Posted January 10, 2013 at 12:48 pm
by Deron Desautels
M4 Membership Manager
***This is NOT a statement of political standing, suggested economic or governmental changes, or a criticism of any social movement. It is a direct criticism of ignorant viewpoints – or, at least viewpoints that aren’t seeing the full picture***
I wanted to start this post by addressing a comment that was recently stated by a person in my network (and, iterated and re-iterated among many others):
“So, yes, I think ones propensity to behave unethically is directly related to one’s socio-economic status.”
It makes me cringe at the thought of such naivety. This is one of the most common social / financial misconceptions in our society.
Here’s one perspective on this:
A lack of ethics means a lack of positive education on ethics – whether through parenthood, schooling, or social and employment environments. I would personally argue that the higher the socio-economic status, the more likely to be educated.
And, the more likely to be educated therefore means the more likely to have been trained in ethics, as well as professional and social protocol and… well… manners.
But, even if we do not want to get into the philosophical / speculative assumptions, let’s look at the following….
Posted November 30, 2012 at 5:14 pm
We know the above question might seem silly, considering that we pass long research related to it…
Yet, it’s still worth probing and we’d like your opinion on it AFTER watching this thought-provoking 3-minute video…
Posted November 19, 2012 at 2:35 pm
by Jeff Thomas
In order for socialism to appeal to the masses, a great lie has been put forward: the concept of the “haves” and the “have-nots,” or the “rich” and the “poor”. Most any socialist will refer to these categories regularly and is unlikely to characterise himself as “rich.”
Even celebrities, with incomes in the seven-figure range will never refer to themselves as “rich.” Rich is equated with “evil.” Therefore, a businessman who may earn under $100,000 per year is “one of the greedy rich,” whilst a celebrity whose annual income is in the millions is “one of the people.”
How, then, is “rich” defined by those of a socialist bent? Well, in fact, it is unlikely that any socialist has ever put a number on it, but there is a decided trend to suggest that, if my neighbour has more than me, he is rich.
Posted September 7, 2012 at 11:45 am
Yes, it has been awhile since we’ve posted one of these…
And, yup, we DO indeed have an affinity for FAAASSSST cars
Posted August 28, 2012 at 10:10 pm
by Brian Lund
I had a number of great conversations with some intelligent and thoughtful investors and traders.
But unfortunately, the vast majority of the people I spoke with did not fall into that category. Instead they chose to embrace “active ignorance” about the financial markets.
They roughly broke down into five different categories, and if you are one of these “types” you deserve to lose all your money as far as I am concerned.
The answer to everything is gold.
These people are what are known as “gold-bugs” but they should be known as “gold-idiots.” And although thanks to the “broken clock” phenomenon they may have seemed wise at times over the last few years, remember, most have been calling this same tune since 1980.
“I don’t trust the markets so I am buying gold.”
“I don’t trust the financial professionals so I am buying gold.”
“I don’t trust the government so I am buying gold.”
“I think my wife is cheating on me so I am buying gold.”
“I am having erectile dysfunction issues so I am buying gold.”
That is all they can answer to any question, “gold!”
What’s even more ridiculous is that their distrust of the markets makes their myopic view exponentially worse. They pay huge transaction fees, taxes, and risk thievery by hoarding physical gold instead of “owning” it in a more efficient way that would free up space for homemade preserves and elk jerky in their shelters.
[ Details / Source: Above is our hand-picked KEY excerpt(s) from this full article: "5 Reasons You Deserve To Lose Every Penny In The Market"]
Posted June 1, 2012 at 3:28 am
by Bill Bonner
What would the world be without chumps? Suckers? Bagmen and patsies?
Who would buy a ladies handbag for $1,500? Or blue-jeans for $150? Who would buy an oversized show-off pickup…or a $4 million McMansion?
Who would buy Facebook?
The Facebook IPO seemed to attract dumb money. Billions of it. Investors thought they could buy it at the offer price and get an almost guaranteed “pop.” They thought the fix was in.
They were right. Trouble was, the fixers ‘f’ed up. The fix was broken even before the market opened. Smart insiders were supposed to sell their shares — which they got in the IPO — to the dumb outsiders on the open market.
But so many investors had gotten shares at the IPO price, and hoped to get out at a higher price, there wasn’t enough dumb money to take their shares. Everybody lost money…with the stock falling to $28 yesterday.
It made us think more about what a vital role dumb money plays in our economy.
Typically, lottery and IPO winners have dumb money. Sports stars often have dumb money too. Of course, a lot of wealthy people — the ‘patsy rich’ — have money so dumb it should be forcibly sterilized.
When poor people get money it is usually dumb money. They don’t know what to do with it. So, they do dumb things. That’s why they’re poor. They pay more than they should…often for things that aren’t worth buying at all. Fancy cars…fancy houses…fancy restaurants… They think the idea is to get rid of money. Usually, they part company with their loot quickly…and they’re poor again.
People think the rich are different. They think the rich are smart about money. But very often, it ain’t so.
Wall Street is a sophisticated industry. It has developed products that appeal to every taste and every budget. It’s good at separating the poor and middle classes from their money; they put their dough into mutual funds and Facebook shares. They’re even better at separating the rich from their money. Why? The rich have more money to lose.
[ Details / Source: Above is our hand-picked KEY excerpt(s) from this full article: "Were it Not for Dumb Money…" ]
Posted June 1, 2012 at 2:44 am
by Izabella Kaminska
Goldbugs don’t just believe in the fundamentals of gold. They worship at the altar of gold.
The goldbug view represents a market philosophy, a doctrine and a belief-system.
Question it and you incite anger, rage, ridicule.
For ‘non-believers’ this can be frustrating. It’s impossible to have a rational discussion on the subject because goldbugs inevitably intervene with ‘ absolute’ views, none of which are open to adjustment. They stick to those absolutes, even if the facts don’t fit support the narrative.
Unlike the gold system, which asks you to put your faith in an inanimate shiny object, a paper “fiat” system asks you to put faith in relationships, in your neighbours, your community.
It asks you to believe that society will honour its debts because it doesn’t make sense for it not to — largely because it is just as dependent on you honouring your debts to it, as you are on it honouring its debts to you. It’s a system based on quid pro quo relationships. A symbiosis based on trust.
Anthropologist and author David Graeber makes a similar argument. He believes that fiat currency is nothing more than a favour system and that it’s wrong to call it a debt-based economy. It’s far more akin to a credit-backed standard, one that evolves from a need to share what you’ve got today because you don’t know what favours you might need to call upon from others tomorrow.
What’s more, what you have today is often subject to decay. Thus hoarding (and acting only in your own interest) doesn’t actually make sense for the economy.
Debt comes into it because, in the old disintermediated and fragmented world which lacked today’s connectivity, it made sense to harmonise individual credits with those of others. Also, before the advent of marketplaces, you couldn’t guarantee that you would find a grateful recipient for your surplus milk production before it went to waste.
[ Details / Source: Above is our hand-picked KEY excerpt(s) from this full article: "Debunking goldbugs" ]
WV Editor’s Note: Here’s some more downright anti-gold bug fun from one of our trader contacts: See Doug Robertson’s response to one of our own rants on the subject.
Posted June 1, 2012 at 1:44 am
by Maura Pennington
An attitude continues to grow in America that is being reflected in public policy, which heaps disdain on the creative and successful. Even if fully 99% of the population support it, this mentality will never lead to progress and cannot be sustained.
To really move forward, we have to reassess what it means to be creative and start respecting again what the best and the brightest do for us.
Part of our devaluation of creativity comes from the fact that people assume it is related to education. Yet creativity is not taught. The impulse has to already be present in a person; it cannot be implanted by a curriculum.
Creativity is not a commodity, either. It cannot be bought by federal funding or parents paying for private tutors. Creativity is a natural quality — either you can imagine what doesn’t exist or you can’t — that is then nurtured to make new things out of nothing.
It is an outright restriction on creative activity to put a limit on how well a person can do this. The 99% Spring cosigners merely want an ambiguous limit and unspecified recalibration of American democracy, stated in goals of vaguely explained substance. In and of itself, the movement is random and ill-defined. The serious issue is the culture of envy breeding the curious logic that has ensnared bored young activists and legitimate national organizations.
[ Details / Source: Above is our hand-picked KEY excerpt(s) from this full article: "The 99% Movement Scorns American Creativity" ]
Posted June 1, 2012 at 12:07 am
Tom Brady’s thick blood boils at a Dick’s Sporting Goods.
Posted May 31, 2012 at 3:55 am
by Josuha M Brown
When looking at gold ($GLD), you can be an expert in the fairy tale aspect of it and cite episodes from Ancient Sumeria as proof of its value — or you can grow up and accept the fact that it is literally the ultimate Greater Fool trade, for better or for worse.
Since there are no earnings produced from gold we really only have supply and demand to go by, and that is why the technicals are really all that matter with this particular “asset class.”
I’m speaking to an audience of 6000 gold bugs in Vancouver next Monday, if I should disappear as a result of this post, please give my blog to Tadas Viskanta and my Twitter handle to Joe Weisenthal, as per my living will.
Anyway, 150 seems like a pretty important level for $GLD (1500 for an ounce of gold) and it seems to be flirting with breaking under as we speak. My rudimentary charting skills on display below (and here)…
[ Details / Source: Above is our hand-picked KEY excerpt(s) from this full article: "Gold on the ropes…" ]
WW Editor’s Note: for our own come-on-lets-keep-this-real-folks take on the barbaric metal, see the links at the bottom of our Critical thinking on Gold, Money, Currencies post.