Originally posted by PalynkaThis is one of the funniest (and pathetic) clips I've seen in a long time. I've never followed Cramer closely before, but I always suspected that he might be more entertainment than anything else.
There are many morons out there.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_nkZ3eHeXlc
🙄
Originally posted by kmax87The more time you spend studyinng a stocks history, the less time you have for studying a stocks future, which is what matters. Stocks break 52 week highs and lows all the time. They go from trending up to trending down all the time. A person could buy Starbucks because it has been growing for years, just in time for Starbucks growth to stop becuase they already have a location on every corner in America.
How can you infer anything about somethings future without knowing about its past. How are you to assess that future. Why would you ignore a stocks historical highs and lows or its historical relative movement against key induces and other benchmark stocks. Surely thats a recipe for disaster?
A stocks history is for the trash heap.
Sure, you can take technicals into account, but you need much more than that to invest and make a profit.
The only time technicals can be the backbone of a trade, is as Knight says, for a short term trade. If you're trying to catch a pop over a day or three or whatever, you'll never do it with knowing the technicals.
That said, people who do only that never keep up with the market in the long term. Can be great when the bulls are out, though.
Originally posted by shavixmirthe one's that dont profit will become extinct..survival of the fittest..that's what evolution is all about, right?
God, Jesus, no. I'm just a product of the environment.
But you have to admit that if everything's being run for profit, then anything that doesn't make a profit isn't going to really evolve... is it?
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenYou're still stuck in your monetary thinking.
the one's that dont profit will become extinct..survival of the fittest..that's what evolution is all about, right?
If you create a system based on profit, only matters that create profit will evolve.
If you, say, create a system, where, say, everything is based on bettering technology, only matters which better technology will evolve.
See where this is going?
Originally posted by shavixmirSounds like survival of the fittest to me. Seems to have worked well for everything else in the world.
God, Jesus, no. I'm just a product of the environment.
But you have to admit that if everything's being run for profit, then anything that doesn't make a profit isn't going to really evolve... is it?
Originally posted by MerkWhen your system is not based on money, then the only constraint on expansion, is the workforce available, and the basic need for expansion in the first place.
And how would Marx have business raise money for expansion?
Lets face it we have a consumerist culture with ever shortening product cycles, and the need to constantly junk perfectly good things and buy the newest latest version of the very same thing. Its a very wasteful, very nonconservative way of doing anything. Our whole system is geared for growth, because its only through growth that you can pay the ever increasing debt mountain. But the reason for growth is not tied into physical necessity other than the skill of marketers to sell more products more quickly. In some ways what we are doing with consumer capitalism is nothing more than a perverse almost surreal adaptation of the command style economy of the Soviet system which never worked well mostly due to a lack of information flow between factories and a lack of information as to what products were actually needed. Its interesting to note that in the 50's the Soviets had a productive capacity on par with that of the Americans. And they did get into space first and orbit the planet, so any notion that a non capitalist system could not produce innovation or have the capacity to lead in a cutting edge technology should look back to the 50's and see that the USSR were doing enough for the USA to have to sit up take notice and in some areas play catch up.
What do we do now? We produce more for less and hope that with enough advertising and enough access to credit the warehouses can constantly be cleared and then filled again. The problem is that with each cycle because many of the products are not actually needed or particularly useful we see how this layering in of debt actually forces the production cycle such that a closed loop feedback of interest once installed, drives the system ever faster ever harder until it finally overshoots its own ability to recover and then the whole thing simply shakes itself down to pieces. And that happens all because the system serves an inanimate commodity called money, and because its operation depends on the devaluing of this inanimate, intrinsically valueless exchange mechanism by introducing debt and the interest it accrues into the equation.
Now if you for one minute can think of a society where merely having a lot of something allows you to get more of the same, you work out that in pure exchange/bartering systems, one does not get more of a commodity simply by having a lot of it. If you want a fundamental flaw in the system, then there it is. The accumulation of money due to being paid interest on some principal amount is at the root cause of the problem. The reason why most who live in a capitalist society can't visualize this, is purely a function of being so normalized to accept it as the best option that many find it almost impossible to think outside of the constraints as laid out by the staus quo.