Also, if most people stay out of the market, that means far fewer people are needed in the investment industry. So if the investment industry can't come up with ways to avoid these situations and, as a result, shrinks considerably, so be it.
A lot of people are permanently out of the market these days, even as it has hit new highs. There's an increasingly belief (and rightly so) that the average investor will likely get screwed. True, if you invest for the very long haul and can ride out the ups and downs, it might turn out okay for you. But now, especially with the market not seeming to be connected to the economy at large, the idea that you can invest in good companies and it will pay off seems to have disappeared along with the American dream of getting a good education, getting a decent job, working for 30-40 years, and then retiring comfortably.
These sudden swings, no matter what triggers them, don't reassure average investors that stocks are the place for them to be.
So is it a problem? It depends on whether you want widespread participation in the market or whether you just want a narrow sector of the population trading back and forth. It's another indication that the 1% make their money differently than other people.
They want us to feel like individual insecure insignificant little creatures rather than a strong nation of one...
I certainly wished we'd all come together, but politically the country seems very polarized these days. I think whatever divisiveness we have in this country is more an internal issue than one stirred up by external terrorists.
Did you guys miss the focus on individualism, neoliberalism, and global insecurity in the article? The fact that you see the piece as primarily a way to get people to give up their guns seems to me to reinforce the points the author is making. He's explaining why we want our guns and want to be armed against terrorists to a degree that goes beyond what happens in other countries. He's explaining why Americans associate guns with personal freedom, while in other countries people don't.
To the rest of the world, America is an unusually gun-obsessed country.
But I guess the concept of self defense escapes you when somebody decides to shoot at you in an escape attempt
The article is about violence in our culture. He suggests it is a combination of philosophy (political and cultural) and declining world power. If that is the case, we're probably facing a tumultuous future.
"Competitive individualism, insecurity, neoliberalism: the triad undergirding our penchant for violence."
"More surveillance, 'selectively' bypassed judicial procedure, harsh punishment, etc, ad nauseum" is the underlying cause.
I don't think terrorists particularly care what happens in this country. I think they are more interested in what happens in their countries. If the US had no global influence/power, do you think most citizens of other countries would pay much attention to what we do here? Assume the US was involved in no international wars and no international trade during the 20th century, and everything we did was confined within US borders? To what extent would terrorists even bother with us, if we presented no threats to what they value?
If the US had no influence in the world, why would we assume they would care about what happens to US citizens, especially if they had their own issues to focus on?
If the police could monitor everyone all of the time, a child?s life would become so controlled as to destroy their childhood. This would happen because every minor infraction they committed would be reported to their parents, who would then exercise strict control over them all the time to avoid police visits, and fines for not keeping their children under control.
Police don't have the time or money to do that. They don't even have the time to investigate all the real crimes going on.
But companies like Google and Facebook do have the ability to monitor us all and are doing so. If someone will pay enough to get info on who is likely to cause trouble or commit crimes, I am sure they can cut a deal with big data companies for that info.
There are already nearly 200 comments on this post and I haven't taken the time to read most of them. So forgive me if this has already been posted here.
are open to bribery, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. It's interesting to see them put out an actual price tag on bribes though. Bribery is endemic in our government, whether it's Congress, the White House, the FTC, the DOJ, the SCOTUS, or the FCC. Special interest groups simply buy laws. We have the worst government money can buy.
I think it is worth clarifying that this bribery often comes in the form of lobbying and campaign financing. I'd like to see those issues dealt with.
I hope this is where our discussions focus. Private and citizen monitoring already go on. So now we need to figure out how to prevent damage from that.
Knowing Where to Focus the Wisdom of Crowds - NYTimes.com: "On Monday Reddit officially apologized for its role in spreading misinformation. 'Some of the activity on reddit fueled online witch hunts and dangerous speculation which spiraled into very negative consequences for innocent parties,' wrote Erik Martin, general manager of Reddit, on the company’s Web site. 'The reddit staff and the millions of people on reddit around the world deeply regret that this happened.'"
I wish I could come up with as perfect a scam as convincing deep-pocketed needle-finders that the solution to difficulties with finding needles is for them to buy bigger haystacks! Guaranteed repeat business in perpetuity.
The Boston situation demonstrated the value of citizen taping, citizen ID input, and cellphone tracking (that's how the police knew where the hijacked Mercedes was going). The tech tools are out there and in this case operated in useful ways.
Elected officials probably haven't caught up to that fact yet, but I think they will in time. Before cities budget to put more cameras on the streets, there will likely be some smart tech folks figuring out to provide the same services as a grassroots operation. (Google is already mapping the world and tracking as many people as it can. Crimestoppers might be a handy little side project for someone or some company.)
I don't think the issue at this point will be too much government surveillance. It's already happening outside government. The bigger issue might be making sure that as citizens are empowered to become involved in fighting crime themselves, they don't use this power to harm those they just don't happen to like. Mob rule can be quite ugly.
that everyone has to be monitored 24/7, regardless of who they are, where they are what they are doing, how they are doing it and what they are saying!
Anonymise your online activity, create fake paypal accounts and fake amazon accounts if you have to. Never give out your real details to any online organization. Even if it is simply spelling your surname wrong or the last digit of any numbers you give them.Like dob and drivers licence number.
If anything keep a folder with all your fake details in locked with a decent piece of software and never ever give the password to anyone.
A lot can be gleaned from your phone, even if it is turned off. And the people around you can be monitoring you, too. Even if they don't identify you, technology can do the job for them. If you want to function in modern society, you are leaving a traceable trail.
With so many people already filming their surroundings with their cameras, we're getting far more captured on camera than ever before. And if you put the public onto crowdsourcing crime solutions, you have lots of eyes monitoring the situation.
The bigger question is probably how to prevent these mass murders than how to identify people once they happen. Each time something does happen, we re-engineer security, safety, crowd control and response, and so on. Each incident undermines trust and encourages us to watch people around us more closely, looking for the crazy/suspicious people in the crowds. I assume technology is going to provide some solutions because it is compiling massive amounts of info on everyone. We are tracking people all the time now, so it's a matter of fine-tuning that to increase overall safety.
Drones flying overhead recording everything seems likely in our future. Not because government wants it but because businesses want it. Businesses want to monitor everything we do. It is happening. It will continue to happen.
Kept in mind that those cameras watching you in stores are put there by businesses, not by government. Cameras on every corner doesn't have to come from government. It can easily come from private property owners. Webcams for everyone.
Re: Pragmatic for legal reasons for big tech companies
Many of the big tech companies backing the bill have been sold on it as it is a legal "get out of jail free" card for any and all abuses of personal information that might otherwise be actionable.
I would be surprised if there was even one general counsel at any tech company likely to be affected by CISPA recommending against the bill.
This is my perception of what goes on between tech and DC. I don't think DC does anything related to security that isn't approved of by private enterprise. They work too closely together to separate it out. I think the "government is bad" campaign is primarily a way to divert people's attention from just how much companies are doing to eliminate personal privacy.
We could completely remove government and our privacy would be gone anyway. At some point government will just hand security over the private contractors and there won't be any reason for Congress to debate all of this.
Between Google monitoring our email, wiring the country so it knows what we get via broadband, glasses that will allow people to match what they see with databases of info on the people around them, cross referencing how we spend our money with all the other details in its databases, tracking us and recording all the places we go, there really isn't any privacy.
On the post: Fake Tweet And Algorithmically Twitchy Financial Markets Lead To Market Swing; But Is That So Bad?
Re: Untrustworthy markets
On the post: Fake Tweet And Algorithmically Twitchy Financial Markets Lead To Market Swing; But Is That So Bad?
Untrustworthy markets
These sudden swings, no matter what triggers them, don't reassure average investors that stocks are the place for them to be.
So is it a problem? It depends on whether you want widespread participation in the market or whether you just want a narrow sector of the population trading back and forth. It's another indication that the 1% make their money differently than other people.
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A really good piece
So there isn't any confusion about what Mike wrote and the piece I am referring to in this thread, here's the link again.
Is American Nonviolence Possible? - NYTimes.com
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A really good piece
I certainly wished we'd all come together, but politically the country seems very polarized these days. I think whatever divisiveness we have in this country is more an internal issue than one stirred up by external terrorists.
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: A really good piece
To the rest of the world, America is an unusually gun-obsessed country.
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: A really good piece
The article is about violence in our culture. He suggests it is a combination of philosophy (political and cultural) and declining world power. If that is the case, we're probably facing a tumultuous future.
"Competitive individualism, insecurity, neoliberalism: the triad undergirding our penchant for violence."
On the post:
SomewhereEverywhere, Big Brother Is Smiling: Congress Sells Your Privacy For A Cool $84 MillionWhy I think singling out government is misplaced concern
On the post:
SomewhereEverywhere, Big Brother Is Smiling: Congress Sells Your Privacy For A Cool $84 MillionRe: Re: Re:
I stay involved. But my priorities may not be yours. Here's what I care about most.
Pictures Of Environmental Destruction - Business Insider
On the post: Rep. Peter King, Mayor Bloomberg Agree: Boston Bombing Shows We Desperately Need MORE Surveillance
Re: Re:
I don't think terrorists particularly care what happens in this country. I think they are more interested in what happens in their countries. If the US had no global influence/power, do you think most citizens of other countries would pay much attention to what we do here? Assume the US was involved in no international wars and no international trade during the 20th century, and everything we did was confined within US borders? To what extent would terrorists even bother with us, if we presented no threats to what they value?
If the US had no influence in the world, why would we assume they would care about what happens to US citizens, especially if they had their own issues to focus on?
On the post: Rep. Peter King, Mayor Bloomberg Agree: Boston Bombing Shows We Desperately Need MORE Surveillance
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did it even help?
Police don't have the time or money to do that. They don't even have the time to investigate all the real crimes going on.
But companies like Google and Facebook do have the ability to monitor us all and are doing so. If someone will pay enough to get info on who is likely to cause trouble or commit crimes, I am sure they can cut a deal with big data companies for that info.
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
A good resource
How the Media Have Misunderstood Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Miranda Rights - Adam Goodman - The Atlantic: "A primer on Miranda and the public-safety exception"
On the post:
SomewhereEverywhere, Big Brother Is Smiling: Congress Sells Your Privacy For A Cool $84 MillionRe: All politicians
I think it is worth clarifying that this bribery often comes in the form of lobbying and campaign financing. I'd like to see those issues dealt with.
On the post: Rep. Peter King, Mayor Bloomberg Agree: Boston Bombing Shows We Desperately Need MORE Surveillance
Re: Re: Haymakers
Knowing Where to Focus the Wisdom of Crowds - NYTimes.com: "On Monday Reddit officially apologized for its role in spreading misinformation. 'Some of the activity on reddit fueled online witch hunts and dangerous speculation which spiraled into very negative consequences for innocent parties,' wrote Erik Martin, general manager of Reddit, on the company’s Web site. 'The reddit staff and the millions of people on reddit around the world deeply regret that this happened.'"
On the post: Rep. Peter King, Mayor Bloomberg Agree: Boston Bombing Shows We Desperately Need MORE Surveillance
Re: Haymakers
The Boston situation demonstrated the value of citizen taping, citizen ID input, and cellphone tracking (that's how the police knew where the hijacked Mercedes was going). The tech tools are out there and in this case operated in useful ways.
Elected officials probably haven't caught up to that fact yet, but I think they will in time. Before cities budget to put more cameras on the streets, there will likely be some smart tech folks figuring out to provide the same services as a grassroots operation. (Google is already mapping the world and tracking as many people as it can. Crimestoppers might be a handy little side project for someone or some company.)
I don't think the issue at this point will be too much government surveillance. It's already happening outside government. The bigger issue might be making sure that as citizens are empowered to become involved in fighting crime themselves, they don't use this power to harm those they just don't happen to like. Mob rule can be quite ugly.
On the post: Rep. Peter King, Mayor Bloomberg Agree: Boston Bombing Shows We Desperately Need MORE Surveillance
Re:
That's what smart phones and Google glass is for.
On the post: Rep. Peter King, Mayor Bloomberg Agree: Boston Bombing Shows We Desperately Need MORE Surveillance
Re:
And that's how the system works. Tax money goes to companies. We pay government and government pays private contractors.
On the post:
SomewhereEverywhere, Big Brother Is Smiling: Congress Sells Your Privacy For A Cool $84 MillionRe: Result...
If anything keep a folder with all your fake details in locked with a decent piece of software and never ever give the password to anyone.
A lot can be gleaned from your phone, even if it is turned off. And the people around you can be monitoring you, too. Even if they don't identify you, technology can do the job for them. If you want to function in modern society, you are leaving a traceable trail.
On the post: Rep. Peter King, Mayor Bloomberg Agree: Boston Bombing Shows We Desperately Need MORE Surveillance
The surveillance is already happening
The bigger question is probably how to prevent these mass murders than how to identify people once they happen. Each time something does happen, we re-engineer security, safety, crowd control and response, and so on. Each incident undermines trust and encourages us to watch people around us more closely, looking for the crazy/suspicious people in the crowds. I assume technology is going to provide some solutions because it is compiling massive amounts of info on everyone. We are tracking people all the time now, so it's a matter of fine-tuning that to increase overall safety.
Drones flying overhead recording everything seems likely in our future. Not because government wants it but because businesses want it. Businesses want to monitor everything we do. It is happening. It will continue to happen.
Kept in mind that those cameras watching you in stores are put there by businesses, not by government. Cameras on every corner doesn't have to come from government. It can easily come from private property owners. Webcams for everyone.
On the post:
SomewhereEverywhere, Big Brother Is Smiling: Congress Sells Your Privacy For A Cool $84 MillionRe: Pragmatic for legal reasons for big tech companies
I would be surprised if there was even one general counsel at any tech company likely to be affected by CISPA recommending against the bill.
This is my perception of what goes on between tech and DC. I don't think DC does anything related to security that isn't approved of by private enterprise. They work too closely together to separate it out. I think the "government is bad" campaign is primarily a way to divert people's attention from just how much companies are doing to eliminate personal privacy.
On the post:
SomewhereEverywhere, Big Brother Is Smiling: Congress Sells Your Privacy For A Cool $84 MillionData is being collected and sold
Between Google monitoring our email, wiring the country so it knows what we get via broadband, glasses that will allow people to match what they see with databases of info on the people around them, cross referencing how we spend our money with all the other details in its databases, tracking us and recording all the places we go, there really isn't any privacy.
Next >>