Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Musashi

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Copyright
  1. We write about solutions to market shortages. You’ve pointed out non-traditional sources, and new off shore sources. My point was that IMO the most fertile fields were in improving efficiency. You asked for specific amounts, alas I have none for you. The major oil companies can’t even figure out how much oil they have. Just a few years ago one major company realized that they had overstated their reserves by a huge percentage. My best answer for you is “we will know we are out of oil when we run out.” But I would suggest that if the hand full of crazies that currently provide oil hold as much power as they do… running out can’t be far off. Agreed it is just a game, but their markets do have thousands of commodities, that hundreds of thousands of players trade. We believe there are price supports put in by the game makers on a few commodities. It is still an interesting sandbox to play in. Obviously you have a deep education in economics. You could dominate.
  2. Very well, I accept your views 4 to 1. By your standard, to be an Objectivist is to be an anarchist. Any form of dodge or con is “A OK” in your book. By your own standard please consider my reasoning as nothing more than a con, and therefore just as acceptable as any other point of view. Unfortunately it is not what I understood when I read Rand’s novels and essays. Her epic hero’s were NOT confidence men. Do you also embrace murder?
  3. In reverse, I believe you will see that I referenced an excerpt from “"Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" to respond to SoftwareNerd’s question. I have read it and I believe it sheds light on the topic. You are mistaken. Who said anything about making a person act against their will? Physical force can be used to end a person’s existence, but it can not make them act against their will. I claimed that Fame is a force, and that it can be abused. Further you claim this question was in the context of David’s original statement, it was not. Perhaps you inferred it in the subtext?
  4. Good one, yeah that electron spiel is pretty silly.
  5. Really? So the only force in the universe is physical force? I suppose when you spend too much time in the sun you don’t get a sunburn. But I do. Light is not a physical force. There are all manners of force. And any of them can be corrupted. Let’s say the physical force, is the scammer triggering the electrons to light up the computer display, and the light impacting the retinas of the “weak willed hero worshipers” that mindlessly act.
  6. In answer to your question, sort of yes, and definitely no. Certainly for the bottom sellers they have some responsibility for their loss, the pumper may have pushed the price down, but they decided to recognize the loss. Sort of yes. But what about the longs? The people that hold the stock and do not sell. The value of their asset has been reduced by the pumper. There was no willingness, or cooperation on their part, and yet they still lost money. Definitely not. The pumper can provide perfectly accurate information, and yet by the construction of their story create an illusion. Dwelling specifically on negative facts, and diminishing or failing to state positive information, paints a negative picture. And no, by the rules of the stock exchange this is not his right. Lots of everyday investors have been prosecuted for this type of scam. Heck they have even caught two man teams, that separate the dumping and pumping roles. It is not a new scam.
  7. Well your analogy breaks down at several points. First she should at least have a profit interest in the fashion she is endorsing. We can give her that. But most importantly the “long skirts” are a different product than “short skirts”, where a stock is a solitary item. Bad analogy, let’s stick to the original post. Your initial post is clear-cut, the famous person has a position to benefit and then takes direct action to move the market. Remember a market is similar to a herd of cattle. You only have to effect a small number of cows to get the whole herd to stampede. By virtue of his fame, this sort of scammer knows a small group of people will act upon his musing just because of the person’s fame. The small group, triggers a larger movement the price plummets. The famous person cashes in. They are using the force of their fame to commit a crime. And what if a dozen famous people decided to dump and pump, in sequence? Could they drive a stock price to zero? Could they pick a second stock and do the same thing? And a third and so on? Would you buy stock in this environment? I wouldn’t. And tell me how many other famous people have you seen running the “dump and pump” scam. Aside from this post, I have not heard of any. It is a simple scheme. Why do you suppose more people are not doing it? Let me help you - There are laws against it. Ah you are getting closer to the collectivists by the post ! This rational has a single-point economic perspective. AKA a stock has a true value. A loaf of bread has a “true price” and Uncle Joe sets the price. Any other price above or below the “true price” is speculation, and speculators deserve to be punished. The stock market does not work that way. The value of a stock at any given time is based upon the perspectives of the buyers and sellers. If someone intentionally uses the force of his fame to move that perspective it is a crime.
  8. Ok let’s break it down. Answer what does the ‘dump and pumper” (here forward called the scammer) give in trade to the stock holder that looses value as a direct result of scammer’s statements? In this instance there is no reciprocity, no value for value. Simply one party (a scammer) taking money because he can. You can call this a lot of things, I call it theft.
  9. How can you claim that a crime as simple as theft, is a valid right of any individual? What difference does it make, if I a first openly declare that I intend to steal from you and then I complete the act. There is little difference in this situation. The street calls this scam, “the dump and pump”. Many people have been prosecuted for this type of behavior. And returning to reason, I did not disclaim your assertion. I merely recorded my doubts about their validity. Obviously it will take an in depth investigation to determine, if Mark Cuban pushed the return key and posted this information on the web. For his sake I hope he didn’t, and further I hope he gets the benefit of the doubt until he is convicted. Actually I do identify with Objectivism, and consider myself to be an Objectivist. You as a stockholder have a right not to be stolen from. Market forces can reduce or increase your investment, but no one should be allowed to take part or all of your investment simply because they choose to. I think you need to revaluate your principals my friend. You are standing on the side of the looters when you support crimes against the rights of the individual.
  10. I know in other threads, folks have suggested that oil supply will go on forever, but it won’t. It is a finite resource, one that has been drawn down in Pennsylvania, and Texas, and California, and yes even Alaska. The domestic options for oil are limited in the US. Our best opportunities lay in gains in efficiency. Oh no. I see the opposite. The net margins should increase for oil companies, as you’ll have more buyers chasing a smaller supply. The only fair solution to a shortage is the free market. If you want my scarce oil, pay me more than those other guys and it is yours. The greatest need will always rise to the surface as this situation foments. And the big winner is the seller. BTW this type of situation happens all the time in our Eve universe. At Taggart Transdimensional we get to explore market volatility on a routine basis. Come try the game if this sort of stuff intrigues you.
  11. I cheer Mark Cuban too. As a basketball franchise owner he has done some very innovative things. Like creating sideline chairs that are worthy of the great players that sit in them. And making the “coaching” staff for his Mavericks team, three times larger than any other NBA team. He has turned around a team that consistently dwelled in the cellar of the NBA, and was headed towards bankruptcy. But in this instance if there is truth in this shorting scheme, I can’t applaud or agree with it. While it may seem like a purely free market maneuver, it is not. It would be one thing for a famous person to conduct a normal market transaction (say a short), and to accept the outcome as any other investor. However by advertising that he has shorted, he creates negative bias on the stock that did not exist prior to his declaration. In short, the declaration becomes an adverse event. And this event is solely under the control of this famous person. If this tactic were widely used, I think the entire stock market would collapse. How could anyone invest in a company, when at any time a famous person could sweep in: short the stock; make some negative declarations; close his position and walk off with a bag of money. It is theft. And I suspect Mark Cuban is not behind this link here or the scheme. I suspect someone is exploiting his good name to commit fraud. Cuban is not stupid, and he’s got ample legal advice. This scam is black and white, fall off a log easy to recognize as illegal. The penalty for a famous person convicted of this crime would make Martha Stewart’s sentence look like a weekend in the Hamptons. A wealthy man, like Cuban, is not going to risk going to jail just to make a little more money. He’s already got plenty of money. The person doing this will get caught. And a smart investor would do well to ignore the site. Unfortunately the investors with positions in these slandered companies will pay the price of this crime.
  12. If you get a chance, listen to Dr. Martin Luther King jr’s recorded speeches. Wow. There are no breaks, no ums or ahhs, no re-tracing his points; Just deeply reasoned and well-constructed monolog. Listening to his delivery of a speech is incredible. As I understand it he would give the same speech numerous times. I am not sure how precise his delivery was.
  13. The Islamic world is so diverse and decentralized, with a radical cleric, Sheik and Majlis on every street corner from Paris to Manilla. I don’t see how pounding a part of the community to dust, does anything but increase their zeal. I think this thing does boil over, and Iran will be the trigger. They’ve been rattling the sword for years now, and the rhetoric escalates. If Israel has had a nukes since the seventies then why not Iran? Iran has the money. They share a common border with country where nuclear scientist’s stand on the bread lines. We have long reached the point where, nuclear weapons can be purchased. Perhaps not in volume. I think one of the countless Majlis has bullets in his gun. If the conflict escalates to include Syria and Iran, there is a problem. We have seen that it only takes 30 to 60 days for the US to completely cripple an Afghanistan, an Iraq (2 times), and presumably a Syria or Iran (with forces in the region). And once the nation is crippled the noose begins to tighten for the old guard of bad guys. Iran will preemptively launch if attacked (use it or loose it). The question is where is the target?
  14. It is a huge challenge to construct a set of laws, that would address all the possible means and conditions where one person unlawfully and knowingly causes the death of another. If we could define an all inclusive law, it would be too vast to be commonly understood by all. (Heck I can’t even understand the tax codes). There is a huge degree of subjectivity (by lawyers, judges and juries) in the evaluation of evidence presented in a criminal trail and there is also subjectivity in the interpretation of the law. It is no secret that you get what you pay for. A rich man receives the benefits of justice, a poor man is punished by it. Ironically doesn’t this seem like a Randian outcome? The dollar is what matters. But does this lack of specificity, nullify the need to have a rule that says “don’t kill people”? No Clearly issues can be raised for any regulation, but the true question centers on the rights of the individual. Would the world with this regulation (and its inherent faults) bring the rights of the individual to a higher place?
  15. I am in the "nice in theory, and sometimes it works, and sometimes it goes terribly wrong." group. I think the regulation that cars travel forward on the right side of the yellow line in the US is a darn good one. I would stretch that “sometimes” in this instance. I am glad that this regulation is adhered to an extremely large percentage of the time. Of course if a hurricane is coming, and roads are vacant in one direction and grid locked in the other this regulation doesn’t make much sense. I can’t deny abuse and flawed design as possible outcomes of regulation. But that does not mean that the concept of regulation is incurably flawed. For one thing Government delegates the authority and power to enforce regulations.
  • Create New...