> If people with over 250,000 in deposits are covered, the once again the the rich is allowed to avoid all risks for bad decisions.
I feel like putting your money in a bank should not be considered an obviously bad decision. The risk profile your bank takes on with your deposits is largely opaque to you, and it’s not feasible to expect every depositor to do due diligence on it. Even if you understood their portfolio you might not be able to understand the implications as market conditions change. It’s also not feasible to expect people to split up their deposit into multiple 250k accounts.
If you can have more than 250,000 in a bank account, you are rich. You should know and accept the risks you are taking. If you do not like the FDIC insurance laws, get it changed.
In 2008, people lost their houses and many their savings because they were not rich. And these people were not bailed out even though it was due to issues they had no control over. Most of these losses were a lot less than that 250,000 you have. But you are saying "because I have 250,000 I deserve a bailout, screw the people who are not rich because that is their fault."
There’s actually a lot of risk and costs when shorting. You need to pay borrow fees to borrow the stock, you need to post collateral that can be liquidated in the event that your position gets too risky, you need to post more collateral as the price of the a stock increases to cover the increased risk, and you can in theory lose an unlimited amount of money. You have to be right both about the stock decreasing in value, and the timing around when it will decrease in value. Otherwise your position might get liquidated before you can realize your possibly correct directional prediction. This is what the phrase “the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent” refers to. Shorting is really hard.
1. Even if the price has not moved against you, your broker can decide the stock has become more volatile, and therefore a higher collateral ratio is required.
2. Regulators can halt trading, making it at least temporarily impossible to buy back the shares and book your profit on the short sale.
Hence FTA: “You never short something thinking it will go into receivership,”
I’m very surprised UC Berkeley doesn’t own that domain name. They have a trademark on “Cal”, don’t know if they’d file a trademark complaint if this got larger.
Thanks, I put a fair bit of effort into cleaning it up!
Mars and sfdp take very different approaches to graph layouts, attempting the embed the graph metric (mars) vs keeping your neighbors close while pushing everyone else away (sfdp). As a result the drawings look very different and emphasize different features of the graph. We're not trying to say that one gives a better drawing than the other, but that here are two techniques that scale and produce different drawings, one of which may give a better visualization of your data. However one clear advantage of mars over sfdp is mars' ability to easily incorporate edge weights.
You did read the documentation right. Sfdp is just as scalable, if not more so, as mars. Although I've never run mars for as long and on as powerful of machines as Yifan has run sfdp.
I feel like putting your money in a bank should not be considered an obviously bad decision. The risk profile your bank takes on with your deposits is largely opaque to you, and it’s not feasible to expect every depositor to do due diligence on it. Even if you understood their portfolio you might not be able to understand the implications as market conditions change. It’s also not feasible to expect people to split up their deposit into multiple 250k accounts.