Where can I get all the parts of this video in one place? (Don't say YouTube).
I teach a money and banking course and I'd like to have the entire video available to show my class without having to show four or five parts separately.
@joeyingles1 easily, through youtube, but.....wait, dont stop reading yet. This is how:
-Download the all videos ( you can use real player), then join them( you can use windows player or whichever program that allows you to edit videos.). I hope it helps....
What a dumbass you are. Please take some econ 101.
as for the academics, lol, thinking they could outsmart the market is the dumbest thing you can possibly do. traders are much closer to reality. they understand the market. they know it is random but they make decisions based on experience; they identify high probability setups.
Do these traders actually contribute anything to the physical world besides moving money around making profits out of nothing? What are the social contributions from this occupation?
@ktawut hmm you mean other than the 99% of all taxes, 90% of all charities, the majority of jobs... then no well except for more wealth and the macroeconomics advatage of that.
It's amazing how the boston professor can deride the statistical insignificance of a person flip a coin and proponents will use the dart picking the stock for 1 year as proof for the efficient hypothesis.
To think that 7 billion people can think with one mind on any one subject without being forced or coerced in some way is incredibly insane. Much like the idea that the voting aged members of the 311 million people in America, generally agree with 2 political parties, we find ourselves coerced in EVERY way imaginable, there will always be an "Us vs. Them" mentality but add money to the situation backed with power and you see that a small number can easily manipulate the majority.
To think that 7 billion people can think with one mind on any one subject without being forced or coerced in some way is incredibly insane. Much like the idea that the voting aged members of the 311 million people in America, generally agree with 2 political parties, we find ourselves coerced in EVERY way imaginable, there will always be an "Us vs. Them" mentality but add money to the situation backed with power and you see that a small number can easily overpower the majority.
Yadda yadda, efficient market theory guff. Haven't we nailed the lid on that coffin yet? The things that are being traded are real things, and all agents in the market are exposed to information about those things. To say that any profit resulting from predicting future values is 'luck', implies that 'all people are equal, no one can predict anything, we are all uniformly mindless bags of organs'. None of these things are correct.
@tothemax01 You're wrong it doesn't imply all people are equal, it implies that no person is smarter than the combined intelligence of all market participants. In the battle of you against the world, bet on the world
@pouritantv There is no such thing as combined intelligence. It is individuals against individuals. Some individuals make poor decisions, some individuals make good decisions. There is a long list of men who have been massively and continuously successful for extended amounts of time, Druckenmiller being a good example. Are we to say that every single year, he was just lucky, that by random chance, the 'world' lost every year? Were people who were hit by the tech bubble, 'unlucky'? No.
The LTCM team: John Meriwether, the famed bond trader from Salomon Brothers, at its helm. Nobel-prize winning economists Myron Scholes and Robert Merton, as well as David Mullins, a former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve Board who had quit his job to become a partner at LTCM. These credentials convinced 80 founding investors to pony up the minimum investment of $10 million apiece, including Bear Sterns President James Cayne and his deputy.
@examinfo I remember LCTM. Though that doesn't help your point. At some point along the line the guy in charge made some bad trading decisions. LTCM took losses totalling $4.6B, they had to be bailed out and then were liquidated shortly after. The founder tried to make another company JWM this time using less leverage, good decision, but same trading strategies as LTCM, bad decision, what a surprise this new company JWN took on a 44% loss from 07-09, they too went out of business.
@JeanLouie1106 What do you mean "that does`nt help your point?" You said in an earlier post: " what failed was financially inexperienced mathematicians." My point was(which was made) that the team was not just "inexperienced mathematicians." The team had professional traders, top analysts in the world. See "Warren Buffett" on LCTM, he names other top team members that I did not mention also. There were about 16 in all.
@examinfo Well I misinterpreted, I thought your point was that LTCM was a good example of analysts and traders in harmony. Didn't think your point would be as obvious as LTCM having both top traders and top mathematician analysts. At the end of the day the mathematicians over complicate trading decisions and base their judgments on few years of data so it looks good, looking so complicated and so confident the traders gotta say yes.
@JeanLouie1106 What I said earlier was that "what failed was financially inexperienced mathematicians, - making financial products, for mathematically inexperienced financial players". At LTCM the math guys weren't traders and the traders weren't math guys, and worse the traders weren't telling the math guys to think like the traders. I thought the point you were making was opposite to that in the quotes.
This is such chaos, why cant these guys all be sitting at a computer making thier trades, seems more advanced than making hand signals hoping someone see them? WTF
@Gyva02 those are commodity pits, the traders like open outcry because it is easier to bluff the market. a lot of the action is electronic too though.
@aizik2005 It wasn't their formula that failed, what failed was financially inexperienced mathematicians, making financial products, for mathematically inexperienced financial players. The mathematicians didn't count on massive shifts of market sentiment (definitely throws 'randomness' out) and didn't emphasize that when selling the product, and the financiers didn't count on brainy mathematicians screwing up.
@JeanLouie1106 Not true. The team had top traders. In 1994, John Meriwether, the famed Salomon Brothers bond trader, founded a hedge fund called Long-Term Capital Management. Meriwether assembled an all-star team of traders and academics in an attempt to create a fund that would profit from the combination of the academics' quantitative models and the traders' market judgement and execution capabilities.
@aizik2005 This documentary explains how a highly leverage hedge fund forced a bail-out by the government (the precedent for the one in 2008-9). This particular fund claims to have been following blindly by the B&S formula, we'll never know. The fact is th formula works fine if the market floats within a reasonable range let's say 10-20% up or down, and spread across the assets: oil, gold, cattle, exxon, apple and so on.. some go up, others down. But when you have a market meldown (continues..)
@Krycek2008 (...) all the assets collapse 30-40%. The value of derivative contracts DERIVE from the value of the assets, if you took a position that the market moved AGAINST, not only your contracts could be worthless, but you may have to pay large sums of money (several times) the amount of the contract. They took 3billion from investors, any hedge fund would loan 25x the original amount, so they had close to 100billion loans, assuming the price of the contracts they held were around 10%, (...)
@Krycek2008 (...) the contracts could involve a total of 1trillion in real assets. If they went down, it would be a financial armagedon, because unlike the house that are physically there, these contracts are thin air, people would no longer be able to hedge, prices of commodities would tumble and the tens of trillions tied to future contracts would vanish from the economy. Far worse that the current crisis.
Traders are successful in the market because they know how to manage their money, and take losses quickly. So when they're right, they can make a lot of money, and when they're wrong, they won't lose a lot of money. It really has nothing to do with randomness or anything else.
yeah, sure, random, luck....so we must assume then than GE, XOM or AAPL rise not because the companies that they are, but because of random....too many tails in a row huh?.....and GM went bankrupt because of random too....too many heads in a row.
as was said in the video..."academics make terrible trading"
@bwsvaldivieso Your abysmal stupidity is terrifying. What academics PROVED without doubt is that traders can't make money with stocks, not that stock-joint companies can't make money. You don't even know the difference between a stock and a company, so who do you think you are to criticize academics who have more intelligence in their asses than you do in your head?
@viharsarok you SHEEP, academics make terrible trading, understand?.they are so dumb that they've lost billions in the market because of their models, and the even more stupid tax payers like you had to rescue your darling academics LOL...you dumb...here it is: traders buy stocks, stocks represent companies, good companies rise not by random, then..their stocks rise too, not by luck, but because represent those good companies...then?.... a good trader buys good companies, not stocks...end, nerd
@bwsvaldivieso GM is not a trader, you idiot. You can't even tell the difference. Academics proved the efficient market hypothesis which states that it is impossible to make money on the stock market. Good companies rise, so more traders want to buy their stocks, their price changes accordingly, so they can't make any profit, understand? The way traders make any money is they convince gullible tards like you to pay for them. Lmao, you're a loser.
@bwsvaldivieso Ololololol, sure you win the market and make lots of money, that's why you spend so much time on YouTube. :D You have never made any money, you're just fantasizing about it, little tard. Go play in front traffic, wiener. Academics prove things, traders lie about them. Lmao, traders are lamers.
Who takes the efficient market hypothesis seriously anymore? There was an inverted yield curve in 2007 and no one sold. You cannot have efficient pricing when there are continuous alterations in the supply of money. Fama has been refuted--sorry.
@Questfortruth86 Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not true. Who the fuck cares about the yield curve? The question is whether you can consistently make profit on the stock market or not. It has been shown both theoretically and practically that you can't. That's all that matters. Of course traders try to convince you of the opposite because otherwise, their very existence would be called into question.
@Doodoorump The strong form is bullshit, but the weak form is true. In fact, the only way to make money on the stock market is to use the fact that the strong form is definitely not true. If you have non public information you can do better than the others. E. g. sometimes politicians plan to make public claims at a well chosen time to influence the market in a way they know in advance. However, they don't do so because they are great traders but because they have power.
@viharsarok Well if all you're left with is the weak form, then it's sort of a trivial result that takes away a lot of the 'oomph.' Don't worry, I'm not like a lot of the others here who can't understand how useful mathematics can be in modeling behavior...but at the same time...we aren't there yet.
@Doodoorump Despite being trivial, a lot of wishful thinkers don't get it, as can be seen in the comments below. And it is important, because you can't just get non-public information, that's why it's called non-public. So if you are an average trader, what are your chances of making money? And if you are an average client, why would you give your money to an average trader? Fuck the stock market, man.
@viharsarok Alright. Well, if you're an average guy trying to make it as an actor, what are your chances of making money from it? If you're an average guy trying to become a CEO, what are your chances of actually making it there? Etc. etc. Doesn't mean plenty of people don't still strive to compete... Main point is that we have yet to create a mathematical model that can cogently and clearly account for even a plurality of the variables involved in our economic lives.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK We don't have that notion, and we're a long way from even having it. At the same time, if you can't understand how useful mathematics is for all kinds of analysis, then I can't help you... And uh, I can comment on any video I want, last time I checked...?
So why do econometricians have the success rate of witch doctors? Why do their fancy DSGE and risk analysis models fail time and time again? I guess they're all just bad mathematicians?
So why do econometricians have the success rate of witch doctors? Why do their fancy DSGE and risk management models fail time and time again? I guess they're all just bad mathematicians?
So why do econometricians have the success rate of voodoo witch doctors? Why do fancy DSGE and risk management models fail time and time again? I guess they're all just bad mathematicians?
@Questfortruth86 Either that or you're just cherry picking whose models have failed and whose haven't, etc. Plenty of mainstream eco-math guys called the real estate bust. I suppose this is, in a roundabout way, a case being made for Austrian school and its unprovable, asserted truths...?
Really, which ones? Which mathematical models/mathematical economists saw the housing bubble (I want proof, links, et al.)? Because I can give you, off the top of my head, about 20 Austrians that did.
Nothing is absolutely provable. Austrians deal with the next best thing, namely, the self-evident.
@Questfortruth86 Paul Krugman identified problems in the housing market. Nouriel Roubini is a math guy who called the housing bust. Dean Baker called it. There's plenty more. Hell, a few of my professors in college discussed the housing bubble. That's great you have some Austrians that called it. So did a lot of Keynesians and neo-classical guys. And while nothing is absolutely provable, there is a difference between the falsifiable---science---and the unfalsifiable---non-science
“The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump... This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs.....soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.” –Paul Krugman, 2002
@Questfortruth86 And in 2005, he also called attention to the fact that they overprimed the pump.
There's a large list of mainstream economists that correctly called the crash on wikipedia, if you care to look. All Peter Schiff did was cry 'doom-n-gloom' for 10 years...and well, you know what they say about stopped clocks, right?
Listen, it's clear that you don't understand Popper's philosophy in anyway whatever. Your argument is not that Austrian economics is wrong, but rather that it's not "scientific" according to Popper and his falsification principle. Essentially, you have no argument. You deny the self-evident and deductive reasoning like every other closet socialist mystic on youtube, and yet you support mathematics. Go play with your linear homogeneous production function.
@Questfortruth86 Yes, it isn't scientific, which limits the usefulness of austrian theory. No, it's nice that you want to do the ad hominem thing because you have nothing else. And did you go see that list showing that several mainstream economists called the crash? Of course not, you're too busy denying reality. -I'm- an amateur? Anyone who would say, with a straight face, that no mainstream economists called the crash obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.
@Questfortruth86 How do I not understand Popper's philosophy? The austrian school isn't falsifiable. The conclusions that can be drawn from deductive reasoning alone are limited because it is impossible to quantify the actual effects. Essentially, you are trying to ignore the value of the scientific method to the social sciences.
@Questfortruth86 Still ignoring the long list of mainstream economists that correctly called the bubble, eh? Here it is again, in case you enjoy having your laughable assertions proved wrong. Economist magazine (pretty mainstream, no?), Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Shiller, and Keynesians who predicted the crisis? Steve Keen, Dean Baker, Nouriel Roubini, and Paul Krugman
@Doodoorump Never said you couldn't. It just reflects poorly on your argumentative skills, IMO.
I not only understand how awful mathematics is for all forms of analysis, I'm against and any all inclusion, including little statisticians pretending they're economists with their bell curves.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Not really. What you 'say' doesn't merit a response half the time, since you blatantly ignore history, you stall with rude comments instead of engaging in the debate with good faith, etc.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK It's not an ad hominem if I'm just telling you why I don't respond to you sometimes. Mostly it doesn't have anything to do with your 'argumentation.' The other issue with your argumentation is that you seem to ignore a lot of historical facts. If you're going to reject the scholarly consensus on historical events without adequate reason beyond asserting what you say is true...how does that merit response?
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Yes, because you assert your opposition without backing it up in any way. You simply say 'history says x.' Then I say 'well, according to most scholars on the subject, history says y.' You then get pissy because I won't just -accept- your version of history. You need better grounds if you are hoping to overturn scholarly opinion, which doesn't seem to be something you have respect for.
No, you didn't. You say 'some guy X said this in his book about that' as if to present proof. For example 'Lysander Spooner said ...!' is not 'evidence,' it's just appeal to authority.
@Doodoorump Fair enough on that one. Too bad I already provided my assertion and used that as backup. Can you stop employing red herrings and get back to the real discussion?
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Yes, you used that as backup. The problem? Lysander Spooner's little argument about the war was rejected by the South because it was predicated on the notion that slaves should be free. IT WAS REJECTED ON THOSE GROUNDS ALONE. If they were so concerned with state's rights and weren't concerned with slavery, surely they would seen the reason and logic in his arguments, no? Instead...deaf ears, because why? No one cared about the abstraction known as 'state's rights.'
@Doodoorump What of the war for independence, then? Was there no care for States Rights then?
And you're flat-out wrong and spinning the crap out of what Lysander Spooner said. Slaves should be free, but exchanging slavemasters is quite clearly not the answer. And it's patently obvious the North was enslaving the South for the Centralization of gov't.
Virginia only seceded because they were being coerced into fighting the South, yknow. Or is that a historical fact you don't like?
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK You are missing the main point: the south rejected his arguments because of their foundations regarding slavery. No, you saying something is patently obvious doesn't make it so. Ginning up the rhetoric, using stupid terms like 'kid' (it's not 1995 by the way), and ignoring mainstream scholarship does not an argument make. Virginia's secession is immaterial to the discussion because they seceded after the war had started. The initial secession was due to slavery
@Doodoorump You employ arrogant tactics (Hurr durr I'll use ellipses, implying I'm waiting on him), so I think it's more than fair I "fight fire with fire", child. :)
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK I just did. Spooner argued slavery was unconstitutional on grounds that it wasn't a right that anyone had. This was at odds with the Confederacy's position, don't ya think? He also argued secession was a right, which of course, pissed off the North.
Except you aren't fighting fire with fire, you're just whining about punctuation like a twit.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Sure, and if the South was interested in State's rights, they would have accepted what he had to say. THEY DIDNT. They were primarily interested in slaves as human property. They felt that that was their right, which is WHY they seceded.
@Doodoorump So? Now the North can be slave-free, and the South can be its moral cesspool of slavery. Ah, except there's one teensy problem with your analysis... NORTHERN SLAVEOWNERS STILL EXISTED.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK That's not a problem, because those northern slaveowners understood that they had no right to secede over slavery. And as much as you argue for the 'right' to secede based on a 'right' to one of the cruelest, inhumane practices ever known to man, the fact remains that no such right exists.
@Doodoorump Except you illuminated the truth with your own statement... The South did NOT secede over Slavery. It seceded in an attempt to stop an over-centralization of power.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Only if you think slavery is a 'right' states can invoke to secede. It should be obvious that it isn't a right that anyone, government or individual, has.
@Doodoorump You're twisting along with outright ignoring what I'm actually saying. Please cease that at once.
Disregarding slavery for a moment(Which you've tried to use as a red herring in this argument. Sorry for not disregarding it sooner.), do you agree that individuals have the right to secede from their government for whatever reason they so choose? Or are there "Exceptions" and "Special cases" where Tyranny is somehow justified?
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK It should be obvious to you that the only reason there is to dissolve the social contract are violations of inalienable rights. That's the basis of the DOI. Slavery is not an inalienable right. Deal with it.
@Doodoorump What about the State attacking innocent non-slaveowners as well? Are they guilty "By association"? Again, where is your imaginary line where tyranny is somehow justified?
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Innocent? As I recall, it was the Confederacy that drafted soldiers to fight in its war for its cause. It seems like your beef, in this case, is with them.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Wartime measures for national security interests. And I brought up the south because you are imagining them to be something they aren't. For all your railing against the Confederacy, it was just as, if not more, centralized than the North, in terms of government style.
@Doodoorump They paled in comparison to post-14th amendment United States.
And why am I imagining them to be something they aren't? I think they had the right to self-govern. Or are you insinuating that the American Revolution was a farce as well?
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Read the declaration of independence sometime. It lays out the conditions under which a people gain the right to secede and self-govern. The confederacy failed to meet said conditions.
@Doodoorump That's really silly, especially considering the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence were not the same people who wrote the tyrannical Constitution.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Doesn't matter if they were or weren't, the DoI lays out the specific conditions under which a people gain the right to secede and self-govern.
@Doodoorump Yes, it does matter. They were seceding from the oppressive US Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. If that's too hard a concept for you to grasp... There's nothing more I can do for you.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK You're missing the point. The DoI lays out the terms under which a people gain a right to secede from ANY government, including that represented by the US constitution.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK The Constitution doesn't lay out grounds for secession. The DoI does. The South were not being deprived of any legitimate right, therefore they had no grounds for secession.
@Doodoorump The Constitution reserves all rights not mentioned to the States. Secession not being listed -proves- it was a right. Even Hamilton, corrupt Nationalist himself, was in favor of such a method!
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK There are several great books about medieval warfare available. One is simply called 'Knights,' which discusses those aspects to which I was referring.
Again, you're completely incorrect. The North installed the first draft in U.S. History. The Union army was largely comprised of unwilling and unmotivated immigrants who were forced to fight. The South, on the other hand, actually turned away volunteers in droves. Additionally, the confederacy was relatively decentralized, which is one of the reasons why they lost the war. They weren't able to accumulate the funds necessary, through taxation, to compete with the north.
@Questfortruth86 The Confederate constitution, in most ways, was a mirror of the Federalist United States constitution and in many ways infringed more on the 'rights' of states.
Incompetence and ineptitude within the Confederacy is not the same as 'decentralization.' The South's economy was agrarian---that's why they lost the war, not 'decentralization.' And the south instituted conscription as well. You ever going to reply to that list of mainstream econs who called the crash?
The South lost the war for many reasons--there is no single reason. Lee made an enormous mistake at Gettysburg, the North had higher population growth rates, a more industrialized economy, better infrastructure, and a more centralized political system.
@Questfortruth86 Their inferior economy was in large part to blame for the loss. Infrastructure goes hand in hand with economy, as does population growth. The confederacy was just as centralized---despite its pandering---as the Northern US, but simply lacked the resources to compete. You ever going to comment on your factually inaccurate statements? 1) no mainstream economists called the crash 2) the South installed a draft before the North did, so your reading below is complete bunk
@Questfortruth86 Don't forget Stonewall's death, and Sherman's total war tactics that helped destroy the rules of war up to that point. They also happened to be an EXCELLENT inspiration for Nazis!
@Doodoorump Have their fields been torn and burned to pieces? No, Sherman admitted himself that he was first general to actually utilize total war tactics as an actual part of his strategy.
Not to mention that Nazis have said they studied from him. How do you go against this historical record?
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Yes, they have actually. Feudal warfare involving knights rarely consisted of pitched battles. Instead, the knights would roll in and destroy the crops and fields tended to by the peasants and slaughter the local populace. So yeah, guess this is another case of you not knowing what you're talking about.
@Doodoorump Again, not to the extent that Sherman carried out. And secondly, if it was so "Routine", why did Nazis -specifically- cite Sherman? Could it be... He innovated "Total war" tactics?
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK In proportion the extent was the same. While quantitatively the damage was larger, that's just because the industrial revolution precipitated a general abundance of things to destroy. Proportionally, in the middle ages, the destruction of crops and land by knights in 'warfare' was very comparable and the effects similar.
@Doodoorump Again, where is your proof for these actions occurring on a large scale? Again, what about Nazis -specifically- citing Sherman? Surely those tactics were innovated a long time ago... Or were they?
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK So because Nazis were influenced by Sherman, it must be that Sherman invented the concept of 'total war?' For all your bluster about deductive reasoning, you demonstrate severe deficiencies in it quite often. Literally, what Sherman did was bring civilian slaughter into the industrial age. That's it, that's all. Civilians and economies have always been targeted in war, so in that dimension, he did nothing new.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, you just keep asserting that. If there's one crop in a medieval town and the knights come and destroy it on a raid, they've literally destroyed everything the peasants have. In Sherman's day, people had more to destroy. That's the only difference. But hey, why go do research on your own, it's much easier to spout out silly little talking points, right?
@Doodoorump That didn't answer my question. Warfare was by and far limited to professional armies. The rise of democracy enabled total war tactics to become commonplace.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, it wasn't limited to professional armies. Peasants have fought in wars. The Mongols gained their empire through waging total war. What do you think the Vikings did? They raped and pillaged wherever they went. No different than Sherman's march in that they wiped out everything in their path
@Doodoorump VIkings? Seriously now, Vikings were a different flavor of pirates. I'm talking about the conduct during war, which-again-limited itself to actively hostile combatants.
The rise of Democracy has enabled the State to paint the entire opposition as actively hostile and belligerent.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK And that is a mistaken reading of history. The state has always done such things, and if you are going to deny 'vikings,' fine, but you can't deny the conduct of medieval warfare. It was waged in total war, for that time, fashion. The Mongols built their empire on such tactics.
@Doodoorump Mongols... Again, you're referring to elitist bandits. I'm not trying to "worm my way out", honestly. It's just that the examples you've provided don't match up to snuff.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK ... The Mongolian empire = a state. The way this state waged war was in totality. Long story short, the state has always purposefully destroyed civilian infrastructure and civilians when at war with other states
@Doodoorump Again, it was one entity. I'm talking about the usual conduct of war up to that point... Which you consistently choose to ignore again and again.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK The -usual- conduct of War, from the Romans to the Feudalists was that of civilian destruction. It's been with us since the early days. The only real difference in Sherman's case was that the industrial revolution had simply multiplied the amount of things available to destroy. That's it.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Proportionally yes, it has always been the same. Medieval knights destroyed most everything the peasants had, but everyone just had less.
@Doodoorump Except it has not, not to any degree whatsoever. By the way, falling back on wikipedia for your proof would get you kicked out of any professional debate. Just FYI.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK It has not? In the article for total war it doesn't describe how total war has taken place throughout the centuries? And FYI, saying some of the silly things you have here on this board would get you kicked out of any professional debate as well. Every example I pointed out from history and war was met with ridiculous disqualifications
@Doodoorump Hardly. Again, you cite examples of banditry and minor incidents-Even on a "Relative" scale qualifier that you seem hell-bent on utilizing-as some sort of counter for my claims.
Nice two wrongs make a right fallacy, by the way. And by the way... You started it.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Minor incidents? The Mongolian empire was a 'minor' incident? The guerilla tactics Knights used routinely on villages and peasants were 'minor' incidents?
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK The Mongolian Empire lasted almost 2 centuries, and to you that's 'minor.' Medieval warfare between feudal lords and waged with mercenaries and/or Knights lasted for about 500 years....and to you that's 'minor.'
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, we're discussing the concept of Total War and how long it has existed :)
But even so, European Knights waged the exact kind of war that we're discussing. Do you not know what the Crusades are? And do you not know that the armies there routinely sacked towns and pillaged them on the way to Jerusalem?
@Doodoorump That only proves my point- It was waged on ideological(the Church)'s grounds. This is not what we're discussing. And again, you'll need to -prove- this with better evidence than wikipedia.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK All wars are waged on ideological grounds. Individual states raised the armies and dedicated them to the cause. The violence was still perpetrated by the state. So, yes, actually it still -is- what we're discussing. Even taking that 'away,' there's still the German Peasant's War, the Desmond War, and the Nine Years War as famous examples of total warfare...in addition to the harassing attacks of Knights.
Does it have to beat the traders instincts though- surely the transactions of most importance in terms of their effect on price are the big ones between banks (e.g. Bank A selling Bank B ts 30% stake in a big company)? Not the traders buying and selling a few thousand shares at a time.
This is the problem with speculation v investment, if you buy shares, but a lot of shares, in 5 or 6 good companies and wait a year or so and then sell if you're not too unlucky or reckless you're likely to have made a profit. If you buy 10,000 barrels of oil (a standard contract I believe) at $50 and hope it rises to $53 by the end of the day then every day that it does that you're getting a great return on your money but it won't do that every day.
From what I have heard most of the people working there are trading on behalf of funds, mostly hedge funds, so they may make $1 million in a single day but they won't pocket that, or anything like it.
Plus as they readily admit all of their wealth beyond their house and personal cash is at stake unless they close their positions and even then with inflation etc their cash is at risk (though that's true of everybody I guess).
Never say never! There are algorithms being developed and tested right now that factor in a extremely comprehensive range of human behaviors. LTCM 2.0 is in the works..
Is that technical analysis at 4:56?
wow....
didnt know real traders used that stuff
timetraveler2006 1 week ago
pbs in 2000 can be found on vhs
pokerpilot7728 1 week ago
this is old. anyone know a release year?
traxtube87 1 week ago
Its gambling
TheAnthonywc 2 weeks ago
its a game of chance, yeah their right, keep pushing that line guys, fucking great job.
XanVer20 1 month ago
the brothers aint got nuthin' on these traders and their hand signs
holidayhouse03 3 months ago
Where can I get all the parts of this video in one place? (Don't say YouTube).
I teach a money and banking course and I'd like to have the entire video available to show my class without having to show four or five parts separately.
joeyingles1 3 months ago
@joeyingles1 easily, through youtube, but.....wait, dont stop reading yet. This is how:
-Download the all videos ( you can use real player), then join them( you can use windows player or whichever program that allows you to edit videos.). I hope it helps....
jovelnom 1 month ago
Let the crowd think that markets are random...it's rigged against them anyways like most things in life!
sactown1 3 months ago
Darn, his office looks like a filing cabinet at 7:47
Harley04 4 months ago
@ktawut
What a dumbass you are. Please take some econ 101.
as for the academics, lol, thinking they could outsmart the market is the dumbest thing you can possibly do. traders are much closer to reality. they understand the market. they know it is random but they make decisions based on experience; they identify high probability setups.
viavo 4 months ago
Do these traders actually contribute anything to the physical world besides moving money around making profits out of nothing? What are the social contributions from this occupation?
What a superficial job it is ...
ktawut 5 months ago
@ktawut hmm you mean other than the 99% of all taxes, 90% of all charities, the majority of jobs... then no well except for more wealth and the macroeconomics advatage of that.
garand 4 months ago
They are basically the same thing.
PrometheanRunGood 5 months ago
It's amazing how the boston professor can deride the statistical insignificance of a person flip a coin and proponents will use the dart picking the stock for 1 year as proof for the efficient hypothesis.
PrometheanRunGood 5 months ago
u wana learn gangsigns, u wannabees? ... learn to be a trader in the pit!
MultipleS2002 5 months ago
To think that 7 billion people can think with one mind on any one subject without being forced or coerced in some way is incredibly insane. Much like the idea that the voting aged members of the 311 million people in America, generally agree with 2 political parties, we find ourselves coerced in EVERY way imaginable, there will always be an "Us vs. Them" mentality but add money to the situation backed with power and you see that a small number can easily manipulate the majority.
gusubu17 5 months ago
To think that 7 billion people can think with one mind on any one subject without being forced or coerced in some way is incredibly insane. Much like the idea that the voting aged members of the 311 million people in America, generally agree with 2 political parties, we find ourselves coerced in EVERY way imaginable, there will always be an "Us vs. Them" mentality but add money to the situation backed with power and you see that a small number can easily overpower the majority.
gusubu17 5 months ago
Ponzy Scheme!!!!
Soonerg2121 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Forex Trading 1985 -------> /watch?v=KACDo519ccY
raducumuculucu 8 months ago 5
I'm working on an MS in financial statistics
Black-Scholes Equation is
C = e^(-rfT) SNormal(ln [{S/E)+ (rd - rf + variance/2)T ]/ stdv * sqrt T ) - E^-rdT Normal((ln [{S/E) + (rd - rf + variance/2)T ]/ standard deviation * sqrt T) - stdv* sqrt T )
8peregrint8 8 months ago
astonishing
chrisconwaypeters 11 months ago
Yadda yadda, efficient market theory guff. Haven't we nailed the lid on that coffin yet? The things that are being traded are real things, and all agents in the market are exposed to information about those things. To say that any profit resulting from predicting future values is 'luck', implies that 'all people are equal, no one can predict anything, we are all uniformly mindless bags of organs'. None of these things are correct.
tothemax01 11 months ago
@tothemax01 You're wrong it doesn't imply all people are equal, it implies that no person is smarter than the combined intelligence of all market participants. In the battle of you against the world, bet on the world
pouritantv 8 months ago
@pouritantv There is no such thing as combined intelligence. It is individuals against individuals. Some individuals make poor decisions, some individuals make good decisions. There is a long list of men who have been massively and continuously successful for extended amounts of time, Druckenmiller being a good example. Are we to say that every single year, he was just lucky, that by random chance, the 'world' lost every year? Were people who were hit by the tech bubble, 'unlucky'? No.
tothemax01 8 months ago
The LTCM team: John Meriwether, the famed bond trader from Salomon Brothers, at its helm. Nobel-prize winning economists Myron Scholes and Robert Merton, as well as David Mullins, a former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve Board who had quit his job to become a partner at LTCM. These credentials convinced 80 founding investors to pony up the minimum investment of $10 million apiece, including Bear Sterns President James Cayne and his deputy.
examinfo 11 months ago
@examinfo I remember LCTM. Though that doesn't help your point. At some point along the line the guy in charge made some bad trading decisions. LTCM took losses totalling $4.6B, they had to be bailed out and then were liquidated shortly after. The founder tried to make another company JWM this time using less leverage, good decision, but same trading strategies as LTCM, bad decision, what a surprise this new company JWN took on a 44% loss from 07-09, they too went out of business.
JeanLouie1106 11 months ago
@JeanLouie1106 What do you mean "that does`nt help your point?" You said in an earlier post: " what failed was financially inexperienced mathematicians." My point was(which was made) that the team was not just "inexperienced mathematicians." The team had professional traders, top analysts in the world. See "Warren Buffett" on LCTM, he names other top team members that I did not mention also. There were about 16 in all.
examinfo 11 months ago
@examinfo Well I misinterpreted, I thought your point was that LTCM was a good example of analysts and traders in harmony. Didn't think your point would be as obvious as LTCM having both top traders and top mathematician analysts. At the end of the day the mathematicians over complicate trading decisions and base their judgments on few years of data so it looks good, looking so complicated and so confident the traders gotta say yes.
JeanLouie1106 11 months ago
@JeanLouie1106 What I said earlier was that "what failed was financially inexperienced mathematicians, - making financial products, for mathematically inexperienced financial players". At LTCM the math guys weren't traders and the traders weren't math guys, and worse the traders weren't telling the math guys to think like the traders. I thought the point you were making was opposite to that in the quotes.
JeanLouie1106 11 months ago
This is such chaos, why cant these guys all be sitting at a computer making thier trades, seems more advanced than making hand signals hoping someone see them? WTF
Gyva02 1 year ago
@Gyva02 those are commodity pits, the traders like open outcry because it is easier to bluff the market. a lot of the action is electronic too though.
benzbubblecat 1 year ago
But I predict forex. WTH? :S
madzane94 1 year ago
just one question. did not their formula fail in the years of 2009-10?
aizik2005 1 year ago
@aizik2005 It wasn't their formula that failed, what failed was financially inexperienced mathematicians, making financial products, for mathematically inexperienced financial players. The mathematicians didn't count on massive shifts of market sentiment (definitely throws 'randomness' out) and didn't emphasize that when selling the product, and the financiers didn't count on brainy mathematicians screwing up.
JeanLouie1106 1 year ago
@JeanLouie1106 Not true. The team had top traders. In 1994, John Meriwether, the famed Salomon Brothers bond trader, founded a hedge fund called Long-Term Capital Management. Meriwether assembled an all-star team of traders and academics in an attempt to create a fund that would profit from the combination of the academics' quantitative models and the traders' market judgement and execution capabilities.
examinfo 11 months ago
@aizik2005 This documentary explains how a highly leverage hedge fund forced a bail-out by the government (the precedent for the one in 2008-9). This particular fund claims to have been following blindly by the B&S formula, we'll never know. The fact is th formula works fine if the market floats within a reasonable range let's say 10-20% up or down, and spread across the assets: oil, gold, cattle, exxon, apple and so on.. some go up, others down. But when you have a market meldown (continues..)
Krycek2008 1 year ago
@Krycek2008 (...) all the assets collapse 30-40%. The value of derivative contracts DERIVE from the value of the assets, if you took a position that the market moved AGAINST, not only your contracts could be worthless, but you may have to pay large sums of money (several times) the amount of the contract. They took 3billion from investors, any hedge fund would loan 25x the original amount, so they had close to 100billion loans, assuming the price of the contracts they held were around 10%, (...)
Krycek2008 1 year ago
@Krycek2008 (...) the contracts could involve a total of 1trillion in real assets. If they went down, it would be a financial armagedon, because unlike the house that are physically there, these contracts are thin air, people would no longer be able to hedge, prices of commodities would tumble and the tens of trillions tied to future contracts would vanish from the economy. Far worse that the current crisis.
Krycek2008 1 year ago
Financial investors simply know nothing about economic theory.
Questfortruth86 1 year ago
Traders are successful in the market because they know how to manage their money, and take losses quickly. So when they're right, they can make a lot of money, and when they're wrong, they won't lose a lot of money. It really has nothing to do with randomness or anything else.
MPTPGV 1 year ago
There is luck no doubt but there are ways to invest in good ideas
lushfauna 1 year ago
yeah, sure, random, luck....so we must assume then than GE, XOM or AAPL rise not because the companies that they are, but because of random....too many tails in a row huh?.....and GM went bankrupt because of random too....too many heads in a row.
as was said in the video..."academics make terrible trading"
bwsvaldivieso 1 year ago
@bwsvaldivieso Your abysmal stupidity is terrifying. What academics PROVED without doubt is that traders can't make money with stocks, not that stock-joint companies can't make money. You don't even know the difference between a stock and a company, so who do you think you are to criticize academics who have more intelligence in their asses than you do in your head?
viharsarok 1 year ago
@viharsarok you SHEEP, academics make terrible trading, understand?.they are so dumb that they've lost billions in the market because of their models, and the even more stupid tax payers like you had to rescue your darling academics LOL...you dumb...here it is: traders buy stocks, stocks represent companies, good companies rise not by random, then..their stocks rise too, not by luck, but because represent those good companies...then?.... a good trader buys good companies, not stocks...end, nerd
bwsvaldivieso 1 year ago
@bwsvaldivieso GM is not a trader, you idiot. You can't even tell the difference. Academics proved the efficient market hypothesis which states that it is impossible to make money on the stock market. Good companies rise, so more traders want to buy their stocks, their price changes accordingly, so they can't make any profit, understand? The way traders make any money is they convince gullible tards like you to pay for them. Lmao, you're a loser.
viharsarok 1 year ago
@viharsarok well little chinese nerd, go read comics and books, as i win in the market because of "random", lol, good bye loser
bwsvaldivieso 1 year ago
@bwsvaldivieso Ololololol, sure you win the market and make lots of money, that's why you spend so much time on YouTube. :D You have never made any money, you're just fantasizing about it, little tard. Go play in front traffic, wiener. Academics prove things, traders lie about them. Lmao, traders are lamers.
viharsarok 1 year ago
@viharsarok
Who takes the efficient market hypothesis seriously anymore? There was an inverted yield curve in 2007 and no one sold. You cannot have efficient pricing when there are continuous alterations in the supply of money. Fama has been refuted--sorry.
Questfortruth86 1 year ago
@Questfortruth86 Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not true. Who the fuck cares about the yield curve? The question is whether you can consistently make profit on the stock market or not. It has been shown both theoretically and practically that you can't. That's all that matters. Of course traders try to convince you of the opposite because otherwise, their very existence would be called into question.
viharsarok 1 year ago
@viharsarok It's not about misunderstanding it, it's just about the fact that most empirical data alone destroys, at the very least, the strong form.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump The strong form is bullshit, but the weak form is true. In fact, the only way to make money on the stock market is to use the fact that the strong form is definitely not true. If you have non public information you can do better than the others. E. g. sometimes politicians plan to make public claims at a well chosen time to influence the market in a way they know in advance. However, they don't do so because they are great traders but because they have power.
viharsarok 1 year ago
@viharsarok Well if all you're left with is the weak form, then it's sort of a trivial result that takes away a lot of the 'oomph.' Don't worry, I'm not like a lot of the others here who can't understand how useful mathematics can be in modeling behavior...but at the same time...we aren't there yet.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Despite being trivial, a lot of wishful thinkers don't get it, as can be seen in the comments below. And it is important, because you can't just get non-public information, that's why it's called non-public. So if you are an average trader, what are your chances of making money? And if you are an average client, why would you give your money to an average trader? Fuck the stock market, man.
viharsarok 1 year ago
@viharsarok Alright. Well, if you're an average guy trying to make it as an actor, what are your chances of making money from it? If you're an average guy trying to become a CEO, what are your chances of actually making it there? Etc. etc. Doesn't mean plenty of people don't still strive to compete... Main point is that we have yet to create a mathematical model that can cogently and clearly account for even a plurality of the variables involved in our economic lives.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump I've got a better option-How about we abandon the ridiculous notion of trying to centrally plan everything?
There is no "yet"-It's more of a question of "Never".
If you can't answer what I state, and run around trying to stir up trouble with less determined folk, you shouldn't be discussing anything at all.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK We don't have that notion, and we're a long way from even having it. At the same time, if you can't understand how useful mathematics is for all kinds of analysis, then I can't help you... And uh, I can comment on any video I want, last time I checked...?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
Comment removed
Questfortruth86 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Doodoorump
So why do econometricians have the success rate of witch doctors? Why do their fancy DSGE and risk analysis models fail time and time again? I guess they're all just bad mathematicians?
Questfortruth86 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Doodoorump
So why do econometricians have the success rate of witch doctors? Why do their fancy DSGE and risk management models fail time and time again? I guess they're all just bad mathematicians?
Questfortruth86 1 year ago
@Doodoorump
So why do econometricians have the success rate of voodoo witch doctors? Why do fancy DSGE and risk management models fail time and time again? I guess they're all just bad mathematicians?
Questfortruth86 1 year ago
@Questfortruth86 Either that or you're just cherry picking whose models have failed and whose haven't, etc. Plenty of mainstream eco-math guys called the real estate bust. I suppose this is, in a roundabout way, a case being made for Austrian school and its unprovable, asserted truths...?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump
Really, which ones? Which mathematical models/mathematical economists saw the housing bubble (I want proof, links, et al.)? Because I can give you, off the top of my head, about 20 Austrians that did.
Nothing is absolutely provable. Austrians deal with the next best thing, namely, the self-evident.
Questfortruth86 1 year ago
@Questfortruth86 Paul Krugman identified problems in the housing market. Nouriel Roubini is a math guy who called the housing bust. Dean Baker called it. There's plenty more. Hell, a few of my professors in college discussed the housing bubble. That's great you have some Austrians that called it. So did a lot of Keynesians and neo-classical guys. And while nothing is absolutely provable, there is a difference between the falsifiable---science---and the unfalsifiable---non-science
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump
“The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump... This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs.....soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.” –Paul Krugman, 2002
Questfortruth86 1 year ago
@Questfortruth86 And in 2005, he also called attention to the fact that they overprimed the pump.
There's a large list of mainstream economists that correctly called the crash on wikipedia, if you care to look. All Peter Schiff did was cry 'doom-n-gloom' for 10 years...and well, you know what they say about stopped clocks, right?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump
Listen, it's clear that you don't understand Popper's philosophy in anyway whatever. Your argument is not that Austrian economics is wrong, but rather that it's not "scientific" according to Popper and his falsification principle. Essentially, you have no argument. You deny the self-evident and deductive reasoning like every other closet socialist mystic on youtube, and yet you support mathematics. Go play with your linear homogeneous production function.
Questfortruth86 1 year ago
@Questfortruth86 Yes, it isn't scientific, which limits the usefulness of austrian theory. No, it's nice that you want to do the ad hominem thing because you have nothing else. And did you go see that list showing that several mainstream economists called the crash? Of course not, you're too busy denying reality. -I'm- an amateur? Anyone who would say, with a straight face, that no mainstream economists called the crash obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Questfortruth86 How do I not understand Popper's philosophy? The austrian school isn't falsifiable. The conclusions that can be drawn from deductive reasoning alone are limited because it is impossible to quantify the actual effects. Essentially, you are trying to ignore the value of the scientific method to the social sciences.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
Comment removed
Doodoorump 1 year ago
Comment removed
Doodoorump 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Questfortruth86 Still ignoring the long list of mainstream economists that correctly called the bubble, eh? Here it is again, in case you enjoy having your laughable assertions proved wrong. Economist magazine (pretty mainstream, no?), Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Shiller, and Keynesians who predicted the crisis? Steve Keen, Dean Baker, Nouriel Roubini, and Paul Krugman
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump
You're an amateur, and your professors didn't predict shit.
Questfortruth86 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Never said you couldn't. It just reflects poorly on your argumentative skills, IMO.
I not only understand how awful mathematics is for all forms of analysis, I'm against and any all inclusion, including little statisticians pretending they're economists with their bell curves.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Not really. What you 'say' doesn't merit a response half the time, since you blatantly ignore history, you stall with rude comments instead of engaging in the debate with good faith, etc.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Fair enough on my lack of vulgarity restraint. But can you please provide more of a response than an ad hominem?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK It's not an ad hominem if I'm just telling you why I don't respond to you sometimes. Mostly it doesn't have anything to do with your 'argumentation.' The other issue with your argumentation is that you seem to ignore a lot of historical facts. If you're going to reject the scholarly consensus on historical events without adequate reason beyond asserting what you say is true...how does that merit response?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump ...Exactly my point. I provided a question, and instead you whined about my opposition to "Established scholarly theories".
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Yes, because you assert your opposition without backing it up in any way. You simply say 'history says x.' Then I say 'well, according to most scholars on the subject, history says y.' You then get pissy because I won't just -accept- your version of history. You need better grounds if you are hoping to overturn scholarly opinion, which doesn't seem to be something you have respect for.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump I provide reasons for why I doubt the supposed "Scholarly consensus". Can you please stop derailing the debate?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK
No, you didn't. You say 'some guy X said this in his book about that' as if to present proof. For example 'Lysander Spooner said ...!' is not 'evidence,' it's just appeal to authority.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Fair enough on that one. Too bad I already provided my assertion and used that as backup. Can you stop employing red herrings and get back to the real discussion?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Yes, you used that as backup. The problem? Lysander Spooner's little argument about the war was rejected by the South because it was predicated on the notion that slaves should be free. IT WAS REJECTED ON THOSE GROUNDS ALONE. If they were so concerned with state's rights and weren't concerned with slavery, surely they would seen the reason and logic in his arguments, no? Instead...deaf ears, because why? No one cared about the abstraction known as 'state's rights.'
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump What of the war for independence, then? Was there no care for States Rights then?
And you're flat-out wrong and spinning the crap out of what Lysander Spooner said. Slaves should be free, but exchanging slavemasters is quite clearly not the answer. And it's patently obvious the North was enslaving the South for the Centralization of gov't.
Virginia only seceded because they were being coerced into fighting the South, yknow. Or is that a historical fact you don't like?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK You are missing the main point: the south rejected his arguments because of their foundations regarding slavery. No, you saying something is patently obvious doesn't make it so. Ginning up the rhetoric, using stupid terms like 'kid' (it's not 1995 by the way), and ignoring mainstream scholarship does not an argument make. Virginia's secession is immaterial to the discussion because they seceded after the war had started. The initial secession was due to slavery
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump You employ arrogant tactics (Hurr durr I'll use ellipses, implying I'm waiting on him), so I think it's more than fair I "fight fire with fire", child. :)
Explain where "They" rejected "His" arguments.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK I just did. Spooner argued slavery was unconstitutional on grounds that it wasn't a right that anyone had. This was at odds with the Confederacy's position, don't ya think? He also argued secession was a right, which of course, pissed off the North.
Except you aren't fighting fire with fire, you're just whining about punctuation like a twit.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Slavery being unconstitutional and Secession being constitutional fit perfectly together!
Do you understand that? Think about it for a moment.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Sure, and if the South was interested in State's rights, they would have accepted what he had to say. THEY DIDNT. They were primarily interested in slaves as human property. They felt that that was their right, which is WHY they seceded.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump So? Now the North can be slave-free, and the South can be its moral cesspool of slavery. Ah, except there's one teensy problem with your analysis... NORTHERN SLAVEOWNERS STILL EXISTED.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK That's not a problem, because those northern slaveowners understood that they had no right to secede over slavery. And as much as you argue for the 'right' to secede based on a 'right' to one of the cruelest, inhumane practices ever known to man, the fact remains that no such right exists.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Except you illuminated the truth with your own statement... The South did NOT secede over Slavery. It seceded in an attempt to stop an over-centralization of power.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Only if you think slavery is a 'right' states can invoke to secede. It should be obvious that it isn't a right that anyone, government or individual, has.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump You're twisting along with outright ignoring what I'm actually saying. Please cease that at once.
Disregarding slavery for a moment(Which you've tried to use as a red herring in this argument. Sorry for not disregarding it sooner.), do you agree that individuals have the right to secede from their government for whatever reason they so choose? Or are there "Exceptions" and "Special cases" where Tyranny is somehow justified?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK It should be obvious to you that the only reason there is to dissolve the social contract are violations of inalienable rights. That's the basis of the DOI. Slavery is not an inalienable right. Deal with it.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump What about the State attacking innocent non-slaveowners as well? Are they guilty "By association"? Again, where is your imaginary line where tyranny is somehow justified?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Innocent? As I recall, it was the Confederacy that drafted soldiers to fight in its war for its cause. It seems like your beef, in this case, is with them.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Why are you assuming I refer only to the south? What about newspaper publications that were shut down by Lincoln's thugs?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Wartime measures for national security interests. And I brought up the south because you are imagining them to be something they aren't. For all your railing against the Confederacy, it was just as, if not more, centralized than the North, in terms of government style.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump They paled in comparison to post-14th amendment United States.
And why am I imagining them to be something they aren't? I think they had the right to self-govern. Or are you insinuating that the American Revolution was a farce as well?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Read the declaration of independence sometime. It lays out the conditions under which a people gain the right to secede and self-govern. The confederacy failed to meet said conditions.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump That's really silly, especially considering the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence were not the same people who wrote the tyrannical Constitution.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Doesn't matter if they were or weren't, the DoI lays out the specific conditions under which a people gain the right to secede and self-govern.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Yes, it does matter. They were seceding from the oppressive US Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. If that's too hard a concept for you to grasp... There's nothing more I can do for you.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK You're missing the point. The DoI lays out the terms under which a people gain a right to secede from ANY government, including that represented by the US constitution.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump ...And?
Oh, and can you tell me which "clauses" the South "Failed" to live up to?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK None of their inalienable rights had been sacrificed or stepped upon.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Their right to self-govern not ringing any bells?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK And under what basis do people -acquire- the right of self-governance and secession?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump As written in the Constitution. Tenth amendment, buckaroo. I don't see a goddamn thing in there that says States cannot secede.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK The Constitution doesn't lay out grounds for secession. The DoI does. The South were not being deprived of any legitimate right, therefore they had no grounds for secession.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump The Constitution reserves all rights not mentioned to the States. Secession not being listed -proves- it was a right. Even Hamilton, corrupt Nationalist himself, was in favor of such a method!
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK And the south was denying those mentioned rights to a huge segment of their populace...
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Where thus?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK There are several great books about medieval warfare available. One is simply called 'Knights,' which discusses those aspects to which I was referring.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump
Again, you're completely incorrect. The North installed the first draft in U.S. History. The Union army was largely comprised of unwilling and unmotivated immigrants who were forced to fight. The South, on the other hand, actually turned away volunteers in droves. Additionally, the confederacy was relatively decentralized, which is one of the reasons why they lost the war. They weren't able to accumulate the funds necessary, through taxation, to compete with the north.
Questfortruth86 1 year ago
@Questfortruth86 The Confederate constitution, in most ways, was a mirror of the Federalist United States constitution and in many ways infringed more on the 'rights' of states.
Incompetence and ineptitude within the Confederacy is not the same as 'decentralization.' The South's economy was agrarian---that's why they lost the war, not 'decentralization.' And the south instituted conscription as well. You ever going to reply to that list of mainstream econs who called the crash?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump
The South lost the war for many reasons--there is no single reason. Lee made an enormous mistake at Gettysburg, the North had higher population growth rates, a more industrialized economy, better infrastructure, and a more centralized political system.
Questfortruth86 1 year ago
@Questfortruth86 Their inferior economy was in large part to blame for the loss. Infrastructure goes hand in hand with economy, as does population growth. The confederacy was just as centralized---despite its pandering---as the Northern US, but simply lacked the resources to compete. You ever going to comment on your factually inaccurate statements? 1) no mainstream economists called the crash 2) the South installed a draft before the North did, so your reading below is complete bunk
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Questfortruth86 Don't forget Stonewall's death, and Sherman's total war tactics that helped destroy the rules of war up to that point. They also happened to be an EXCELLENT inspiration for Nazis!
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK But your assertion here about the 'rules of war' is a myth. Civilians have always been targeted and oppressed in warfare.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Have their fields been torn and burned to pieces? No, Sherman admitted himself that he was first general to actually utilize total war tactics as an actual part of his strategy.
Not to mention that Nazis have said they studied from him. How do you go against this historical record?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Yes, they have actually. Feudal warfare involving knights rarely consisted of pitched battles. Instead, the knights would roll in and destroy the crops and fields tended to by the peasants and slaughter the local populace. So yeah, guess this is another case of you not knowing what you're talking about.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Again, not to the extent that Sherman carried out. And secondly, if it was so "Routine", why did Nazis -specifically- cite Sherman? Could it be... He innovated "Total war" tactics?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK In proportion the extent was the same. While quantitatively the damage was larger, that's just because the industrial revolution precipitated a general abundance of things to destroy. Proportionally, in the middle ages, the destruction of crops and land by knights in 'warfare' was very comparable and the effects similar.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Again, where is your proof for these actions occurring on a large scale? Again, what about Nazis -specifically- citing Sherman? Surely those tactics were innovated a long time ago... Or were they?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK So because Nazis were influenced by Sherman, it must be that Sherman invented the concept of 'total war?' For all your bluster about deductive reasoning, you demonstrate severe deficiencies in it quite often. Literally, what Sherman did was bring civilian slaughter into the industrial age. That's it, that's all. Civilians and economies have always been targeted in war, so in that dimension, he did nothing new.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Again, not to the extent that he pursued it. You'll need to work on your blowhard skills, I don't have time to play with you forever.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, you just keep asserting that. If there's one crop in a medieval town and the knights come and destroy it on a raid, they've literally destroyed everything the peasants have. In Sherman's day, people had more to destroy. That's the only difference. But hey, why go do research on your own, it's much easier to spout out silly little talking points, right?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump That didn't answer my question. Warfare was by and far limited to professional armies. The rise of democracy enabled total war tactics to become commonplace.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, it wasn't limited to professional armies. Peasants have fought in wars. The Mongols gained their empire through waging total war. What do you think the Vikings did? They raped and pillaged wherever they went. No different than Sherman's march in that they wiped out everything in their path
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump VIkings? Seriously now, Vikings were a different flavor of pirates. I'm talking about the conduct during war, which-again-limited itself to actively hostile combatants.
The rise of Democracy has enabled the State to paint the entire opposition as actively hostile and belligerent.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK And that is a mistaken reading of history. The state has always done such things, and if you are going to deny 'vikings,' fine, but you can't deny the conduct of medieval warfare. It was waged in total war, for that time, fashion. The Mongols built their empire on such tactics.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Mongols... Again, you're referring to elitist bandits. I'm not trying to "worm my way out", honestly. It's just that the examples you've provided don't match up to snuff.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK ... The Mongolian empire = a state. The way this state waged war was in totality. Long story short, the state has always purposefully destroyed civilian infrastructure and civilians when at war with other states
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Again, it was one entity. I'm talking about the usual conduct of war up to that point... Which you consistently choose to ignore again and again.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK The -usual- conduct of War, from the Romans to the Feudalists was that of civilian destruction. It's been with us since the early days. The only real difference in Sherman's case was that the industrial revolution had simply multiplied the amount of things available to destroy. That's it.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Again, not to the degree it became.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Proportionally yes, it has always been the same. Medieval knights destroyed most everything the peasants had, but everyone just had less.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump I'd like to see your proof.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK I already referred you to a book :)
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump I haven't seen it. :)
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK You could just read the wikipedia article on total war, which backs up everything I've said here...
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Except it has not, not to any degree whatsoever. By the way, falling back on wikipedia for your proof would get you kicked out of any professional debate. Just FYI.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK It has not? In the article for total war it doesn't describe how total war has taken place throughout the centuries? And FYI, saying some of the silly things you have here on this board would get you kicked out of any professional debate as well. Every example I pointed out from history and war was met with ridiculous disqualifications
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Hardly. Again, you cite examples of banditry and minor incidents-Even on a "Relative" scale qualifier that you seem hell-bent on utilizing-as some sort of counter for my claims.
Nice two wrongs make a right fallacy, by the way. And by the way... You started it.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Minor incidents? The Mongolian empire was a 'minor' incident? The guerilla tactics Knights used routinely on villages and peasants were 'minor' incidents?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Yes. By and large, warfare was limited to professional armies. Your refusal to see that begs to mind a certain "Denialism".
And Jesus Christ, why the fuck were you up at like, 4 goddamn AM in the morning?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK The Mongolian Empire lasted almost 2 centuries, and to you that's 'minor.' Medieval warfare between feudal lords and waged with mercenaries and/or Knights lasted for about 500 years....and to you that's 'minor.'
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Appeals to ridicule still aren't helping. We're discussing the conduct of European armies, here.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, we're discussing the concept of Total War and how long it has existed :)
But even so, European Knights waged the exact kind of war that we're discussing. Do you not know what the Crusades are? And do you not know that the armies there routinely sacked towns and pillaged them on the way to Jerusalem?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump That only proves my point- It was waged on ideological(the Church)'s grounds. This is not what we're discussing. And again, you'll need to -prove- this with better evidence than wikipedia.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK All wars are waged on ideological grounds. Individual states raised the armies and dedicated them to the cause. The violence was still perpetrated by the state. So, yes, actually it still -is- what we're discussing. Even taking that 'away,' there's still the German Peasant's War, the Desmond War, and the Nine Years War as famous examples of total warfare...in addition to the harassing attacks of Knights.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Hoo hoo, the violence is perpetuated by the state! I'm glad we can agree on one issue.
I must concede the issue of total warfare to you... For now. Thank you for actually giving some examples of what you mean, for once. ;)
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
Anyone who know what the music used at the beginning of this clip is called? Please respond, it would be of great help.
jonlemoine 1 year ago
If you wanna see Part 4 go to my Channel. I just uploaded the whole film...
mallen235 1 year ago
Everything, even human thinking and the resulting actions, can be presented by a mathematical model with a certain accuracy. :D
rock3tcat 1 year ago
Does it have to beat the traders instincts though- surely the transactions of most importance in terms of their effect on price are the big ones between banks (e.g. Bank A selling Bank B ts 30% stake in a big company)? Not the traders buying and selling a few thousand shares at a time.
theporksicle 1 year ago
the rich guy with the glasses sounds like Christopher Walken!!
kellyfortune 2 years ago
I think a good mix is necessary.
zundey2000 2 years ago
This is the problem with speculation v investment, if you buy shares, but a lot of shares, in 5 or 6 good companies and wait a year or so and then sell if you're not too unlucky or reckless you're likely to have made a profit. If you buy 10,000 barrels of oil (a standard contract I believe) at $50 and hope it rises to $53 by the end of the day then every day that it does that you're getting a great return on your money but it won't do that every day.
theporksicle 2 years ago
1000 Barrels :)
PhDEconomics 1 year ago
I wish I were one of these men .. amazing rich educated beyond measure of common mortals
zundey2000 2 years ago
From what I have heard most of the people working there are trading on behalf of funds, mostly hedge funds, so they may make $1 million in a single day but they won't pocket that, or anything like it.
Plus as they readily admit all of their wealth beyond their house and personal cash is at stake unless they close their positions and even then with inflation etc their cash is at risk (though that's true of everybody I guess).
theporksicle 2 years ago
to be success in market, it depends on human judgement and intuition. These qualities cannot be reduced to formulas
stockshunter 2 years ago 3
Never say never! There are algorithms being developed and tested right now that factor in a extremely comprehensive range of human behaviors. LTCM 2.0 is in the works..
mfatah281 2 years ago 2
@stockshunter Machines, with properly formulated algorithms, will defeat even the best trader.
alique087 1 year ago
Is this supposed to be scary?
They give the idea that the CME is like hell with demons in it.
talebi818 2 years ago
Let me make a prediction here:
Total collapse of the stockmarkets and US Dollar and entire Monetary system:
DOW 2000 - US$ toilet paper
God save us...
ItsaDamnPuzzle 2 years ago
Renko charts are about as close as you will get to zero-risk trading (over a long time)
indigo888424 2 years ago
Is this available on DVD in the UK?
Here in the US, it's only on VHS.
ohdaysoo 2 years ago