If you're familiar with the game of craps, and especially gambling, you'll probably appreciate this post. If not, I'll try to explain everything the best I can.
The craps board is laid out into sections. There is the Pass/Don't Pass, the Come/Don't Come, seperate numbers, and the exotic bets section. The actual object of the game is to either (a) get the number ("point") before someone rolls a 7, or (b) get a 7 before the point is established. If you get 2, 3, or 12, that's called craps and you lose.
The way I play craps is that you have a much better chance of getting a 7 versus all of the other numbers. The people who want to win using a "point" play the Pass/Come section. The people who want to win using "7" use the Don't Pass/Don't Come section. Usually you get hostile stares when everyone's betting Pass and you put money on the Don't Pass.
For the exotic bets, people see the odds on some of these bets and figure they'll make tons of money. That's what the casino wants you to think, but they know ahead of time that these exotic bets win plenty of money for the house. The worst bet - any seven - has a house advantage of 16%, whereas a Pass/Come bet ranks about 1%.
In the stock market, too many traders, instead of making serious trades, shuffled a lot of their money into exotic bets - subprime mortgages, derivatives, etc. They were losing tons of money until the Federal Reserve agreed in principal to take over the bad bets. If I tried to take my losing craps bets and begged the casino to take them, I would be nursing serious bruises and broken bones, as the layman can't pass on his debt back to the casino (especially if they're using "markers" - loaned money to pay back the debt). The same thing happens in Wall Street: traders will use margin to buy stocks, and if they do poorly, they either meet the margin to keep on playing or give up the stocks. What happened was previous stinkeroos of bets piled on top of one another, and when one source of money ran out, traders attempted to goose other instruments, like gold and energy, to make a quick buck, then paid off their old debts.
What happened this week should be a warning to those who think they'll get rich off the stock market. Unless you like to see how sausage is made, your best bet is to stay away from it. Yes, your 401(k) you've so lovingly contributed and your company has matched should be safe, but all it takes is one stupid and irresponsible bet for your account to vanish. On the other side, those who are screaming that Wall Street is now being "socialized" is missing the entire point why the government sometimes has to step in to prevent stock market crashes from happening. In fact, some of the financial pundits should have no business being in front of a TV screen - dispensing such advice as "401(k) money is free money" (it isn't), "Stock XYZ will make a killing - buy now!" (stock starts at $10, spikes up to $50, but then ends up getting delisted and liquidated for less than a dime), and "The economy is doing fine/horrible!" (says who?)
I've been following business for a few years now. If you want to learn what happens when bad bets on Wall Street come home to roost, I suggest renting the excellent Kevin Bacon movie Quicksilver. For laughs and how to really work over the people who hate you, I heartily recommend Trading Places.
Showing posts with label hacks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hacks. Show all posts
9/19/2008
10/03/2007
We have met the enemy, and s/he is us (and our egos)
Pogo said it, but Jon Keller gives us an example of that very phrase: pick up with momentum of dissatisfaction with the other side of the aisle, and then bring that momentum to a screeching halt with a war surtax.
I don't think it will happen, because it will bear even more people already displeased their income taxes are going to the government for reasons they don't agree with. But if it does go through, the sacrifice should go both ways. If taxpayers are shelling out an extra 2-15% in surtax to fund the war, the senators and representatives are required to surrender 70% of their paychecks into a tax-free fund that will directly assist the soldiers' families.
At $150,000 per year, that's $56 million diverted to soldiers and their families - not chump change. With interest, this can grow into the billions, and give the families a much needed break when the savings and checking accounts are depleted. It will also call the bluff of those senators/representatives of who really does "support the troops" - literally putting a 70% tax where their mouth is, and taking note of who weasels out. With their salaries cut deeply, the senators/reps may then appreciate the value of wealth, and see the folly of socialism - through the iron gloves of income redistribution and punishing people for working hard and generating wealth.
To quote Jon Keller, they do it for "...[s]ymbolism. Grandstanding. Scoring what may well be a valid political point at the potential expense of gaining the political power to effect real change. In other words, doing what baby-boom era pols (of both parties) are notorious for doing, feeding their egos while progress goes hungry."
Jules Crittenden adds his 2-15 cents, with the money quote, "Conceptual flaw. Poor drafting skills, if you will. Lack of perspective. Dems understand that people hate taxes, because someone told them that once. But because they love taxes so much, they don’t get exactly how much people hate them, and therefore, how dumb this idea is. Nobody’s going to get, “Gee, this war costs a lot” off of this. They will get, “Those [jerks] want another 15 percent.”"
I don't think it will happen, because it will bear even more people already displeased their income taxes are going to the government for reasons they don't agree with. But if it does go through, the sacrifice should go both ways. If taxpayers are shelling out an extra 2-15% in surtax to fund the war, the senators and representatives are required to surrender 70% of their paychecks into a tax-free fund that will directly assist the soldiers' families.
At $150,000 per year, that's $56 million diverted to soldiers and their families - not chump change. With interest, this can grow into the billions, and give the families a much needed break when the savings and checking accounts are depleted. It will also call the bluff of those senators/representatives of who really does "support the troops" - literally putting a 70% tax where their mouth is, and taking note of who weasels out. With their salaries cut deeply, the senators/reps may then appreciate the value of wealth, and see the folly of socialism - through the iron gloves of income redistribution and punishing people for working hard and generating wealth.
To quote Jon Keller, they do it for "...[s]ymbolism. Grandstanding. Scoring what may well be a valid political point at the potential expense of gaining the political power to effect real change. In other words, doing what baby-boom era pols (of both parties) are notorious for doing, feeding their egos while progress goes hungry."
Jules Crittenden adds his 2-15 cents, with the money quote, "Conceptual flaw. Poor drafting skills, if you will. Lack of perspective. Dems understand that people hate taxes, because someone told them that once. But because they love taxes so much, they don’t get exactly how much people hate them, and therefore, how dumb this idea is. Nobody’s going to get, “Gee, this war costs a lot” off of this. They will get, “Those [jerks] want another 15 percent.”"
6/05/2007
I ain't payin' $5 tax on a keg of Natty Light!
If our legislators weren't so addicted to spending money, our taxes would be a heck of a lot lower.
Vice (or sin) taxes are super-popular, as it's easier to inveigle the control freak nature of some of these pols. Take away the vice, and you take away the easy, interest-free and hassle money to be spent on more noble things, like naming a park after your girlfriend or researching the mating habits of albino squirrels.
We are non-smokers, and we think the habit of smoking is disgusting and dangerous. We will not chase you down with a high-powered fan if we catch you with a cigarette/cigar/pipe, however, as we love and adore freedom and respect personal choice. If the Commonwealth of Massachusetts banned cigarette smoking and cigarette sales, they'd lose $1.50 per pack in tax alone (which comes to $30 per carton - for a $48 carton that comes to a tax rate of 62.5%!). Whether there would be a black market for smokers, or better yet, a gigantic boom for stores in other states with minimal to low taxes (New Hampshire), is uncertain. When Massachusetts loses hundreds of millions of dollars in cigarette taxes because they thought it wise to ban it, everyone loses. Prohibition didn't work because a nice new black market took its place, and crime syndicates loved the idea of cornering the market in illicit hooch.
The 5% booze tax proposal will do nothing to control drinking, i.e. overconsumption of alcohol. The idea of using the money for substance abuse is well and good, but doing it through the focus of a vice tax smacks of the same Carrie Nation prudishness that did very little than give rise to speakeasies and Al Capone. Better yet, why not have some of these politicians, who get paid in the low six figure range, or about ten times poverty level, voluntarily withhold a healthy part of their paychecks for this plan? Nope...they're elected officials, and the little people must pay.
Vice (or sin) taxes are super-popular, as it's easier to inveigle the control freak nature of some of these pols. Take away the vice, and you take away the easy, interest-free and hassle money to be spent on more noble things, like naming a park after your girlfriend or researching the mating habits of albino squirrels.
We are non-smokers, and we think the habit of smoking is disgusting and dangerous. We will not chase you down with a high-powered fan if we catch you with a cigarette/cigar/pipe, however, as we love and adore freedom and respect personal choice. If the Commonwealth of Massachusetts banned cigarette smoking and cigarette sales, they'd lose $1.50 per pack in tax alone (which comes to $30 per carton - for a $48 carton that comes to a tax rate of 62.5%!). Whether there would be a black market for smokers, or better yet, a gigantic boom for stores in other states with minimal to low taxes (New Hampshire), is uncertain. When Massachusetts loses hundreds of millions of dollars in cigarette taxes because they thought it wise to ban it, everyone loses. Prohibition didn't work because a nice new black market took its place, and crime syndicates loved the idea of cornering the market in illicit hooch.
The 5% booze tax proposal will do nothing to control drinking, i.e. overconsumption of alcohol. The idea of using the money for substance abuse is well and good, but doing it through the focus of a vice tax smacks of the same Carrie Nation prudishness that did very little than give rise to speakeasies and Al Capone. Better yet, why not have some of these politicians, who get paid in the low six figure range, or about ten times poverty level, voluntarily withhold a healthy part of their paychecks for this plan? Nope...they're elected officials, and the little people must pay.
4/20/2007
Give Vermont back to the Vermonters, you illegal occupiers from the Upper West Side!
Native Vermonters, unite! Stand tall and oust the yuppies, hippies, socialists, members of the legislature who think Bush and Cheney should be impeached...bring your pitchforks, key the Priuses, bring dogs to Ben and Jerry's plant to add extra oomph to Chunky Monkey and a little tang to Cherry Garcia...take your wild children to break up the art galleries and antique shops...and send them back to the Upper West Side of Manhattan where they belong!
3/30/2007
Lynn invades Swampscott, annexes Marblehead, film at 11
"Lynn students will be slaves to the captains of industry!" saith a pol/hack from Swampscott.
"Like, as if, grody to the max, barf me out, Mr. Bufu," retorts Lynn students, before making mustaches and missing teeth out of this pol's picture.
Lynn, for those of you who don't know Massachusetts, is a city about 15 miles northeast of downtown Boston, and is a large city in Essex County. It used to be an industrial city, but some sections are actually quite nice and verdant. But this doesn't mean people should run right out to Lynn - some sections rival Roxbury and Dorchester, and are definitely not for casual walking.
"Lynn, Lynn, the city of sin...you don't come out the way you came in." The old ditty is true, we tell you!
"Like, as if, grody to the max, barf me out, Mr. Bufu," retorts Lynn students, before making mustaches and missing teeth out of this pol's picture.
Lynn, for those of you who don't know Massachusetts, is a city about 15 miles northeast of downtown Boston, and is a large city in Essex County. It used to be an industrial city, but some sections are actually quite nice and verdant. But this doesn't mean people should run right out to Lynn - some sections rival Roxbury and Dorchester, and are definitely not for casual walking.
"Lynn, Lynn, the city of sin...you don't come out the way you came in." The old ditty is true, we tell you!
12/27/2006
Prop 2-1/2 is already in the crosshairs!
The more and more we read into the SJC's decision to allow same-sex couples to marry, the more and more we get confused.
We were going to write a screed last night, but after reading Jon Keller's article, we pulled a Jay Severin - allow us to retract and rephrase. (And we agree with Jon Keller - Prop 2-1/2 is not just in the crosshairs, but ready to be attacked like Fort Wagner. And all couples and families will be facing much larger property tax increases should Prop 2-1/2 be repealed.)
Who, exactly, is on the wrong side of this issue? Not the couples who want to marry and have it legally in the books as Mrs. and Mrs. Smith or Mr. and Mr. Jones. The very act of betrothal is an legal act of commitment, in the books of the county seat, that if married person A dies or gets sick or divorces, married person B is not required to jump ugly with the county probate court - where children or property might be involved.
The SJC, in their wisdom, took an approach that the opponents and proponents of same-sex marriage have bent and twisted way out of proportion. It is neither "the courts have spoken and can never be voted on" nor "the courts have overstepped their boundaries and violated the Constitution." The SJC took pains to say, "This same-sex marriage law looks all right, but make sure all the bases are covered."
The bases, sadly to say, are covered - with ginned up lawyers, crooked pols, and militant activists. The real issue is for one side to convince the public that their position is right, and if they win, would they mind keeping up their winning streak with a donation or two, or perhaps a vote for me in the primaries?
What doesn't help is that the Massachusetts state legislature has become more like the Soviet Politburo, mixed in with Mafia crime family machinations for good measure. The same yahoos who are clamoring for these Legislature to defy the SJC's request to do something, other than dance and babble in front of a camera, either put too much trust in their pols, or don't have enough smarts to know they're being bamboozled.
Remember the Clean Elections Law, in which candidates would only receive public money if they accepted no contributions or private or personal funds? After the hacks got really scared that a "Clean Elections" candidate didn't have to work hard or press the flesh as often as the tried-and-true back-room dealings, where pork and committee chairmanships could be bought and sold with a glass of scotch and a handshake, Tom Finneran & Co. killed it off.
Who's to say that if same-sex marriage did come to a vote and became truly legal as the SJC intended it, the legislature wouldn't hesitate to suffocate that law too - and effectively giving the anti-same-sex crowd an unintentional victory - and immediately making same-sex marriages null and void. Caveat emptor.
We were going to write a screed last night, but after reading Jon Keller's article, we pulled a Jay Severin - allow us to retract and rephrase. (And we agree with Jon Keller - Prop 2-1/2 is not just in the crosshairs, but ready to be attacked like Fort Wagner. And all couples and families will be facing much larger property tax increases should Prop 2-1/2 be repealed.)
Who, exactly, is on the wrong side of this issue? Not the couples who want to marry and have it legally in the books as Mrs. and Mrs. Smith or Mr. and Mr. Jones. The very act of betrothal is an legal act of commitment, in the books of the county seat, that if married person A dies or gets sick or divorces, married person B is not required to jump ugly with the county probate court - where children or property might be involved.
The SJC, in their wisdom, took an approach that the opponents and proponents of same-sex marriage have bent and twisted way out of proportion. It is neither "the courts have spoken and can never be voted on" nor "the courts have overstepped their boundaries and violated the Constitution." The SJC took pains to say, "This same-sex marriage law looks all right, but make sure all the bases are covered."
The bases, sadly to say, are covered - with ginned up lawyers, crooked pols, and militant activists. The real issue is for one side to convince the public that their position is right, and if they win, would they mind keeping up their winning streak with a donation or two, or perhaps a vote for me in the primaries?
What doesn't help is that the Massachusetts state legislature has become more like the Soviet Politburo, mixed in with Mafia crime family machinations for good measure. The same yahoos who are clamoring for these Legislature to defy the SJC's request to do something, other than dance and babble in front of a camera, either put too much trust in their pols, or don't have enough smarts to know they're being bamboozled.
Remember the Clean Elections Law, in which candidates would only receive public money if they accepted no contributions or private or personal funds? After the hacks got really scared that a "Clean Elections" candidate didn't have to work hard or press the flesh as often as the tried-and-true back-room dealings, where pork and committee chairmanships could be bought and sold with a glass of scotch and a handshake, Tom Finneran & Co. killed it off.
Who's to say that if same-sex marriage did come to a vote and became truly legal as the SJC intended it, the legislature wouldn't hesitate to suffocate that law too - and effectively giving the anti-same-sex crowd an unintentional victory - and immediately making same-sex marriages null and void. Caveat emptor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)