All orders cost money. If they’re not charging you $5 per trade or whatever, then they’re taking a lot more than that by selling your “order flow” to someone who’s shaving little bits off it by creatively timing when the trades actually are going through and at what exact price.
Vanguard and Fidelity are both good. You can just use the web site, probably you can even just call them up and make requests over the phone. Vanguard is a little bit more for normal person investing (mostly index funds and no weird shit), Fidelity offers crypto and all the nonsense too if you want that, but they’re both pretty respectable.
🙂
Everyone knows throwing a fit when people ask the wrong questions and storming off the stage is a demonstration of unassailable right-being 🙂
Were you under the impression I thought I was the first person to come up with these ideas or questions? In history? No, the point is that you don’t want to answer them, not that they were somehow untouched by scholarship.
I’m happy to make the same offer for you, you can try to expose the flaws in my thinking by trying to ask questions I really don’t want to admit the answers to or am just unaware of.
But like I say, it’s clear that you prefer soapboxing to that sort of interactive discussion (even the Playskool version of it with one word answers). I wonder why…
It’s okay if you don’t know! I think you do, though, at least most of these answers you are probably aware of. I’ll make them simpler so there’s no time needed to put together a little essay or anything (which is probably better anyway, since it’ll be less subjective). One or two word answers.
I know, I know, you don’t want to participate. It’s easier just to talk down to me and soapbox, and from that format you can really easily refuse to analyze things that you don’t want to analyze that undo your mental models if you do analyze them. But there’s no reason you would be unwilling just to admit the answers, since your model is super-correct and I’m the wrong one.
Up to you
I’m not a debate pervert.
I mean it definitely sounds like you are lol
The fact that you use Trump and Stalin in the same sentence shows profound ignorance on your part.
They both aspire to throw their domestic enemies into a network of shadowy prison camps or kill them outright, they both claim the establishment opposition needs to be disposed of, they both claim that censorship is necessary because some ideas are wrong and the leader needs to be in control so he can keep the wrong ideas away. There are some important differences, too, but certainly they belong in the same sentence. Trump’s just a lot less effective, is actually the main difference I see.
There is no point attempting to have a discussion with people who have strong opinions on subjects they have no understanding of.
Sounds good! Let me check your qualifications, that’s a really good point, I did have a sense that there was no point to having this conversation with you, and this sort of gets to the heart of why lol.
Okay, this is clearly going to be a waste of time. Tell you what: You’re clearly never going to admit that you’re wrong about this, and obviously I can’t force you. It seems like you’re actually sort of enjoying how easy it is just to keep typing “freedom is an illusion anyway and that’s why I had all the opposition shot and that makes perfect sense” and similar things and no one can stop you.
Let’s do this: Tell me a format within which we can have this conversation, and get some kind of feedback or judgement about who it is that’s able to prove their case. If you want to propose a framing of some sort, and go within that, I’m happy to talk about it with you. If not, I think it’s just going to be you insisting that Stalin-style/Trump-style governance is justified until I get bored or frustrated and abandon the conversation.
The difference is that communists accept the need for censorship and are open about why some ideas need to be suppressed.
Because some ideas are so destructive to your whole model that they have to be suppressed, because these models in their practical application are often sort of un-defendable, and so the only option is to have secret police running around shooting dissidents.
It doesn’t mean that liberal democracies don’t fall into the exact same pattern, to some extent large or small. It is in the nature of human power struggle. It’s not innate to any particular political system (or it is innate to all of them because they’re all made of people). The difference is that we don’t celebrate it or make excuses for it. We publish books about what a lie the government is telling, we have a constant struggle between the forces of freedom in the streets and the government trying to stamp it out. Sometimes different factions get the upper hand, or it switches.
The difference, as you brilliantly demonstrated here, is that some of the most thickheaded of communist supporters get themselves turned around sufficiently that they start supporting the government trying to stamp it out. Most sensible people, when the government tells them that some ideas need to be suppressed, and they need to imprison or shoot anyone who’s opposing their power, can figure out that’s a bad thing. You apparently cannot.
Something like Lemmy could form a pretty good foundation. Onion routing already has created a “parallel internet” that depends 0% on DNS, and Lemmy instances would federate today (with whitelisted federation) via /etc/hosts with no DNS involved. It wouldn’t work well, it would have problems, but if someone actually tried to make it work moderately well, the whole model of “admins running servers which it’s your problem to get connected to, and then they know how to federate to each other because all the admins talk with each other” could work itself around over time into something that actually had some pretty strong robustness to it.
There are other attempts (Holepunch, Freenet, all that jazz), but actually Tor and Fedi things probably have the best claims to being able to turn into something realistic that didn’t need DNS, over time. You just couldn’t talk to it until you set your machine up to be able to get the initial connection going, but that’s not fatal, the whole internet used to be a lot like that way back when.
Dude you’re on the instance where it is forbidden in worldnews to say “Fuck (a particular country which will remain nameless)”.
Literally the only one. You can say “Fuck the United States” or “Fuck Israel” everywhere on Lemmy, or near enough, which of course is as it should be. But if I start stepping on the wrong massive state actors’ toes from one particular instance…
I’m not super familiar with it, but just knowing the little bit that I know about it, this is my guess:
… and so on. I would bet it’s decently more complicated than that, but bottom line, there’s a reason these guys are paying all this money for order flows. It’s not because they’re not making money on them, and usually the procedure is to extract the money from the most-poorly-informed person involved (which in this case is the end user by a big margin).