Bill GreenSHORT SELLING IS FRAUD
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.
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.
| 47 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
