Soros, ignorant in economic theory?

[LondonUSTrader]

Quote from rodmike9:


The VALUE, once again, can be found in his thought processes i.e. his analytical ability. Soros did not become a great investor because he surrounded himself with people like Jim Rodgers, it is the complete opposite.

We can often learn more from ourselves than from others. I suggest studying what you have posted as opposed to worrying about refuting where value can be found in Soros's books.

You can have all of the information in the world, but without comprehension and conviction it means nothing. Read George Soros for his information. If you are looking for the aforementioned (conviction) then I suggest studying something other than finance.

I was told by on 'the inside' the difference between Soros and Rodgers was the ability to pull the trigger when it mattered.

Take the word of Paul Tudor Jones for reading "Alchemy...," not mine.

I couldn't agree with your sentiments more. A couple of things I want to add to what you say.

(1) There is a difference between analysis and action. While trading is so difficult is that you have to combine great analysis with taking action when it matters. Thus, it is not uncommon to find great analysts who are terrible traders.

(2) I personally think the most important thing is to know yourself. Your own strengths and weaknesses and try use your knowledge of those to help your trading. The problem here is you have to be real honest with yourself. Most people aren't willing to do that.

(3) It's funny, in my experience, of working on a few different dealing floors is the people that knew the most about economic issues were often the worst traders. There is very little relation between trading success and knowledge of economics. It may help some, but it certaintly isn't a necessity. It may even be a disadvantage. Perhaps for some great intellectual ability gives them a false sense of security. No matter how intelligent or what you know, there is no certainty in the market. There is only uncertainty and probability.

 

[Batman28]

Quote from LondonUSTrader:



Of course, Philosophy probably has some economics components to it. Although Philosophy and economics are related to a certain extent it overstates the case to say they are one. They are certainly both logical scientific disciplines.

Economics is to Philosophy as Physics is to Maths.. Economics is philosophy of supply n demand and the state, ofcourse they wish to be considered a natural science.. ofcourse it's important how we define econ.. it certainly is more than macro/micro 101.. econ can be applied to and in every subject as philosophy.. and without philo econ wouldn't have any of its theories (that are not necessary true). the second you think economics, you are philosophysing..

 

[LondonUSTrader]

Quote from HoundDogOne:

[B
(3) Agree one is better off FORMALLY STUDYING the classics...
Because the basis of philisophy is logic...
So only someone SCHOOLED in logic can discern Truth from Falsehood.
The ** vast majority ** of the wannabe traders at ET...
Are simply UNABLE to apply Basic Logic to the Financial Markets and the Business World...
And are ** dead at the starting line **.
/B]

I should be very interested to know in what way you think the logic of Philosophy is similar to the "Basic Logic" of the financial markets?

 

[rodmike9]

Quote from Batman28:

Only someone who has never built and run a successful business... Which is roughly 98% of the posters at ET.. would believe Soros' is fully responsible for his success and/or he has some scientific methodology or is desperate to share his divine expertise in his books.

I did not suggest his employees/collegues making money for him. It is rather the information they present to him and the manner in which they have.. leverage that with the 'friendships' he has in the circles and politics - if u know anything of it.

I respect opinion of others on the man and his books. but give anyone the connections Soros made from early age from London to New York, and see if they need 'reflexibility' to make money..

Soros made his name on the bank of England crash.. ever since, he's lost more money from what he made on that bet.. and the rest of his success is full of questions (no time to get into it).

Why would you think that having connections has anything to do with the foundations of his success? You must look deeper to recognize why someone accumulates a fortune the size of his. Ethics aside, there is more depth to the process.

Regardless of what he has done with his money, the issue here is his "ignorance in economic theory." Your perception of his success is quite clear to some, unclear to you, and misguided for others. Please take more time to consider the cavalier statements you make about someone who "made his name on the Bank of England crash."

 

[rodmike9]

Quote from LondonUSTrader:

I should be very interested to know in what way you think the logic of Philosophy is similar to the "Basic Logic" of the financial markets?

Philosophy = love of wisdom

Basic logic of financial markets = cause and effect

Wisdom = knowledge and comprehension of causality

 

[LondonUSTrader]

Quote from rodmike9:

Philosophy = love of wisdom

Basic logic of financial markets = cause and effect

Wisdom = knowledge and comprehension of causality

Indeed. After many years of trading. I don't think "logic" is the right way to describe how the financial markets behave.

This is all in my opinion and experience. The financial markets don't necessarily behave in a cause and effect manner like a science or in a "logical" way.

If they behave in a "logical" way at all it is counter intuitive. Financial markets behave according to traders/actors perceptions of events.

That is why many times I have experienced the same thing. I have been told that the market can't do this or that because it is against economic law x. Or economic law y should mean the market will do z. But, the market then does the reverse. For example, that is why a good earnings report doesn't mean anything without actors perceptions of that event. When I used to work with clients, this was one thing they, or most I suspect, have problems grasping, the counter intuitiveness of the markets.

 

[HoundDogOne]

Quote from LondonUSTrader:

I should be very interested to know in what way you think the logic of Philosophy is similar to the "Basic Logic" of the financial markets?

Here's what I mean:

The whole point of a Univerity Education...
Is to TRAIN you to THINK DIFFERENTLY...
By overloading you with work you would otherwise NEVER do for 4-8 years.

Most hardcore professions like Medicine or Law or Engineering or Computer Science...
Share a common thread...
In that students are TRAINED HARD to think in a logical, structured, focused way.

At the University of Toronto...
Roughly 70-80% of first year Computer Science students DO NOT make it into the second year courses.

I took Computer Science...
And it almost killed me...
But it taught me how to think logically.

Logic is the only way to discern Truth from Falsehood.

Philosophy is another discipline that relies almost entirely on logic...
In every Philosophy program a first year course in Basic Logic is compulsory.

As for the financial markets:

It is a minefield run by salepeople with one hand in your pocket...
That feed you very sophisticated lies as a matter of course.

Unless you have been trained to think logically by one of the above hardcore disciplines...
You will simply ** not be equipped ** to discern the forks in the long, winding road to success as a trader.

(Not stockbroker... for that you just have to regurgitate all the usual cliches convincingly).

I have been a ** very ** successful trader for over 10 years...
Fiscal 2006 will be my best year...
But without by Computer Science degree TRAINING...
My success would have been impossible.

In one line: For trading it's not what you know... it's how you think.

 

[LondonUSTrader]

Quote from HoundDogOne:

Here's what I mean:

The whole point of a Univerity Education...
Is to TRAIN you to THINK DIFFERENTLY...
By overloading you with work you would otherwise NEVER do for 4-8 years.

Most hardcore professions like Medicine or Law or Engineering or Computer Science...
Share a common thread...
In that students are TRAINED HARD to think in a logical, structured, focused way.

At the University of Toronto...
Roughly 70-80% of first year Computer Science students DO NOT make it into the second year courses.

I took Computer Science...
And it almost killed me...
But it taught me how to think logically.

Logic is the only way to discern Truth from Falsehood.

Philosophy is another discipline that relies almost entirely on logic...
In every Philosophy program a first year course in Basic Logic is compulsory.

As for the financial markets:

It is a minefield run by salepeople with one hand in your pocket...
That feed you very sophisticated lies as a matter of course.

Unless you have been trained to think logically by one of the above hardcore disciplines...
You will simply ** not be equipped ** to discern the forks in the long, winding road to success as a trader.

(Not stockbroker... for that you just have to regurgitate all the usual cliches convincingly).

I have been a ** very ** successful trader for over 10 years...
Fiscal 2006 will be my best year...
But without by Computer Science degree TRAINING...
My success would have been impossible.

In one line: For trading it's not what you know... it's how you think.

I agree with some of what you say, disagree with some.

It is, of course, critically important to be able to think differently. To see the market for what it really is, not what people may think it is.

However, to say your success (and by implication anyone's) would have been impossible without education is I believe incorrect on two grounds.

(1) Analysis (or thinking differently) is only part of trading. Taking action at the right time and your mental fortitute is even more important in my opinion.

(2) Many successful traders have had little formal education. This fact quite easily falsifies your statement that training in one of your logical disciplines is a necessity.

Just my opinion.

 

[illiquid]

Quote from Batman28:

Economics is to Philosophy as Physics is to Maths

You might as well go all the way and add 'As Philosophy is to Art'. Then things really get messy.

I'd echo the statements others have made, you'd want to read Soros more on getting a glimpse into how a trader's mind works, rather than valuing the absolute truth of what he writes. Reflexivity in the markets is vastly underrated, simply because a la Heisenberg it by definition defies quantification. But it shows how a trader's thinking, however flawed it may appear to be to non-traders, in dealing with markets as (self)discounting mechanisms.

 

[HoundDogOne]

Below is a good list of "Fallacious Arguements".

Using any of these methods is a trick...
And almost always someone is either deliberately or unwittingly making a FALSE arguement.

Logical fallacies are at the core of all Propaganda.

If you cannot easily spot a Logical Fallacy...
And the posts at ET are absolutely riddled with such Fallacies...
Then your chances of success as a day trader are slim...
Because too many of your beliefs are FALSE.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html