Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (26187)	2/18/2008 4:47:50 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

"I don't think there would be much dissent in Britain over calling Soros a currency traitor." LOL! Yeah... but they are European SOCIALISTS, so of course they are going to be opposed to the free market exercise of Capitalism! (Particularly an example which proved --- once again, in case anyone had missed the lesson --- that the Statist's case is always flawed... and that Big Governments cannot stand forever in opposition to the free flow of Capital in a global market without getting burned!) (PS --- how could he ever be a 'traitor' to England... when he is Hungarian born, long ago naturalized AMERICAN CITIZEN? <GGG> Wouldn't that be a bit like calling you a 'traitor' to Thailand? :-)

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (26187)	2/19/2008 12:10:21 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 71588

Normal speculators, to the extent that they make money from their speculation, smooth out prices (they buy low, pushing prices up, and sell high, pushing prices down). Of course when speculators make the wrong bet, they do the opposite. Also when they make the wrong bet they are more likely to panic, and have a more extreme effect. And Soros isn't exactly a normal speculator. He moves markets a lot more. Still I wouldn't call him a traitor, at least not for the currency speculation. I don't consider such activity traitorous. Oddly enough his own statements might make his activities look worse than my statements would. "Despite working as an investor and currency speculator (his fortune in 2004 was estimated at US$7 billion), he argues that the current system of financial speculation undermines healthy economic development in many underdeveloped countries." en.wikipedia.org My problem with him is not the speculation, its his political viewpoint and the fact that he pushes such a damaging viewpoint so hard. But I wouldn't call him a traitor for this either. That would be too strong of term. I think he's a negative force (a force that helps make things worse), but not deliberately so (I think he honestly believes in the causes he pushes), and he isn't the agent of a foreign power, or some revolutionary force in the US.