning capitalist economy.

There's two other major factors beyond rent control and zoning. One is cheap credit, insured by the government, and the second is the massive flow of foreign money coming into NA real estate. If you don't take care of all those factors together, you won't get true price discovery.

The other thing is, the moment you do get true price discovery, you're popping a giant financialized bubble, and potentially triggering another self-reinforcing downward cycle (we'll be facing that soon anyways though).

But in Montreal, as in SF, if the tenant leaves you can adjust the rent back to "market rates", which does benefit a landlord who renovates. Also, a good percentage of the new "condo" towers going up are specifically rental only.

The more perverse side effect of rent control shows up in the cases where rental tenants on a 30 year old lease, paying peanuts per month is posting their apartment (or multiple apartments) on AirBnB at market rates. All the while, the property gets much more wear and tear, increasing maintenance costs.

Probably not Politwoops, because they were using the API. But perhaps a successor that did not use the API, but scraped and screenshoted only might have a good chance.

If their TOS prevents someone from taking a photograph of their website on a screen, it probably wouldn't hold up in court.

It's a violation of TOS for an individual to take a photograph of Twitter on their screen?

[pdf]

Companies frequently put out job postings with no intention of hiring anyone. Is that wrong?

To me it's their pro-every-war stance. Especially Syria. Did we not learn any lesson from Iraq?

LOL, Steven Cohen is your example of SEC getting it right?

He's the best example of how the insiders are allowed to do it, while everyone else is not. As long as you call it an "experts network" and as long as you structure your corporate hierarchy properly you can do insider trading all day every day! Just ask Steven Cohen.

If these trades were being done by DB or Citadel, there'd be a slap on the wrist. But if you're a rogue trader, or god forbid a lone 30 year old in your parents basement, off to the big house for you.

If anything this just shows that the SEC has all the tools in the world to stop illegal activity, yet it does nothing, so long as you're part of the Wall street establishment.

"the ownership obligates them to pay taxes"

In theory you're right, and they often do pay taxes, but there are many schemes where the foreign investors pay zero taxes. There's no incentive on the industry's part to showcase or investigate to what extent this occurs, but we know it's pretty prevalent.

The latest craze? I guess WSJ has been out to lunch for the past decade.

Google's ad settings page is "anti-Google marketing"?

You know when even the IMF is recommending we tax the rich more, there's probably something to the idea...

If anyone cared to look, the troubles with Enron's accounting were right there in their SEC filings - long before the shit hit the fan.

In fact the reporter who broke the story did it by simply analyzing the SEC filings, as opposed to getting some insider information, or talking to a whistleblower.

It is not a binary "banks always want less regulation". Banks, like other entrenched interests, will be for or against regulations, depending on if they advance their interests or not.

You see this in every industry. The energy industry hates environmental regulations, but they like more regulations when it serves to diminish the viability of alternatives like solar.

Lines of code. >_<

Umm, 100k/year in 1950 would be roughly $994,966/year today.

You're seriously going to argue you'd rather get paid 10 times less? Because you can buy cokes like celebrities?

What is this nonsense? This sounds like the Fox News "poors shouldn't complain because they have phones and fridges" argument.