RichardGibbons

Funny that the badness of increased capital gain inclusion rates didn't come to pass, making this thread moot. Still, I'll hold it against the Liberals for making everyone worried.

C#. As Joe says, I was assuming that the network latency is far greater than any in-machine slowness. It would surprise me if that weren't the case, but that's just a rule of thumb from my background in distributed computing rather than actually having any evidence.

Sure. I can talk about one of my failed ideas almost fits the theme of this board, auto-trading. As you probably know, Interactive Brokers has an Application Programmer's Interface (API). For those who aren't geeks, this means that it's easy to write your own program that can access the functionality of Interactive Brokers' trading application. Your program can, among other things, get real-time quotes and trade shares and options. Of course, this presents an almost irresistible temptation to create my own trading program, so that's what I did. I decided to focus on trading the leveraged and unleveraged volatility ETF & ETNs (TVIX, VXX etc.) My reasoning for selecting these guys was essentially that I needed stupidly high volatility to be profitable. I wasn't sure how real-time my real-time quotes actually were, but they were certainly far less real-time than the pros. Plus, I was going to be losing on the spread and the commission with every trade. So, I needed big moves to actually profit, and there was almost nothing in the market that was as volatile as the volatility ETFs. What's more, this was 2009 and 2010, so the volatility of volatility was still pretty high coming off the 2008 crash. So, I coded an application that initially would simply get real-time quotes and dump them into a database. I can't remember how long I did this for--probably only about nine months, nowhere near long enough to be confident of anything, but enough to be dangerous. :) Then, I created a simple day-trading trend following application. Essentially, it would enter a trade when the ETF had gone a certain amount in a particular direction (long if the trend was up, short if the trend was down). Then, it would close the position when the trend stopped, or at market close. It probably averaged two positions per day. According to the data, this seemed like a profitable strategy because these volatility EFTs would move slowly, then spasm dramatically in either direction. If you could get the beginning of that spasm, you could be profitable. I allowed my program to paper trade that for a while (another nice feature of Interactive Brokers), and it still seemed profitable. And then I tried it with real money. It mostly worked, for about six months. My position sizing was about $30K, and after about six months I was up $20K. However, there were some problems. Despite the computer turning around the "real-time quotes" almost instantly, my trades frequently didn't happen at the exact bid/ask that was quoted, particularly in cases where the spasm was really big and fast (think a 10% move in 30 seconds). Missing a big chunk of these spasms really hurt my returns. The profitability numbers were pretty interesting. Missing the start of these spasms cost me 50% of my theoretical returns. What's more, my theoretical returns were less than half of what they could be if I didn't have to worry about the spread (i.e. if instead I bought and sold at the mid-point of the bid/ask spread). And commission were taking another chunk, like 20% of my theoretical profits. In other words, the market maker was certainly making far more from my trading than me, and my broker was doing pretty well too. It's also worthwhile noting that trading in shares was more profitable than trading in the options, simply because the options effectively had bigger spreads and the moves to make options profitable needed to be larger. Thus, trading shares led to higher number of low-value wins, while option trading led to a lower number of high-value wins. Both strategies were profitable, but for my algorithm, share trading beat options trading. Then, as time passed and the market got farther away from 2008, volatility decreased, which also decreased the volatility of volatility. This was quite bad for me, since my program relied on the volatility ETFs being volatile to make money. My profits started to evaporate. Luckily, I had programmed pretty charts, so I knew what was going on, so I shut it down when I only had a profit of $10K. The final numbers were pretty funny. With my trades of about $30K each, I'd turned over something like $4-5 Million in shares, paid thousands of dollars in commissions, and ended up with a profit of $10K. From a mathematical perspective, it's hard to even know if my $10K profit on $4M in trades would be statistically significant. I suspect not. It was a fun game. Sitting around while my computer makes money for me has psychological appeal for me, despite the (reasonable) paranoia of something going wrong (i.e. my program or Interactive Brokers crashing when I'm short VIX right before a flash crash. My program never crashed, but it was a valid concern nevertheless.) So that's one story. I might share others later. I also have some stuff on my blog, though the political posts are likely too left-wing for your taste. My blog doesn't have a theme beyond things that interest me.

Agreed. The other factor is that government policies (i.e. stupidly low interest rates) have encouraged Canadians to take on massive amounts of debt and have discouraged savings and investment. Do they really think the best path for Canada is to further discourage savings? Do they really want to create a society where everyone is dependent on a government handout for their retirement? Seems like a terrible idea to me.

I actually agree with you 100%. I think capitalism is great, and anyone who would want to do away with it hasn't really though about it much. I don't think the investment tax rates should be raised, and I don't support lowering the contribution amount in TFSAs (they should've changed RRSPs before mucking with TFSAs). I think unions have some positive attributes, but are a net negative by far. I agree that spending other people's money is insidious. I'm not happy with Trudeau--we suddenly have huge deficits, and it's unclear to me where that extra money is going (yeah, I should probably find out. :)). I probably would've voted Conservative last election if the leader had been anyone other that Harper, but I can't vote for someone who attacks science and evidence-based reasoning. I believe in single-payer healthcare because the real world seems show that it has the best balance between outcomes and costs (but I also recognize that the rest of the world is freeloading off of USA--because Americans are willing to grossly overpay for their healthcare relative to the rest of the world, treatments are developed that wouldn't otherwise be developed, benefiting everyone in the first world.) The main reason I show up as leftist here is because I'm always responding to someone on the right saying something is "obvious", when it's anything but. I'd probably never do another political post here if it weren't for people taking some unsupported ideological rhetoric and saying "It's as simple as that."

Because that does nothing to address the issues that wealth redistribution is trying to address. I suppose my red herring, equally invalid parallel counterargument is, "if you don't think you're getting value for you tax dollar in Canada, why do you move somewhere where you would get value for your tax dollars?"

I have a way to get a good answer. Hey Sanjeev, what drives you? :) I think both RB and Mephistopheles answers are good and true of me. I'll also give my own answer. For some people, doing one thing really well and making it as big as possible is fun. So, I'd put people like Watsa, Buffett, Ellison etc in this camp. They do what they do because it's fun, and what else would they do? I'm more of a generalist though. I've started multiple tech businesses and become a multimillionaire, but I'm not so wealthy that I don't need to think about what I buy. I still budget. However, instead of continuing to become ever wealthier, I've decided to do what I want instead. Essentially, the decision is, "would I be happier trying to get twice as much money or doing other stuff?" Since I'm a generalist, my answer is "other stuff". I have a bunch of ideas that I want to explore--new businesses, math problems, blogging, investing stuff, and programming challenges. Now that I'm financially independent, I'm exploring those ideas. Mostly recently, I've been writing novels. Writing is a terrible way to make money. I'd never have it as my primary focus if I weren't financial independent. But for some people it's fun, and I'm one of those people. So I'm publishing novels--my first one was The Battlefield Abductions. Eventually, I'll move on to something else. As an aside, one thing that the question seems to imply is that retirement is more fun than other things. But, I don't think that's actually the case. Really, doing nothing is boring. Seeking nothing but entertainment (video games, movies, beaches, theme parks, drugs) is equally boring. Creating and exploring interesting things is far more fun. So, I think the answer is usually that people will do whatever they enjoy. So, people who enjoy creating massive businesses will do that. Other people, like me, will explore ideas. For some of my other thoughts on financial independence, I did an AMA on reddit about the topic.

It really isn't as simple as that. Capitalism naturally results in winners becoming even bigger winners because it's easier to make money when you have money, and because competitive advantages mean the corporations that win today are far more likely to win tomorrow too, and because the genetic lottery means winners can be more skilled than losers. So, wealth naturally accumulates at the top end. What's more, growing the wealth isn't necessarily good for most people. Take society A with 100 people, with wealth of $1,000 distributed so the top 10 people get $40 each, the middle 50 get $10 each, and the bottom 30 get $3.30 each. Now, compare it to society B that has more wealth, $1,200, but distributed so the top person gets $1101, and the bottom 99 people get $1. Despite the greater wealth, Society B certainly isn't better of for the vast majority. What's more, the economy largely rides on the spending of the majority. If you give another dollar to the rich dude, he won't spend it, while the 99 people with $1 almost certainly will, driving the economy. Thus, there's a decent chance that the economy will actually be bigger if you redistribute the wealth to people who will actually spend it. Capitalism naturally skews toward society B, and the irony is that even the rich dude is worse off in that society, because things like hospitals, movie theatres, sports arenas etc. don't get built if the vast majority is at subsistence living. Thus, redistribution is good. All that said, I agree with your earlier point: To me, the current taxation levels for investment income make sense to me. One point people also haven't raised is that investment gains should be taxed at a lower level to take into account inflation. Like, why should I pay full tax on my investment gains when I'm simply trying to maintain the value of my money as the government deliberately causes inflation to make its value shrink? I'm being taxed on inflation, and that seems really wrong.

I made some changes to my portfolio with the assumption that yesterday was the last chance for a T+3 sale. Me too (well, I did it in February because I wasn't sure how much notice we'd have for budget day).

My bet is that it's too late. My reasoning is that the settlement date isn't 72 work hours, but rather three work days. Thus, the settlement date is Wednesday, not "Wednesday before the budget was read." If they didn't have this, then in theory, you could sell, say, a house, an hour after the budget was read, settle it immediately, and still pay the lower capital gains tax. Thus, I'd bet that anything that settles on the 22nd or later will be at the new inclusion rate.

Interesting results. Thanks cigar.

Interesting perspective. I think I'm one of the more left-wing people on this board, and I'd actually support a nominal $25 usage fee (or something like a $50 initial consultation fee to avoid screwing over the people with persistent issues treated over multiple sessions), particularly if it replaced insurance premiums (my family of four is $1800). There are several reasons why healthcare is challenging, and one of those reasons is that you can't get accurate price signaling. So, a nominal cost for service isn't that bad, I think. It would be interesting to look at the statistics when they added the ambulance usage fees. Did that result in deaths, and did it lower usage and costs? That said, you could be totally right that in Canada, no-fee medical service is a sacred cow, and there's certainly a concern about it being a slippery slope. But it is a shame that we're too scared to try stuff and look at the outcomes.

Hey, wow, funny! What are the odds you'd figure it out only a week after I say it? Some brilliant investigative reporting, west!

Hmm? You mean I shouldn't have said that cardboard adds value? I actually gave an example of where I thought cardboard was correct. (And, if you view this discussion as a "team sport"--which I assume you do since you think I'm declaring myself a victor--I essentially shot the ball into my own net, betraying my teammates, simply because I view intellectual honesty as both important and the thing that is completely lacking in American political discourse.) I actually didn't mean to say that that the right wing can't field an argument in general--there are some people on the right who can make solid, convincing arguments. Sorry that I phrased that poorly. I meant to say that the right isn't very good at fielding arguments here. That's just like, my opinion, man. The reason I'm saying the arguments on here from the right aren't very good here is because they have largely not provided evidence, and, when questioned on it, told their opponents that they needed to find it themselves. And, to argue against the people they disagree with, they have essentially said "Obama did it first" as if it would be OK to ignore the sixth amendment simply because Obama ignored it first. Of course, if you view those kinds of arguments as convincing, that's fine. The right must have a very high opinion of Obama if they think Obama doing it first implies it was a good idea. Thanks for pointing out that my behavior seems self-righteous to you. Cardboard has called me a leftist demagogue, a devout Marxist, a deranged individual, and [mentally] sick, so I'm trying to figure out the sensible, fair way to respond to him. Thus, getting your feedback about my tone in my responses to him is helpful to me.

I think Cardboard contributes--he talks about stocks frequently, certainly far more often than me. And he is useful in espousing his ideology here in the absence of a right-winger who can actually make coherent arguments. (As I might have said before, one of the most annoying things about Fox News is that they have convinced the right that the soundness of their argument is irrelevant. That's a big loss, because the right wing has some good things to say.) That said, Cardboard does get it right sometimes--so far most of these immigration examples are anecdotes, not data, and in Trump's America, people are far more likely to blame Trump for their border misfortunes than random bad luck. (Not to say that it is just bad luck--I'd bet that things have changed--but this thread doesn't provide evidence.) The question I'm still struggling with is evaluating Cardboard's non-political posts. Like, are these logical fallacies and false equivalencies confined to political discussions where his ideology trumps reason? Or should we assume that his reasoning is poor all the time, and weigh his ideas accordingly?

Demagogue? You view me as a political leader now? Interesting. I think you're vastly overestimating my influence. Instead of highlighting me, I'd suggest that you use Dick Cheney and Mussolini as examples of leftist demagogues. They're to the left of you and at least they are politicians. FWIW, I actually don't view the incidents discussed on this thread as anything more than anecdotes for now. That said, it has been widely reported that when Trump signed his presidential order banning people with Visas coming from the six undesirable countries, lots of people with Visas were held up at the border. I don't have the stats for Visa holders being denied entry in Q1 versus every other Q1 on record, but I think it's pretty strange pretending something widely reported didn't happen simply because some random Canadian on a message board cannot provide you with confidential US Immigration Service statistics.

You're kind of missing the point. There are four main reasons to talk about this: 1. It's amusing--bitching about politics is fun. Pointing out Rat's doublethink is also fun. I actually sincerely think it's cool seeing such a direct example of doublethink. 2. I believe it is possible to change people's minds, just not the people talking. When you point out the gaping holes in Rat and Cardboard's arguments, they look foolish. That won't persuade Rat and Cardboard since their arguments are based on ideology rather than reasoning. But it has the potential to impact the attitudes of people who are reading the thread, but not posting. They might look at this and say, "The Trump supporters really aren't making much sense, and it takes very little effort to make their arguments look extremely foolish. I probably shouldn't model my beliefs after theirs". 3. I have changed my beliefs based on these discussions. Not radically, but in evolutionary ways, and I think that's good. 4. It's interesting hearing the best arguments of the right, because I was arguing with a literal Communist the other day, and it's useful understanding the good arguments of the right so I can adopt them. This thread hasn't had many of them ("Obama did it so it's OK if Trump does it too" is a terrible argument anywhere outside of a Fox News studio), but some threads do. That said, feel free to be bored with us. I don't think it bothers us if you feel that way, so go ahead.

This is actually a really cool comment in light of the previous four posts showing people with proper papers being inconvenienced by the new procedures. I've actually never seen a real-life example of doublethink. In fact, I assumed that it was a science fiction construct created by Orwell rather than anything with a basis in reality. But I think Rat sincerely saw evidence that contradicted what the state had told him, and he literally forgot it existed, just as doublethink says he should. That's pretty neat.

Exactly. The problem is that the right views every issue through a "right versus left" lens. (e.g. look at this thread--almost every argument is "Fox News tells me Obama is just as bad") Instead of fighting for a free country with the rule of law, the right seems to only be interested in whether their team is winning or not. It seriously doesn't matter whether your team wins if the result is that you end up living in a country where freedom of the press no longer exists, the government can murder its citizens without consequences, and hundreds of thousands die each year as a result of pollution.

His comments about Trump saying "not one word about" medicare, social security, income inequality, corrupt campaign finance, voter suppression, and climate change was largely political rhetoric rather than a serious criticism of Trump's speech. Sanders had no reason to expect Trump to talk about those things--Trump doesn't feel those things are a problem, so why would he mention them? Thus, to me, the first third of the Sanders video seemed like pointless campaigning. The comment on clean air/clean water pointing out Trump's hypocrisy was fair. The argument linking spending on defence to cutting benefits for the poor seemed a cheap rhetorical trick. If Trump thinks defence is lacking, he should spend more on defence. If he thinks cutting benefits for the poor is the right thing to do, he should do that. For Bernie to imply that defence spending going up is somehow directly linked to spending on the poor declining is unfair. The tax breaks for the rich comment, and the comment about Trump creating his own swamp were both fair. The corporate tax cut and tax avoidance comments are again conflagrating two distinct issues. If you think the tax cut is the right thing to do, you should do that. And if you think using tax shelters is a problem, you should put rules in place to reduce tax shelters. To say, "We shouldn't cut corporate taxes because companies are using tax shelters" doesn't make sense. So, again, I think this is cheap rhetoric. The ACA/healthcare comments make sense, as does his comment on single payer being the most sensible healthcare solution, but again, that feels like less of a comment on Trump's speech and more of a campaign slogan for Bernie. The stuff about Republicans being worried feels like he's trying to invigorate his base. So, pure politics with no substance. Thus, this was more of a campaign speech than an attempt to refute or criticize what Trump said. While I prefer Sanders' approach to Trump's (and Clinton's to Sanders'), if this video was seriously attempting to be a reply to Trump's speech, it fell woefully short. (And if he really wanted to do a campaign speech, he shouldn't have bothered linking it to Trump at all, because doing so makes him seem disingenuous.)

Because rent for a 2 bedroom in Vancouver is less than $2,500, and because the cost of that condo isn't just the interest on the mortgage, but rather includes things like depreciation, insurance, and taxes. What's more, that $2,500 mortgage cost isn't fixed, but rather can increase dramatically with interest rates at the same time as the value of the assets decline. Plus, big, costly things can go wrong. The risk of owning is far higher than renting, and ignoring those costs is a mistake. So, if you actually care about the math, the math on renting in Vancouver is far superior to buying right now--I'm grateful that my landlord subsidizes my living expenses by hundreds of dollars a month (my two bedroom is $1,600).

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Can you explain what you'd like CNN to do? Thanks.

I'm actually pretty grateful to the right wingers on this threat. I mean, I look at the most recent things Trump's doing--starting down the path to becoming a theocracy like Iran by removing the separation between church and state, and persecuting the press--and I think, "how could anyone American support these actions?" And then watchword and rat step forward and give me clear indications of why they support the destruction of American ideals. I find it pretty useful to form a mental model of why people allow support the decent from a free democracy to a theocratic dictatorship.

Fair point, Racemize.

Ah, I see. You're not interested in providing insight about Fairfax, but ensuring that everyone understands the semantics of particular words. If that's your priority, then I'll assure you that I agree with you--that is a definition of "required".