Jump to content

What's May up to? General election 08/06/2017

Recommended Posts

How many people are employed per transaction in the buying and selling of stocks and shares, bearing in mind that most of those transactions are done by robots at rates of many millions per second.

 

Where does the profit that they make actually come from?

 

 

Per transaction, an absolutely tiny fraction of 1. In total, absolutely millions.

 

You might want to look some of this stuff up. You're very quick with the whole "you don't agree with me therefore you've misunderstood" line. That's going to cause problems for you if you display wilful ignorance of that which you can easily learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Per transaction, an absolutely tiny fraction of 1. In total, absolutely millions.

 

You might want to look some of this stuff up. You're very quick with the whole "you don't agree with me therefore you've misunderstood" line. That's going to cause problems for you if you display wilful ignorance of that which you can easily learn.

 

Are you sure you are not mixing up people with profits here?

 

There are not millions of people involved in high volume share trading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you sure you are not mixing up people with profits here?

 

There are not millions of people involved in high volume share trading.

 

But the shares are ultimately shares in real companies. And moving their ownership around is economically useful. Without it, the economy would be smaller and everybody would be worse off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of which is irrelevant to the point Hairyloon was making which was that such trading doesn't require lots of people.

 

whilst it may or may not be economically useful you cannot present that fact as a valid point when the debate point is about something else entirely

 

HL pointed out that you don't need many people to trade large volumes of shares.

 

He is right. Point made, by him and time to move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All of which is irrelevant to the point Hairyloon was making which was that such trading doesn't require lots of people.

 

whilst it may or may not be economically useful you cannot present that fact as a valid point when the debate point is about something else entirely

 

HL pointed out that you don't need many people to trade large volumes of shares.

 

He is right. Point made, by him and time to move on.

 

That's not the point he was making. Re-read post 335.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read it. There isn't much in the way of people or profits in merely brokering securities. Unless you mean in speculation which isn't the same as brokerage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've read it. There isn't much in the way of people or profits in merely brokering securities. Unless you mean in speculation which isn't the same as brokerage.

 

Not directly. But all economic activity which contributes to the value of the economy overall has value which ultimately feeds through to jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not directly.

 

Good. Since you've acknowledged the point raised perhaps we can move on now your thoroughly derailed the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good. Since you've acknowledged the point raised perhaps we can move on now your thoroughly derailed the thread.

 

I never claimed it was direct. Straw man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes ive noticed you do raise a lot of strawmen. Please stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the shares are ultimately shares in real companies.

But that does not create employment.

And moving their ownership around is economically useful. Without it, the economy would be smaller and everybody would be worse off.

That used to be the case, when investments were actually invested by people in people and projects. Those days are long gone: most of the investments are made by money for money's sake.

The human element has gone and the markets are driven by the Love of Money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My opinion on this is as valuable and as worthless as everyone else's. I have only ever been impressed by two politicians: One is Jacob Rees Mogg. He has an almost total recall of government policy, history, facts and figures and never seems flustered or confused. And Frank Field, who, to me at least, was genuine.

 

I think Ruth Davidson and Andy Burnham are likeable. I liked Vince Cable when he was around. And the late Charles Kennedy was a good egg.

 

Otherwise.....meh.

 

I did used to think that Ruth Davidson was likeable until recently, when she supported Osborne's final gift to the country, the 'child tax credit rape clause.' Surely one of the most jarring and obnoxious policies you could think of, irrespective of your political allegiance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.