4 ms·

I have no doubt that a Sanders presidency would have a negative effect on Wall Street profits (which is why you see people like Ron giving millions of dollars t

I have no doubt that a Sanders presidency would have a negative effect on Wall Street profits (which is why you see people like Ron giving millions of dollars to prevent it) but that's hardly a measure of the health of "the economy."

lend000 7y ago
Perhaps you misunderstood what I said by long-biased, but companies like Jane Street, Two Sigma, RenTech will be just fine (and will probably adapt better than most) to structural changes and a decline in growth of the economy. The tax rates will hit individuals, but probably not as much as his donation set him back, so it's almost certainly ideological. Clearly you are passionate about Sanders, and that's fine, but it seems you are slandering this guy for no good reason.
- smabie 7y ago
  I dunno, the trading tax Sanders is proposing would hurt these firms a lot more than a traditional hedge or mutual fund. Moreover, it's banks that would be hit the hardest, and they have less exposure to beta than even the market neutral buyside guys.
  - vowelless 7y ago
    I can assure you with 100 percent certainty that Rentech et al will relatively thrive with the trading tax. This tax will reduce liquidity perhaps, make the market pricing inefficient (larger spread). This will hurt mutual funds the most by increasing their baseline costs. Which in turn will hurt pension funds, endowments, etc. RenTech and others will thrive in the midst of those inefficiencies.
- flomble 7y ago
  "Slander" entails making false statements, whereas this was just a statement of fact, free even of condemnation. People who read it make their own value judgments.
  - arduanika 7y ago
    No, sorry, false. A sentence of the form, "which is why <person> does <thing>", i.e. "<person I never met> did <thing> because <reason I impute>" is never, ever a statement of fact. It is _always_ an opinion and an attempt at mindreading. And in this case, it's ill-informed. As lend0000 has repeatedly told you, firms like these are not exposed long to the market. Hence, "likely ideologically motivated", unlikely a nefarious ploy, but again this is speculation.
- asveikau 7y ago
  It's strange to me that you seem to assume higher taxes on top earners (which is probably the conclusion I parse out of Sanders and his proponents, though they would face opposition in Congress to get there) necessarily means that economic growth will decline. Speaking historically, the United States has gone through periods of high growth with top marginal tax rates at something like 90%.
  - lend000 7y ago
    Higher taxes are not the only economics implications of a Sanders presidency, especially when you look at some of the governments Sanders has praised over his career. A better tax structure is necessary and the easiest thing to do, but I don't trust Sanders to figure that out. Even Warren comes up with a wealth tax instead of just fixing the income and capital gains tax brackets. Hint: add three more brackets with 4mm+ at 50%, 20mm+ at 65% and 100mm+ at 80% and do the same relative adjustments for capital gains. No need for the government to seize the means of production when you haven't tried the obvious thing. Our current tax brackets are a joke, topping out around 500k when some people make 10,000 times that.
    - asveikau 7y ago
      > especially when you look at some of the governments Sanders has praised over his career. Can you be more specific here? I mean, there can be praise for some governments without saying we advocate for everything they do. It's possible for instance to praise Cuba for health care outcomes without wanting to become Fidel Castro. There are also some ridiculous insinuations that Sanders is some kind of Chavista, which to me is a bit of a flag that someone isn't serious about their anti-Sanders discussion. I would say he advocates for more of a European type of safety net. > No need for the government to seize the means of production I do not believe Sanders proposes that.
      - champagneben 7y ago
        From Wikipedia (prior to elected office): advocated for nationalization of major industries, including those in the manufacturing, energy and banking sectors. In 1974, he advocated for a marginal tax rate of 100% on income over one million dollars, saying that "Nobody should earn more than a million dollars" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_... I doubt Sanders still advocates for most of these positions, and he is of course a millionaire now.

lend000 7y ago

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said by long-biased, but companies like Jane Street, Two Sigma, RenTech will be just fine (and will probably adapt better than most) to structural changes and a decline in growth of the economy. The tax rates will hit individuals, but probably not as much as his donation set him back, so it's almost certainly ideological. Clearly you are passionate about Sanders, and that's fine, but it seems you are slandering this guy for no good reason.

smabie 7y ago
I dunno, the trading tax Sanders is proposing would hurt these firms a lot more than a traditional hedge or mutual fund. Moreover, it's banks that would be hit the hardest, and they have less exposure to beta than even the market neutral buyside guys.
- vowelless 7y ago
  I can assure you with 100 percent certainty that Rentech et al will relatively thrive with the trading tax. This tax will reduce liquidity perhaps, make the market pricing inefficient (larger spread). This will hurt mutual funds the most by increasing their baseline costs. Which in turn will hurt pension funds, endowments, etc. RenTech and others will thrive in the midst of those inefficiencies.
flomble 7y ago
"Slander" entails making false statements, whereas this was just a statement of fact, free even of condemnation. People who read it make their own value judgments.
- arduanika 7y ago
  No, sorry, false. A sentence of the form, "which is why <person> does <thing>", i.e. "<person I never met> did <thing> because <reason I impute>" is never, ever a statement of fact. It is _always_ an opinion and an attempt at mindreading. And in this case, it's ill-informed. As lend0000 has repeatedly told you, firms like these are not exposed long to the market. Hence, "likely ideologically motivated", unlikely a nefarious ploy, but again this is speculation.
asveikau 7y ago
It's strange to me that you seem to assume higher taxes on top earners (which is probably the conclusion I parse out of Sanders and his proponents, though they would face opposition in Congress to get there) necessarily means that economic growth will decline. Speaking historically, the United States has gone through periods of high growth with top marginal tax rates at something like 90%.
- lend000 7y ago
  Higher taxes are not the only economics implications of a Sanders presidency, especially when you look at some of the governments Sanders has praised over his career. A better tax structure is necessary and the easiest thing to do, but I don't trust Sanders to figure that out. Even Warren comes up with a wealth tax instead of just fixing the income and capital gains tax brackets. Hint: add three more brackets with 4mm+ at 50%, 20mm+ at 65% and 100mm+ at 80% and do the same relative adjustments for capital gains. No need for the government to seize the means of production when you haven't tried the obvious thing. Our current tax brackets are a joke, topping out around 500k when some people make 10,000 times that.
  - asveikau 7y ago
    > especially when you look at some of the governments Sanders has praised over his career. Can you be more specific here? I mean, there can be praise for some governments without saying we advocate for everything they do. It's possible for instance to praise Cuba for health care outcomes without wanting to become Fidel Castro. There are also some ridiculous insinuations that Sanders is some kind of Chavista, which to me is a bit of a flag that someone isn't serious about their anti-Sanders discussion. I would say he advocates for more of a European type of safety net. > No need for the government to seize the means of production I do not believe Sanders proposes that.
    - champagneben 7y ago
      From Wikipedia (prior to elected office): advocated for nationalization of major industries, including those in the manufacturing, energy and banking sectors. In 1974, he advocated for a marginal tax rate of 100% on income over one million dollars, saying that "Nobody should earn more than a million dollars" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_... I doubt Sanders still advocates for most of these positions, and he is of course a millionaire now.