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: 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