Also, the idea that we work more now than we did in the stone age is also completely wrong. A regular employee works ~1600 hours/year for ~40 years. That's less than 10% of their time. Stone age people certainly worked more than 10% of their lives (even though I agree that it may be a myth that they worked most of the time.)
It would also be interesting to see the variance of the solving times. How consistent is this thing?
I'm not sure I'd right off the USPS
It's "write off". It's an accounting term.
It's "right off". It's a mafia term.
But don't expect me to pay lip service to a God that, to me, comes off as a petty, cliquish and vindictive sort, according to your own holy books.
That was only in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, he is caring, loving and forgiving. What happened in between? He got laid!
I'm really not sure what you are getting at here. Have you never heard of anyone using cocaine or heroin without doing stupid things? I have. In fact, only a very small percentage of usage leads to people doing stupid things. Conversely, surely you have heard of someone doing outrageously stupid things after drinking alcohol? There are in fact TV shows dedicated to this very phenomenon!
As for your discussion about the level of addictiveness, alcohol is more addictive than many drugs.
But, despite this correction, during that period of instability, a lot of people's businees were hurt, so they go to the govenment and demand retribution- You think that process should be 6min too?
So who exactly are those people whose business were hurt? You are right that a number of crybabies (with amazingly influential lobbyists backing them up, sadly) did go to the government and demand retribution, but that's simply pathetic. I don't think that process should take 6 min. I think it should take 0 min.
I can see how some people are upset that they sold Apple shares for $0.01. But really, if they are that monumentally stupid, I can't see why it's the government's business to stop morons (here used in the clinical sense, and not (only) in the derogatory sense) from doing stupid trades. I can see the downside, but I completely fail to see any upside to it. Please explain the upside if you disagree.
If trading at a speed faster than some arbitrary limit you just made up is such a bad thing, why don't you start an exchange that operates under these conditions? Seems like a definite win to me. "Individual investors" would apparently find your market model more lucrative and flock to your solution. More money for you, more money for "individual investors" and less money to HFTs. Seems like a huge win for society.
So why don't you start such an exchange? This question isn't rethorical. There are literally hundreds of exchanges/trading facilities being started every year all over the world. Have you stopped to consider for even one second why almost none of them were operated along your ideas, and why every single one of those that were failed miserably? Could it, just possibly, be that you don't quite understand how HFT works and exactly who they are extracting money from?
You could argue that "the free market gave a dumb corporation a 400 million dollar bitch slap in less than a hour" is funny, but actually it,s insightful. It's the perfect example of how companies could and should be punished for doing stupid things.
And here's an even better example: the flash crash of three years ago. In a few minutes some algorithms went haywire and stock prices dropped dramatically, in some cases down to 1 cent. Clearly that was wrong. The free market fixed this issue in six minutes. That's pretty fast, if you ask me. The government is still, three years later, thinking about what to do about it. Really!?
We do pay more for services in Sweden, but it is true that when tuitions and health insurance are included the difference shrinks.