> Therefore, markets are all inefficient _on all timeframes_.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

The efficient market hypothesis is perhaps the most studied financial analysis of equity markets ever done.

A LOT of important work, like Black-Scholes is based on it.

The fact that markets are efficient cause exactly the opposite of what you claim. Since all public information is already accounted in the price, successful trading becomes very difficult, and success relies either on use of non-public information or random chance.

The prime originator of it is University of Chicago Professor Fama who was the first recipient of three major prizes for research in Finance; the 2005 Deutsche Bank Prize in Financial Economics, the 2007 Morgan Stanley American Finance Association Award for Excellence in Finance, and the 2009 Onassis Prize in Finance. His other awards include the 1982 Belgian National Science Prize (Chaire Francqui), and the 2006 Nicholas Molodovsky Award from the CFA Institute for his work in portfolio theory and asset pricing.

He's been nominated for the Nobel Memorial in economics several times. There is little doubt he will eventually win it.

You forget how slashdot moderation works.

Insightful -> I agree with your opinion
Flamebait -> How dare you disagree with my opinion

Nah. The Federal inflation numbers are checked by all sorts of external studies like the MIT Million Price Index. Look it up.

Any reasonable validation efforts have shown that they are correct.

Shadowstats is known to be wrong.

http://blog.jparsons.net/2011/06/shadow-stats-debunked-part-ii.html

Real Time Quotes European Exchanges:

Just use Google.

http://news.stockmarketvideo.com/google-adding-real-time-quotes-on-european-exchanges/4546/

http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/01/31/google-finance-adds-real-time-stock-quotes-for-the-uk-germany-and-italy/

Yes, capitalism suck donkey ass. It is the worst system imaginable except for everything else that has been tried.

There is no access barrier to real time quotes.

http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/real-time.aspx

A tax on trades in a US market will have *0* effect on HFT. All it will do is cause the trading to move to a different country that doesn't tax these trades.

It is a completely 100% moronic idea.

Yeah, this guy is totally wrong because I pay $75/mo for 60/8 Mbbps !!!

The citizens already paid for the infrastructure. The telcos pocketed the cash for themselves instead.

FTFY.

Betcha that the cost of the small apartment in Tokyo + the broadband >>>> my house and broadband.

Basically this holds that a large public market is information-efficient. That is the current market prices reflect all publicly available information.

There are a variety of variations on this theme which mostly reflect the strength of the adherence to the hypothesis.

My particular belief is that the semi-strong form of the hypothesis is probably the correct one. You may have temporary bubbles, and markets that have poor disclosure requirements can be inefficient; these disallow the strong form of the hypothesis.

The main reason for the semi-strong being correct is that even market insiders with the best analytical tools are unable to consistently outperform the market averages. Most mutual funds, hedge funds, pensions and endowments actually underperform the market when trading costs are compensated for. Those that do outperform cannot do it on a consistent basis. There is no correlation between good performance one year and the next.

The idea that the game is rigged and only insiders have a chance is provably wrong. An individual investor using minimum cost passive investing strategies and good diversification will consistently outperform professionally managed portfolios just because of the lower costs. Any advantages that deviations from EMH are too small to overcome the trading costs needed to take advantage of the inefficiency.

Now that HFC trading is mature, it is showing the same efficient market behavior. It just isn't worth the costs because the market has wrung out any advantages of this mode of trading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis

The Fifth Amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. It doesn't protect you from being tricked into incriminating yourself.

There are specific requirements for Miranda to apply, and for exclusion to be in play.

Evidence must have been gathered.
The evidence must be testimonial.
The evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody.
The evidence must have been the product of interrogation.
The interrogation must have been conducted by state-agents.
The evidence must be offered by the state during a criminal prosecution.

So basically yes, your rights are lower if you are not in the custody of the state. Compulsion is not in play.

The idea that the US shipped large amounts of it's industrial capacity to China is poppycock. Didn't happen.

The US has essentially the same percentage of world manufacturing today as it did in 1970.

86% of all US exports are manufactured goods.

http://www.manufacturing.gov/mfg_in_context.html

> That implies we could all get by working 3 days a month, which is just silly.

What it implies is that we need far fewer workers in this sector of our economy to get a good standard of living.

Which is why manufacturing employment has gone down a lot since WWII.

It's the same thing that happened in farming at the beginning of the century.

The challenge with this is society is based on people having jobs, when it really takes 10-20% of the work force to provide all our material needs.