John, with all respect, I have never seen a fundamental ECONOMIC justification for taxing so-called short term gains at punitive rates vs. long term. If you can think of one, I'd sincerely like to hear it.
Rather, the only foundation for higher s.t. rates is PHILOSOPHICAL, based on the dubious, IMO, reasoning that s.t. profits are 'dirty' since they are thought to resemble 'gambling' while l.t. profits are 'pure' since they are derived from 'investing'. Can anybody make sense of that line of thought?
At least you were honest enough to admit that your prejudice against s.t. trading derived from frustration! But ponder that for a moment. Is profit derived from shorting or puts more sullied than profits derived from the long side? Hard for me at least to figure out why, at least based on economic theory. Here again, it's an emotional reaction along the lines of : shorting is un-American or a vote against growth or a vote in favor of cynicism or whatever.
At the end of the day, active markets provide liquidity which is an economic virtue beyond argument. Those shorts and sellers that bombed TI a few months ago gave you the opportunity to buy at lower prices, if, as I assume, you're a TI bull.
BTW, I'm long TI and a buy and hold kind of guy--but I can't get worked up about folks who are traders. They're just faster than I am: if I could figure out how to make money "their" way, I'd do it in a flash. With the above and 20 cents, you can now make a phone call. Mike Doyle |
