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 : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: grusum who wrote (23363)	5/25/2013 1:44:26 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 24758

The purpose of my response was not to regard the content of your replies but how you were replying. I had to show that superficial content in counter argument doesn't provide a valid counter. Maybe your opponents could see through arguments in the way I indicated and felt they weren't worth addressing. You have to throw meat in the bowl to get the animals to eat the grain. the posts i selected were only to show that i don't 'walk softly'. Nobody is hearing you walk. No one is forced to hire at minimum wage. What we have going on now is finding other ways to do things without using cheap people. Who says that's so bad? Not the stock market. regulation and red tape don't slow and even stop business start ups? True. They don't. Better put, such barriers to entry prevent people from incurring yet another BK. Besides, that's not what economists mean when they say "burdensome, profit minimizing regulation". Such regs stifle already established biz, and often stifle that kind of biz from doing something better like going offshore. Is it good to go off offshore? 'crats don't think so. However, just shows the 'crats are uncaring. After all, going offshore helps far poorer people. i said 'in general'. it's another swipe at socialism. Why should anyone believe a mere assertion? yet they are MY words. i wasn't copying anyone. You shouldn't say them because they're false and unsupported. Haven't you noticed that most of the time I address in great detail what people say to me, and I want to get at the heart of exactly what they intend to say. There's no point in skewing what they say. Those who skew only play to the crowd, a Babs ploy. it's useless to ask this opponent questions. But it doesn't look as though you've tried to address the opponent's questions. i just give him the same crap he gives us. i expect no answer and am surprised when i get one. Flame war. Why bother? When I debate it forces me to make my own understanding precise. You can't reach such precision on your own. This is the true added value of interaction. the only thing that stops him from manifesting is the constitution, what's left of it. the constitution isn't completely dead yet. Where's the beef? How does the Constitution stop him? If you don't say how, why should anyone believe you? too vague?? what is socialism but disguised extortion? i know many of the varied definitions, but fundamentally what is it? Too vague is how you have shown your point. "disguised extortion" is a figure of speech that actually isn't correct. The taxes coming with socialism are overt. In France, they're so high that they drive the prosperous out of the country and put the high and mighty on the hot seat. The Berlin Wall prevented such escape. I'd say these things were pretty much undisguised. you and i obviously don't agree on some things regarding economics. So? If everyone agreed, no one would learn anything new. but there are times i think it makes you lose accuracy. Given these little boxes in which we must constrain our replies necessarily inaccuracy abounds. none of which i'm qualified to argue with you about. but i can argue with you on principle. That's what you're doing in those other threads. It doesn't work. You must argue points of content. Specifics. The house is either 30 feet tall or 10 feet tall. Must be one or the other which is determined by measurement. the uptick rule would just be a little more bureaucracy. False. All trading is implemented by machines now. Only have to write a short algorithm and embed it in the execution code. there will be someone who takes advantage whether the rule is there or removed. so why have it? The point I repeatedly made was that uptick rule prevents market order shorting, bear runs initiated by bigger players which knock out smaller players and often ruins the smaller players. What is gained? Briefly the beneficiaries gain nominal profit which is then lost back into the negative expected return of their total activity. What observers see is stocks taking large plunges for no reason. Member firms gain because it increases the number of transactions they do. Members are paid by the exchange based on number of transactions. Members tell SEC that they can't keep commissions low unless they fractionate, maintain high numbers of transactions, and market order shorting helps substantially. SEC wants the public to be invested in ETFs, mutual funds, pension funds, in general, collectives. That way they think Lil Guy can't get hurt. It's a political decision imposed from the outside based on arbitrary criteria which meanwhile nominally serves brokerage houses. At what cost? As an individual investor you need guts of iron to withstand massive losses trying to hold for the longer term. These regulating bodies don't expend the slightest sweat since they get paid no matter who looses. So amateur, please tell ME where the equity lies in your flippant conclusion. And, by the way, ALL the public playing the market order short game, and who clamor for it since it gives them the illusion that they're succeeding, go bust within several years. Not as bad as options, but maybe worse in the sense that like a slot machine it keeps you in longer and squanders more of your time along with your dough. it's those few things, those types of things, where we disagree and i still feel i'm right. You're full of shit, boy. You know NOTHING, yet you would impose the very thing that you claim to decry. Just another slob thinking like a 'crat. this is my last post here. Good riddance. I don't need any more stupidos from whatever part of the political spectrum they think they occupy. What I've found is you're all compromised, compromised by what you think you need to own to be happy. That kind of ubiquitous thinking makes 99.9999% of Americans default losers, and the resulting obsession with consumption has destroyed the principles that made America great. What you have now is a rabid collection of useless eaters.