Gloomy

[ksinger]

I''m feeling gloomy today about the country''s prospects going forward. This article just hammers in, how devoid we are of anything resembling basic human decency.
It''s all a video game now - they don''t ever have to look into the eyes of the people they''re screwing. Heck, they don''t really even have to shave or even get dressed to do it. Done anonymously, with nothing to force them to see the real human fallout from what they do, or to acknowledge that they are helping drive our economy further into a hole we may never quite crawl out of. Gone are the days when the average working person stood a chance. Grumble. Rock of Woe. Back under the covers. Bah humbug guys.

Geeks trump alpha males as algos dominate Wall St

Senator Wants Restrictions on High-Speed Trading
Apparently, nothing has been done on the issue, although at least someone noticed the rape is occurring.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 12/3/2009 7:07:04 AM
Author:ksinger
I''m feeling gloomy today about the country''s prospects going forward. This article just hammers in, how devoid we are of anything resembling basic human decency.
It''s all a video game now - they don''t ever have to look into the eyes of the people they''re screwing. Heck, they don''t really even have to shave or even get dressed to do it. Done anonymously, with nothing to force them to see the real human fallout from what they do, or to acknowledge that they are helping drive our economy further into a hole we may never quite crawl out of. Gone are the days when the average working person stood a chance. Grumble. Rock of Woe. Back under the covers. Bah humbug guys.

Geeks trump alpha males as algos dominate Wall St

Senator Wants Restrictions on High-Speed Trading
Apparently, nothing has been done on the issue, although at least someone noticed the rape is occurring.

sort of like those drones the air force uses?

mz

ps thank you for calling it what it is: rape. we must be under the same gloom cloud......

 

[perry]

It is just pushing the falacy of the markets to its logical conclusions.

Decades ago there was a shift in the purpose of the stock markets. It no longer really exist for individual people to make money (and has not for a very long time).

The entire structure of business has changed from what it was before the 70''s to current practice.

Most money is made on mergers - not on product development and growth. After enough mergers the "parent" company often goes bankrupt and dumps the existing stockholders.

Stock prices generally have no relationship to actual values of the companies or the products they sell. It used to be that most stock was valued between 10 and 20 on the Price/Earning scale. I.e if you paid $100 for stock - you made between 5-10 dollars a year in dividends. Stock was an investment based on real value and real earnings.

Now most stock is priced on a speculative value way above dividend earnings. As there is no actual value to support the speculative price - a good part of the stock value can vanish in an instant.

I won''t say that I don''t have stock (I have my 5 shares from an ESOP plan in the 80''s); but my money is in money markets - and I have earned $$ every year for almost a decade (while many other people have seen their stock portfolios shrink to a fraction of their previous speculative value).

Perry

 

[ksinger]

Date: 12/9/2009 9:04:41 AM
Author: perry
It is just pushing the falacy of the markets to its logical conclusions.

Decades ago there was a shift in the purpose of the stock markets. It no longer really exist for individual people to make money (and has not for a very long time).

The entire structure of business has changed from what it was before the 70''s to current practice.

Most money is made on mergers - not on product development and growth. After enough mergers the ''parent'' company often goes bankrupt and dumps the existing stockholders.

Stock prices generally have no relationship to actual values of the companies or the products they sell. It used to be that most stock was valued between 10 and 20 on the Price/Earning scale. I.e if you paid $100 for stock - you made between 5-10 dollars a year in dividends. Stock was an investment based on real value and real earnings.

Now most stock is priced on a speculative value way above dividend earnings. As there is no actual value to support the speculative price - a good part of the stock value can vanish in an instant.

I won''t say that I don''t have stock (I have my 5 shares from an ESOP plan in the 80''s); but my money is in money markets - and I have earned $$ every year for almost a decade (while many other people have seen their stock portfolios shrink to a fraction of their previous speculative value).

Perry

You mean...The Great Benevolent Hand Of The Market, isn''t?? Say it isn''t SO!! Quelle horreur!!

You say there was a shift in the stock markets from the 70''s, but I''d say the stock market NEVER existed for individuals to make money, going much further back than the 1970''s. Of course, if an individual did get in prior, at least he wasn''t having to pit himself against amoral computer geeks and Deep Thought, either.

Kevin Phillips makes a pretty convincing case in ''Wealth And Democracy'', that the gathering of great wealth, along with the churning of money (growth in financial markets) over actually making things, is one of the last throes of any empire at the end of its ascendancy. It happened to the Spanish, the Dutch, the British, and now it certainly appears to be happening to us....

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 12/13/2009 8:48:18 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 12/9/2009 9:04:41 AM
Author: perry
It is just pushing the falacy of the markets to its logical conclusions.

Decades ago there was a shift in the purpose of the stock markets. It no longer really exist for individual people to make money (and has not for a very long time).

The entire structure of business has changed from what it was before the 70''s to current practice.

Most money is made on mergers - not on product development and growth. After enough mergers the ''parent'' company often goes bankrupt and dumps the existing stockholders.

Stock prices generally have no relationship to actual values of the companies or the products they sell. It used to be that most stock was valued between 10 and 20 on the Price/Earning scale. I.e if you paid $100 for stock - you made between 5-10 dollars a year in dividends. Stock was an investment based on real value and real earnings.

Now most stock is priced on a speculative value way above dividend earnings. As there is no actual value to support the speculative price - a good part of the stock value can vanish in an instant.

I won''t say that I don''t have stock (I have my 5 shares from an ESOP plan in the 80''s); but my money is in money markets - and I have earned $$ every year for almost a decade (while many other people have seen their stock portfolios shrink to a fraction of their previous speculative value).

Perry

You mean...The Great Benevolent Hand Of The Market, isn''t?? Say it isn''t SO!! Quelle horreur!!

You say there was a shift in the stock markets from the 70''s, but I''d say the stock market NEVER existed for individuals to make money, going much further back than the 1970''s. Of course, if an individual did get in prior, at least he wasn''t having to pit himself against amoral computer geeks and Deep Thought, either.

Kevin Phillips makes a pretty convincing case in ''Wealth And Democracy'', that the gathering of great wealth, along with the churning of money (growth in financial markets) over actually making things, is one of the last throes of any empire at the end of its ascendancy. It happened to the Spanish, the Dutch, the British, and now it certainly appears to be happening to us....

therein lies the truth.

mz

 

[perry]

Date: 12/13/2009 8:48:18 AM
Author: ksinger
You mean...The Great Benevolent Hand Of The Market, isn''t?? Say it isn''t SO!! Quelle horreur!!

You say there was a shift in the stock markets from the 70''s, but I''d say the stock market NEVER existed for individuals to make money, going much further back than the 1970''s. Of course, if an individual did get in prior, at least he wasn''t having to pit himself against amoral computer geeks and Deep Thought, either.

Kevin Phillips makes a pretty convincing case in ''Wealth And Democracy'', that the gathering of great wealth, along with the churning of money (growth in financial markets) over actually making things, is one of the last throes of any empire at the end of its ascendancy. It happened to the Spanish, the Dutch, the British, and now it certainly appears to be happening to us....

People who invested conservatively with solid companies with good P/E ratios could do reasonably well in the stock markets in the 70''s to early 80s based only on dividend earnings. You would not get wealthy - but you could keep up and even get a bit ahead. I knew lots of people who did that. Interestingly, the 5 shares of ESOP stock that I own date from the end of that period. The stock price is now tripple or quadruple what it was back then - and they cut the divident about in half about 10 years ago. Buying a CD is a better investment. It didn''t used to be that way.

I agree about the churning of money itself to make more money as a sign that the end could be near. There are several other indications as well.

The only questions are: When will it really hit; and what will the american people do when it does. Do we have another Civil War which would either result in the restructuring of the US again to re-establish some things, or end in total defeat of people who believe in the old vitality.

I attended an interesting talk on this issue last summer as part of a seminar I attended - talking about the fundamental structure of the US, old fundamental belief''s, and the few "crises" we have had where things have changed - and the professor''s belief that we are again in another crises as we the people are questioning old core beliefs (and not just debating about how you implement a core belief - where do you do what).

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[Abril]

It''s too bad you feel this way, if it''s preventing you from investing. The times when doom and gloom are the rule and the air is thick with pessimism are the best times to invest in the stock market. Sometimes it takes a market crash to get really meaningful returns going forward, but you have to partake to reap the rewards. Yeah, it goes against every fiber of your being to throw good money at sinking companies, but paradoxically that''s what you have to do. I recently taught myself about financial planning, and it happened to coincide with the Great Recession. What I thought was unlucky timing turned out to be a godsend as I decided to see if my method would work, and I kept investing at every downturn, in fact pouring even more money in as the markets sank further. There were many times that I wanted to bail, but I kept the faith and since March 9, 2009 (market bottom... so far) I''ve been richly rewarded, literally. IMO, investing is still the best way to put your money to work and to have a reasonable shot at staying ahead of inflation. You WILL lose money in the market at some point, but over the long run you''re likely to do well, especially if your entry point is at a relatively low price.

BTW, I''m not defending the use of high-speed algorithms. But if you can''t beat the professional traders, and I''m certainly not one to try, then join them. A very easy way to get market returns is simply to buy an index mutual fund. (Pick your favorite broad index to track. There are several to choose from.) Since being enlightened, I''ve been very happy with market returns and have greatly diversified my portfolio. I used to pick individual stocks and tried to time the market but probably won''t ever do (much of) that again.