Jump to content

All about Investments!


Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

When it comes to nation-states (and in this case not just the free West, but also the impoverished South Asia and communist East Asia) and all its bureaucracy and inertia, I don't think an alternative will be sought. There's 1) no motivation for the power-holders to want to change things; 2) they tend to be risk averse; 3) and the human need for state-sponsored war. But I agree with you -- and it is exciting to anticipate the chaos, fear, and blood -- that an alternative will find us.

Your answer is quite confusing to me, so allow me to stick to generalities. All markets have boundaries and rules that restrict freedom of choice. To quote Chang, "A market looks free only because we so unconditionally accept its underlying restrictions that we fail to see them." Ergo, if a "free" market is unable to yield satisfying outcomes, more boundaries and rules will be set. If that doesn't happen, the market may disappear. For example, if we're talking about natural resources, a resource may be depleted and/or an alternative to it must be found to maintain production/consumption. If we're talking about a financial market, we can safely say that a lack of regulation will cause a crisis hurting its operation (I think it's now widely admitted that unregulated finance ends in disaster). If we're talking about markets for consumption/production, the lack of regulation is likely to result in cartels or monopolies (or even nationalisation, if things get dire).
Point is, when it comes to markets the choice isn't merely between exploitation and revolution, but between regulation and disappearance. BTW, as historian Fernand Braudel pointed out, it's perfectly possible to think of capitalism as antithetical to "free markets," because the concentration entailed by capitalism runs contrary to competition and freedom of choice.
All other things aside, the end of "free markets" as we know them does not mean "chaos, fear, and blood" but can only mean less choice, whether through regulation or disappearance.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Your answer is quite confusing to me, so allow me to stick to generalities. All markets have boundaries and rules that restrict freedom of choice. To quote Chang, "A market looks free only because we so unconditionally accept its underlying restrictions that we fail to see them." Ergo, if a "free" market is unable to yield satisfying outcomes, more boundaries and rules will be set. If that doesn't happen, the market may disappear. For example, if we're talking about natural resources, a resource may be depleted and/or an alternative to it must be found to maintain production/consumption. If we're talking about a financial market, we can safely say that a lack of regulation will cause a crisis hurting its operation (I think it's now widely admitted that unregulated finance ends in disaster). If we're talking about markets for consumption/production, the lack of regulation is likely to result in cartels or monopolies (or even nationalisation, if things get dire).
Point is, when it comes to markets the choice isn't merely between exploitation and revolution, but between regulation and disappearance. BTW, as historian Fernand Braudel pointed out, it's perfectly possible to think of capitalism as antithetical to "free markets," because the concentration entailed by capitalism runs contrary to competition and freedom of choice.
All other things aside, the end of "free markets" as we know them does not mean "chaos, fear, and blood" but can only mean less choice, whether through regulation or disappearance.
 

Rippounet -- If I confused you, it's on me. Your response, though, was clear and mostly understandable. I'm a layman talking economics, whereas you sound like an economist talking economics, hahaha.

Subordinate Markets. Your description of the different (commodity, financial, goods / services) markets was helpful, and I think I'm tracking them as you explained it (e.g. the 2008 US housing crash and its associated financial products resulted in increased regulation including limits put on the number of mortgages a buyer could secure).

Free Market Capitalism. This is my intended point: although exploitation must exist in free, controlled, and hybrid market economies, any transition from a free market capitalist economy to anything else would require a period of general volatility (i.e. chaos, fear, blood). If I read you correct, my point of view is not applicable, while you argue a transition would be limited to less choice -- regulation or disappearance.

Fernand Braudel. I don't know how Fernand justifies his argument, but I'm sure it makes sense if you look at it from an assymetrical or narrow point of view. In a broader sense, I don't see how free markets and Capitalism can be antithetical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

Compliments are always appreciated, so, thank you.

China banned Bitcoin for stability purposes, which is to your point (but I do not believe is proof of your point; I will get there). The Chinese currency (yuan or remnibi) is really pretty weak. Ostensibly, the “stability purposes” of banning Bitcoin are mostly about fighting financial crimes, because most crypto is used for nefarious purposes (North Korea, drugs, guns, money laundering, and human trafficking, probably in that order). Also, yes, if one does not have a strong currency, limiting crypto is good capital control.

China excels at geopolitics and social control of its population; not so much currency manipulation (however much a certain wing in American politics has tried to sell that theory to the American public). 

China does not WANT to have a particularly strong currency, nor does it wish to have the world’s reserve currency - as much as it tried by suggestion to destabilize the U.S. position of such in 2008 with suggestions of a “basket of currency” as a world reserve currency in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

Several reasons why the United States need not worry about being in the position of China et al -

1. We (and I live in the U.S., so I say “we”) a the world’s reserve currency. 

2. the above situation is “sticky,” in economic terms. The closest competitor to the USD is the euro, and the euro is nowhere near as stable as the USD, and despite our recent political instability (ahem, Trump), we are still viewed as Stability with a capital “S”. The eurozone is still viewed as one Grexit away from financial chaos. 

3. The U.S. will be the world’s reserve currency for so long as oil is denominated in dollars, worldwide*, despite the counterparties between which oil is traded. I always personally found this fact to be absolutely fascinating, which I learned on an oil derivatives trading desk in 2013. 
   
* this part is an IMO, as it could be that tomorrow, small handheld nuclear fusion battery devices  are invented and the fact that oil is denominated in USD becomes as useful as being able to get royalties from all buggy whips made, worldwide. 

4. We have the world’s deepest, widest, and most accessible financial markets, worldwide.  And those run on dollars. 

The minute that “crypto” is backed by the full faith and credit of something stronger than the U.S. government will mean that the U.S. is a failed state and the world order is post World War III nuclear holocaust.

Chataya de Fleury -- I recall you talking mostly about boys and high fashion. So I'm a bit surprised at your recent posts. I'm liking Chataya, circa 2022. You're promoted to first most favorite woman on this board, probationary.

China. Your points on cryptocurrencies as they relate to the PRC made sense, helpful.

Points 1-4. I loved these. But point 3 was the best, and reflects my thoughts on why we need to maintain the petrodollar and the world's reliance on fossil fuels. And I'm willing to send young American men to war to maintain this. I just don't understand why the USG is pushing for renewabales, unless (as you said) there's a world-changing patent the USG is trying to get ahead of. Until then, driving a hybrid or Tesla is treason!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

Free Market Capitalism. This is my intended point: although exploitation must exist in free, controlled, and hybrid market economies, any transition from a free market capitalist economy to anything else would require a period of general volatility (i.e. chaos, fear, blood). If I read you correct, my point of view is not applicable, while you argue a transition would be limited to less choice -- regulation or disappearance.

Transitions would only create "volatility" if they directly affected the livelihood of people (i.e. drastically raised the prices or created shortages of basic necessities such as food and water and/or prevented people from earning a living).

If history is any guide, the introduction of free market policies are far more likely to create such volatility than the reverse (trade barriers), and (a few counter-examples notwithstanding) their suspension and/or limitation is generally used by governements to keep or restore order in difficult times (i.e. war, financial crises, famines, pandemics, natural disasters... etc).

There is no reason to assume that a move away from free market policies will in itself cause violence and death if it isn't done for purely ideological reasons, in a time of crisis. I would suggest that, on the contrary, defending free market policies in a time of crisis for ideological reasons is what's more likely to result in violence and death.

8 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

In a broader sense, I don't see how free markets and Capitalism can be antithetical.

For instance, through the contestable market theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rippounet said:

There is no reason to assume that a move away from free market policies will in itself cause violence and death if it isn't done for purely ideological reasons, in a time of crisis. I would suggest that, on the contrary, defending free market policies in a time of crisis for ideological reasons is what's more likely to result in violence and death.

Rippounet -- very thoughtful, value-added. Looking forward to seeing how the youth-driven efforts affect the US market system.

Looking back at your first post to me, and acknowledging there's a lot more (twitter / reddit / et al) traffic on market un-confidence among young people, I don't think what you said was an exaggeration:

"Assuming one actually believes in them now btw."

The future is going to be even more interesting than the past 21 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

Chataya de Fleury -- I recall you talking mostly about boys and high fashion. So I'm a bit surprised at your recent posts. I'm liking Chataya, circa 2022. You're promoted to first most favorite woman on this board, probationary.

Chats is and has been a very high-powered accountant so this is hardly a new development!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

But, I am a young girl and know little of the ways of markets and money :rofl:

I mean really, what does a 27 year old accountant know even if she's a VP at a billion dollar firm. You're all high heels and cocktails. :P

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Starkess said:

Chats is and has been a very high-powered accountant so this is hardly a new development!

Starkess -- It's new to me! I really do love to hear about that, makes us all happy I'm sure. In fact, I rate the progress on her financial thoughts in this thread to a solid B minus... So, I spent half the weekend catching up on posts from people I knew and it seems like many have done well since 2005. My points of reference with Chataya spans nearly two decades. And there's a substantial difference between Chataya2005 and Chataya2022; normally, one notices men, manplaining. But you don't often see women, womanslpaining. I appreciated that, hahaha.

I remembered you, too! I vaguely recall you were an Academy graduate and a Naval officer, and now I see you're a dedicated Youtuber (great videos!) and a PhD graduate. Ran seems to have published mutliple books. Iskaral Pust looks like he's mastered management (leadership, what we called it). And even George has printed a new book (still haven't read AFFC). And others...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I mean really, what does a 27 year old accountant know even if she's a VP at a billion dollar firm. You're all high heels and cocktails. :P

Tywin et al. -- I don' know what's more impressive: her ambitious career path or that she seems to get younger and younger everytime you make a new post..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2022 at 5:28 PM, Rippounet said:

Given the state of the world (the environmental crisis), we will either find yet another alternative, or an alternative will find us. Point is, it kinda takes an effort to imagine a future where humanity still believes in "free markets."

If you're saying there's a future where 700 IQ AI with plenty of processor time and 3 laws makes everything asymptotically efficient then maybe I'd get on board.  But really, if you're top down instead of bottom up then you're straight up immoral, results wise.  The elect always know better, but somehow us regular folks in tennis shoes or the occasional python boot, still get stomped on. 

On 8/7/2022 at 9:58 PM, Wade1865 said:

Chataya de Fleury -- I recall you talking mostly about boys and high fashion. So I'm a bit surprised at your recent posts. I'm liking Chataya, circa 2022. You're promoted to first most favorite woman on this board, probationary.

Probably need better game for that ride than just basic negging.   

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I mean really, what does a 27 year old accountant know even if she's a VP at a billion dollar firm. You're all high heels and cocktails. :P

I'm 29 so that math checks out.

Edited by mcbigski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

If you're saying there's a future where 700 IQ AI with plenty of processor time and 3 laws makes everything asymptotely efficient then maybe I'd get on board.  But really, if you're top down instead of bottom up then you're straight up immoral, results wise.  The elect always know better, but somehow us regular folks in tennis shoes or the occasional python boot, still get stomped on. 

Probably need better game for that ride than just basic negging.   

I'm 29 so that math checks out.

mcbigski -- how so? Everything I wrote was positive and intended that way. Teasing at most, not negging. And definitely not gaming. But I appreciate the analysis!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

If you're saying there's a future where 700 IQ AI with plenty of processor time and 3 laws makes everything asymptotically efficient then maybe I'd get on board.  But really, if you're top down instead of bottom up then you're straight up immoral, results wise.  The elect always know better, but somehow us regular folks in tennis shoes or the occasional python boot, still get stomped on. 

Probably need better game for that ride than just basic negging.   

I'm 29 so that math checks out.

mcbigski -- based on my readings here, and watching the mainstream media, Uncle Joe has been a force for good. And I must admit his (and the Democrats) policies have elevated my own conditions. I might actually vote for him in 2024, you never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

mcbigski -- how so? Everything I wrote was positive and intended that way. Teasing at most, not negging. And definitely not gaming. But I appreciate the analysis!

The favorite woman, probationary part.  I'm not saying go full Dennis system but definitely demonstrate value first.

I'm sitting here myself trying to think who my favorite is, and I'm going to shop for new boxer briefs tomorrow if that's not TMI.  

Spoiler

Of course, it's totally YOU.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mcbigski said:

 

The favorite woman, probationary part.  I'm not saying go full Dennis system but definitely demonstrate value first.

I'm sitting here myself trying to think who my favorite is, and I'm going to shop for new boxer briefs tomorrow if that's not TMI.  

  Reveal hidden contents

Of course, it's totally YOU.

 

mcbigski -- hahaha, awesome (and clever) hidden comments, which only makes me see you more positively. I can now see how you read it that way, but I've interacted with Chataya a few times over nearly two decades and she is the last person I'd intentionally insult or game. I know she's a good person. If you read my response you'd have seen I counter-counterreacted none of her countereactions and actually loved her comments on the petrodollar.

I've promoted you to my third most favorite man on this board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

If OsRaven doesn't make the cut to sleep with me, then you won't either buddy.

mcbigski -- I recall OsRavan and something about rolling hills related to land area, and he was hilarious.

edited. Oh, and the most horrific spelling I'd ever seen in my life.

Edited by Wade1865
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mcbigski said:

But really, if you're top down instead of bottom up then you're straight up immoral, results wise.

Agree 200%.

16 hours ago, mcbigski said:

The elect always know better, but somehow us regular folks in tennis shoes or the occasional python boot, still get stomped on.

That's what silly beliefs in fantasies like "free markets" get you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...