In defense of gamblers....
> the problem, is that no one wants to be an investor anymore. Everyone wants to be a speculator, in on the momentum<
Oh, I know what you mean -- and there's serious ideas behind it:
- we're in a speculative craze, now, and as Gailbraith says, they always end, and the end always isn't pretty
- lots of things are short term now -- attention spans, political speeches (the Gore/Bradley thing was a child's game of barb exchanges, not a debate: Lincoln and Douglas took hours and *really* debated -- what happened to the culture that demanded that?);
- another short term thing is our hellbent drive to use up oil, the production of which is extremely likely to start declining in 25 years... which could lead to a depression, but is good news since the earth is choking on poison as it is from fossil fuels. This would be a really good time for me to hype alternative energy stocks, particularly fuel cells, but I'll leave that to others...
But as to the charge, "You're a gambler -- not an investor!". Well, sure. Guilty.
But us gamblers have brought a lot of money into the market -- the vast majority of it. And without it, those "investor" profits would not exist either. Think about it. A "rational market" would be a very quiet and slow one.
The market has always had a speculative, get rich edge --- it's why it exists, it's why it has a whole adrenalin soaked language. Those trading symbols, zooming by outside of brokers offices are like ducks in a shooting gallery, just a bunch of letters, but if you bag a few you could be rich, really rich.
Get it while the getting is good, folks! if FBCE takes off (say, doubles) I'm going sell at least half, and that's if it doubles in year or tomorrow. Keeping it in might benefit me in the long term, but who knows? All predictions of the future are hallucination and arrogance...
- Charles |
