Do not read if you're in a sad mood

[harrytrader]

I am smarter than you because I know that I am not

Quote from daniel_m:

Quote from harrytrader:

She "chose" ? What a choice when some merchants make you believe to dreams ?


Today most of you still dream that you are smarter than your fellows

well, speaking for myself, i have no doubt at all that that's the case

 

[nitro]

Quote from harrytrader:

I am smarter than you because I know that I am not

Is that like,

"I am a cretin.
All cretins are liars."

Or.

"This statement is False."

nitro

 

[harrytrader]

Quote from nitro:


Is that like,

"I am a cretin.
All cretins are liars."

Or.

"This statement is False."

nitro

Well don't bother I understand myself If you want to understand me read for example this extract from a mathematical encyclopedia

Russell's Paradox


Russell's paradox is the most famous of the logical or set-theoretical paradoxes. The paradox arises within naive set theory by considering the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Such a set appears to be a member of itself if and only if it is not a member of itself, hence the paradox.

Some sets, such as the set of all teacups, are not members of themselves. Other sets, such as the set of all non-teacups, are members of themselves. Call the set of all sets that are not members of themselves S. If S is a member of itself, then by definition it must not be a member of itself. Similarly, if S is not a member of itself, then by definition it must be a member of itself. Discovered by Bertrand Russell in 1901, the paradox has prompted much work in logic, set theory and the philosophy and foundations of mathematics.

Russell's own response to the paradox came with the development of his theory of types in 1903. It was clear to Russell that some restrictions needed to be placed upon the original comprehension (or abstraction) axiom of naive set theory, the axiom which formalized the intuition that any coherent condition may be used to determine a set (or class). Using a vicious circle principle similar to that adopted by the mathematician Henri Poincaré, and his own so-called "no class" theory of classes, Russell was able to explain why the unrestricted comprehension axiom fails: propositional functions, such as the function "x is a set", may not be applied to themselves since self-application would involve a vicious circle. Thus, on Russell's view, all objects for which a given condition (or predicate) holds must be at the same level or of the same "type".

 

[canyonman00]

Quote from harrytrader:

What will you do yourself if one day you have nothing left and that bankers will come and take your house and your children lookt at you crying huh ? Don't tell me it's not a problem statistics for debts is worst in US than any other country with more 100% of revenue of debt on average.

I started over. That was about fifteen years ago. I had nothing left. I took a part-time job at a computer store. The government took the Benz, the Porsche, the $500,000 house, seized my bank accounts, took all my documents and records. Friends who were there when the money was, disappeared. I was engaged at the time and that disappeared too. I had well into six figures of debt and no way to go forward. After a five year legal battle, the mater was dismissed. Then the Fed fought with me over taxes for five years. The government lost the case and dropped the matter but I had already been ruined.

So I restarted. Yes it was tough. There was plenty of stress and frustration. I had become use to luxuries and comforts. I had to change the lifestyle and plan the recovery. There were times when it looked as though I'd never get back. But I kept plugging and now I have more than I did then. Did I think about suicide? About ten seconds. Just long enough to ask the question. I thought, "I had a ball making it the first time. I'll do it better the next time around." And I have.

So I for one, KNOW that the answer is not suicide!

 

[daniel_m]

Quote from harrytrader:

The $200k or 400$ or whatever remains is nothing if you have several millions of debts over that was based on your assets before you lose it. You just think in abstraction not in day to day life. What will you do when you don't have a penny to even buy a sugar piece ? You think it is just an image ? Well I once met a client who has been a business man spending more than 5000$ in a signle day at supermarket and one day he lost his business and he really starved so as not to be able to even buy a piece of sugar - I employ his own expression ! He then washed the car of his neighbour so as to receive some money.

So don't speak like politicians, about abstract moral or things like that, and look at real life of people !

What will you do yourself if one day you have nothing left and that bankers will come and take your house and your children lookt at you crying huh ? Don't tell me it's not a problem statistics for debts is worst in US than any other country with more 100% of revenue of debt on average.

harry, if that stupid bitch had debts up to her eyeballs, is it anyone but HER own fault???? oh, i suppose she was genetically predisposed to accumulating debt (to say nothing of the morons that were willing to lend to her..)...

now, to answer your question as to what *I* would do: whatever the hell it takes! harry, taking my life would be the FURTHEST thing on my mind...

and here's one for freealwys: i had, in my teen years, contemplated suicide on numerous occasions. i done a whole lot of other (unsavoury and undesirable) things when i was younger; my beliefs about the world were almost unrecognisable from what they are today. what then of your environmental and/or genetic determinism idea? why the hell was i able to change so completely????? time to bury that dead horse buddy..

but freealwys, you are right that we dont' act rationally. we act on what we perceive will lead us to either avoid pain or towards pleasure. it's the perceptions that must change if our behaviour is to change, and that, sir, is absolutely doable. attitude is everything -- lame, bumper-sticker, "i've heard it all before", but very, very true.

harry, your story isn't nearly as 'sad' as it is tragically stupid..

 

[LongShot]

DAN_M, YOUR POSTS ALWAYS MAKE ME SMILE..

RIGHT ON DUDE!!

 

[harrytrader]

Quote from canyonman00:



Friends who were there when the money was, disappeared.

Really This reminds me of another story. I was making a 15 days training in a consulting group and I have to call by phone ceo directly to propose audit services. And one day there was one who talked to me during 30 minutes that a few years ago his enterprise was in a really bad situation, and that everybody never knows him any more, and that when everything is ok again, then they came back. My manager was very angry because I had to stay only 2 minutes at phone for each prospect

 

[harrytrader]

Quote from daniel_m:




harry, if that stupid bitch had debts up to her eyeballs, is it anyone but HER own fault???? oh, i suppose she was genetically predisposed to accumulating debt (to say nothing of the morons that were willing to lend to her..)...

now, to answer your question as to what *I* would do: whatever the hell it takes! harry, taking my life would be the FURTHEST thing on my mind...

and here's one for freealwys: i had, in my teen years, contemplated suicide on numerous occasions. i done a whole lot of other (unsavoury and undesirable) things when i was younger; my beliefs about the world were almost unrecognisable from what they are today. what then of your environmental and/or genetic determinism idea? why the hell was i able to change so completely????? time to bury that dead horse buddy..

but freealwys, you are right that we dont' act rationally. we act on what we perceive will lead us to either avoid pain or towards pleasure. it's the perceptions that must change if our behaviour is to change, and that, sir, is absolutely doable. attitude is everything -- lame, bumper-sticker, "i've heard it all before", but very, very true.

harry, your story isn't nearly as 'sad' as it is tragically stupid..

Hey,

I know you're strong, you're a man, you're Tarzan

My intention is not to speak about YOU in particular, or even about HER in particular, my intention was to illustrate a GENERAL problem with a case I know - an extreme case ok but a case all the same - about the PSYCHOLOGIC INFLUENCE of STOCK MARKET on PEOPLE.

canyonman00 has experienced something similar : the ruin. He is also a particular case but he has the advantage to talk about CONCRETE reality, you talk about what you WOULD do in that case in abstraction. Are you sure as sure as when you'll have to cut your losses quickly in trading ?

But as for Canyon it is not exactly the same. He was ruined by an act he was in control. When people feel it is an absurdity, that they were naive they feel much more depressed because they deceive themselves.

 

[daniel_m]

Quote from harrytrader:



canyonman00 has experienced it. He is also a particular case but he has the advantage to talk about CONCRETE reality, you talk about what you WOULD do in that case in abstraction. Are you sure as sure as when you'll have to cut your losses quickly in trading ?

well, considering that i'm cutting my losses day in, day out, i'd have to say that yep, i'm totally sure of my ability to do it.

harry, i'm not really the kind of person to carry on about the 'unfair' treatment life has dished out to me, although, i can assure you that i have wallowed in the depths of despair on a good few occasions. obviously, doing so didn't help me one iota, so i highly, highly doubt that it would be a course of action i would be tempted to take were some new disaster to befall me.

my intention was to illustrate a GENERAL problem with a case I know - an extreme case ok but a case all the same - about the PSYCHOLOGIC INFLUENCE of STOCK MARKET on PEOPLE.

ok, some people will get upset over it. in fact, i would imagine that the vast majority would get upset over market losses. so, yeah, the empirical observation would be that the market has a pyschological influence on people. so? there's hardly anything new that we, especially, as traders, don't already know.

 

[harrytrader]

If we take your criteria, then they are more stupid people in United States than in Europe since people have debt in average of more than 100% of their revenue, in Europe it is only 1/3.

I don't think that genetically there is more stupids in US than in Europe and so the system in which people live make them behave more or less stupidly. In that case it not really a choice.

Quote from daniel_m:




harry, if that stupid bitch had debts up to her eyeballs, is it anyone but HER own fault????