September 22nd 2008 00:47
Short selling on the market is fraudulent. To sell shares you don't own - in a gambler's move - so you can buy them when they hit a lower price and then pass them on to the first purchaser is blatant misrepresentation.
In any other marketing field you would be facing a prison sentence. Imagine selling a house you don't own, or a car you don't own, and then explaining to the authorities that this was just another way you dreamed up of earning money. You could explain that you used a model that operated successfully on the stockmarket: see how far it gets you.
The fact that governments have trusted our money (superannuation) to a system that is embracing this technique is remarkable. Now we find as the markets are flapping around in panic that the government move to stop short selling may indeed mean that share values continue to plummet. Attempting to find the reason I rang an economist on one of the metropolitan papers and he told me there would be no loose change flying around to allow players money to buy. That may mean of course to buy from those who are selling, but do not own, stock.
The real dilemma is that if this marketing technique is a valid foundation of the market what other practices exist in the shadows to help marketeers defraud us? Do we really have to give up portions of our money to a superannuation system that promotes fraudulent practices?
I was in a superannuation system for a number of years but then decided to live by writing and creating my own brand of superannuation by buying art. The results were moves thousands of percent higher than any stockmarket. I purchased because I loved the pieces and that is a pretty trusted way of achieving an art collection. It was also a way of collecting cheaply.
September 16th 2008 23:52
Kevin's political strategies are becoming soft. The latest illustration is asking Malcolm to join him in scheduling a time frame for Australia to become a republic. A quick surface look at such a proposal could indicate that he had Malcolm in a bind. Should Malcolm refuse such generosity; could it be only a disarming move?
What it does mean is that Kevin does not know Malcolm. The new man is rat cunning, knowledgeable, emotionally intelligent and something of a charmer. He instantly turned the offer into an attack on Kevin. As the convenor (or driver behind the 99 push for a republic) he has surrounded the issue. He pointed out that no one in Australia would vote for a republic while the present queen was incumbent (alive? Is she?). Hadn't Kevin researched that? So the offer substantially blew up in Kevin's face. Not that he recognised that. DIDN'T FLINCH OR HAVE A COMEBACK.
September 14th 2008 04:43
America has already lost the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. You didn't really know there was one in Pakistan did you?
Well, it's begun already. Pilotless aircraft are bombing outposts in the mountains. Because the bombers are pilotless they have no idea who they are taking out. It's making the Pakistanis very angry indeed. They're claiming there has been no declaration of war against them.
America is bombing because they were taken for a ride by Musharaf who accepted hundreds of millions of US dollars to rid the border country of terrorists. Problem was that Musharaf was co-operating with the terrorists for he was frightened he would be assassinated by them if he conducted successful operations.
The Americans chose to believe him because they imagined that if they paid him enough he would have to respect them. They didn't understand that for subversives the opposite is true.
And Afghanistan? Well the US have forgotten the guerilla war that was conducted against them in Vietnam. There is nothing to win in Afghanistan. If you imagine there is, please detail it. You might say hearts and minds and the goodwill of the people, but it is very difficult to get those when you are carelessly killing their relatives.
Bill Green
Comments (2)
Add Comments
Read More
