Has anyone done a comparison of how much California collects per capita in tax revenue from property tax versus other states like New York and Texas?
For example, in NY they used assessed value which is an often a small fraction of actual value- sometimes around 10%. In Texas, assessed value is often frozen/ lagged from market values as real estate transactions are not reported to the tax bureau.
Great stuff. Yeah it's as I suspected CA collects more from property tax per capita than TX, NY more than both. CA and NY both have very high income taxes that augment schools so it's not likely lack of money that is causing poor outcomes.
If you increase regulation so the time and cost to build a nuclear plant is impossible...then yeah everything else is way cheaper. Not exactly brkeaking news.
Unfortunately the lack of new builds in the last few decades also removed a proving ground for regular cost optimizations and incremental innovations by firms with increasing institutional knowledge. Most other industries and technologies enjoy this benefit as they keep building products.
Green subsidies are peanuts compared to the subsidies that nuclear gets. Half of the DoE budget is nuclear subsidies, and not being responsible for decomissioning/cleanup amounts to a massive subsidy.
The person you were replying to and the article you posted both make a point you're not addressing:
>Critics allege that the most important subsidies to the nuclear industry have not involved cash payments, but rather the shifting of construction costs and operating risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers, burdening them with an array of risks including cost overruns, defaults to accidents, and nuclear waste management. Critics claim that this approach distorts market choices, which they believe would otherwise favor less risky energy investments.[15]
"shifting construction costs to ratepayers" is done for pretty much all energy projects. This is like saying gasoline refineries shift their costs to people buying gas at the pump.
Waste management is a total red herring. The total amount of waste the US nuclear power industry has produced fits in a volume the footprint of a football fields and 10 yards high [1]. Nuclear power plants have to pay the cost of their nuclear waste disposal up front, it's already internalized into their costs. We already have nuclear waste facilities dug into bedrock, their actual use is being held up by political posturing.
I'd originally replied without really knowing anything about the topic, just noticed that you were avoiding responding to a specific point. Now that you're using dishonest framing like volume rather than mentioning cost. I looked up the cost, nuclear waste costs massively eclipse all other energy subsidies, the OP was right, and I think you know this based on your failure to respond honestly twice.
> I looked up the cost, nuclear waste costs massively eclipse all other energy subsidies
It's be really good if you shared how you arrived at this conclusion. Because renewables have received $11 billion in subsidies in 2016 alone [1]. By comparison, nuclear waste management is already factored into the up-front costs of nuclear power plants [2]. Deep dig nuclear waste repositories like Onkalo cost less than a billion euros to store decades worth of nuclear waste [3].
I'm very, very interested how you reached the conclusion that the cost of storing nuclear waste "massively eclipse" all other energy subsidies. You are very likely mistaking the cost of managing waste from nuclear weapons production [4], which is distinct from nuclear power generation.
Where I live then mostly yes. I'm sure the construction would require some labor from abroad because which project doesn't nowadays.
But I am not sure what the point is. Wind power doesn't get any subsidies here (since some decade), but there are plenty of companies who build parks. When it comes to nuclear, the (state-owned) company want subsidies because otherwise it's not worth it (electricity will be too expensive). Interest from other companies is basically nonexistent.
The reality in the US is currently the opposite extreme, and advocating for reform does not mean another fictional absurdist extreme. The government can be bad at regulation too - especially when decided solely by a small committee of non-technical representatives and career bureaucrats informed by the news cycle of their time who make decades-lasting rules and ossified agency directives.
Why do you think the rules are decided by "a small committee of non-technical representatives and career bureaucrats informed by the news cycle of their time who make decades-lasting rules and ossified agency directives"?
That would be highly unusual in the US. Most rules are at least heavily influenced by lobbyist paid by the industries.
If Sprint had gone bankrupt you would have had the same effect- the assets including licenses sold to Tmobile. That said, I don't think Sprint would have gone bankrupt but it def was underinvesting.
Going from 4 large competitors to 3 has obviously hurt completion and led to higher prices. Americans tend to pay a lot more for their cell service- especially single lines than other countries.
There are mitigating factors such as T-mobile becoming a much more potent competitor with the mid-band spectrum they got from Spectrum.
The FCC hoped that Dish would step in to emerge as that 4th have not materialized. We need Dish or someone else to emerge as a major competitor.
That said, I don't think reversing the merger is a viable option at this point. We really need a 4th national competitor to merge. Dish has potential but so far it's not made a dent.
Fair use is how cos like Google got started in the first place. AI is similarly dependent on sucking up vast quantities of information, with a light touch of course, and use that to create the NEXT Google.
For that matter, who will build the next LLM if anyone like Elon Musk can slap terms of use change on an account because he wants to stop fair use. This is anti innovation and means challenging all these monopolies- Google in search and twitter in Social media will be all the harder.
This needs to get to SCOTUS fast for clarification as it's evil, wrong and will kill innovation.
I wish we had trains just like Japan and Europe have, but we don't have geography or population density like Japan or Europe has.
We have surmountable problems in regulation that drive up our costs to 6x per mile what it costs other countries but the problem is the revenue per ticket mile. Hard to match the city and population density.
There's plenty of high density in certain corridors of North America. Vancouver -> Seattle -> Portland, potentially extending down to California. Geography is not an excuse. Japan and China have horrible geography too.
The article there looks at ONE use of technical analysis which is a moving average crossover. The nicest houses I know are owned by traders who know how to use technical analysis. it is very interesting that such an uniformed opinion is the top rated comment on YC tho.
I’ve always loved technical analysis discourse because it’s the starkest example of how to actually make money in financial markets, and that’s to actively cultivate information asymmetry among other market participants. If technical analysis were a successful strategy, it would, like most other techniques that can actually generate sustainable alpha, be a closely guarded secret. But it’s not. It’s something people shout about from the rooftops trying to get rubes to follow the bait. It’s the same kind of play as wallstreetbets, where you’re tying to increase the amount of stupid, predictable money in your corner of the market.
I think it’s more down to adverse selection… while some really smart people might be making decent returns via technical analysis or whatever, they’ll never disclose their strategies since someone else could frontrun them. Instead, the only strategies we get exposed to are the ones that don’t work, since the best way to make money on a strategy that doesn’t work is to find someone to sell it to. Like - it’s clearly possible to make money trading, because a very small amount of people seem to be able to do so somewhat reliably. But if someone is trying to sell you a trading course, they’re almost certainly more of a scam artist than a genius trading savant.
Not at all. Fundamentally, trading is a positive sum game.
Actual market research directs resources to the most productive companies, helping them grow more quickly and generate positive aggregate value.
Essentially, it's a way to add intelligence and information to the companies that represent the market, to make them more profitable. Specifically, it allows newcomers to grow more quickly if they're more efficent than legacy companies, meaning it's more difficult for the legacy companies to create moats.
Without trading, we might still have IBM at the top of the tech industry, with a massively inefficent organization, low worker salaries and enough market power to keep the competition away, since without a market, startups would need to cover ALL investments using organic profits.
But that's mostly true for medium-long term trading. Short term trading is mostly about speed and finding information or clues faster than anyone else. That part probably generates less net value than it consumes.
"The market" is just a set of order books. I don't find it weird that technical analysis work some times in some markets.
Fully systematic traders exist and make money. Efficient Markets Theory says they shouldn't, but they do anyway. EMH is probably written under stricter/ideal conditions though.
If one wants to take a systematic/technical analysis approach though, I would look at the entire universe of stocks, whereas use a fundamental approach in individual stocks.
> Fully systematic traders exist and make money. Efficient Markets Theory says they shouldn't, but they do anyway.
The post you are responding to already answered this question.
Here is the answer: "it would, like most other techniques that can actually generate sustainable alpha, be a closely guarded secret"
So, to answer the question, the important stuff in the trading strategies that you mentioned, include information asymmetry. Those systemic traders have hidden information, and hidden strategies that they use, and they don't just given everyone open source access to their code.
They make money because growth. Any strategy that is not based on information asymmetry or unique clever use of information makes less than the market on average.
There's plenty of trade secrets in TA as well though. A lot of it comes out because eventually it's beneficial to have fundamentals understood by a larger population so that there's a pool of people to develop the internal tools. Only some of the fundamental TA is common knowledge.
This is the correct answer. Selling "advice" and managing portfolios is by far the easiest legal way to make money on the markets.
There was a newsworthy situation in the UK a couple of years ago where a star manager crashed and burned. He locked his trading account, with everyone's money still in it, and continued charging fees.
I always found it strange. You get to charge money win or lose. And then take percentage winnings... No wonder low fee index funds made so much sense...
Back when there were 20 hedge funds, all managed by geniuses, it was rational to pay for uncorrelated outperformance. Now there are 6000 hedge funds, but there aren't 6000 geniuses.
>The nicest houses I know are owned by traders who know how to use technical analysis.
If you have a large group of people who take risks while trading, and they form strategies indistinguishable from flipping a coin (like technical analysis), then at the end of the day you're going to have a lot of ex-traders who failed to make money and a few that look like rock stars - because taking large risks and being lucky is a "good" way to make money fast. It's the very definition of survivorship bias.
WSB goes to options. So you multiply wins, possibly losses or end up with nothing on your yolo bets as your options expire worthless... Like a casino...
To be fair, the fact that [some traders own nice houses] doesn't imply [technical analysis is a good method]. It's possible that the profit from this sort of trading is essentially random, and there are a few people that get a large profit from that random distribution. I've frequently heard this sort of argument, but I don't have the expertise to determine whether it's true.
The people I know with the nicest houses are doctors and lawyers. I don't think either of us have a large enough samples size. Those who do take a large enough sample will see technical analysis is just a rain dance.
I don’t know about the nice houses, but technical analysis has one thing in common with astrology: one can make a living selling the ideas to other people.
How do we even know how these traders make their money? Maybe they make their money through commissions, i.e. trading other people's money, who maybe believe in technical analysis. Or maybe they make their money through arbitrage or market making. Just because someone "knows" technical analysis doesn't mean they make any money doing it.
> nicest houses I know are owned by traders who know how to use technical analysis
On the sell side, sure--you know when they'll under or overpay. Anyone buying retail flow should be running these models.
Technical analysis just looks at the surface of the order book--the transaction layer. If you're integrating the book, you can see when the surface is misleading and profit from it. There are technical heuristics, e.g. dead cat bounces, round-number tendencies, et cetera which are based in reality, part flow of funds and part psychological. But technicians' sole reliance on stock charts necessitates blindness to those underlying conditions.
In summary, a stock's near-term price history can, on its own, provide information that predicts the next tick. It's just a known subset of a broader set of signals. That the delineation is known makes those relying on these strategies possible to arbitrage.
Actually it totally makes sense. Most people here are/will never be rich. It's the software equivalent of the business professor who talks a big game in class but has never made money or built a business.
> The nicest houses I know are owned by traders who know how to use technical analysis.
One interesting thing about the stock market is that it’s entirely possible to be successful in it, attributing that success to strategy X, yet to be completely wrong about that.
It’s actually not limited to the stock market – there’s tons of professionals out there that are completely unaware of why what they do works. This makes many people nervous, and they try to come up with a rationalization or mental model for it, and sometimes they get it completely wrong.
> The nicest houses I know are owned by traders who know how to use technical analysis.
By itself that doesn't mean anything, surely you realize?
What percentage of technical analysis traders own the million dollar houses?
You definitely can make huge amounts of money on short term trades if you get lucky. So occasionally a TA trader will become very rich and have a mansion.
But, do more than 50% of them strike it that rich? If not, it's just random.
It's like saying that powerball winners have mansions, therefore the best investment strategy is to buy powerball tickets.
Why not a similarly brave stance in China? In China Apple claims it "obeys all local laws" except in the UK it wants to be courageous? I guess it's a brave state unless the $$$ are good.
Apple claims that messages sent with their Messages application are end-to-end encrypted, even in China, and that they have made no concessions to government of China.
But... Everyone in China has their iCloud backups stored in China and Apple holds the keys to these backups. While Apple cannot read E2E encrypted Messages content, they do upload an unencrypted (but encrypted with keys they control) backup of all of the phones Messages data.
It seems likely China can ask Apple for a backup of a citizen's phone and Apple will comply with that request. Or they have access to these data centers.
That is a good point. It's also possible that Apple has made some kind of concession but has found a weasel-y way to do it that let's them feel like they can claim no concessions have been made.
Maybe the difference is that Apple feels they may be able to talk the UK out of this idea.
Yea, pretty interesting point.. seems like either the uk market isn't big enough for them to implement a solution or they don't care about the market and they care about people in the uk but they don't care about people in China.
in advance I agree with a more cynical point as well, but I think we need to consider that there's equally plausible and more positive potential reasons
- if there is success in the UK, relevant persons at Apple can make a more compelling argument to push back on China and other governments a lot more
- perhaps apple is still pushing hard on china and using the UK as an example that they're willing to drop a long time strong market over the anti-encryption legislation
I'm not saying either is the case, but there are benign or even positive reads on why apple is more aggressive with the UK
It's not super interesting. Apple's reliance on China in many ways, and thus hypocrisy, is reasonably well known.
"At least" companies can put up a fight in the UK (or US, see Apple in the San Bernardino case) and they have a reasonable chance they can lobby to block the efforts.
Apple isn't foolish enough to believe that China will fold, it is obvious that if Apple refuses and iPhone will be banned.
However there is a great chance that if they threaten to pull out of the UK that the law won't pass. Even if it does it is good marketing. Who knows what will actually happen if the law comes into effect. The UK market definitely isn't small, for all we know they may back down. Or maybe their reputation is more valuable.
