4 ms·

>>> diminish the trust investors must have in the integrity of the markets, It's interesting the use of the phrase "investors". I say this because there is a

>>> diminish the trust investors must have in the integrity of the markets, It's interesting the use of the phrase "investors". I say this because there is a difference between "the public in general" and "investors" having faith in "the markets". As we go into a downturn (over here the UK feels like Slim Pickens clinging on the bomb and whooping as we fall), we need to be careful about whose market is being protected. I think I am saying that even if the SEC is making sure no-one at the poker table is dealing from the bottom, there are millions who are not at the table, and millions more who feel the whales are taking way more than they should be able to. If most people feel they are getting screwed, saying "we protect the integrity of the market" might not help.

SllX 4y ago
It’s not that interesting. Investors are the ones who are concerned with the financial markets and that’s everyone with money staked in the financial markets. The SEC is a bunch of working stiffs too but their assembly line is the integrity of the US financial markets. Anything outside of that is beyond their jurisdiction.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> there are millions who are not at the table, and millions more who feel the whales are taking way more than they should be able to This is not the SEC's remit. To the degree it's anyone's remit, it's the Fed, Treasury and the CFPB's job.
- lifeisstillgood 4y ago
  I think it's wider than that - we really are talking about how to share the wealth of all society with all its citizens. But yes, it's why we cannot hope to leave it to the SEC or the Fed. The UK just learnt what happens when the Government and the central bank disagree on even the most basic questions.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Or, possibly Congress’ job, as they set tax policy. Prior to the 1980s, we taxed the whales out of existence. Perhaps not a direct cause/effect, but at the same time that we’ve reduced the top marginal rate from 70%+ to 37%, we’ve seen a more unequal income and wealth distribution.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Everyone with a retirement account is an investor. Everyone with a pension is an investor. The public are investors.
- throawaygao1 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Was it ever possible to give every boomer's kids huge amounts of money grown faster than inflation, for no work? "For no work" describes crypto. Stock represents interest in working companies. Real economic growth is real. Distributing that growth is possible. "Huge" is subjective, but fundamentally, the answer to your question is yes, minus "for no work."
    - adolph 4y ago
      > "For no work" describes crypto. Some crypto, like proof of stake, yes. Other crypto is based on proof of work.
      - ikiris 4y ago
        This is a strawman level definition of "work"
        adolph 4y ago
        Everyone hopes they don’t illustrate the short one.
      - missedthecue 4y ago
        I think they mean productive economic activity.
        4y ago
boeingUH60 4y ago
The stock market is a rich man’s game. Small time, retail investors who think they know what they’re doing almost always get burned in the end. In my opinion, most small-time traders have no business being in the stock markets in the first place, except if it’s relatively safe index funds administered by the likes of Vanguard and BlackRock.
- namdnay 4y ago
  You kind of contradicted your first paragraph at the end :) Small time investors who know what they’re doing have been buying index funds for the past 40 years and making great returns
  - themitigating 4y ago
    You can't invest if you don't have any extra money.
Meekro 4y ago
Since your comment is only tangential to the story, it feels like this is something you just wanted to get off your chest. But now that we're here, let's explore it further: what kinds of changes would satisfy you? If it's about making it easier to invest in the stock market, then what's so hard about it now? Lots of non-rich people are in it now (especially if you count retirement funds), and investing in index funds is an easy way to get a historically reliable 8% return. If it's about rich people not paying their fair share of taxes, then how much would be enough? Is it a certain percentage, or a certain compliance rate, or just until you stop hearing from the New York Times about how this-or-that company is paying too little? By the way, if it's about this, I'd encourage you to make friends with a company owner in the $1-10 million per year range. Ask them about how much tax they pay, and how much time and money they spend on compliance. Ask how their tax rate compares to their secretary. You were kind of vague, so I'm only guessing here-- apologies if I'm way off the mark!
- xapata 4y ago
  > I'd encourage you to make friends with a company owner in the $1-10 million per year range. To be fair to the person you replied to, I think we can assume this kind of company was not the category they were thinking of. Many companies with less than $10 million annual revenue are struggling to stay afloat.
  - Meekro 4y ago
    I think that's fair. Still feels like it's not the real problem, though. GP says "most people feel they are getting screwed" -- I don't think improving Amazon's tax compliance (to quote another commenter who replied to me) is going to change that. Even if a new-and-improved IRS could force Amazon and its ilk into 100% compliance, I'm pretty sure everyone would feel just as screwed as they do now.
    - xapata 4y ago
      > most people feel they are getting screwed For a moment, I had trouble remembering whether that assertion was in the context of getting screwed by the government or by freeloaders. I think to avoid people feeling screwed, we'd need to focus the conversation on what people receive from the government rather than what they or others give.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tarakat 4y ago
No matter what your opinion on economic equality, letting fraudsters profit at the expense of their more honest counterparts harms the economic health of a country. Eventually workers will feel it too.
SilverBirch 4y ago
I think the reason they use investors is one specific reason. From an economists point of view corruption is like sludge in the gears- it slows things down. People need to do more due diligence, be more careful, and risk less when they don't have confidence in the integrity of the market, so it slows everything down. The remit of the SEC is to make sure there's integrity not because of some sense of fairness, but because they think the market works more efficiently when everyone is confident that it's not corrupt, and therefore this brings more economic benefits.

SllX 4y ago

It’s not that interesting. Investors are the ones who are concerned with the financial markets and that’s everyone with money staked in the financial markets. The SEC is a bunch of working stiffs too but their assembly line is the integrity of the US financial markets. Anything outside of that is beyond their jurisdiction.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> there are millions who are not at the table, and millions more who feel the whales are taking way more than they should be able to This is not the SEC's remit. To the degree it's anyone's remit, it's the Fed, Treasury and the CFPB's job.

lifeisstillgood 4y ago
I think it's wider than that - we really are talking about how to share the wealth of all society with all its citizens. But yes, it's why we cannot hope to leave it to the SEC or the Fed. The UK just learnt what happens when the Government and the central bank disagree on even the most basic questions.
alistairSH 4y ago
Or, possibly Congress’ job, as they set tax policy. Prior to the 1980s, we taxed the whales out of existence. Perhaps not a direct cause/effect, but at the same time that we’ve reduced the top marginal rate from 70%+ to 37%, we’ve seen a more unequal income and wealth distribution.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

Everyone with a retirement account is an investor. Everyone with a pension is an investor. The public are investors.

throawaygao1 4y ago
[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Was it ever possible to give every boomer's kids huge amounts of money grown faster than inflation, for no work? "For no work" describes crypto. Stock represents interest in working companies. Real economic growth is real. Distributing that growth is possible. "Huge" is subjective, but fundamentally, the answer to your question is yes, minus "for no work."
  - adolph 4y ago
    > "For no work" describes crypto. Some crypto, like proof of stake, yes. Other crypto is based on proof of work.
    - ikiris 4y ago
      This is a strawman level definition of "work"
      - adolph 4y ago
        Everyone hopes they don’t illustrate the short one.
    - missedthecue 4y ago
      I think they mean productive economic activity.
      - 4y ago

boeingUH60 4y ago

The stock market is a rich man’s game. Small time, retail investors who think they know what they’re doing almost always get burned in the end. In my opinion, most small-time traders have no business being in the stock markets in the first place, except if it’s relatively safe index funds administered by the likes of Vanguard and BlackRock.

namdnay 4y ago
You kind of contradicted your first paragraph at the end :) Small time investors who know what they’re doing have been buying index funds for the past 40 years and making great returns
- themitigating 4y ago
  You can't invest if you don't have any extra money.

Meekro 4y ago

Since your comment is only tangential to the story, it feels like this is something you just wanted to get off your chest. But now that we're here, let's explore it further: what kinds of changes would satisfy you? If it's about making it easier to invest in the stock market, then what's so hard about it now? Lots of non-rich people are in it now (especially if you count retirement funds), and investing in index funds is an easy way to get a historically reliable 8% return. If it's about rich people not paying their fair share of taxes, then how much would be enough? Is it a certain percentage, or a certain compliance rate, or just until you stop hearing from the New York Times about how this-or-that company is paying too little? By the way, if it's about this, I'd encourage you to make friends with a company owner in the $1-10 million per year range. Ask them about how much tax they pay, and how much time and money they spend on compliance. Ask how their tax rate compares to their secretary. You were kind of vague, so I'm only guessing here-- apologies if I'm way off the mark!

xapata 4y ago
> I'd encourage you to make friends with a company owner in the $1-10 million per year range. To be fair to the person you replied to, I think we can assume this kind of company was not the category they were thinking of. Many companies with less than $10 million annual revenue are struggling to stay afloat.
- Meekro 4y ago
  I think that's fair. Still feels like it's not the real problem, though. GP says "most people feel they are getting screwed" -- I don't think improving Amazon's tax compliance (to quote another commenter who replied to me) is going to change that. Even if a new-and-improved IRS could force Amazon and its ilk into 100% compliance, I'm pretty sure everyone would feel just as screwed as they do now.
  - xapata 4y ago
    > most people feel they are getting screwed For a moment, I had trouble remembering whether that assertion was in the context of getting screwed by the government or by freeloaders. I think to avoid people feeling screwed, we'd need to focus the conversation on what people receive from the government rather than what they or others give.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tarakat 4y ago

No matter what your opinion on economic equality, letting fraudsters profit at the expense of their more honest counterparts harms the economic health of a country. Eventually workers will feel it too.

SilverBirch 4y ago

I think the reason they use investors is one specific reason. From an economists point of view corruption is like sludge in the gears- it slows things down. People need to do more due diligence, be more careful, and risk less when they don't have confidence in the integrity of the market, so it slows everything down. The remit of the SEC is to make sure there's integrity not because of some sense of fairness, but because they think the market works more efficiently when everyone is confident that it's not corrupt, and therefore this brings more economic benefits.