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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Waiting for the big Kahuna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Casaubon who wrote (81215)	9/27/2008 12:46:19 PM
From: Dr. Voodoo	Respond to of 94695

the only problem I have with assuming the markets should reach equillibrium at any given point is there is no analogy to perhaps, a molecular,,, if you will,,, vested interest in the probability of every molecule of water in a room condensing into a small drop of water in the center. you cannot shape a kinetic, or thermodynamic equillibrium. it is what it is, and what it will always be. markets are dynamic. Likewise the probability of thermal runaway(lets just call it panic) is dependent on the participants and thus less controllable, than jacketing the reactants, with perhaps say extra long sleeves. In either event the consequences mean, you don't get what you want, you get a mess. Everybody in a market has an agenda, making it easier for them to trade makes it easier for more money to enter the market. E.g. market growth,,, which i think we all view as a good thing. so, again, i come down on the side of liquidity, as long as shares are neither created or destroyed, the first law of marketdynamics. :-P. I might also add, that just because LEH went belly up, doesn't mean that the work they were doing or even the market they were in became any less efficient. V