Wash trading makes valuating the market on volume alone harder to do and therefore increases novel activity in the market, making old algo's obsolete and decreasing risk temporarily until the wash trading strategy is identified and made unprofitable.
UBI will lead to societal degeneration. Prices of essential services and goods would skyrocket; people would lose direction and the small amount of meaning they had.
I call UBI gay-space-communism because it suggests that all human beings are capable of handling themselves outside of employment and daily routine. They are not. The market creates this drive in people, and if you remove it, people will degenerate fast.
> Prices of essential services and goods would skyrocket
Base the UBI on multiple economic indicators such as the prices of essential services and goods, add more money to the money supply as needed.
> Opioids, UBI, and free-love for everyone. Yikes.
So a lot of people live a simple life on the basic income and hang out getting stoned and screwing. Oh no!
What's your hobby? What would you be doing if you didn't have to work for a living? Would you spend all your time getting stoned and doing the social maneuvering necessary to get laid on a regular basis? Or would you do something else with your time? Work on that programming project that's been on the back burner while you paid the bills, draw comics, join a comedy troupe, brew mead, figure out a way to automate something that drives you crazy, pick up the guitar you put down in favor of a sensible day job and start making music again... or whatever.
Personally, when I had a few years free from needing to work for someone else, I mostly spent them drawing a weird sci-fi comic using the skills I'd developed while training for the animation industry.
(The usual phrase, by the way, is "fully automated gay luxury space communism".)
> Prices of essential services and goods would skyrocket
If you do a constant-value UBI and set the value too high, yes, that would happen in a positive feedback loop, but that's why UBI should be tied to a revenue stream with a value set by splitting the revenue stream with a reserve cushion to build a fund to allow preserving benefits in short-term revenue decline.
> people would lose direction
I don't see a credible argument for that replacing status quo means-tested social support with UBI would cause this, and indeed much of the motivation for UBI is to remove adverse incentives in present benefit programs that manifestly do produce this effect.
> I call UBI gay-space-communism
Which is dumb, because it has nothing to do with homosexuality or outer space or, as it retains private property, Communism.
> suggests that all human beings are capable of handling themselves outside of employment and daily routine.
No, it doesn't, not that that would justify your ludicrous label even if that was true.
Any value of UBI higher than 0 creates positive feedback loop:
1. government announces UBI
2. retailers, in anticipation of higher demand raise prices.
3. UBI beneficiaries see that they cannot buy as many goods as they want/need so they start demanding more money.
4. government see that they have more tax revenue due to higher retail sales (and the price raise from step 2) so it easily agrees to increase UBI amount.
Do you think other financial aid formsfunded with tax money have this effect too? Or do you think UBI is qualitatively different because all taxpayers get it?
I think you can be cured of the latter if you consider the fact that it's exactly equivalent to a negative income tax system.
Because freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
There are tons of people who think like the poster above, that we need to control people by not letting them have enough earnings or whatever to be free and making choices for themselves. That belief is what is really scary to me.
It’s the same sort of logic that claims religion — specifically, the threat of hell— is necessary to prevent civilization from falling into savagery... ignoring the fact that most religions don’t have a concept of hell, and many predominately secular societies do just fine.
Very cool. I suspect there is something unique going on with dubstep "drops" and dopamine release. There is a reason it engages peoples basest systems.
"drops" have their equivalent in every other form of music. Breakdowns in hardcore, choruses in pop music, it's just a catchy part of any tune that people easily grab onto.
> Drops certainly have equivalents in other music, but I don't think those are good comparisons.
seriously?
dubstep is just 'another' form of eletctronic dance music..
and, to be opinionated, basically rhythmically dumbed-down drum&bass which itself is rhythmically dumbed down jungle which itself is rhythmically more complicated hardcore techno minus the 4-to-the-floor bass drums of the 'main' tune...
There is no hard evidence. This is the nature of the game. First of all how do you even suppose evidence could be procured? What form would this "evidence" have? Claims by partisan authority figures, like the media or politicians? Is that evidence? No. There is no evidence.
You have to make judgments based on your own perception and what you think is plausible, all the while being aware that your own perception is biased, by your preconceived understanding of the world, and also your perception is also actively manipulated by those who you are trying to assess.
With regards to the topic at hand I think what the GP claimed is plausible, Russian propaganda does exist, but also our politicians are now going to use this excuse every time there is legitimate discontent.
For example: a story broke out some weeks ago about Russian shills, shilling against the controversial Keystone Pipeline. This is usually not a right-wing political position. Those who stand to make a lot of money from the pipeline immediately tried to discredit all the opposition to the pipeline as Russian trolling.
This is an interesting take. The CIA/FBI/GCHQ have provided precisely zero evidence to the public on their various, and extensive, list of claims that Russia did bad thing X.
Why is the burden of proof on the conspiracy theorist to prove a negative assertion, and not on the intelligence services - many of whom have a storied history of making things up - to prove a positive assertion?
I did not say the intelligence services do not have any burden of proof. Their claims absolutely require evidence that can stand up to scrutiny. I'd say they even require harder evidence because of the history you mention.
You can say their claims are unsubstantiated, or if they have provided evidence then you can provide counterarguments against it. But accusations like 'intelligence propaganda' need proof as well.
No, 87 million people didn't take a quiz, the whole point is that previously if any of your friends took the test, your information was shared.
That's how a few hundred thousand people taking a "personality quiz" gets turned into millions of user-data.
And the term personality quiz is used loosely, an example of a "personality quiz" can be "Which Game of Thrones character are you? This isn't rigorous psycometrics.
This isn't "propaganda put out by intelligence agencies", and there are not "37 million idiots" who "took a 'personality quiz' allowing the 'app' to access their information".
But he already explained that to you quite clearly, something you should have already known if you were following the real news, and you still don't get it.
But since you choose to subscribe to the conspiracy theory that this is just all deep state propaganda, and everyone whose privacy was compromised was an idiot who asked for it by doing something foolish and deserves what they got, then there's no use in discussing it with you.
Because you're their ideal target and they've already successfully targeted you and influenced your mind, even though you didn't take a personality quiz yourself.
Hello, friend. Welcome to the site. I see you're new here, so I thought I'd let you know why you're being downvoted.
Your post isn't very substantive. You express your opinion, but you don't explain the thought processes behind your opinion. When combined with the snarkiness, it just wasn't a productive comment.
If you haven't yet, read up on the Hacker News Guidelines[1], that may help when posting something somewhat controversial.
We try hard to avoid forming an echo chamber here. Overly emotional and unsubstantive comments are downvoted, and controversial comments with a lot of substance to them are often(but not always, unfortunately) upvoted.
edit: The irony of being downvoted for trying to maintain a positive, productive culture on this site is not lost to me. I won't bother to do so in the future.
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
They were new. It's important to teach people these things instead of just deleting every comment that is bad. It's on all of us to maintain this site's culture, it's not just the mods' job.
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
