Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
I think people wouldn't like me too much in part because I would ban almost every financial security :hehe:
I theorize that the number of them that are understood by normal people and effective are so few they can be enumerated explicitly. One or two forms of simple interest / fixed interest, long sale stocks, the ones that we have hundred plus years of data that are well understood and typically do not result in a cascading failure.
- Doughnut Lollipop 【記録係】:blobfoxgooglymlem: likes this.
-
Embed this notice
@icedquinn as a european it's incredibly distressing to see that the US might further deregulate its finance industry, given what happened when they threw glass-steagall out the window
-
Embed this notice
@whiteline and that regulation was relatively simple, too. they just couldn't use the well behaved utility banks' money to for gambling purposes.
(they will screech and whine that what they do isn't "gambling" because of large volumes of semantic copes, but everyone knows that it basically is that.)
-
Embed this notice
@whiteline i've seen said screeching where they try to redefine gambling as pure chance and if you can speculate in a way that results in winning above pure chance its "not gambling," but this would mean that legally poker is not gambling (it is gambling) and everyone continues to accept poker is gambling even though there are ways to be more certain about winning it.
its all just a smoke screen so people can play super poker and hope they get richer than god by selling corn that hasn't grown yet and other bullshit