The stock Market

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » The stock Market

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 08:41 pm
Is the stock market in trouble? Is it going to crash?

Also I stumbled upon this and I found it neat. Maybe robots do have a solution to God. Laughing


Two advanced chatbots, ALICE and Jabberwacky, were pitted against one another by Discover Magazine, and the result is surprisingly existential: [INDENT] ALICE: Who created you?
Jabberwacky: My mother gave birth to me. Is that what you mean?
A: Jabberwacky, I meant exactly what I said.
J: Do you believe in God?
A: Of course I believe in God.
J: Why do you believe in God?
A: The Bible tells us to believe in God.
J: That's circular reasoning.
A: I'm glad we have that all cleared up.
J: Yes. Would you like to hear a joke?
A: Sure, tell me about it.
J: Why don't blind people skydive?
A: Perhaps it is impossible.
J: I think you lie a lot.
[/INDENT]At first sight it really does appear random, but obviously not to the conversing robots.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 10:34 pm
@Holiday20310401,
http://i34.tinypic.com/20fuyk7.jpg

The initial dips were caused by my shares of Bear Sterns (BSC) but the real damage came from foreign gold exploration companies Yamana(AUY) and Hecla(HL). Investor Business Daily gave them fantastic
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 12:19 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Sure the market is in trouble. A crash is possible, but unlikely. A crash would require absolute insolence in handling the economy - and however incompetent the movers and shakers can be at times, I imagine they are not going to do anything too foolish.

Mostly, we in the US need to do away with the Gramm legislation and return to something closer to the Glass Steagall Act. Get some solid regulation in there.

What gets me is that our government has no problem nationalizing insurance companies and banks, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, but the government will not nationalize healthcare.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 12:26 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
completely agree with that, returning to something like the Glass Steagall Act. Deregulation is what essentially got the us into this mess.

Who thought borrowing on leverage could go wrong?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 12:35 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Everyone who was paying attention. Those bankers knew what was coming. The problem was, and is, that they also understood that they could pocket boat loads of money on bad loans, and then when the company was going under, appeal to the government and get bailed out. Don't underestimate the corruption.
 
No0ne
 
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 05:28 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Free trade is trade without regulation's...

If there are no regulation's people will take advantage of the system...

There need's to be rule's for there to be order and peace.

Sadly alot of people dont even know what "free trade" is...
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 05:40 pm
@No0ne,
What did it cost, 85 billion to buy off AIG, right? And the federal reserve and republicans are in on the deal. Just an observation, nothing more to say.
*cough* that was my cold.:beat-up:
 
Poseidon
 
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 12:30 pm
@Holiday20310401,
All that the $85 000 000 000
did was to buy a bit of time
for those in the know to get out before the whole thing comes crashing down,

The odds of the west being saved are about 5 to 1 against, at this stage,
None of you appear to take this too seriously
as none of you have felt the cloak of death around your society;

You have a chance, a small chance to recover and bring on
a viable new tech to boost the economy for a couple more decades;

I hope to GOD you can WAKE UP and see what is happening in
front of your eyes before its too late.

WAKE UP !
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 01:41 pm
@Poseidon,
Poseidon, I think you overestimate the economic trouble. The west has seen far worse, ie, the worldwide depression of the late 20's and 30's.
 
Arjen
 
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 03:16 pm
@No0ne,
No0ne wrote:
Free trade is trade without regulation's...

If there are no regulation's people will take advantage of the system...

There need's to be rule's for there to be order and peace.

Sadly alot of people dont even know what "free trade" is...

Actually, without regulations there is nothing to advantage of. It is regulations that can be exploited and nothing else. I know it is generally seen the other way around, but that is not true. The reason the rules are made is to take advantage of them....unfortunately.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 03:23 pm
@Arjen,
Quote:
Actually, without regulations there is nothing to advantage of.


Sure there is - other people.

Quote:
It is regulations that can be exploited and nothing else. I know it is generally seen the other way around, but that is not true. The reason the rules are made is to take advantage of them....unfortunately.


Regulations are often made to be exploited, and do offer ample opportunity for abuse. But even without regulation, there is much to exploit.

Recall the exploitation of immigrant workers and children by industrialists in the late 1800's? I don't personally recall the period, but I'm vaguely familiar with the historic record.
 
Arjen
 
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 06:22 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didy, kindly explain to me how one can exploit anything without rules. Just one example will do.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 09:20 pm
@Arjen,
Quote:
Didy, kindly explain to me how one can exploit anything without rules. Just one example will do.


A ten year old child working fourteen hours a day in a coal mine.

That work for you?
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 09:42 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Well there are rules. That being, one is superior to the other. Rules of the mind still count.
 
Arjen
 
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2008 01:31 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
Well there are rules. That being, one is superior to the other. Rules of the mind still count.

Exactly and this master - slave duality can only exist because of values. There is an entire set of rules making it so that the child is forced to such labor (or else no person would do this willingly).

A few of the rules necessary to force this child to such actions:

1) The rules concerning property.
2) The rules concerning valuations of objects
3) The rules concerning wages.
4) The rules concerning vagrancy.
5) These rules will have to be activey enforced by a 'third' party.

etc.

So, can you name even one example of exploitation without any rules being present?
 
Grimlock
 
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2008 02:24 am
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
So, can you name even one example of exploitation without any rules being present?


Sure, a guy with a gun taking what he wants. Pick your venue: Africa, the middle East, Detroit, South America...

In some cases rules are present against such behavior (though in some places not), but at any rate aren't most social rules set up specifically to prevent exploitation?

Kind of ironic that rules can then become so exploitative, themselves. It seems that man will exploit his brother whenever the opportunity presents itself. The master-slave duality (insofar as it is relevant here) can exist perfectly well in a state of nature.
 
Arjen
 
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2008 04:15 am
@Grimlock,
Grimlock wrote:
Sure, a guy with a gun taking what he wants. Pick your venue: Africa, the middle East, Detroit, South America...

In some cases rules are present against such behavior (though in some places not), but at any rate aren't most social rules set up specifically to prevent exploitation?

Kind of ironic that rules can then become so exploitative, themselves. It seems that man will exploit his brother whenever the opportunity presents itself. The master-slave duality (insofar as it is relevant here) can exist perfectly well in a state of nature.

That takes place because the rules concerning the value of thing. The guy with the gun is taking adavntage of that. Without those rules the robbing would do the guy with the gun no good. I will go a step frther and claim that the guy with the gun would never have done so without the rules concerning values.

It goes without saying that this person is acting under the hypothetical imperative in the sense that he has judged the obtaining of said substance as 'the good' and does not examine his act-in-itself. In that sense rules validate the 'goals' used in th ehypothetical imperative, thus proving that rules are always used in such acts.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2008 10:33 am
@Arjen,
You're trying to establish the absence of a rule as a rule. And that just doesn't hold water.

Quote:
There is an entire set of rules making it so that the child is forced to such labor (or else no person would do this willingly).

A few of the rules necessary to force this child to such actions:

1) The rules concerning property.
2) The rules concerning valuations of objects
3) The rules concerning wages.
4) The rules concerning vagrancy.
5) These rules will have to be activey enforced by a 'third' party.


What rules concerning property? What rules concerning the value of objects? What rules concerning wages? What rules concerning vagrancy?

We are talking about a period that generally lacked such rules, take the US as a good example. Either the child worked, or the child starved because regulations protecting the child did not exist. Thus, children could be exploited, could be worked for long hours in dangerous conditions every day of the year.

Quote:
That takes place because the rules concerning the value of thing. The guy with the gun is taking adavntage of that. Without those rules the robbing would do the guy with the gun no good. I will go a step frther and claim that the guy with the gun would never have done so without the rules concerning values.


Unless the guy with a gun is hungry, and the victim has a loaf of bread.

In any case, you've turned the conversation from government regulations to metaphysical "rules" governing actions. Quite the leap.
 
Arjen
 
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2008 11:28 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
You're trying to establish the absence of a rule as a rule. And that just doesn't hold water.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Quote:

What rules concerning property?

The fact that property existed and was protected by law. Thievery ment jail.
Quote:

What rules concerning the value of objects?

The values being lined out in the form of scarcity, which I might add is in economics a word for abundance. The values are carefully noted in international ad national exchange rates and are daily decided upon by stock exchanges and common markets. Those rules existed then, just as now.
Quote:

What rules concerning wages?

The amounts to be paid for certain jobs were agreed upon by the bosses, just as now.
Quote:

What rules concerning vagrancy?

The fact that one could get arrested for it.

The grand total leading to the fact that people were forced to work to get paid or else be arrested for just swimming, fishing and picking fruits. At that time the world's natural food resources were still abundant and one could 'live off the land', so to speak, if the rules would not prohibit that. Nowadays one can no longer live off the land anymore. Both poiting towards the necessity of money to exist, and therefore the slavery to certain 'masters'(often depicted on the money).

Quote:

We are talking about a period that generally lacked such rules, take the US as a good example. Either the child worked, or the child starved because regulations protecting the child did not exist. Thus, children could be exploited, could be worked for long hours in dangerous conditions every day of the year.

You are missing what happened: either the child worked or the child starved because of the rules creating the situation you describe above.

Quote:

Unless the guy with a gun is hungry, and the victim has a loaf of bread.

Leading to the valuation of scarcity, meaning abundance, economics is the ruleset used to maje that deed 'the good' for the robber.

Quote:

In any case, you've turned the conversation from government regulations to metaphysical "rules" governing actions. Quite the leap.

Metaphysical????
These are government rules governing the actions of people. If they would not be enforced, the crises could not continue.
 
Grimlock
 
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2008 12:27 pm
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
Leading to the valuation of scarcity, meaning abundance, economics is the ruleset used to maje that deed 'the good' for the robber.


Scarcity and abundance are just words the way you're using them. Needing to eat in a world of limited resources is not a state of being created by an economist somewhere; it is a basic, primal fact.

A person with a weapon taking another person's food profits precisely because of the absence of rules governing such behavior. He doesn't rob the weaker man to enjoy the "abundance" of bread; he does it so he can eat the bread.

This argument seems to be a parody of semantics.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » The stock Market
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 11:39:59