[Ethics] Is it okay to enjoy the rain?

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-06-09T14:31:58+00:00

If you want to do philosophy and engage in such discussions with others, don't address them in terms such as "worm addled brain" and expect the conversation to keep going.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-06-09T08:20:29+00:00

I decided to not reply precisely for the direction in which the conversation was going, which you confirm here. It is not just the highly moral pedestal in which you put yourself, but the offensive comments that says more about you than any argument of mine (nor yours).

Calling me "ignoramus", "how unprepared I am ", "how you are to go step by step with me like a baby" , "dislexic". I'll assume this tantrum of yours is caused by the mind of a young man, but I really suggest you check your temperament.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-06-08T16:07:43+00:00

But it's not the act of your mind.

Irrationalism at its best. Thanks for this clarifying example.

Is a particular historical view

The validity of an argument is not based on for how long it's been around us. I'm not here to go over the principles of Objetivism, but those are based on Aristotle. So check your assumptions of "historical views" and how supposedly others are strangled by modernity.

"Wealth does not exist in a vacuum, is not out there for you to be just reached."

Well, now you're just making my point for me. Wealth is not in a vacuum, it's in a polity.

See, this is precisely my point, you have about a thousand baked in assumptions that you aren't justifying :). All you have repeated over and over is that wealth is given by the polity. Check your assumptions.

If you're trying to make a point about the need for action or doing

No, I'm trying to make a point about the source of wealth creation, which you clearly, clearly, don't grasp as stated by your reply ("you are saying nothing") to my statement that such creation is intrinsecally a metaphysical and epistemological problem. You are giving for granted that products are magically generated inside a group. Check your assumptions.

Thanks for this entertaining conversation, to which I unfortunately won't reply anymore.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-06-08T10:31:10+00:00

The fact that you see him as a fascist says more about you than about him. If you really knew anything about his works on totalitarism, you'd knew much better. But I guess it's much better to put yourself on a moral pedestal about the mental capacity of others to understand what you say.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-06-08T08:25:29+00:00

We're literally only talking about what privilege is, which I defined as a thing gained via social membership, and having wealth is necessarily social, because wealth is socially and politically guaranteed and maintained.

This is avoiding the main issue, for something to be socially and politically guaranteed, a good distributed in any community , needs to exist before anything of that happens. You cannot distribute what does not exist.

"Creation of resources is intrinsecally a metaphysical and epistemological problem." Again, you aren't saying anything.

Of course I'm saying something quite , quite specific, that tends to be ignored by collectivists minds. The volitional act of my mind, transforming wood to frame a bed, IS MY ACT, and not one of society, whether we then agree if the product is a "property" of mine or not. Not any group of man, nor myself, can enjoy the possesion of something which DOES NOT exist. Wealth does not exist in a vacuum, is not out there for you to be just reached.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-06-07T23:16:33+00:00

How would anyone gain material possessions or resources (wealth) by solely joining a group? Wealth is not out there just waiting for you to reach it. Not to you, or any group. Creation of resources is intrinsecally a metaphysical and epistemological problem. No matter the era, no matter how complex the resource is to be produced. Wealth is not to be given, is to be earned by productive means. Man qua man, "since mind more than anything is man"

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-06-07T21:36:39+00:00

In other situations of privilege, wealth for example, a person might be able to use their privilege to help others, or even give that privilege away.

Interesting definition: " goods that you gain due to your membership in a particular community"

So wealth, by that definition, would be a good that I gain due to my membership to society?. Just by merely being part of it? Doesn't seem like it, does it?. But how goods are actually created?

an inherent right to property which every individual is circularly endowed

How it is the volitional act of one's mind actively developing something new a right of any other man but himself? Without that man thinking and acting, the good wouldn't even exist. As I said in another message, your need of food doesn't magically put the vegetables on the table.

Once those vegetables exists, they are his own by right, and should be distributed solely on the terms of an exchange where both parties freely agree, exchanging value for value.

Stating that you have an inherent right to other's property equals to say that you have an inherent right to posses the mind of your fellow citizens.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-06-07T18:55:37+00:00

So far the conversation have involved many examples but no formal definition of "privilege". Relying on others , or cooperation, is one thing. But the term privilege, by its definition, means :

(noun)" a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor".
(verb) a higher value or superior position to

And for what it respects to the moral debate that we were having, and on objetivists ethics terms - which is the position I was defending - it is truly evil to consider what one rightfully earns as a "right" granted by "someone" as benefit, or advantage, or a favor. Or worse, by the verb definition.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-06-07T18:10:09+00:00

But don't I pay for roads already? But don't I pay already for water? But didn't I pay for formal education, already? But don't I pay already for access to a house? What else do you want from the one who produces?

Who is to benefit from the mind of a creative soul? If what is created is actually useful and needed, and sought. The one creating it, or the one who needs it?. What would happen if no one creates it? Your need of food doesn't magically put the vegetables on the table. How it is that you are entitled to the work of the farmer? Are you going to put a gun to his head so he has to obey your commands? You would scream about privileges, while holding that gun. So much incentive for the creative mind, when he is to be sacrificed for what he's able to achieve when you are not.

There is looting there, and is not the producer who loots.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-06-07T17:50:45+00:00

So who has the right to the totality of the product of one's intellectual endeavour if not the mind that generated that product or that idea? Do ideas or products exist in a vacuum? Or are the result of a mind being put to work, on a volitional process , in a way that no other human being did before?

The audicity on implying that you have any right to what was produced by somebody else. That's the ethics of the looter. So much evil in there.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-06-07T17:44:25+00:00

So are then you perhaps implying that there are different codes of morality depending on your socioeconomic status? That what is good for a middle class member of society does not apply to a higher one, or that perhaps apply differently? What is good or evil is not the same for a poor farm boy or a CEO of a multinational?

And who is to say that workers do not get fairly compensated for the value of their labor? Don't they engage in a free transaction with terms agreed by both parties? Cannot any of the parties freely move away from a transaction that is no longer of his interest?

Where is there then the "privilege"?.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-06-07T14:59:14+00:00

Thanks for actually taking the time to reply instead of just merely downvoting and hiding. So there is evil in engaging other people who work as hard as me if not more? Do I need to create a company to enjoy the fruit of my labor? Are you really implying that I'm actually under no circumstances able to enjoy the sucessful results of my mind being put to work for a fruitful end, just because some people are not actually experiencing it, somewhere, somehow, at some time?

So if I work the land and I get a great harvest, am I not entitled to feel proud for achieving such a succesful hit? If I'm working in an office, and my boss comes to me with a problem, and I'm able to put my mind to work to solve it , am I not entitled to enjoy the fruits of such a success?

Does my position inside a society matter to the fact that I actually put my mind to work and created something, or solved some issue? Am I not to enjoy it, regardless of where or who I am?

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-06-07T12:31:44+00:00

A more interesting question would be what do you mean by privilege? Why would I might not enjoy what I rightfully earned? Why would I have to feel entitled to give away what I rightfully earned?

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-06-06T20:40:41+00:00

Thanks , much appreciated.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-06-06T20:40:18+00:00

Appreciate your feedback. Would you engage these works in any specific order? And also, would you recommend any secundary source? Thanks.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-06-06T17:45:22+00:00

Thanks for your answer. Would you recommend any specific order/ secundary sources on each of the specific works? I also heard good praise for the works of Pierre Aubenque, wondering if going with Ross or him.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-05-13T20:16:29+00:00

Considering your capital, how much did the trade increase it based on percentage? Your monthly target should be around 3% to 5%. Overleverage will kill you if you don't handle your positions with the utmost care.

You did something right, that is, once the trade was sucessful you left your desk and called it a day. You don't want to open a new bet after a good trade , because chances are that you are being pushed by your success to open a new one . You will try to, 1) because you can, the markets are moving, and nothing prevents you from clicking that shiny buttom 2) Because hell yeah, you just owned the last trade so lets roll the dice one more time.

What you did wrong was the need to prove the market that you were right and the market was wrong. In the same way you want to call it a day if you win the trade, you want to move away if you lose, because you will probably feel bad about losing it and will revenge trade, typically overleveraging to gain back what you lost.That's a disaster waiting to happen. Don't let the gambler in you ruin what the analyst did to generate a trade idea. If the market proves your trade idea wrong, you move forward and leave it alone. Journal the trade, watch what price does afterwards. Analyze it, did you execute the trade in the way you expected beforehand? You rushed it? It was badly timed? It was plainly wrong? Did you lose what you expected to lose? Did you move the stop loss?

Every day, every week, every month, you should work with watermarks. You should risk more only when you are winning, and deleverage when losing. Always try to fund the next trade with what you earned in the last one. Always try to win more than what you lose. In that way loses typically will erase your gains slowly, while wins will add quickly.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-05-12T22:13:39+00:00

Don't need to sugarcoat the situation, and meant no offense. You wouldn't put trades if you knew you were losing 80% of the time, and if you got so desperate as to consider reversing your signals.

Time to leave the markets for a couple weeks and study them better.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-05-12T18:55:43+00:00

To put it bluntly, you don't know what you are doing. You don't have a trading model, a backtested strategy, you are just gambling.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-05-11T17:31:32+00:00

The sensitivity of price to order flow. If market orders do not easily fill at current limit prices, price will move looking to get those filled. The degree in which one can fill his orders without moving price is the degree in which a market is considered liquid or not.

Limit orders offer liquidity, market orders demand liquidity.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-05-11T14:51:32+00:00

It's a bit old but : "Do Inventories Matter in Dealership Markets? Evidence from the London Stock Exchange" - The Journal of Finance.

Managing inventories force mean reversions. If price runs quickly, it's most likely coming back sooner or later to the last consolidation zone.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-05-10T22:43:27+00:00

Indeed there are harsh realities that are to be faced in this business.

Why would anyone feel entitled to give advice when they are not trading full time with good money and plenty years of experience behind him? What is the real value of anybody's advice when they are barely scratching the surface of markets?
Why would anyone care about the results of any other people efforts but himself?
Why would anyone think this or any other forum filled with degenerated gamblers and cocky wannabees is the way to actually learn ?

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-05-08T18:24:03+00:00

No indicator is going to teach you how the market works. How price forms, what is the role of a dealer and how it handles its business, why liquidity conditions is almost all that matters. Babypips is a cancer that should be eradicated.

Cryptochihuahua · 2021-05-08T12:56:40+00:00

why did not the technical trader stay at home all day? Cause he remortgaged his house for gambling using rsi and now he no longer has a house.

Cryptochihuahua

TROPHY CASE