Why Are Liberals Falling for the False Housing Market and False Stock Market?

Why are they falling for the phony jobs numbers--they are Democrats, they must take it on faith. edit and when the Democrat 1% profit they blame Bush

1. Best mascara on the market?

lash blast volume or lash blast length from covergirl

2. What are the arguments for and against a flat income tax rate?

Flat taxes are extremely popular to fiscal conservatives and libertarians for their simplicity and seeming 'fairness'. This is an extremely naive view of the issue, however, and very few countries adopt this policy. This is for a wide number of reasons. However, I will focus on five for simplicity's sake: It's generally acknowledged that in a capitalist society, the price of goods should not fluctuate widely, but should settle in a spot that balances supply and demand at a point that only increases prices as labor increases. Likewise, most modern capitalist societies believe in the division of labor, allowing for goods beyond that which can be produced on a farm. The end result of this practice is that there is an absolute minimum amount of money required for each person to survive. For our example, let's say that it costs $100 to provide bare minimum food, clothing and shelter. If one person earns $100 and one earns $1000, the first person has no disposable income. If I take 5% of his money, he may die. The second person has $900 of disposable income. If I take 5% of his money, he will be inconvenienced, but he wo not die. Along a similar bent, capitalism is driven by poor people spending money. If I save a poor person $5, they are going to spend that $5 immediately, thus providing jobs and making the economy healthier. If I save a rich person $5, they might spend it, but they also might save it, which benefits them but not society as a whole. The government provides help to its citizens in a variety of ways: by providing communal infrastructure to allow for movement of goods and services, a military to protect stability, a government-guaranteed stock market, government-guaranteed banks, and other vital services. George makes $100, and while he uses the roads when he takes the bus to and from work, he does not see nearly as much monetary benefit from the government's services as Jill with $1000 does. Jill owns a business and sends semi trucks down those roads every single day to deliver goods to market. She puts lots of money in banks to protect her money against calamity. She invests her money in the stock market to turn that $900 into way more. George might get $3 of benefit, while Jill gets $300 of benefit, so Jill should probably pay more for that benefit. It's expensive to be poor. Jill can afford to get preventative maintenance on her car so it does not break down and cost her more. She can afford to get a security system so that all her expensive stuff does not get stolen. She can afford to go to the doctor and catch that cancer while it's small and manageable instead of waiting until it's so bad she can not work, pay an arm and a leg for treatment, and still die, leaving her heirs with six-figure bills. George does not have any of those benefits, and thus can not afford to prevent calamity. He ends up paying more overall because of this issue. Taxes are only for those who can not afford to buy a legislator. Jill has enough disposable income to make sure her voice is heard in government, making it both work better for her interests and make sure she pays less taxes via loopholes and creative accounting. So even though it looks like she's paying her flat 5% on paper, she has routed quite a bit of wealth through Panama, Switzerland and Ireland so that she's paying somewhere closer to 3%. This kind of stuff is not even on George's radar.

3. What is the best phone on the market?

Samsung Galaxy 3 Asus Transformer

4. Market Making vs Market Taking (Quotes vs Orders)

This is too lengthy for a comment. The following quoted passages are excerpted from this Money SE post.Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous.No. The NYSE and AMEX were deep, liquid and transparent for nearly 75 years prior to high frequency trading (HFT), in 2000 or so. The same is true for NASDAQ, but not for as many years, as NASDAQ is newer, being an electronic market. The point is that it existed, and thrived, prior to HFT. The NASDAQ can be active and functional, WITH or WITHOUT high frequency trading. This is not historically true, nor is it true now: Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade...Market makers, also known as specialists, were responsible for hitting the bid and taking the offer on whatever security they covered. They had a responsibility assigned to them by the exchange. Yes, it was lucrative! There was risk, and they were rewarded for bearing it. There is a trade-off though. Specialists provided greater stability on a systemic level, although other market participants paid for that cost. Prior to HFT, traders who were not market makers were often bounded by, boxed in, by the toll paid to market makers. Market makers had different, much higher capital and solvency requirements than other traders. Most specialists/market makers had seats, or shared a seat on the NYSE or AMEX. Remember that market makers/specialists are specific to stock markets, whereas HFT is not.If this is true, then we are in trouble:HFTs have supplanted the traditional market makerWhy? Because trading volume is LOWER now than it was in the 1990's!EDIT In the comments, I noticed that OP was asking about the difference between I suggest reading this very accurate, well-written answer to a related question, The spread goes to the market maker, is the market maker the exchange? That explains the difference between