SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
If the government really wanted to protect us from ourselves they would limit gambling, which costs poor people a lot and is known to result in unfavorable odds, and they would discontinue the lottery. Instead because the lottery and gambling make the government and big institutions money they are legal. Restricting pattern day trading is, likewise, an attempt to give those with money more leverage over those without money. This law directly discriminates against those without money and it was passed by those with money. The government has essentially passed two sets of laws, one for the rich and one for the poor.
These laws were undemocratically passed by the rich for the rich under the false pretense of protecting the poor. Such is a hallmark of an aristocracy. No nation should have a different set of laws for the rich than for the poor.
The entire Wikipedia article, especially all the criticisms, are worth reading.
FINRA (formerly National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. or NASD) rule applies to any customer who buys and sells a particular security in the same trading day (day trades), and does this four or more times in any five consecutive business day period; the rule applies to margin accounts, but not to cash accounts. A pattern day trader is subject to special rules. The main rule is that in order to engage in pattern day trading you must maintain an equity balance of at least $25,000 in a margin account.
[...] The SEC believes that people whose account equity is less than $25,000 may represent less-sophisticated traders, who may be less able to handle the losses that may be associated with day trades.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 15 2017, @02:02AM (4 children)
Well, ACs around here are roughly 20:1 with registered users, so we're probably going to be accepting AC subs for them.
I don't think we'll hold to "must be opinion on current news or events", just that they may be of interest to our community, but we will definitely hold them to a higher standard than journals (which have no standards at all except don't do illegal stuff in them).
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 15 2017, @01:36PM (1 child)
Thanks for your thoughts, though please note that you changed my "most Op-Eds should" have a tie-in to current events to "must be opinion on current news or events." I wasn't suggesting a strict rule, rather a general guideline, not unlike the kind of commentary one actually tends to see on traditional newspaper Op-Ed pages. Obviously newspaper pages often contain some "random thoughts" opinion pieces, but they aren't generally the majority.
And actually, I'd say my concern here is more with quality than the strict "news" aspect. At least with a tie-in to news, a poor submission can still become discussion about the underlying news story. I haven't been really paying attention to "Op-Ed" submissions, but what I've seen here recently for submissions that didn't tie-in to other recent media stories is this submission (somewhat interesting, but with only a Wikipedia article tie-in, which is a pretty low bar, since not every Wikipedia article has high accuracy or a good balanced discussion) and the recent rant on higher-ed (with a bunch of misleading claims) couched a proposal for everyone to watch sped-up videos and get a degree in 10 weeks.
There's a good reason real newspaper Op-Ed pages rely on syndicated columnists: it's hard to find good writers. And even with people who have good ideas, it frequently takes a lot of editing -- so the role and need for editorial intervention is often greater. If the editors are actually willing to put in some time to ensure quality Op-Eds, that's okay; if we're going to post extended rants by people with a bunch of links that don't support their arguments, that's not so okay (in my opinion).
All that said, I am very grateful for everyone who puts in the time and effort for running this site.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 15 2017, @02:32PM
We more or less agree then. Mind you, I'm not on the Editorial staff; we just talk a lot. What I got from my discussion with nick, wherein I raised some similar concerns and questions, was that he'd like to run some Op-Eds and this topic was something he was interested in seeing discussion on, even if the quality wasn't especially sterling or timely.
I think we can find a place in the beastie that is SN for interesting topics that aren't exactly news to be brought up. At least for those interested in such a thing. For those who aren't, they can always uncheck the check box for the Nexus when it's installed or just skim past as they scroll down the page/feed.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @03:52AM (1 child)
> ACs around here are roughly 20:1
Maybe counting bots and skimmers and inline links. By participation the majority is accounts.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 16 2017, @10:29AM
Actually, I think that's half and half roughly. Let me check real quick. Nope, it's been 3:2 registered:AC over the past year and 2:1 over our entire lifetime, so we're currently trending towards more AC comments.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.