This should be moved into chat. Politics or philosophy don't have a snowball's chance in hell of improving someone's trading.
Ayn Rand and trading...
- Thread starter Zachpence
- Start date
I am well aware that human achievement and economic progress are predicated on ambition and initiative, which are stifled by communism. Therefore, I reject communism. I am also aware that corruption can spread like bacteria without oversight. And I am aware of the Golden Rule, where he who has the gold, rules. Therefore, like it or not, that leaves us with the need for balance that neither extreme can provide. Some black-and-white thinkers can't seem to grasp this concept. Are you one of them?
Good post!
I read somewhere that if you were to take all of the economists in all the world and line then up in a row, you still wouldn't reach a conclusion.
I am very much afraid that it is the essence of trading.
If people were logical rational beings, they would eat when hungry, sleep when tired, relief themselves when required.
Because we are all emotional beings, we have a tendency to employ manipulation as our weapon of choice, which is the principal reason why traders fail.
Those amongst us claiming to be objective and rational beyond others, are those people who either deny their essence as a human, or more than likely suppress their emotions by pointing out their own short comings through the behaviour they recognise in others.
I place Rand firmly in this later category.
As for people wishing to become consistently profitable traders.
My advice is to leave your previous world behind and just focus upon price and possibly volume, if you clearly understand it.
regards
f9
Yea, if we assumed that other traders and institutions were rational, then the resulting market price of their actions would always be rational.
Assuming that the given price level in the market is rational is a sign that you should not be in the market. Because as a rational trader, you would have no advantage over other rational traders. The market wouldn't exist if everyone made the same decisions. Even if one was a perfect rational agent, they would fail to interpret the market direction, because it's not a rational matter.
We have never seen rational market prices because the source factors affecting price are not objective or quantifiable. It is emotions and speculative decisions that steer market prices.
The future doesn't exist, therefore it is impossible to objectify and quantify it. Even if one is skilled at objective and rational thought, the future market price is in the subjective realm, and if you attempt to rationally make a decision on future price, you're wasting your time. There is no such thing as rationally guided prediction for the future. They are only subjective speculations.
So philosophy (among everything else) is useless for guiding predictions for the future (market price).
Assuming that the given price level in the market is rational is a sign that you should not be in the market. Because as a rational trader, you would have no advantage over other rational traders. The market wouldn't exist if everyone made the same decisions. Even if one was a perfect rational agent, they would fail to interpret the market direction, because it's not a rational matter.
We have never seen rational market prices because the source factors affecting price are not objective or quantifiable. It is emotions and speculative decisions that steer market prices.
The future doesn't exist, therefore it is impossible to objectify and quantify it. Even if one is skilled at objective and rational thought, the future market price is in the subjective realm, and if you attempt to rationally make a decision on future price, you're wasting your time. There is no such thing as rationally guided prediction for the future. They are only subjective speculations.
So philosophy (among everything else) is useless for guiding predictions for the future (market price).
...And the dumbing down relentlessly continues...
Why trouble yourself with even an attempt at understanding when you can just pop a bite-sized portion of Randonomics and affect the requisite pose of righteous indignation, step up on the soapbox, and preach the all-or-nothing gospel?
So true...... the movie would probably be too dumbed down and simplistic to do justice her increasingly esoteric philosophy. As you say, more than a bite-sized portion of her iconoclastic doctrine is needed to EFFECT understanding among the masses, thus enabling them to choose leaders whose policies result in freedom rather than chains.
StoshThat was rather nimble of you.
Here's a free link to the recent WSJ article about Atlas Shrugged that someone mentioned earlier in the thread:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html