Social Influences of Being A Trader

One only needs to think of how to be a good trader...

Good traders make over $5,000,000 per year....

................................................................

People respect money......

................................................................

No other profession has world wide freedom of movement..

...............................................................

And quite frankly...I do not give a flying fuck about what anybody else thinks...not ever...and not for any fucking reason...

...............................................................
 
Quote from dddooo:

The social perception of traders is that they are gamblers and their contribution to society is ZERO. And that's a very correct and accurate perception too. All that talk about providing liquidity is self-delusional, traders are about as valuable to society as poker players.
More...

frankly i don't care at all what anyone thinks about trading - but:

first of all everybody does what he does because he has to earn money to survive - and not primarily because he wants to contribute to society or whatever.

speakin about trading - do you know how big the brokerage industry is and how many people are working there? no traders - no brokerage industry - end of the story. (and with traders i also mean investors - since it's the same for me. you invest for making money and not for contributing to society - i hope this is clear). and what about everything else - software industry - books - etc. (lots of jobs in there - and all because of us...)?

we could go on now and talk about every single profession out there and how important it is for the society - i would say that there are quite a few that are rather dispensable.

no matter what anyone does to make a living - as long as it is legal and you pay your taxes - you are a good person that DOES contribute A LOT to your society.
 
Their contribution is ZERO?

What about the whole industry that is builded on trading? Thousands of jobs, billions of taxes paid.
What about the charity of Soros and others?

All depends on what you find "socially useful".
But that could mean that we would have to kill all old people that only cost money, as well as the permanent unemployed because they only cost money and don't bring any added value to society.
So where is the limit?
We could install a committee that would do a yearly evaluation of each individual. Those who wouldn't reach the minimum requirements could be eliminated too.

But ever thought about the fact that people who are jealous, often try to find excuses, in an attempt to get others down?
That's what happened in the "socialistic" countries. Everyone who got out of the crowd had to be beheaded, because everybody had to have the same miserable live. Except for the politicians, because they lived like God in France.

Trading doesn't harm nature, and everybody is FREE to participate in the game. I can think of many other activities that are socially much more repulsive.
 
Quote from gerry875:

speakin about trading - do you know how big the brokerage industry is and how many people are working there? no traders - no brokerage industry - end of the story.
More...
That's not a right comparison. If there was no cancer a lot less people would work in medical and drug industries but that does not mean cancer has social value. If there was no crime we could fire every single policeman but that does not mean that criminals have social values. Same with gamblers/casinos - casinos have social value as they provide gamblers with entertainment but gamblers and gambling are hardly good for society. In your specific example the brokerage industry would not even disappear as they are primarily geared towards investors rather than traders.


The bottom line is the social value of traders (or gamblers) is zero, traders are not producing goods or services, at best they are redistributing wealth (in 90% cases their own :D). BTW I am not saying there is anything wrong with being a trader, I simply provided the social perception of trading and tried to explain why I believe it was accurate. I personally could not care less what society thinks of traders but I prefer not to fool myself and face the reality, you may of course choose to believe all you want that society needs and values goods and services we as traders provide.
 
Quote from dddooo:

That's not a right comparison. If there was no cancer a lot less people would work in medical and drug industries but that does not mean cancer has social value. If there was no crime we could fire every single policeman but that does not mean that criminals have social values. Same with gamblers/casinos - casinos have social value as they provide gamblers with entertainment but gamblers and gambling are hardly good for society. In your specific example the brokerage industry would not even disappear as they are primarily geared towards investors rather than traders.


The bottom line is the social value of traders (or gamblers) is zero, traders are not producing goods or services, at best they are redistributing wealth (in 90% cases their own :D). BTW I am not saying there is anything wrong with being a trader, I simply provided the social perception of trading and tried to explain why I believe it was accurate. I personally could not care less what society thinks of traders but I prefer not to fool myself and face the reality, you may of course choose to believe all you want that society needs and values goods and services we as traders provide.
More...

then - according to your logic - there are 2 groups of people - those who produce something (the GOOD people) and those who don't. well - in the us - probably more than anywhere else - there are only few left who produce anything - do you think that all the other ones should feel bad then?

of yourse i understand what you mean (actually i try to do so) - but on the other hand ...- has it something to do with religion or what?

i didn't say that the brokerage industry is good or bad - the question was are traders any good. yes they are - absolutely. futures were invented not for speculation but for hedging (insurance) - and the more liquid a market is - the better - if there were only hedgers and investors on the scene - but not one single trader (be it intraday or short term swing - whatever) - now how would this scene look like?

this condescending talk about traders or any other group of people is nothing but ridiculous and naive.
 
traders are not producing goods or services
More...

That's simply not true. Take for example futures markets which transfer risk from hedgers to speculators. The speculators are providing a service to the hedgers by assuming risk.

Cheers,
Fletch
 
Not aiming this at any of the posters that have responded, jmho, fwiw.

A person who trades and is concerned about appearances and others opinions, is starting off on a shaky footing.

Trading is very much an individual thing.

The herd mentality tells us, we should trade this or that, everyone else is trading it! Use this strategy, this indicator. This is good. This is bad. ect………………

Imho, caring about others opinions in regards to one’s trading, is one step removed from the above.

To hunt the herd, one needs to step away from it ( stand alone) so one can take aim. Or else you might be trampled or worse swept away, by the stampede as it heads for the cliff.

What is important! is one’s self-image, without this being in proper order, self-sabotaging behaviors appear in our trading.

Another person’s opinion, in reality, means nothing - unless you allow it.
 
Quote from fletch2:

That's simply not true. Take for example futures markets which transfer risk from hedgers to speculators. The speculators are providing a service to the hedgers by assuming risk.
More...
It's a good point and I should have been more specific in my previous comments. Markets are important and market participants making markets and facilitating trades between willing participants (investors, funds, hedges) are important. That certainly applies to Specialists, Market Makers, Pit Traders, Institutional Traders. My previous commments were not about them, they were about ET members overwhelming majority of whom are day/swing-traders (if they trade at all).

While it can be argued that by participating in markets day-traders add liquidity and it's technically true, our effect on the market is usually between non-existant and negligible and when it's more substantial it tends to be negative creating unnecessary volatility rather than adding liquidity. All in all daytraders cancel each other out in essense trading with each other, if for whatever reason we all disappear from the market tomorrow - no one will ever notice and if they do they'll breathe a sigh of relief (including hedgers whom you used as an example).

That's not to say that anyone should care or quit trading because of that but we should face the harsh reality that we (day-traders) are leeches.
 
Quote from dddooo:

It's a good point and I should have been more specific in my previous comments. Markets are important and market participants making markets and facilitating trades between willing participants (investors, funds, hedges) are important. That certainly applies to Specialists, Market Makers, Pit Traders, Institutional Traders.
More...

I guess I don't really follow why you think a share or contract traded by a pit trader or an institution is essential to the functions of the market for which you acknowledge an inherent value, but a share or contract traded by an individual who happens not to be standing in a pit or associated with an institution isn't.

What makes a trade by an institution or pit trader fundamentally different from that of an individual with independent access to the market?

Fletch
 
Quote from fletch2:

What makes a trade by an institution or pit trader fundamentally different from that of an individual with independent access to the market?
More...
It's a combination of several factors:

-Volume per individual. One institutional trader moves tens of millions of shares a day, one average day trader moves a few thousand.

-Relationship with customers - institutional traders deal directly with their clients, when a mutual fund wants to sell IBM the contact GS or MER trading desks or IBM specialist directly. Institutional traders provide a service to their clients, day-traders don't, if anything day-traders are a nuisance as far as they are concerned.

-Specialists and MMs also have responsibilities of making markets, maintaining a fair and orderly market and be buyers/sellers of last resort.

How do you explain that hedgers, large investors and mutual funds hate day-traders when according to you they benefit from their existance. They are not dummies you know. Another question, if a trader buying from a hedger and assuming his risk is good, what about another trader who's front-running the hedger?

Do you really think the markets would notice or detiriorate if all day-traders suddenly disappear? On the other side there is no doubt that should institutional traders, pit traders, MMs or Specialists suddenly go on strike - the markets would seize to exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top