Are Traders Ethical

I'm not going to read all the responses in this thread so if this has already been stated please disregard.

The only reason I don't engage in insider trading is because it will place me behind bars.

Insider trading is just as ethical as capitalism - think about it. The holy grail of every business is to gain an advantage over the next guy and prevent them from discovering how to compete with you.

Most forms of 'business development' and 'strategic partnerships' are just different forms of insider trading applied to other markets.
 
I agree that advantage is to be capitalized upon (assuming it is fair advantage).

The problem with insider trading of publicly held shares is ecompassed in the idea of 'fiduciary responsibility.' When you go public, you effectively agree to put 'the public's' interest ahead of your own. It's not for everybody.
 
Originally posted by Paterfamilias


By definition the system cannot function without its constituent parts. That much should be obvious.
More...

By definition our current "system" of government includes a ton of pork barrel legislation, bloated bureaucracy, etc.

We could function quite well without those parts of the "system."

The system of the human body comes with an appendix, and tonsils, and those who have had them removed will tell you that they function as well without them as they did with them.

In fact, while it may seem bizarre to men, there are even some women who are so naturally well endowed, that they have chosen to have breast reductions, and they claim that they function even better after the surgery.

I don't know how their husbands or boyfriends feel about this.....I can only wonder.

777

P.s. I think you may need to understand the difference between making arguments literally and technically. Will Rogers and Mark Twain were well known writers who made literal and common sense arguments that might not be up to the functional letter of logical law, but anyone who had any horse sense upon reading them understood the wisdom of the points they were making. There is a place for logical games and practice, and there is a place to practice common sense and understanding.

Those who are focusing on the technical construction of a post or an argument in this forum, are looking at the trees and missing the forrest in many instances. It is the spirit and concept of a discussion that matters most, not the technical construction.

I don't know about you, but I am not writing a paper for school or publication, I am just talking about stuff on a message board.
 
Originally posted by OPTIONAL777

I don't know about you, but I am not writing a paper for school or publication, I am just talking about stuff on a message board.
More...

As am I. My only point is that saying day traders are extraneous or not necessary to the "system" of equity markets is wholly mistaken.

But you are welcome to your opinion. :D
 
Originally posted by Paterfamilias


As am I. My only point is that saying day traders are extraneous or not necessary to the "system" of equity markets is wholly mistaken.

But you are welcome to your opinion. :D
More...

So without day-traders the system would collapse, eh?

The Japanese stock market did not collapse with the change in the rules of short selling as some feared, and our financial system would survive the elimination of day trading.

The rules could be changed to eliminate day trading and the system would go on, people would just have to adjust to swing trading or investing.....

It is only my opinion. but it is my belief that the over-trading by hedge funds is a major part of the problem with the markets today. These days hedge funds are doing a lot more day trading and other trading methods including derivatives than they ever used to. This increases volatility, which may be good for the hedge fund or day trader, but is not good for investor confidence.

We may get off by the wild swings, but the average investor prefers the ferris wheel and carousel to the roller coaster. Without the average investor putting their money back in to the market, the market will never be strong and healthy.


777
 
Originally posted by Paterfamilias


By definition the system cannot function without its constituent parts. That much should be obvious.
More...

A system is not necessarily by definition something that cannot function without all of its parts. This is sophistry. To suggest that a just become something becomes part of a system means the system cannot function without it means you could never streamline a bureacracy without destroying the system. That's absurd. Nor does this way of defining the word system match many of the definitions for "system" in Webster's (or most other dictionaries most likely). Hence, your conclusion doesn't follow logically nor does your claim as to the definition of "system" fit.
 
Originally posted by OPTIONAL777


By definition our current "system" of government includes a ton of pork barrel legislation, bloated bureaucracy, etc.

We could function quite well without those parts of the "system."

The system of the human body comes with an appendix, and tonsils, and those who have had them removed will tell you that they function as well without them as they did with them.

In fact, while it may seem bizarre to men, there are even some women who are so naturally well endowed, that they have chosen to have breast reductions, and they claim that they function even better after the surgery.

I don't know how their husbands or boyfriends feel about this.....I can only wonder.

777

P.s. I think you may need to understand the difference between making arguments literally and technically. Will Rogers and Mark Twain were well known writers who made literal and common sense arguments that might not be up to the functional letter of logical law, but anyone who had any horse sense upon reading them understood the wisdom of the points they were making. There is a place for logical games and practice, and there is a place to practice common sense and understanding.

Those who are focusing on the technical construction of a post or an argument in this forum, are looking at the trees and missing the forrest in many instances. It is the spirit and concept of a discussion that matters most, not the technical construction.

I don't know about you, but I am not writing a paper for school or publication, I am just talking about stuff on a message board.
More...

Damn. I posted my response as soon as I read the comment by Paterfamilias. Now I see you said something similar. However, his "technical" argument does not fit. And I actually don't agree with you on a logic "or school" debate not being relevant. Logic and definitions are always relevant. The problem arises when people analyze side points or allow their arguments to become a side discussion.

If I make an argument and use a term or definition poorly, and someone challenges that, then I will simply find the correct term and go on with my point. If someone challenges a fact I put forth that is debatable, but the fact is not central to my argument, then I will drop that fact from my argument and move on. And if my logic is flawed, in a way that hurts my central argument, then I will have to find a way to correct it or else I will have to step down. It's that simple!
 
Originally posted by I Missed Boat


Damn. I posted my response as soon as I read the comment by Paterfamilias. Now I see you said something similar. However, his "technical" argument does not fit. And I actually don't agree with you on a logic "or school" debate not being relevant. Logic and definitions are always relevant. The problem arises when people analyze side points or allow their arguments to become a side discussion.

If I make an argument and use a term or definition poorly, and someone challenges that, then I will simply find the correct term and go on with my point. If someone challenges a fact I put forth that is debatable, but the fact is not central to my argument, then I will drop that fact from my argument and move on. And if my logic is flawed, in a way that hurts my central argument, then I will have to find a way to correct it or else I will have to step down. It's that simple!
More...

The best technical argument ever made:


"I want to say one thing to the American people. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie. Not a single time. Never. These allegations are false and I need to go back to work for the American people."

-----------William Jefferson Clinton---------


777
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top