Our politicians are more than happy to let the Chinese beta test authoritarian technology on their citizenry before we can deploy the same in what remains of Western democracies.
We criticize them just a little, by principle, but as soon as the tech proves effective at controlling population, we adopt the tech "because it works".
I thought most of those deaths were indirectly, resulting from agricultural and economic policies and forced relocations and only a relatively (10%) small number of executions?
If you include economic causes, you might need to include the excess mortality of systematically impoverished communities in western nations — and I don’t just mean “PoC in the USA”, as I can point to a UK study claiming the government’s austerity policies since 2010 have caused 120,000 excess deaths: https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/health-and-social-care-...
Also, if those deaths were related to economic policies, you probably have to weigh them by population size.
Obviously that’s still a million executions more than most; I am not defending him, this is just about making it an apples-to-apples comparison.
New Stalin style dictatorships are unlikely to arise in developed countries. A gradual descend into modern-Russia style governance is much more likely.
We have learned a lot about building stable power structures in the last 50 years. You don't need to have a death grip on everything in the country. A much softer touch is the technique of choice of modern oppressive regimes.
Why disallow other parties when you can just make sure the right party always wins?
Why get rid of capitalism if you can just pick the winners?
Why censor information when you can drown the airwaves in fake news?
Why purge dissidents if they have no power to change things?
Why control what people do when you can control what people want to do?
If they are doing this without disclosure, they are adding counterparty risk without consent. Just because they didn't blow up does not mean they can't. It doesn't even have to be due to your trade but someone else's. There have been single trades that have blown up international banks. Rare, and probably irrelevant here, but a point for perspective.
Yes. Mindfulness is not about just being present during pleasurable moments. A lot of the value, to me, is being present when my mind or expectations conflict with the world around us. That leads to an examination of ourselves, insight, and ultimately growth. This is very different than the withdrawl into feel good moments, which is what is often sold to us.
Put options lose value over time. You are speculating on the near-term risk of stocks losing value - effectively trying to time the market/predict the weather.
Selling put options is a bet that the put options will expire worthless, which is a bet that stocks will continue to go up/not fall.
I honestly believe the insurance analogy for options is misleading. The value of an option is quite literally the difference in value between selling the stock at market price and at the option strike. As a stockholder you don't save yourself as much from buying put options regularly as you would from say getting a surgery covered with health insurance.
I do something like what you are saying but with selling covered calls while I am long a stock. A quick search online will show you strategies like this. It is not uncommon for more active equity traders.
I mostly play long cycles in the equity market instead of trading. When I do trade equities, I play one or two stocks that I know their behavior intimately. My very active trading is mostly in futures and currencies.
Yeah, thanks to put call parity a covered call and a naked put are basically the same thing. (I wonder if it's in some more general sense similar-ish to lending out your long equity to short sellers?)
Having said all that, I'm an indexer at heart, and working for Bloomberg I'm not even allowed to trade the more interesting stuff.
I worked in this field a bit at Baylor. There are those who want to model the 'hardware' down to every complexity and those who want to figure out the 'software' that emerges from the physical hardware. The groups communicate but are fairly divided.
Does it tune itself or is static? It definitely tunes, but it can be meaningful to the algorithm or ignored.
"But it doesn't get truly dangerous until people are buying stocks with borrowed money. "
Currently, the borrowed money is nearly free money via low interest rates. A lot of games are being played to juice out every cent that can be made on being able to get cheap money. When the value of assets used to play these games are ignored vs. the diminishing profit. It becomes musical chairs.
I doubt we get your everyday Joe betting on margin like the dotcom bubble, but we have the same effect, just different users.
Isn't the promotion transparent enough to not be shitty? To me is seems more like, 'if you are going to do it anyway and are on the fence about who you are going to go with, try us!'.
