3 ms·

>there is no rule that says "technical investing" has to be a suitable way to trade. Fools will always lose on the markets. Trading on information not availabl

by kls 17y ago

>there is no rule that says "technical investing" has to be a suitable way to trade. Fools will always lose on the markets. Trading on information not available to the whole is generally frowned upon and universally looked upon as unethical. >It is their job to try to make as much money as possible. It may be their job but to expect ethics from a company is not out of the norm. It is that attitude that has allowed corporations to become the unethical entities that they have become given they they are not a human entity allowing yourself to be the sacrificial sheep to them only allows them to victimize you more. If we go back to the founding fathers constructs of a corporation these are items that stick out as distinctly different that what we pimp as the norm for companies today: --Corporate charters could be promptly revoked for violations of law or for causing public harm. --The personal assets of corporate shareholders were not protected from the consequences of corporate behavior. Through the years and lobbying, corporations have eroded these laws as well as others to amass the power to operate above impunity. To state "It is their job to try to make as much money as possible" is to only further victimize yourself. They are directly responsible for payoffs and lobbying that allow them to violate your rights as well as victimize you. > but I blame the people who gave the money, not the ones who asked for it. They are the same people, have you seen who is running the fed and being placed as the CEO's of these bailed out entities. It reads like a whos who ove Goldman Sachs alumni. > I am sure it is not only happening in the oil industry. It is happening in gold right now.

anamax 17y ago
> Trading on information not available to the whole is generally frowned upon and universally looked upon as unethical. Wrong on both counts. The vast majority of stock trades occur because both parties think that they know something that the other party doesn't know. Neither party is acting unethically. In fact, such trades actually disclose information. I don't know everything relevant about Apple, but Apple's stock price, which I can know, tells me a lot about what other people know about Apple.
- kls 17y ago
  > think that they know Think they know and do know are different beast all together. Which part of insider information laws do you not understand. Speculative information is completely different from material information that is unavailable to the general public. Using such to your advantage is not only unethical it is a crime in regulated markets.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Think they know and do know are different beast all together. Not really. I wrote "think" to account for the fact that they can't predict the effect of their knowledge even if it is accurate. (As money people say, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. For example, a lot of people lost money in the housing bubble despite accurately predicting it - they just didn't make good moves at the right time.) > Which part of insider information laws do you not understand. I understand a lot more about them than you do. For example, it's not illegal for Google to trade on its knowledge of a pending Google order with Rackspace. It's illegal for Google employees to do so only because that interferes with Google's biz relationships and misappropriates Google's knowledge. If I legally come across confidential information, I'm perfectly free to trade on it. There's only a problem if I steal the information.
Tichy 17y ago
"Trading on information not available to the whole is generally frowned upon and universally looked upon as unethical." Well did they? Also I don't see how a company could do otherwise - the public can never know as much about a company as the company itself. "Corporate charters could be promptly revoked for violations of law or for causing public harm." You sound as if corporations stand outside of the law. I don't think that is true today. "To state "It is their job to try to make as much money as possible" is to only further victimize yourself." I happen to believe that to strive for "winnings" is actually what stabilizes a complex system like the economy. How did they violate my rights - if they do so, naturally they should be punished. But it is the democratically elected government that creates the laws, not the corporations. If the laws are wrong, blame the government. But first also prove the companies are breaking the law before you universally accuse them of being the root of all evil.
- kls 17y ago
  > Well did they? Also I don't see how a company could do otherwise - the public can never know as much about a company as the company itself. They where not trading their own securities they where engaging in a private agreement among a select group of corporations to round trade a security. Only those in the select group where privy to this information. > You sound as if corporations stand outside of the law. I don't think that is true today. In certain aspects they are. They have limited liability which means that a person can act criminally and not have devastating impact on the corporation. While the same action on an individuals part would have total devastation to that entity. >How did they violate my rights They violate you rights by engaging in unethical behaviors that put the whole system at risk. Then use their ill gotten gains to exert influence of elected officials who are susceptible to human nature more than virtue. They then lobbied to be given grants of money from the public system that we as a group are indentured to in the future. While just a few years ago (with inside information) lobbied for significant consumer restrictions on debit relief. They took away your right to, with no questions asked, walk away from your debt (while they did just that a year later). A principal that this nation was founded on, The founding laws where very clear on the fact that America would not be a debtors servitude system and that all entities, if they felt it necessary, would be granted amnesty from debt burden. That changed in 2005 on the dawn of the collapse. So yes, I do blame the corporations for their lobbying as well the politicians share in the blame, but to not view them as incestuously one in the same, is to overlook some blatantly obvious actions on the part of both parties for a mutual gain on there part while the nation picks up the tab.
gaius 17y ago
It reads like a whos who ove Goldman Sachs alumni. Don't confuse correlation with causation. GS (and McKinsey, and others) actively recruit the most ambitious, hardworking people they can find. Ambitious, hardworking people often end up in positions of power. If GS went away tomorrow, the people it would have hired would still end up with successful business careers.
- kls 17y ago
  I am not confusing the two the parent said "but I blame the people who gave the money, not the ones who asked for it." My response was that there is an incestuous relationship between the two, so you cannot delineate between who to blame, it is the same people, the asking and the giving where one in the same.

by kls 17y ago

anamax 17y ago

> Trading on information not available to the whole is generally frowned upon and universally looked upon as unethical. Wrong on both counts. The vast majority of stock trades occur because both parties think that they know something that the other party doesn't know. Neither party is acting unethically. In fact, such trades actually disclose information. I don't know everything relevant about Apple, but Apple's stock price, which I can know, tells me a lot about what other people know about Apple.

kls 17y ago
> think that they know Think they know and do know are different beast all together. Which part of insider information laws do you not understand. Speculative information is completely different from material information that is unavailable to the general public. Using such to your advantage is not only unethical it is a crime in regulated markets.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Think they know and do know are different beast all together. Not really. I wrote "think" to account for the fact that they can't predict the effect of their knowledge even if it is accurate. (As money people say, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. For example, a lot of people lost money in the housing bubble despite accurately predicting it - they just didn't make good moves at the right time.) > Which part of insider information laws do you not understand. I understand a lot more about them than you do. For example, it's not illegal for Google to trade on its knowledge of a pending Google order with Rackspace. It's illegal for Google employees to do so only because that interferes with Google's biz relationships and misappropriates Google's knowledge. If I legally come across confidential information, I'm perfectly free to trade on it. There's only a problem if I steal the information.

Tichy 17y ago

"Trading on information not available to the whole is generally frowned upon and universally looked upon as unethical." Well did they? Also I don't see how a company could do otherwise - the public can never know as much about a company as the company itself. "Corporate charters could be promptly revoked for violations of law or for causing public harm." You sound as if corporations stand outside of the law. I don't think that is true today. "To state "It is their job to try to make as much money as possible" is to only further victimize yourself." I happen to believe that to strive for "winnings" is actually what stabilizes a complex system like the economy. How did they violate my rights - if they do so, naturally they should be punished. But it is the democratically elected government that creates the laws, not the corporations. If the laws are wrong, blame the government. But first also prove the companies are breaking the law before you universally accuse them of being the root of all evil.

kls 17y ago
> Well did they? Also I don't see how a company could do otherwise - the public can never know as much about a company as the company itself. They where not trading their own securities they where engaging in a private agreement among a select group of corporations to round trade a security. Only those in the select group where privy to this information. > You sound as if corporations stand outside of the law. I don't think that is true today. In certain aspects they are. They have limited liability which means that a person can act criminally and not have devastating impact on the corporation. While the same action on an individuals part would have total devastation to that entity. >How did they violate my rights They violate you rights by engaging in unethical behaviors that put the whole system at risk. Then use their ill gotten gains to exert influence of elected officials who are susceptible to human nature more than virtue. They then lobbied to be given grants of money from the public system that we as a group are indentured to in the future. While just a few years ago (with inside information) lobbied for significant consumer restrictions on debit relief. They took away your right to, with no questions asked, walk away from your debt (while they did just that a year later). A principal that this nation was founded on, The founding laws where very clear on the fact that America would not be a debtors servitude system and that all entities, if they felt it necessary, would be granted amnesty from debt burden. That changed in 2005 on the dawn of the collapse. So yes, I do blame the corporations for their lobbying as well the politicians share in the blame, but to not view them as incestuously one in the same, is to overlook some blatantly obvious actions on the part of both parties for a mutual gain on there part while the nation picks up the tab.

gaius 17y ago

It reads like a whos who ove Goldman Sachs alumni. Don't confuse correlation with causation. GS (and McKinsey, and others) actively recruit the most ambitious, hardworking people they can find. Ambitious, hardworking people often end up in positions of power. If GS went away tomorrow, the people it would have hired would still end up with successful business careers.

kls 17y ago
I am not confusing the two the parent said "but I blame the people who gave the money, not the ones who asked for it." My response was that there is an incestuous relationship between the two, so you cannot delineate between who to blame, it is the same people, the asking and the giving where one in the same.