SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-pay-your-money-and-you-take-your-chances dept.
Self-styled political outsiders Donald Trump (a billionaire businessman) and Ben Carson (a former neurosurgeon) are the frontrunners for the 2016 GOP nomination for the US Presidency, according to the Real Clear Politics average of five major polls conducted between October 10-18, 2015: Trump's 27 pct and Carson's 21 pct are far ahead of the next tier, which consists of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (9 percent), Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (8 pct) and former Florida Gov Jeb Bush (7 pct).
The betting markets view the race differently. Rubio has recently taken over as front-runner in most of the political books and prediction markets, replacing Bush, who is now in second place. This duo is followed by Trump, and then (in varying order) Carson, Cruz, and former businesswoman Carly Fiorina. The remaining nine candidates who have participated in at least one televised GOP debate, and who have not dropped out, are given long odds, typically between 15-1 and 100-1.
Here is the current betting line from Ladbrokes, a London-based bookmaker. For those who enjoy staring at spreadsheets, here is the rollup of online bookmakers and prediction markets.
A few books admit the possibility that a presently-undeclared candidate such as Mitt Romney or Michael Bloomberg could win the GOP nomination, perhaps to break a voting deadlock at the convention; they are given long odds.
Betting on political elections is prohibited in the USA, but overseas bettors aren't subject to such puritanical restrictions. A UK journalist, commenting on the betting action over who would be the country's prime minister after the upcoming general election, explained why the betting markets are often a more reliable guide than the pollsters. Incidentally, they turned out to be right in the case discussed in the article; incumbent David Cameron retained the office after the Conservatives won enough seats in Parliament to assemble a working majority.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @03:17PM
Some do. Some just waste it. Some people are poor due to unfortunate circumstances. Some are poor because of habitual bad decision making and wastefulness. I know a guy who is poor. He is a single father and gets assistance from the state. He works irregularly. Recently, he had steady work for a few weeks (maybe a few months) straight, so he decided to treat himself by buying a motorcycle. His third motorcycle. How many poor people smoke cigarettes? How many drink alcohol or gamble? How much is that spending really helping them and the economy?
You make it sound like they are stashing the money under their mattresses. They aren't. They are investing it. Those investments go into creating new companies that spend money on office space, office furniture, computers, research, and salaries. They create new products (including new cures for diseases) and new jobs.
Is the overall economy and society better or worse off over the long term (not to be confused with the short term, which is what the politicians care about) when money is in the hands of the wealthy vs. the poor? I don't know. What I do know is that it's not nearly as simple as you make it sound.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @03:56PM
What you are describing is money movement. "wasting it" is just an opinion (well sorta).
If you buy an asset with money it is not really wasted is it? But if you buy something that gets you nothing long term then yeah you wasted *YOUR* money. But now that money is someone elses money. What will they do with it? Money only disappears in 3 cases. Me buying a cola is not one of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @06:07PM
It doesn't matter what other people do with the money. What matters is that you, as an individual, just wasted your own money on nonsense you can't afford. When I see people constantly buying garbage they can't afford (expensive houses that really aren't a good investment, brand new computers every few years, giant televisions, expensive TV service, expensive Internet service, not taking advantages of methods to keep your food prices under $2 a meal), I think about where that money could be going instead. It could be saved so that they can retire early, or even have a retirement at all. I'm the 'cheapest' person I know, which doesn't mean you can have nothing. The entire point is sustainability, and if you're making bad choices that simply aren't sustainable on your income, you're being a fool.
No advice applies to every situation, but that doesn't mean there is nothing you can do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:20AM
some are poor because of habitual bad decision making and wastefulness.
Ah, the shades of Herbert Spencer! Social Darwinism! Yes! Survival of the richest, because the poor are not wise enough to invest their grocery money in the stock market, and so rise themselves out of poverty! Oh, if only they would stop wasting their money on rent, and health care, and food, and childcare, and cable television! The poor of today are so much better off than those of Dicken's time, because they have microsoft ovens to heat their meals that they pick up between their two or three jobs. If only they would manage time better! You see, the poor are slackers, losers, the anti-Trumps, the anti-Ayn_Rands, of our world. They are poor because of their moral failings, and so the sooner we can send them off to camps, to be, um, "re-educated" to be "entrepreneuers", the better off we would all be. The poor are just holding us all back. We need a Final Solution to the Poorish Question! Seig Heil!!! (Oops, did I say that out-loud? Oh, no, Mom is gunna ground me for this one!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:38AM
The part of that comment you replied to was rather mundane, but that didn't stop you from concocting a giant fantasy wherein that person said tons of things they didn't actually say or imply in the comment. It is absolutely true that a lot of people (rich people and poor people alike) make terrible purchasing decisions. Cable television is expensive and not very useful, so yes, it would be better if people got rid of it; especially poorer people, because they can't afford to waste too much money. I haven't had cable television or television service at all for years and I've been fine; it's all just trash anyway. Furthermore, in a lot of cases, people could spend their money more wisely on food. Rich people waste tons of money, but the difference is they have much more of it to waste because they scammed and/or leeched off of many people to get where they are.
Don't jump to conclusions over the mere suggestion that some people could spend their money more wisely. It's just a fact.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday October 27 2015, @10:26AM
Some do. Some just waste it.
There is no difference, from an economic perspective. If they are using it to buy goods or services, then this stimulates the economy, irrespective of the moral judgements that you make about their purchasing decisions.
You make it sound like they are stashing the money under their mattresses. They aren't. They are investing it. Those investments go into creating new companies
The difference is that they often invest it overseas. Various 'free trade' agreements have really been about making it easy to move capital. If a poor person has a bit of spare money to save, then it goes in a bank, where various regulations ensure that, even if some of it is invested overseas, most of the grows returns to your economy. If a rich person has spare money, then they can easily invest it overseas and keep the growth in tax havens. You may get some of it back if they're buying expensive toys in your country, but most of it is gone.
sudo mod me up