Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but putting money on said market depressions (when you know something like that is going to happen) is wishing ill will upon other people.
it is unethical to do that.
Can you explain how these people obtained their clairvoyance and to what degree of certainty it is capable? I was not aware that anyone had the ability to KNOW what is going to happen. That little thing aside, in an adversarial system such as the stock market it is illogical to believe that wishing ill of your opponent is unethical. It is an inherently necessary component that makes the entire process work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orincarnia
the stock market operates speculation. so someone sells, and another person follows, then the next person follows. or people don't want to buy because of bad 1st quarter earnings, or because a CEO is sick and the health of the company is at risk. people are skiddish which is why the market is skiddish.
You are correct. People who participate in the system without proper knowledge are at a disadvantage and soon become followers of those they perceive have greater knowledge. Once the mass of followers reach a critical mass, then market manipulation does become possible to a certain extent. It is only balanced because both sides of the buy/sell equation has it's own group of followers which tend to compensate for the vast majority of ignorance based market swing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orincarnia
so if someone with that kind of clout says "the market is going to go down" the market usually goes down because all the small time traders begin selling their stock because this "big wig" said so. and begins perpetually driving down the cost. they should be held accountable for inciting something like that.
If I am understanding your opinion then, anyone with influence is no longer allowed to voice an opinion? Is it ok if they predict an up market and you make money on the mass rush to buy? Is their opinion ok if you make money?
The basic concept of the system is a combination of the Supply and Demand market combined with a good sprinkling of chance thrown in to make it exciting for those who can afford to lose. Those who cannot afford the gamble must be responsible enough to either stay out of the game, or research enough to minimize their risk through knowledge.
The problem is too many investors treat the market like a lottery. They think if they throw enough money at it, or follow the "smart investors" they too will strike it rich. The problem is that nobody ever wins the lottery (not even the ones that get the payouts) and only the leaders win the ponzi schemes. The followers get some crumbs every now and then, but by and large they tend to stay in the middle of the market and hold their own and little more.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that when you employ the services of a company, that you expect that company to protect your interests. When the company screws you over help another, bigger client to make profits, and the company profits from screwing you over, then you might think the company didn't behave ethically.
That is a key point, they selectively help one client at the expense of another. Another way to view this is to view the markets like arestaurant.
At a restaurant, a frequent patron may get better service or some additional care, but the normal customer is still treated appropriately because you want to cultivate the business.
What Goldman did is about equivalent to spitting in the normal customer salad.
Can you explain how these people obtained their clairvoyance and to what degree of certainty it is capable? I was not aware that anyone had the ability to KNOW what is going to happen. That little thing aside, in an adversarial system such as the stock market it is illogical to believe that wishing ill of your opponent is unethical. It is an inherently necessary component that makes the entire process work.
Not when the company is marketing the securities, and I'll add in that the "clairvoyance" vs "opaqueness" issue should somewhat be negated by the "independent" credit rating agencies, which didn't do their jobs.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that when you employ the services of a company, that you expect that company to protect your interests. When the company screws you over help another, bigger client to make profits, and the company profits from screwing you over, then you might think the company didn't behave ethically.
Not true, when you employ the services of a company to expand your business, they have a duty to expand your business. You however have a duty to determine if expanding your business is the proper thing to accomplish your goals..
Thats what GS did, they helped to expand the business of hedge funds by giving them assets they asked for..
lol you own over 1 million dollars in goldman sachs i expect a completely impartial view of the proceedings
Hey, have to disclose it, or you guys would somehow consider it unethical or illegal..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
