Seebert, yesterday I warned, strongly on writing economic fiction. Trying to create options out of money, which we patiently explained why using batteries or power as a unit of monetary exchange is illogical...yet here is this nonsensical "idea" being brought up again as some sort of valid concept. Things like a real time open market, such as the stock market should magically be turned into a private venture capital system....which is defeating the entire concept of market economies and what the stock market actually is.

These comments are not in economic reality. Either is trying to compare a 10 year old census to current unemployment rates as we also patiently noted.

Either start getting an education and learn from others but writing these continual posts that are nonsensical is simply not ok.

I've warned and warned and warned you and I'm getting really tired of chasing this down. Do you understand?

India has a trade imbalance with the United States of $10 billion in India's favor. I say, let them stop importing from us, and in return, let's ban trade with them. It will stop a $10 billion/year loss to the United States.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.

Don't get me wrong ... barter is great.
But just as our ancestors figured out long ago it has its limitations for use as money. Remember, money has its own laws that it needs to comply with in order to be useful.

•Unit of Account- a unit in which goods and services can be related to one another.
•Medium of Exchange- money facilitates the exchange of goods and services and makes the economy efficient.
•Store of Value- joeshwingdings personal favorite. Money needs to retain its value. Money saved and spent later will still buy the same amount of goods and services at a later date. Said another way, it will not depreciate.

While food and energy are necessities .... tying a currency to the whims of nature is not wise. Same as tying energy resource to food was about as dumb a thing I think our government has done in recent memory.

It has always been about class warfare.

Wait, why when the stock would represent a good investment opportunity?  

Risk based opportunities are not "good investment", they are at best speculation and gambling.

Also, why punish someone who wants to make a profit, that seems rediculous.  You're eliminating the whole reasoning to buy the stock to begin with! . 

The reason to buy stock *should* be INVESTMENT.  In other words, you believe in a company so much that you want to own a piece of it and get a portion of the profits.  If that is your reason for buying stock, then you want to hold on to it as long as possible.

Seebert, you also contradicted yourself with that.  You claim to that it should be manded essentially, to have it long-term in focus, for the investment.  Ok, so assuming they keep it "long-term", they eventually have to unload the stock to someone else.  Guess what, seebert, that's called selling a stock!

If you've got a true long term focus- then no, you don't want to "unload it on somebody else".  You want the company to pay you dividends, and that's how you get a return on your investment.

Oh, sure, someday your heirs may wish to sell it, because they no longer believe in the company.  But then, somebody else might believe in the company enough to buy it.

In regards to liquidity, stocks are VERY liquid compared to many assets.  One can get out of a bad position in an equity faster than say one can sell a piece of real estate. 

Which is against the common good of having a stock market to begin with.

Who, I would like to know, should ban people from their investment decisions?  Frankly, what is needed is proper financial education, be it in our schools or what have you.  If the investment product seems dodgy, then don't invest in it.  If you do, and lose money, well it's your own damn fault.....unless you can sell it!  But wait, they wouldn't be able to under your rules.

All "investment products" are dodgy.  All contain risk, and are not stores of value.  As the old logger once told me- if you buy something from a man in a suit, you can be sure than most of your money is going to pay for the suit.

They can plan for what they want, but the intelligent investor also reacts to a changing enviroment.  Half a decade ago that Blue Chip superstar, General Electric, was considered a great investment; the stock traded in the mid-30s through late 20s (about $28/share).  Today GE trades at a fraction of that, about the equivalent to a Domino's pizza.   Investors who were due dillegent started to move out of GE at a desginated stop loss price of their choosing.  Many, sadly did not.  Yet, under seebert's rules, well you should've planned out for that, want to sell as it starts to go down?  Nyet to that, comrad!

Under my rules, GE would not have gone "up" or "down" to begin with- the stock would still be trading for what it did at IPO.  The money would be made off of dividends in that stock.  That's REAL capitalism- puting capital where it can make money, not gambling on some made-up market price of a stock that has no reality behind it from day to day.

Two things here.  First, if the seebert no-can-sell rule is imposed, that IPO is going to go over like a lead balloon.  What investor in their right mind is going to take a chance on a company popping their stock market cherry when they know they won't be able to sell that stock? 

The type of investor that every company really wants- the type that will stick with the company through thick and thin, and will do their damndest to help that company be a success.  Why would a company want an investor whose sole purpose is to sell off at the first bump in the road?

Also, IPO sales are already regulated, those who got equity stakes prior to the date have to wait about 18 months until they can start to sell. 

And I'm saying that should be longer- that we need to return to the real SOCIAL purpose of investing to begin with.  If you don't believe in or understand *everything* about what a company is doing, you shouldn't be investing at all.

Secondly, what if the company doesn't want to dilute the shareholders?  You know, the company may decide to go the corporate debt route instead of issuing new shares.

Then that is that company's decision to forgo new investment.  They don't want you playing in their garden, so why do you want to force your way in?

That is why you have a secondary market like the NYSE and Nasdaq, amongst others.  Markets provide an important service for those looking to invest their money. In order to facilitate what you want, you will move the action from the exchange to the investment banker.

Not neccessarily.  What I want to move the action to is the company itself- who should have a say in who can invest and who can't.  In fact, ideally, I'd like to see all stock sales be private, with no anonymity in the market at all.

Someone like Goldman Sachs would immediatly become both the folks financing the sale and product introduction, but also the exchange, and quite possibly the broker as well.  Frankly, I don't want to give them THAT much power.

Why would any company pay Goldman Sachs to do that, when they could do it themselves for less?

-------------------------------------

Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.

There is a real problem with quality of currencies when they can be printed without any limit. Tying them together, by extension, doesn't make them any more stable.

That being said, no I don't see a return to a gold standard because banks like to lend without limit because of their insatiable greed, and governments like to spend money they don't have (how else can you wage endless wars).

Which leaves commodities ... what better commodity than precious metals?

It has always been about class warfare.

I hope he gets it. He's a strong ally on a lot of our issues.

Then they shouldn't have purchased stock to begin with, they should have kept it in a more liquid form.

Wait, why when the stock would represent a good investment opportunity?  Also, why punish someone who wants to make a profit, that seems rediculous.  You're eliminating the whole reasoning to buy the stock to begin with!  Seebert, you also contradicted yourself with that.  You claim to that it should be manded essentially, to have it long-term in focus, for the investment.  Ok, so assuming they keep it "long-term", they eventually have to unload the stock to someone else.  Guess what, seebert, that's called selling a stock!

In regards to liquidity, stocks are VERY liquid compared to many assets.  One can get out of a bad position in an equity faster than say one can sell a piece of real estate.  Who, I would like to know, should ban people from their investment decisions?  Frankly, what is needed is proper financial education, be it in our schools or what have you.  If the investment product seems dodgy, then don't invest in it.  If you do, and lose money, well it's your own damn fault.....unless you can sell it!  But wait, they wouldn't be able to under your rules.

These are things people plan a half decade in advance- they're forseen expenditures. 

They can plan for what they want, but the intelligent investor also reacts to a changing enviroment.  Half a decade ago that Blue Chip superstar, General Electric, was considered a great investment; the stock traded in the mid-30s through late 20s (about $28/share).  Today GE trades at a fraction of that, about the equivalent to a Domino's pizza.   Investors who were due dillegent started to move out of GE at a desginated stop loss price of their choosing.  Many, sadly did not.  Yet, under seebert's rules, well you should've planned out for that, want to sell as it starts to go down?  Nyet to that, comrad!

That's what Initial Public Offerings are for.  What this means is you plan long term instead of short term, that's all.  It isn't a total "forbid people to sell", it's "you can't sell until you've held the stock for five years or more".

Two things here.  First, if the seebert no-can-sell rule is imposed, that IPO is going to go over like a lead balloon.  What investor in their right mind is going to take a chance on a company popping their stock market cherry when they know they won't be able to sell that stock?  Also, IPO sales are already regulated, those who got equity stakes prior to the date have to wait about 18 months until they can start to sell. 

Secondly, what if the company doesn't want to dilute the shareholders?  You know, the company may decide to go the corporate debt route instead of issuing new shares.  That is why you have a secondary market like the NYSE and Nasdaq, amongst others.  Markets provide an important service for those looking to invest their money. In order to facilitate what you want, you will move the action from the exchange to the investment banker.  Someone like Goldman Sachs would immediatly become both the folks financing the sale and product introduction, but also the exchange, and quite possibly the broker as well.  Frankly, I don't want to give them THAT much power.

Much of the volatility of the stock market is driven by trading programs, not a few speculators. Automated trading programs cause huge swings by measuring the technicals of a stock or stock index and make decisions based on that.

The old idea of one person controlling a huge percentage of a large company and being able to manipulate the stock is, in most cases, obsolete.

There is very little rhyme or reason to the market any more. Informed decisions based on good fundamental data will be rendered worthless if an automated program decides that the technicals warrant a move opposite of what you have chosen. The so-called 'reasons' espoused by reporters for why a stock moved a certain way are always after-the-fact guesses with no basis in reality.

Unfortunately I can't even offer a solution to this problem. The government gives incentives to invest in the stock market (via 401(k) and similar programs), and mutual funds control too much money. The market has been grossly overvalued for a long time because funds have to have a certain amount of money invested. This is like forcing water into a balloon.

Back to the uptick rule, people gamble on many things. Buying and selling are just terms when it comes to speculators. There is very little 'ownership'. All that matters is that the amount bought and the amount sold are equal in the end. Why not let the speculators do their thing? I know far more people who have lost money by trying to 'beat the market' than I do who have gotten rich off of it.

I'm beginning to suspect that China has succeeded where Japan failed- in weaponizing trade to the point of being able to take down an entire country.

Are we sure David Li isn't a foreign spy meant to inject instability into western markets?

-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.