how is it the best technically if it's incorrect? or am i incorrect that it's incorrect? explain!
Are Traders Ethical
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
It was correct given the ambiguous nature of the phrase "sexual relations."
You can play word games all you like. I'm not interested. What I'm saying to you is that the system we have would not function without day traders. You can argue terms and definitions all you like. You haven't given me scrap one of evidence to the contrary however. I'd love to hear a real opposing argument, but just saying that day traders are unethical or unnecessary or not a true part of the system is false and not really an argument but an opinion. If you and that other guy Option-something think I'm wrong, fine. I can live with that.
I never took a stand on whether daytraders are important to the system. And it was you who played the word games! All I did was analyze your misguided argument about the definition of a system and its reliance on every single one of what becomes its components.
You write nice paragraphs with plenty of big words but you fail to analyze anything, misguided or not. The semantic content of all your posts has been about nil. Again, that's fine but don't foist your own shortcomings upon me.
Paternally yours
It is one thing to say that the system would not function exactly the same without day-trading---or that it might not function initially as efficiently with an end to day-trading, which I would tend to agree with, and it is another thing entirely to say that they system would not function at all without day-trading.
I contend that if day-trading were to be eliminated, the markets would survive and adapt, just as markets have always done assuming there are natural supply and demand forces at work in that market. Who knows, they might even become more efficient with the elimination of day-traders.
To this point, I don't see that you given any argument even by analogy or similar conditions that the system would not function without day-trading.
So far I have not heard an argument from you at all, only an opinion---not fact, which you are of course entitled to express.
The difference between an opinion and argument is an opinion is a statement without supporting evidence or argument to back it up when questioned by someone with a differing opinion.
So you have your opinion, based on who knows what, and I have my opinion based on the arguments and reasons put forth to support my point of view.
Since we are both speculating on what would happen without day-traders in our market, there can be no conclusive argument put forth, only an argument versus an opinion, or argument versus argument, and if there are multiple arguments available, that argument which makes the most amount of sense given all that we know about financial markets, as well as other markets that mirror the financial market's behavior, that augument that the majority of reasonable people will choose to accept as the most plausible theory is considered prevailing opinion.
This doesn't mean the prevailing opinion/argument is correct, it is just what is accepted as most reasonable by the majority until proven differently, or until a more reasonable opinion/argument comes along.
Well stated. I guess it's a draw then.
A hot dog stand operator provides a service albeit a dubious one of plying his or her customers with mystery sausage cooked unhygienically for a bargain. His or her motive? I think its to make a living in a legal way rather than to satisfy hungry people.
Similarly and more controversially, a surgeon plies his/her trade for, and not necessarily in this order: (a) to make a very good living financially, (b) peer respect and often parental/family respect (c) to give something to society. There are doctors who work for free for example in groups such as "Medecins San Frontiers" (which translates as Doctors without Borders) but they form a very tiny percentage of the whole - the rest are in it mostly for money and prestige.
A schoolteacher in the public school system of New York, now there's a noble profession! They are not in it for the money and there is limited society approval.
There is a great book recently published that hits these kinds of issues on the head : "The Naked Economist" by Charles Wheelan). It explains basic economic issues that affect our daily lives.
Remenber this: traders are like doctors and more precisely like Proctologists. We make a pretty good living but we don't enjoy explaining what we do for a living at cocktail parties!
Similarly and more controversially, a surgeon plies his/her trade for, and not necessarily in this order: (a) to make a very good living financially, (b) peer respect and often parental/family respect (c) to give something to society. There are doctors who work for free for example in groups such as "Medecins San Frontiers" (which translates as Doctors without Borders) but they form a very tiny percentage of the whole - the rest are in it mostly for money and prestige.
A schoolteacher in the public school system of New York, now there's a noble profession! They are not in it for the money and there is limited society approval.
There is a great book recently published that hits these kinds of issues on the head : "The Naked Economist" by Charles Wheelan). It explains basic economic issues that affect our daily lives.
Remenber this: traders are like doctors and more precisely like Proctologists. We make a pretty good living but we don't enjoy explaining what we do for a living at cocktail parties!