Ah, right, the 28th Amendment, which says "innocent until proven guilty, unless EdIII From Slashdot thinks it's likely".
Yes, so remember if you actually witness someone shooting someone else, that person is still "innocent" until proven guilty.
You know that sometimes courts and trials are mere formalities. You don't need a judge and jury to tell you that Micheal Jackson was a very strange person with very serious mental health problems, for example. You don't need a judge and jury to tell you that the car that just passed you is speeding when you were doing 70mph. You don't need a judge and jury to tell you that the guy who jumped off the bridge, all by himself, right in front of you committed suicide.
Sure, there has to be an investigation, blah blah blah, a trial, etc, for everything to be done "properly". However if you're the sort of person who refrains from having an opinion on anything unless a court allows you to, well I feel sorry for you. And if you've been unaware of the cell phone "racket" that exists in the US with the lame and pathetic excuse "but that's the only way we can recover the costs of our subsidized phones because they cost $10 million bucks (this part is called sarcasm) each to make", then I suggest you become a bit better informed. I can buy a decent cell phone in the third world for anywhere from $50 to $500, without "lock in".
So Apple is going to join Microsoft in the Ye Olde Convicted Monopolists' club?
Probably. And like Microsoft, it will just ignore the rulings. After all, in today's economy, companies like Microsoft and Apple are "too big to fail". Perhaps the government will print another few hundred billion and give them a bailout instead.
You are BOTH wrong. Oligopolies are NOT free markets, and the only difference between an oligopoly/monopoly and communism or fascism is the lack of official support and enforcement by the government. Oh wait, in the case of telcos, there is support and enforcement by the government. Try hanging a wire on a telephone pole across the street - it's the MUNICIPALITY not the telco that will get in touch with you. Or for that matter, try setting up a free inter-city WiFi service...
Enjoy your "free" country and "free" markets, heheheh.
Why didn't your wife just tell her boss, "No Skype? No travel."
My wife is senior management in charge of a whole continent, but unfortunately doesn't sit on the board. Therefore she does what she's told. Secondly, Skype doesn't work on the company's VPN because the company blocks it, and due to the proprietary software on the company laptop, the only way she can get online is through the VPN (unless we boot ubuntu - fortunately all the encryption and proprietary stuff is at the Windows level not the BIOS level). And finally, these guys are so damned paranoid, once my wife visited my personal web page from the company laptop and sure enough a few hours later I got a hit from - corporate HQ on the same webpage.
An email I once sent her containing the word "erotic" (although the email wasn't at all erotic) never got to her, so they read and filter her mail too. No, I don't think she wants to rock that boat... just take your 6 figures, bonsues and stock, and keep working...
And build universities and schools and fund scientists. Funny how Europe can have so many old universities isn't it?
[citation needed]
University of Bologna, founded in 1088 and received a charter from Frederick I, King of Germany and Italy in 1158. Salamanca - founded by Alfonso IX, King of Spain in 1218 University of Paris - founded between 1160 and 1170 and later recognized by Pope Innocent III (who was a graduate in 1182). University of Oxford - founded in the 11th century, not by any pope. University of Cambridge - founded by students fleeing the University of Oxford... University of Padua, founded 1122 by students of the University of Bologna
in fact, here's a link for you, where you can see that really not that many universities were founded by popes - especially outside of the Italian peninsula, and most of those were founded 200+ years after the first universities because Italy was starting to lag far behind the rest of the world. The renaissance may have begun in Italy, but if you look at the names of the great scientists, most of them are German, French or English.
I will argue that the pope's main interests in the universities was to assure that the "fourth" doctrine, theology, was taught properly, and that none of the other fields of study (law, medicine and philosophy) strayed from permitted doctrine.
Pleton was expelled from Florence by the church in 1409 for his teachings, and ended up back in Byzantine territory. Don't give me that crap, and learn your history.
Luckily, the catholic church eventually converted these peoples
You make it sound wonderful. Yes, just like the Catholic church "converted" the natives living in the Americas. Oh, where are they today, anyway? That's right, most of them chose to die rather than be "converted". Now why would that be?
No, it's not burning people at the stake that brought about the renaissance. Progress and science continued East of Constantinople which less than 300 years after the fall of Rome, converted to Islam. During the golden age of the Islamic Caliphate, great progress was achieved in mathematics and natural science while Europe was embroiled in petty squabbles and eternally warring fiefdoms and baronies. The catholic church actively persecuted scientists as heretics, whereas the Islamic world embraced them (with certain limitations in the field of medicine, like not allowing dissections of the human body).
Then the Mongols invaded and destroyed the Islamic caliphate, and again a lot of progress and knowledge was lost in the world. Fortunately for Western Europe the big fish had eaten most of the little fish, and the squabbling local bosses had been forced to accept the rule of kings by then. This allowed for the organization of navies, the re-establishment of international trade and the establishment of universities - like Salamanca in Spain and Oxford and Cambridge in England. Finally Western Europe could afford to maintain scholars again. However what mostly happened is that they copied the knowledge that was coming from the East. It would be another 200 years before the Renaissance happened, and invention took off in the West.
No, please don't give me that line about how the church promoted scholarship. The ONLY thing the church did was force monks to copy old texts, and that's how SOME of the ancient knowledge was preserved. However monks weren't allowed to pass that knowledge on to the general public, and didn't communicate much among themselves lest they be called heretics.
It's no coincidence that the only "religious" scientist, Mendel, only had his work on genetics "discovered" 200 years AFTER HE WAS DEAD.
I suggest you read a few history books, and you'll see what a nasty political tool the Catholic church (or any church, for that matter) is. But remember, God needs your money.
As usual progress was the enemy of those in power,
No, progress is always the ally of those in power. However those in power are always trying to stomp on the masses and hold them back - that's how they STAY in power - because if you're not one step ahead of the masses, you are nobody.
Thus today we have corporate lobbying and purchasing of politi - er campaign contributions, copyright laws and extensions far beyond YOUR lifetime, patents on YOUR gene sequences, etc. Government, which ideally is a big stick to prevent the strong from destroying the weak - is now a tool used by the strong to keep the weak in line.
Back then the biggest "international" government was the church. Europe was divided into many squabbling kingdoms, but the church had the power to keep kings in line by threatening ex-communication or getting several neighbors to put pressure on an "sinful" nation. It's just the same shit, over and over again. We call ourselves civilized yet the structure of our society is similar to watching a pack of wild street dogs, only on a different scale.
I used to communicate with my wife when she was out of town on business. The fortune 500 co she worked for had no problem letting her install Skype on her laptop, so it worked for both of us - free computer to computer calls when she was in Turkey, Argentina, Hong Kong, etc. Our biggest problem was the time zone difference.
Then about a year ago the company's IT department decided that Skype was "bad", and disabled it on all company laptops. My solution? An ubuntu live CD and ekiga. Now we can communicate again when she's away.
Only corrupt overpaid people on Wall St. who destroyed the global economy are too big to fail.
Yes, it's easy to blame Wall Street. Especially when you see people buying houses, investing $50k in them and getting a 100% return one year later. Especially when you see people mortgaging themselves to the hilt to buy properties because "house prices are going to keep going up forever". Especially when you see people who can't afford a mortgage apply for one anyway. Especially when you see people "living off the equity in their homes". Yes, blame Wall Street for creating the products THAT THE PEOPLE DEMANDED.
4 banks on Wall Street currently control $296 TRILLION dollars in derivatives. Consider that the world GDP is around 50 trillion per year, if these 4 banks go under they take with them 6 years' worth of the WORLD's GDP. What would happen to your mutual fund, or your 401(k), or the US dollar for that matter, if these banks were forced to dump those derivatives on the market all at once in a bankruptcy? Oh and how much did you say the state of Arizona - or even California, is worth, by the way? Certainly not $296 trillion...
It's easy to blame Wall Street for everything. However no one was bullied into buying that extra house, or taking on that extra mortgage, or borrowing for doing that ultra expensive reno (after all, we'll get it back when we sell, right?). GREED was happening on all levels of society, and it happened FROM THE BOTTOM UP.
What I blame government for is having painted themselves into a corner. The time to reduce deficits was during the good times. Now they have no choice but to continue to print money, bail out banks, and raise taxes (directly or subtly) to try to get some control over the spending. A lot of people are bulls suddenly, thinking that the worst is over. To quote Tolkien, no - "this only was wanting, now comes the night."
Not a physicist but a physician. This makes sense - since it's roughly same way blood moves in blood vessels. Flow along the wall of the blood vessel is minimal. The greatest flow is in the center of the vessel, with diminishing flow the closer you get to the wall. That's why flow increases dramatically in larger blood vessels (it's a function of the fourth power of the radius - called the LaPoiseuille equation).
Again I'm no physicist, but I assume that if you have something pushing a fluid through a medium, you could define two boundaries that are not movable - the solid thing doing the pushing, and looking further and further out eventually you reach a "column" of water where the force does not get transmitted and is thus also static. Although it would be hard to get laminar flow in this scenario, it's not hard to imagine the greatest flow being generated where the greatest pressure change is - ie somewhere in the middle of the area described. The pressure change (and thus the flow) will be minimal where the static "walls" are, be they "real" (as in a solid fin, or an arm) or "not real" as in a non moving column of water.
That's like saying we humans should soon lose our intelligence that provided us a means to survive despite being ill equipped otherwise, without fangs, claws, etc. Now that we're the dominant species on the planet and no one preys on us, we should devolve into a more stupid version....oh, wait
You are the one who initially made an argument based on timing
Timing? OK, pick a date randomly from 2000 to 2007. That's a 7 year window, not exactly "timing the market". I picked 2000 arbitrarily - it depends on the stock, for example, had you bought and held GM at ANY point from its public offering early last century, you would have lost all your money by holding on to the stock. You are the one who insists on bringing in "timing". I was pointing out that if you don't periodically liquidate and reassess your position - meh, whatever, I have to cook.
I'm not saying that, and I'm not saying I don't get taken for a ride every once in a while - like everyone in this business.
If there's anything I am holding on to, it's my gold. However I'm a day trader through and through, and that means that every night, win or lose, my position is cash. I would be terrified at the thought of buying something of negligible value (ie a piece of paper) and holding it. At least at the end of the day I know exactly what my account balance will be in the morning.
I simply pointed out that a change in initial investment time would have yielded massive profits.
Yes that's all very well in theory. In practice, you can never get the "timing" right unless you are VERY VERY lucky. Not even the best traders can see the future. I remember Goldman predicting $300/bbl oil. I remember the Saudis predicting $100/bbl oil, right before it dropped to $30/bbl and stayed there for a few months. NO one can predict the market and get the timing right. Buffet poured $7BN into Goldman Sachs and the stock immediately went into a nosedive shedding half of its value. Yes all the people who bought GS at $60-odd bucks are laughing today. What happened to all the people who bought it at $200+ a year before and sold it at $90 thinking it was going to tank like all the other investment banks? They were right to sell it at $90 when they saw it a week later at $60. However who would have told them it was going to bounce back exactly then, and not plunge to $20? Timing is impossible. If you're counting on THAT as an investment "strategy" well, good luck.
Me, I make small trades on momentum. I make anywhere between $10-$50 on a trade and I get the hell out. But I do it 20 times a DAY. I don't care if the market is moving up. I don't care if the market is moving DOWN. Most people only think about buying stock. It takes me exactly 5 seconds to turn around and reverse my position and go short. You CAN gauge what a stock is doing fairly accurately under the right conditions. What those conditions are, I leave for you to discover. It cost me $80k to find out for myself. But the tuition was worth it.
Who made more money would depend on how much money each of you started with, and how much time each of you spend on trading and what you earn doing other things.
You're technically correct. This isn't a "I have more money than you" pissing contest. But at a roughly 100% ROI per year, well, how much time do you want to give me if the other guy is at 20%?
Mutual funds are always bragging about "beating the S&P" by a few percent. Heck if you're only doing what the market is doing, YOU ARE NOT A GOOD TRADER. You could make just as much by picking stock randomly. THAT is my point.
I made a typo. It's $0.005 or 1/2 cent per share per transaction (buy or sell), making a penny per share for a complete open/close of position. My broker is Interactive Brokers. Of course you have to spend something like $30 in commission per month or they charge you a monthly rate, but as a day trader I typically spend $100 or more in commission daily, so that's no problem.
Sure, and everyone who bought stock in February has made at least a 20% ROI by now. What's your point?
My point is that you only made 20% ROI if you sold your stock. If you're still holding it, you haven't made anything. If you don't understand the difference between stock and cash, that's not my fault.
I beg to differ. I've made around 20% over the last 6 months with buy and hold.
Well done. I've made 0.5% a day, every day, including last year during the crash. Guess who has made more money, at roughly 200 trading days a year?
You stick to buy and hold, and I will stick to what I do, yeah? Timing has nothing to do with it - it's a fools game. There are too many variables that can affect the stock market as a whole, and take your stock with it. Everyone is happy now because the Dow broke over 9000. Everyone wants in. But no one is paying attention to what crude is doing anymore.... it's around $67 as I type and all the futures are pointed UP at $72+/bbl.
Show us a strong US economy and oil is going right back to $150/bbl because there isn't enough oil anymore. I can't wait to see the market dive again next year. Up or down, I don't care. I make money either way. But this time the economy is going to tank with a US $2+ trillion dollars more in debt, and with no one wanting to buy US treasuries anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
She's my second wife, and I actually enjoy this one... technically she's not even my wife, we just live together. :)
Ah, right, the 28th Amendment, which says "innocent until proven guilty, unless EdIII From Slashdot thinks it's likely".
Yes, so remember if you actually witness someone shooting someone else, that person is still "innocent" until proven guilty.
You know that sometimes courts and trials are mere formalities. You don't need a judge and jury to tell you that Micheal Jackson was a very strange person with very serious mental health problems, for example. You don't need a judge and jury to tell you that the car that just passed you is speeding when you were doing 70mph. You don't need a judge and jury to tell you that the guy who jumped off the bridge, all by himself, right in front of you committed suicide.
Sure, there has to be an investigation, blah blah blah, a trial, etc, for everything to be done "properly". However if you're the sort of person who refrains from having an opinion on anything unless a court allows you to, well I feel sorry for you. And if you've been unaware of the cell phone "racket" that exists in the US with the lame and pathetic excuse "but that's the only way we can recover the costs of our subsidized phones because they cost $10 million bucks (this part is called sarcasm) each to make", then I suggest you become a bit better informed. I can buy a decent cell phone in the third world for anywhere from $50 to $500, without "lock in".
there's an approved and free Skype application
Not for long...
So Apple is going to join Microsoft in the Ye Olde Convicted Monopolists' club?
Probably. And like Microsoft, it will just ignore the rulings. After all, in today's economy, companies like Microsoft and Apple are "too big to fail". Perhaps the government will print another few hundred billion and give them a bailout instead.
You are BOTH wrong. Oligopolies are NOT free markets, and the only difference between an oligopoly/monopoly and communism or fascism is the lack of official support and enforcement by the government. Oh wait, in the case of telcos, there is support and enforcement by the government. Try hanging a wire on a telephone pole across the street - it's the MUNICIPALITY not the telco that will get in touch with you. Or for that matter, try setting up a free inter-city WiFi service...
Enjoy your "free" country and "free" markets, heheheh.
Why didn't your wife just tell her boss, "No Skype? No travel."
My wife is senior management in charge of a whole continent, but unfortunately doesn't sit on the board. Therefore she does what she's told. Secondly, Skype doesn't work on the company's VPN because the company blocks it, and due to the proprietary software on the company laptop, the only way she can get online is through the VPN (unless we boot ubuntu - fortunately all the encryption and proprietary stuff is at the Windows level not the BIOS level). And finally, these guys are so damned paranoid, once my wife visited my personal web page from the company laptop and sure enough a few hours later I got a hit from - corporate HQ on the same webpage.
An email I once sent her containing the word "erotic" (although the email wasn't at all erotic) never got to her, so they read and filter her mail too. No, I don't think she wants to rock that boat... just take your 6 figures, bonsues and stock, and keep working...
And build universities and schools and fund scientists. Funny how Europe can have so many old universities isn't it?
[citation needed]
University of Bologna, founded in 1088 and received a charter from Frederick I, King of Germany and Italy in 1158.
Salamanca - founded by Alfonso IX, King of Spain in 1218
University of Paris - founded between 1160 and 1170 and later recognized by Pope Innocent III (who was a graduate in 1182).
University of Oxford - founded in the 11th century, not by any pope.
University of Cambridge - founded by students fleeing the University of Oxford...
University of Padua, founded 1122 by students of the University of Bologna
in fact, here's a link for you, where you can see that really not that many universities were founded by popes - especially outside of the Italian peninsula, and most of those were founded 200+ years after the first universities because Italy was starting to lag far behind the rest of the world. The renaissance may have begun in Italy, but if you look at the names of the great scientists, most of them are German, French or English.
I will argue that the pope's main interests in the universities was to assure that the "fourth" doctrine, theology, was taught properly, and that none of the other fields of study (law, medicine and philosophy) strayed from permitted doctrine.
Pleton was expelled from Florence by the church in 1409 for his teachings, and ended up back in Byzantine territory. Don't give me that crap, and learn your history.
Luckily, the catholic church eventually converted these peoples
You make it sound wonderful. Yes, just like the Catholic church "converted" the natives living in the Americas. Oh, where are they today, anyway? That's right, most of them chose to die rather than be "converted". Now why would that be?
No, it's not burning people at the stake that brought about the renaissance. Progress and science continued East of Constantinople which less than 300 years after the fall of Rome, converted to Islam. During the golden age of the Islamic Caliphate, great progress was achieved in mathematics and natural science while Europe was embroiled in petty squabbles and eternally warring fiefdoms and baronies. The catholic church actively persecuted scientists as heretics, whereas the Islamic world embraced them (with certain limitations in the field of medicine, like not allowing dissections of the human body).
Then the Mongols invaded and destroyed the Islamic caliphate, and again a lot of progress and knowledge was lost in the world. Fortunately for Western Europe the big fish had eaten most of the little fish, and the squabbling local bosses had been forced to accept the rule of kings by then. This allowed for the organization of navies, the re-establishment of international trade and the establishment of universities - like Salamanca in Spain and Oxford and Cambridge in England. Finally Western Europe could afford to maintain scholars again. However what mostly happened is that they copied the knowledge that was coming from the East. It would be another 200 years before the Renaissance happened, and invention took off in the West.
No, please don't give me that line about how the church promoted scholarship. The ONLY thing the church did was force monks to copy old texts, and that's how SOME of the ancient knowledge was preserved. However monks weren't allowed to pass that knowledge on to the general public, and didn't communicate much among themselves lest they be called heretics.
It's no coincidence that the only "religious" scientist, Mendel, only had his work on genetics "discovered" 200 years AFTER HE WAS DEAD.
I suggest you read a few history books, and you'll see what a nasty political tool the Catholic church (or any church, for that matter) is. But remember, God needs your money.
As usual progress was the enemy of those in power,
No, progress is always the ally of those in power. However those in power are always trying to stomp on the masses and hold them back - that's how they STAY in power - because if you're not one step ahead of the masses, you are nobody.
Thus today we have corporate lobbying and purchasing of politi - er campaign contributions, copyright laws and extensions far beyond YOUR lifetime, patents on YOUR gene sequences, etc. Government, which ideally is a big stick to prevent the strong from destroying the weak - is now a tool used by the strong to keep the weak in line.
Back then the biggest "international" government was the church. Europe was divided into many squabbling kingdoms, but the church had the power to keep kings in line by threatening ex-communication or getting several neighbors to put pressure on an "sinful" nation. It's just the same shit, over and over again. We call ourselves civilized yet the structure of our society is similar to watching a pack of wild street dogs, only on a different scale.
I used to communicate with my wife when she was out of town on business. The fortune 500 co she worked for had no problem letting her install Skype on her laptop, so it worked for both of us - free computer to computer calls when she was in Turkey, Argentina, Hong Kong, etc. Our biggest problem was the time zone difference.
Then about a year ago the company's IT department decided that Skype was "bad", and disabled it on all company laptops. My solution? An ubuntu live CD and ekiga. Now we can communicate again when she's away.
Only corrupt overpaid people on Wall St. who destroyed the global economy are too big to fail.
Yes, it's easy to blame Wall Street. Especially when you see people buying houses, investing $50k in them and getting a 100% return one year later. Especially when you see people mortgaging themselves to the hilt to buy properties because "house prices are going to keep going up forever". Especially when you see people who can't afford a mortgage apply for one anyway. Especially when you see people "living off the equity in their homes". Yes, blame Wall Street for creating the products THAT THE PEOPLE DEMANDED.
4 banks on Wall Street currently control $296 TRILLION dollars in derivatives. Consider that the world GDP is around 50 trillion per year, if these 4 banks go under they take with them 6 years' worth of the WORLD's GDP. What would happen to your mutual fund, or your 401(k), or the US dollar for that matter, if these banks were forced to dump those derivatives on the market all at once in a bankruptcy? Oh and how much did you say the state of Arizona - or even California, is worth, by the way? Certainly not $296 trillion...
It's easy to blame Wall Street for everything. However no one was bullied into buying that extra house, or taking on that extra mortgage, or borrowing for doing that ultra expensive reno (after all, we'll get it back when we sell, right?). GREED was happening on all levels of society, and it happened FROM THE BOTTOM UP.
What I blame government for is having painted themselves into a corner. The time to reduce deficits was during the good times. Now they have no choice but to continue to print money, bail out banks, and raise taxes (directly or subtly) to try to get some control over the spending. A lot of people are bulls suddenly, thinking that the worst is over. To quote Tolkien, no - "this only was wanting, now comes the night."
Not a physicist but a physician. This makes sense - since it's roughly same way blood moves in blood vessels. Flow along the wall of the blood vessel is minimal. The greatest flow is in the center of the vessel, with diminishing flow the closer you get to the wall. That's why flow increases dramatically in larger blood vessels (it's a function of the fourth power of the radius - called the LaPoiseuille equation).
Again I'm no physicist, but I assume that if you have something pushing a fluid through a medium, you could define two boundaries that are not movable - the solid thing doing the pushing, and looking further and further out eventually you reach a "column" of water where the force does not get transmitted and is thus also static. Although it would be hard to get laminar flow in this scenario, it's not hard to imagine the greatest flow being generated where the greatest pressure change is - ie somewhere in the middle of the area described. The pressure change (and thus the flow) will be minimal where the static "walls" are, be they "real" (as in a solid fin, or an arm) or "not real" as in a non moving column of water.
gosh, isn't energy measured in Joules anymore?
You probably already know this, but a Watt is a Joule per second. It's like the difference between distance and speed.
If the title of this movie will be "Troff"?
Of course not. This film will be full of Hannah Montana and Jonas Brothers references.
What do you think cash is?
Over the long term? Meaningless paper. Overnight, it's wealth.
That's like saying we humans should soon lose our intelligence that provided us a means to survive despite being ill equipped otherwise, without fangs, claws, etc. Now that we're the dominant species on the planet and no one preys on us, we should devolve into a more stupid version....oh, wait
You are the one who initially made an argument based on timing
Timing? OK, pick a date randomly from 2000 to 2007. That's a 7 year window, not exactly "timing the market". I picked 2000 arbitrarily - it depends on the stock, for example, had you bought and held GM at ANY point from its public offering early last century, you would have lost all your money by holding on to the stock. You are the one who insists on bringing in "timing". I was pointing out that if you don't periodically liquidate and reassess your position - meh, whatever, I have to cook.
I'm not saying that, and I'm not saying I don't get taken for a ride every once in a while - like everyone in this business.
If there's anything I am holding on to, it's my gold. However I'm a day trader through and through, and that means that every night, win or lose, my position is cash. I would be terrified at the thought of buying something of negligible value (ie a piece of paper) and holding it. At least at the end of the day I know exactly what my account balance will be in the morning.
I simply pointed out that a change in initial investment time would have yielded massive profits.
Yes that's all very well in theory. In practice, you can never get the "timing" right unless you are VERY VERY lucky. Not even the best traders can see the future. I remember Goldman predicting $300/bbl oil. I remember the Saudis predicting $100/bbl oil, right before it dropped to $30/bbl and stayed there for a few months. NO one can predict the market and get the timing right. Buffet poured $7BN into Goldman Sachs and the stock immediately went into a nosedive shedding half of its value. Yes all the people who bought GS at $60-odd bucks are laughing today. What happened to all the people who bought it at $200+ a year before and sold it at $90 thinking it was going to tank like all the other investment banks? They were right to sell it at $90 when they saw it a week later at $60. However who would have told them it was going to bounce back exactly then, and not plunge to $20? Timing is impossible. If you're counting on THAT as an investment "strategy" well, good luck.
Me, I make small trades on momentum. I make anywhere between $10-$50 on a trade and I get the hell out. But I do it 20 times a DAY. I don't care if the market is moving up. I don't care if the market is moving DOWN. Most people only think about buying stock. It takes me exactly 5 seconds to turn around and reverse my position and go short. You CAN gauge what a stock is doing fairly accurately under the right conditions. What those conditions are, I leave for you to discover. It cost me $80k to find out for myself. But the tuition was worth it.
Who made more money would depend on how much money each of you started with, and how much time each of you spend on trading and what you earn doing other things.
You're technically correct. This isn't a "I have more money than you" pissing contest. But at a roughly 100% ROI per year, well, how much time do you want to give me if the other guy is at 20%?
Mutual funds are always bragging about "beating the S&P" by a few percent. Heck if you're only doing what the market is doing, YOU ARE NOT A GOOD TRADER. You could make just as much by picking stock randomly. THAT is my point.
I made a typo. It's $0.005 or 1/2 cent per share per transaction (buy or sell), making a penny per share for a complete open/close of position. My broker is Interactive Brokers. Of course you have to spend something like $30 in commission per month or they charge you a monthly rate, but as a day trader I typically spend $100 or more in commission daily, so that's no problem.
Sure, and everyone who bought stock in February has made at least a 20% ROI by now. What's your point?
My point is that you only made 20% ROI if you sold your stock. If you're still holding it, you haven't made anything. If you don't understand the difference between stock and cash, that's not my fault.
I beg to differ. I've made around 20% over the last 6 months with buy and hold.
Well done. I've made 0.5% a day, every day, including last year during the crash. Guess who has made more money, at roughly 200 trading days a year?
You stick to buy and hold, and I will stick to what I do, yeah? Timing has nothing to do with it - it's a fools game. There are too many variables that can affect the stock market as a whole, and take your stock with it. Everyone is happy now because the Dow broke over 9000. Everyone wants in. But no one is paying attention to what crude is doing anymore.... it's around $67 as I type and all the futures are pointed UP at $72+/bbl.
Show us a strong US economy and oil is going right back to $150/bbl because there isn't enough oil anymore. I can't wait to see the market dive again next year. Up or down, I don't care. I make money either way. But this time the economy is going to tank with a US $2+ trillion dollars more in debt, and with no one wanting to buy US treasuries anymore.