- Why did the speculators attacked England, not others country in ERM?
- You tell me. Actually a lot of people sold every currency there is at the time. But a currency doesn't move for ONE guy, but from thousands, and tens of thousands. The forex market is very liquid, with transactions worth $2 trillion a day on average. Even if you throw all your $10 or $20 billion on it, it wont budge an inch more than a train will budge for a bicycle on the rail. If Soros make a correct bet, he makes money, but it doesn't affect the market a billionth of nothing. - Jerryseinfeld 00:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Presumably this should be on your user talk page. You compare two different things. The $2trillion is not all one way. The net movement of $20billion in one day is enough to move the market significantly. One very squashed train by that bicycle. Paul Beardsell 00:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know who put it on this page. What do you mean with a "net movement"? That if US$1,000,000,000,000 is bought and US$1,020,000,000,000 is sold it would move the price of the dollar "significantly"? If $1 is sold $1 must be bought, it's the value of transactions in one day. It's supply and demand that move the price. - Jerryseinfeld 02:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No. It is the difference between supply and demand that moves the price. The price moves until supply equals demand. How much it moves depends upon elasticity etc. That $2trillion is traded says nothing about how far a $20billion imbalance will move the price. "A billionth of nothing" is very wrong. The effect can be and often is huge. Paul Beardsell 08:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'm glad you cleared that up. - Jerryseinfeld 02:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Welfare state: I am writing to explain a reversion. Among many edits to this article, you have separated "arguments for" and "arguments against" into separate headings. I understand the reasons for attempting a separation but I think it causes problems for the inclusion of counter-arguments (which currently take up half the length of the article). You have had to put both objections to the welfare state and counter-arguments in "arguments for", which does not work. I would also expect future users to want to put counter-arguments to the "arguments for", and there has to be a structure to allow for this. Paul Spicker
- Sure. That's how it should be, argument, and counter argument. - Jerryseinfeld 22:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
New article on Skadden Arps
You might note that there is a previous article: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP which is much more complete. Morris 04:58, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, there you go, thanks.--Jerryseinfeld 05:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
