This is why...plain and simple...
http://www.tradingpitblog.com/2010/11/conversation-with-local.html
http://www.tradingpitblog.com/2010/11/conversation-with-local.html
Why are you proud to be a trader?
- Thread starter icetrader
- Start date
Consolidated production inflate prices for their own benefit, genius. That's why your example makes no sense. Large combines don't withhold supply and then turn around and say "gee, prices are too high... we should sell!". They warehouse production and limit ongoing capacity to manipulate prices up. That's a well-established economic and historical fact. Get it? Or do you require yet another lengthy explanation of how illiquid markets are easily cornered by industrial combines and/or well-financed speculators?
First, there is nothing unintelligible about a range of fair values. You don't understand it. But that doesn't make it nonsensical. It makes you slow. And yes, it's completely logical. For investors who actually make money, they understand fundamentals change before the market does.
As for your statement of the obvious, "fundamental values are never static." Frankly, I'm surprised you need this explained: that was a theoretical supposition used to illustrate a point that you missed (again). That's what the IF means in, ""If fundamental conditions were static". Another swing and a miss, Corky.
And "range" means a spectrum of prices. Therefore, your insistence an example of a choice market be offered as proof, is illogical. Choice markets don't necessarily exist in a range. Again, the meaning of words are lost on you..
I'm sure these "advanced thinkers" include yourself. Do any of them actually trade or invest for a living? Or do they sit around all day in their tenured chairs pontificating about things they have no direct experience of or incentive to be right about? You keep mentioning these super geniuses we should all revere. Yet you haven't named a single theory or counterpoint of theirs that would support the original topic that speculation is parasitic. Instead, you've wasted our time with useless analogies and off-topic conjecture. Which is rather interesting, since you could easily devastate the argument for speculators with just a pinch of your next level shit bequeathed from the trading gods atop Mt Olympus. Then again, you might just be full of it
Please do...
Tell you what. I'll make it real simple for you:
Fundamentals change before the market does.
That's how the true value range can shift dramatically, before prices do.
You would know that if you invested for a living.
Yes, people like me are astute. Does that bother you?
"We all"? Who is "we all"? Most profitable investors rely heavily on an eclectic mix of economic theory to formulate their trade decisions. Myself included. It's not the theories or models that are wrong, but the application. Selection and timing. If you actually invested profitably, you would know that. Thanks for outing yourself.
Please read for content? Please go back to remedial English 101 and pass the course. Your skills of rudimentary observation and nonlinear thought are hopelessly muddled by a glaring lack of basic reading comprehension. Yes, I am a Great Equalizer, amongst Equalizers. And proud of it. That you've got a mind like a sloth that can barely perceive what's 2 inches infront of his face, makes no difference. What us speculators provide is a truly wonderful and valued service to world. See you on the other side of my trade..
Withholding supply is not manipulation, itâs called trading and it is legal. Anyway you claim specs prevent such âmanipulationâ yet it still happens all the time even in the most liquid of markets with the retail specs are buying right alongside those evil manipulators. In the dot com bubble, mom and pop speculators at home were buying along with the new fundamental economic gurus who said the new economy is where profits didnât matter and we needed a new definition of âfair valueââ¦. your market heroes.
...and yet you claimed speculators are the balancing force against manipulative commercials, consistency is certainly not your strength
I proved it was illogical, you simply assert itâs logical. Iâll let the rest of the world decide what is a better way of looking at things.
You are a very slow manâ¦I can theoretically suppose I am Prokorov to illustrate some conclusion, but that would make that conclusion rather stupid eh? I'm sorry but I thought you were trying to model reality, why didnât you just say you that you donât care? Theoretically suppose all day with your useless ideas.
range =spectrum... wow how long did it take to come up with that?
________________________________________
Quote from Mav88:
2) "True value is a range or band of data points that reflect "fair value".
News flash #2 fair value is a subjective term that cannot be quantified, Marx tried that long ago. Again, dubunked and discarded by more advanced thinkers.
________________________________________
Anyone who agrees that Marx was wrong has advanced beyond your thinking. Marx also thought that value could be calculated. Never said they were geniuses, traders, or academics -you are making shit up again.
No I didnât name any theory because there are no such proven theories in the pseudoscience of economics. You however agreed that some speculation is parasitic, which opens the door to my own speculation being parasitic as I stated.
Riddle me this- what kind of fool voluntarily participates in an internet discussion forum but then complains his time is being wasted if someone challenges his thinking?
What argument? Trading is legal is a free enterprise economy, period. There is no argument other than that, but I never said it.
__
__________________________
Quote from Mav88:
You said yourself that markets can be distorted from true value, but then you define true value as +/- 3% of current market price . Well guess what, it impossible for the market price to be anything but current market price. If you see your folly and now want to compare market prices at two points in time, you still have a logical contradiction. If the market at time t1 is distorted by 4% from what you call the middle of your true value range defined by price at some other time t2 (that you think this can happen is evidenced by your own statement from a previous post "Does it make sense to price oil at 500 dollars a barrel when it's true value is 50 dollars?") , then the price at t1 (say $500 dollars) which was 'current market price' at t1 did not define the true value at t1 (which you say was $50). That is in contradiction to your own definition: the range of true value at t1 is roughly ~3% +/- current market price at t1. I inserted t1 for clarity. QED
________________________________________
I just destroyed your concept by hanging it on its own petard, your glaring lack of response is pretty damning. Value investors and fundamentalists have been around as long as trading has been around. They donât have a holy grail and everyone knows it, nothing new here, your ideas are useless platitudes pulled from your ass.
Apparently you donât read the journals around here⦠If there was such a thing as accurate economic theory in regards to predicting markets, you would not need an eclectic mix, there would be just one theory. In any event it canât work because the theory would become the market (Iâm not going to explain, you would not follow). I see, itâs the application and the timing! The timing, by god itâs the timing! LOL, who the hell are you trying to kid here? And BTW the old childish ET âyou are not profitableâ line wonât work on me, I don't know you and don't give 2 shits if you are profitable.
More ad hominems and self aggrandizment with no real response to the argument, yawn.
First. Calm Down. This is the internet. You're wayy too emotional. Get some fresh air. Take your boyfriend to a movie. I'm sure he'd like that. Second. You're arguing for arguments sake. Anybody who can't understand the social benefit of speculation is retarded. You haven't articulated any theory to the contrary. Other than to offer some nebulous response that it wasn't the brainchild of economists or academics. And that Marx was wrong. I'll print out that little jewel. The next time I take a dump, I'll need some toilet paper. As far as timing and selection go - sorry you can't make it work. You obviously can't make a buck as an investor. Which explains why you believe the market can't price value. And to call my theory a "theory" is ridiculous. Everyone who invests profitably knows value exists and it can be loosely quantified, with the right tools, at the right time. Even the simplest of concepts is lost on you. Lastly, why would anyone who makes bank post the grail in the ET journals section, of all places? I'm sure that's exactly what PTJ and John Paulson thought when they cashed their first 100 mio cheque.... lol Really dumb. How do you trade, anyway? Lemmie guess, a HFT drone? lol Anyway, that other guy was right about you = can't see the forest from the trees.
To be proud is to have an ego. And I would say to have an ego more often than not is detrimental to one's bottom line in life. The bigger the ego, the harder it is to admit one is wrong.
I'd say 99% of the time life is about knowing when you're in the wrong spot and getting out of it. The other 1% is recognizing when you're on to something good and pressing the shit out of it.
I'd say 99% of the time life is about knowing when you're in the wrong spot and getting out of it. The other 1% is recognizing when you're on to something good and pressing the shit out of it.
Condescenscion, projection, strawmen, ad hominem, boy you try every trick in the book don't you? everything except address the actual argument.
Latest news flash: We are in an internet forum, we in a thread entitled 'are your proud to be a trader', this is what is known as argument for argument's sake...and yet you keep responding and complain about your time being wasted?
I almost feel bad for you, this is pathetic
LOL, sure, why it must be obvious if you say so
I just said I don't have any proven theories you stupid wanker, nobody does, god you love strawmen
was that supposed to be witty? and oh please no, not the old 'you can't make money' line, oh dear what will I do.
Yet when I offer a proof that shows your definition inconsistent, you cannot respond. You are a pathetic man, you think that you can defeat a logical proof by repeating trite platitudes and ad hominems.
So nobody in the journals makes money, your system is a grail, and I suppose now you claim that there are people in here who never post this stuff of yours but are raking it in. Give it up man, you are just getting dumber by the post.