To: ahhaha who wrote (7341 ) 3/14/2000 1:10:00 AM From: Dan Duchardt Read Replies (2) | Respond to
ahhaha,Your post asserts its own falsity. Livermore was well-known before the crash as a top operator. He had made $250,000 in 1906 by being short when the San Francisco earthquake hit. He was short only because the market had told him that certain stocks were weak. It was only providential that he happened to be short and not long. It was this event and not his fame as the "boy plunger" that launched his career as a stock market operator. Nonetheless, it was the public that learned about his short position gains and then assumed that whenever a stock plunged, it was due to a Livermore manipulation. The consequence of this unwanted visibility was that he, Willie Durant, and other operators were blamed for "pushing" the market down and causing the crash. The public never blames the true culprit: unbridled greed of the wild-eyed public. public shot itself in the foot by passing a large body of laws which had the intent of protecting the public from itself. Those laws were constructive, but they were also destructive so that recently in an attempt to undo the bad, the genie has been let out of the bottle .problem isn't the MMs or anything else the public imagines, the problem is that the public believes trading has a positive expected return. This view has been reinforced to such an extent by recent stock market action that an astounding large percentage of the public is whirlin' 'em . Most of them are going to lose every cent. When the stock market has busted the public without any crash or other apocalyptic event, the public is going to shoot itself in the foot again. They will pass laws that will stymie individual trading . At that time you don't want to have visibility like Livermore did so that the public pillories you and makes you the whipping boy for the grievous sin of having taken their money away from them. What evidence can anyone produce that they were "ripped off"? How do they define "ripped off"? Not having got what they deserved? Almost always they have gotten more than they deserved because the members would prefer to avoid confronting false allegations since the press turns any such confrontation into a circus. You suggest the MMs are greedy. I am telling you that greed is intrinsic to all humans. I am telling you that the machinery is such that any attempt by any of them to benefit in some unknown way from their greed causes their expected return to fall. The method has to be unknown since under the circumstances it is not conceivable how any MM could avail themselves by violating the rules. You need to observe the trading room of an MM firm and then you can tell me how you would beat the system. You suggest the MMs are greedy. I am telling you that greed is intrinsic to all humans. Just what privilege do you think an MM or other market pro has? I will tell you they have no advantage and when opportunity knocks, just like the public, they run away. The only advantage a market pro has is they don't have a janitorial job and so don't get paid as little. They get paid by doing what they're told by you, by other pros, by officials, by the market.
