I agree with your definition of fair markets vs corrupted, crony, anti-competitive markets.
Regarding my business, I'm doing just fine thank you. My PL analysis does't factor in the competition. I take precisely your approach to analysing my performance.
You are not right about JP Morgan taking irresponsible risks with tax payer money. And in fact, if I were throwing the US taxpayers money at the futures market I would be a far less risky government trader. JP Morgans market capitalization closed today at 157 Billion dollars. Market cap is the number of shares in the company times the share price. At the time of this loss the market cap of the company was 136 Billion. One single trader in a bank that employs thousands of traders, granted a senior trader, in one trade, lost 4.4% of the company total value. I never risk more than 2% of my business on a single trade. And yes, this could have triggered a domino effect in the house of cards that is wall street and yes the US taxpayer is on the hook for JP Morgans trading losses. No big deal in this case, they just called the fed and had 6 Billion sent over to cover it and went back to work making it back. Hard to lose trading a martingales system when you are backed by the taxpayers. And then there's the subsidies.. where's my subsidy, where's my free money, where's my bailout, why do I have to cover my own trading losses. Why do I have to explain to other market operators what a free market is.
Nobody is arguing for that kind of level playing field which is essentially communism.. That experiment has come and went so it had its chance to prove everyone wrong, but instead, it proved the merits of capitalism... So capitalism is here to stay..
However, the point is that as a nation, you want to avoid creating a small but overly powerful elite class (aristocrats) with a mass lower class.. That's characteristic of 3'rd world countries and precisely why they are 3'rd world.. due to the selfishness of their elite to the point of ridiculousness.. and then trust in the "benevolent and fair nature" of those elite to not abuse the lower class.. Just watch Tudors and you'll know what I mean.. What you want is to promote a mass middle class as they promote economic growth.. LIFE WILL NEVER BE FAIR AND THAT'S NOT THE AIM.. THE AIM IS TO BE REASONABLE WHICH IS ACHIEVABLE.. Its only reasonable that the rich pay more taxes.. If social programs can't be afforded, it should be cut back but people should know in reality, it doesn't serve anyones interests to let the lower middle class (majority of Americans) slide into the lower class..
As far as successful traders paying for failed traders, successful traders pay more taxes than failed traders so that's that.. Suppose only a small elite class has the opportunity to try their hand at trading while others have a hard time even entering the business because they don't have the opportunity.. 95% of traders in public forums lose money so that means 95% of traders reading this post and you know who you are.. shame on you if you don't have empathy for others who are struggling..
What we want is to avoid hindering the rich from getting there and thus far, this is not happening in our current tax structure..
Everybody is out for themselves and grab what they can and the rich are no different than the poor... If somebody will be chipping away at the treasury, better spent on social causes than to enrich the greedy.. Don't think its not happening...
To sum up your answer of leveling the playing field: tax success and have empathy for those that fail.
Not sure how that is level; Those who were successful still have money and those who failed don't. You didnt do anything but give the government more money. Unless that is your answer to making the playing field level; give more money to the government so they can redistribute the success of others to those less successful.... But thats already being done.
I am disappointed.. I was really hoping for some actionable substance instead of social generalities you provided.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
nosce te ipsum
Trade what the market is doing; NOT what you think its going to do.
I never claimed to know the answers and nobody here has state actionable ideas that are well thought out so why put me to a higher standard to solve the problems of a country that is complex?
However, imo an environment that citizens can be socially mobile, that promotes philanthropy (not thru government inefficiencies and greased hands) and try to raise up the lower and lower middle into the middle class is good for a country.. I don't see any evidence that taxing the rich is hindering that environment for them.. I also think the super wealthy that don't engage in some form of philanthropy is also a disgrace and even more so if they behave in unethical greedy behavior, which is about as common as the poor abusing social services..
The following user says Thank You to Jedi for this post: