The Ethics of Trading - Is Trading Parasitic? | Page 3 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Predatory and Parasitic Trading 36 replies

Your Ethics 33 replies

The Ethics of Trading - Is Trading Parasitic?

  • #41
  • Aug 22, 2009 8:05pm Aug 22, 2009 8:05pm
Quoting GEfx
I am sorry, but your question is foolish. You need to study the bible before asking such a question. I do not mean to be rude, but come on.
Why would he need to study the bible? Maybe he can make his own mind up about what he will or won't do in his life?
  • #42
  • Aug 22, 2009 8:27pm Aug 22, 2009 8:27pm
Quoting GEfx
I am sorry, but your question is foolish. You need to study the bible before asking such a question. I do not mean to be rude, but come on.
Why do you think that such a question is foolish? Do you think that this or any similar scenario is impossible? The question is quite simple... if you were in that situation, would you steal or not?

Quoting GEfx
I'll answer, but I need some more information from you. Is the person that is stealing the food

A) Doing something wrong with justification (a good reason to do something wrong)?
B) What he is doing is right?
The person in that hypothetical scenario is you so you have to decide if you are going to steal or not. Those question are for you to answer, you have to make your own judgment.
I'm not insane; my mother had me tested.
  • #43
  • Aug 22, 2009 8:33pm Aug 22, 2009 8:33pm
Even if we observe that some people do follow different ethical rules (meaning ethics is perceived as being relative), we can still ask whether or not all people should follow exhibit universally preferable behavior.

Whatever metaphysical background a person has (religious, scientific, skeptical, etc), we should be concerned with his or her behavior and it's impacts.

By the way, isn't saying "it's all relative" using universality to show that universality doesn't exist?
  • #44
  • Aug 22, 2009 8:46pm Aug 22, 2009 8:46pm
Quoting ukmanthailan
Do tell him I thoroughly enjoyed his book and it was far less full of holes than the Bible.

But I'm not comparing contributions to mankind as you well know. I am saying that my source for this particular discussion is well documented and unless he made the whole study up, true. There are no such guarantees with the other book.

I do think we should not discuss it further though. From my personal experience, believers expect their faith to be treated with respect, but have no respect for other people's right not to believe - if they did then...
My friend, I am not suggesting that non-believers should not post here. In fact, I think it was a non-believer, in an earlier post, who stated that God should not be part of this discussion.

If you are not up to further discussions, then I understand. I respect your right to not believe, but have found no attempt on your part to show respect for me. Sorry to have hit a nerve with you so perhaps we are finished here.
  • #45
  • Aug 22, 2009 8:50pm Aug 22, 2009 8:50pm
Quoting wadams
Even if we observe that some people do follow different ethical rules (meaning ethics is perceived as being relative), we can still ask whether or not all people should follow exhibit universally preferable behavior.

Whatever metaphysical background a person has (religious, scientific, skeptical, etc), we should be concerned with his or her behavior and it's impacts.
Well there are some rules that are defined by law so there is a kind of code for acceptable behavior. Everything beyond that is pretty much a matter of personal freedom, opinion etc.

Quoting wadams
By the way, isn't saying "it's all relative" using universality to show that universality doesn't exist?
yup, sounds like an onxymoron to me
I'm not insane; my mother had me tested.
  • #46
  • Edited 12:54am Aug 23, 2009 12:41am | Edited 12:54am
Quoting ukmanthailan
I have to disagree with this too. I find it a little annoying when religious people say this sort of thing. Some of us do not need a higher power to tell us that certain things are wrong. I would not steal, rape or murder regardless of the existence of God, for example. I don't do those things because I feel they are wrong, not because of any other reason.
Amen to that.


I always love the age old dispute between the believers and non believers. I think I should open us one of those controversial threads titled God is not real... or something along those lines, just to invite all the debates
  • #47
  • Aug 23, 2009 12:44am Aug 23, 2009 12:44am
Quoting RoBiK
Hypothetically... your children are starving to death and there is a man with plenty of food, a lot more than he needs, but he refuses to give you some of that food to feed your kids.

Now a question for you (and i would also like to hear what LasVahGoose would answer):

Would you watch them starve to death or would you steal from the man?
Is your morale relative, and therefore depending on the circumstances, would you steal or kill...? or would you let your children die to uphold your morale code?
These little exercises in moral reasoning are easy to solve when the true aggressor and the true defender are identified. The man possesses food in abundance. By refusing to give (or sell) you the food he, the bad guy, is initiating an act of aggression by threatening your survival. It doesn't take a big stretch of the imagination to classify this clearly immoral behavior as attempted murder. By taking the food from him you, the good guy, are committing the fundamentally moral act of self defense.

Re the original question, I agree with Dopey. It’s child-like in its simplicity. If all parties entering into the trade are in agreement with the terms, and there is no coercion or fraud, then it’s moral. More precisely it’s amoral but in this context that would be splitting hairs. Let’s just say that trading is not immoral and leave it at that.

Describing trading as a parasitic relationship is just...weird! I would have to turn the question around and ask whoever believed in such nonsense; in a typical trade, who is the parasite and who is the host?
  • #48
  • Aug 23, 2009 3:37am Aug 23, 2009 3:37am
I could not find LasVahGoose's post....did he delete it?? why??
The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent.
  • #49
  • Aug 23, 2009 3:38am Aug 23, 2009 3:38am
Markets are so manipulated and full of traps to take the small speculators money, that anyone clever enough to beat it deserves his paycheck. An inexact but suitable analogy: Its like going into a casino and taking the house money by counting cards at blackjack. Moral or parasitic? Moral in my book.

What about paying taxes? Contributes to war. What about working for a nasty corporation? Violates the interests of the poor. What about being a waiter or a taxi driver? You have to take sh@@ for money, kind of like prostitution. So which way is there to earn money thats moral?

The system is immoral (or is loaded with large immoral components), we live in it, and peaceably make use of what we can to live according to the rules it has set out for us. I don't see how trading is worse than anything else, unless its managing a halfway house, or distributing free food and meds in some inner city or African wasteland. In the end, nobody is going to nominate you for sainthood for being an FX trader, but they won't condemn you either.
  • #50
  • Aug 23, 2009 3:54am Aug 23, 2009 3:54am
Quoting NewFX
exactly.

But morality is a relative concept. It differs from person to person depending upon their personal understanding of the subject. As evolutionary psychology suggests we make our decisions based on the environment we are actively participating in, our immoral (or moral) activities may be justified under the prevailing conditions. what is perceived as moral by the current society my look immoral to a person with more orthodox ideas.
In the end it all depends upon the frame of reference through which you are watching the movie....
So, in the end, everything could be called parasitic?

One day I hope to own a Lamboghini, even though that 4 cylinder sedan that does 60 kmph just fine will get me from point A to point B just as reliably. The money outlay for a Lambo would probably support me in relative comfort for a few years, no?

I guess, I don't care if trading is parasitic or not but I enjoy it and want to do it. At this time in my life, I want more and I want to do more comfortably.

But if we humans as a whole truly worried about these things would have have as many lobbyists as we do? The world is too big to worry about more than your little corner of it.

Sorry, I have had a couple of beers after today, probably not a really coherent post ... apologies to all!!
  • #51
  • Aug 23, 2009 5:09am Aug 23, 2009 5:09am
Quoting opie999
... By refusing to give (or sell) you the food he, the bad guy, is initiating an act of aggression by threatening your survival. It doesn't take a big stretch of the imagination to classify this clearly immoral behavior as attempted murder. ...
Are you being facetious? I really can't tell.
  • #52
  • Aug 23, 2009 5:17am Aug 23, 2009 5:17am
Quoting GEfx
The question presented here was about morality and trading. Seems the thread has evolved into a general discussion about morality. People, when left to their own devises, are basically immoral. If it were not for God's influence on us, then the world would quickly become (return to) a very dark place. This is why we discuss issues of morality all the time, asking question about right and wrong, etc. It's because our natural tendencies are towords immorality, so discussing it helps us stay on the moral path.
Your argument presupposes religion predates morality. Like everything else about religion, there is no proof of this. Morality does NOT need religion, and to suggest that one who is religious is more moral than one who is not is arrogant, stupid, and insulting.
  • #53
  • Aug 23, 2009 5:21am Aug 23, 2009 5:21am
To answer the OP, I don't think trading is parasitic. All parties participating in trading do so willingly and with (hopefully) the knowledge of the risk involved. If I were to get a parasite such as a tape worm, it was not a willful act on my part and I certainly didn't agree to it having it in my gut. As long as no one is putting a gun to your head and making you sell the Eur, then it's a fair deal all around. Just because someone is winning and someone is losing it doesn't alter the equation.
  • #54
  • Aug 23, 2009 5:23am Aug 23, 2009 5:23am
Quoting opie999
These little exercises in moral reasoning are easy to solve when the true aggressor and the true defender are identified. The man possesses food in abundance. By refusing to give (or sell) you the food he, the bad guy, is initiating an act of aggression by threatening your survival. It doesn't take a big stretch of the imagination to classify this clearly immoral behavior as attempted murder. By taking the food from him you, the good guy, are committing the fundamentally moral act of self defense.
Hello opie999, i agree with you that this is easily solvable as there is no genuine morale dilemma present (i think almost anyone would agree that saving a live is clearly more important than not to steal and therefore it is easy to decide what to do).
It was not my intention to present an ethical conflict, rather i wanted to show that in this case the morale is relative depending on the situation... to steal may be immoral in some situations but it must not be in others.

It was a reaction the this statement:
Quoting LasVahGoose
You might as well be a nihilist, since relative morality ultimately is a belief in nothing.
That is what i disagree with. In my opinion relative morality is absolutely normal. Different people can have different morale codes. Here are some examples from the western culture versus Islamic culture:

In Islamic countries polygamy is not unusual, but in western countries is polygamy not only regarded as immoral, it is also punishable by law.
On the other hand in western countries usury (lending for interest) is perfectly legal a by most not regarded as immoral but usury is prohibited in Islamic world.
I'm not insane; my mother had me tested.
  • #55
  • Aug 23, 2009 5:25am Aug 23, 2009 5:25am
Quoting ukmanthailan
Do tell him I thoroughly enjoyed his book and it was far less full of holes than the Bible.

But I'm not comparing contributions to mankind as you well know. I am saying that my source for this particular discussion is well documented and unless he made the whole study up, true. There are no such guarantees with the other book.

I do think we should not discuss it further though. From my personal experience, believers expect their faith to be treated with respect, but have no respect for other people's right not to believe - if they did then...
Hey, have you read the God Delusion by Dawkins? If not, I'm sure you'll like it. I just read it in Jomtien over my holiday. Yesterday was the beginning of Ramadan here in the UAE and I'm pissed to no end. Having others' imaginary friends dictate to me really pisses me off.
  • #56
  • Aug 23, 2009 5:31am Aug 23, 2009 5:31am
Quoting RoBiK

In Islamic countries polygamy is not unusual, but in western countries is polygamy not only regarded as immoral, it is also punishable by law.
On the other hand in western countries usury (lending for interest) is perfectly legal a by most not regarded as immoral but usury is prohibited in Islamic world.

Good posts. The usury thing is really relative to Muslims. Even though Christians are of People of the Book (for those who don't know, Muslims only respect the religions of Judaism and Christianity - if you're a Hindu or Buddhist they think you're a fucking idiot heathen who's going to rot in hell, but godamn it you had better respect Islam) they have no problem charging them interest here in the Gulf. I've tried opening non-interest accounts in the Islamic banks here and they refused to do so. Friggin morons.
  • #57
  • Aug 23, 2009 6:47am Aug 23, 2009 6:47am
This is not as clear cut as it may seem.

Quoting RoBiK
... i agree with you that this is easily solvable as there is no genuine morale dilemma present (i think almost anyone would agree that saving a live is clearly more important than not to steal and therefore it is easy to decide what to do).
How can someone's need give him a moral right to initiate force against another? Even if that point is conceded, where is the line drawn between mere want and survival need?

Let's take some not so hypothetical situations: Is health care a need? Should we rob others to provide it for ourselves and our children? What about education? Some people think that it is one of the most important factors in a person's survival?

In regards to the Opening Post, the person who needs to harm others in order to survive is, almost exactly by definition, a parasite.
  • #58
  • Aug 23, 2009 10:15am Aug 23, 2009 10:15am
As in the case of an agreed exchange between two willing parties, I agree that there is absolutely no question of morality there, a deal is a deal. For the large part though, huge numbers of people gain market exposure without a say in it. The stock market is sold to the public as a "safe" investment and has been for hundreds of years. Yet the game never changes, and those who know how the game works step in for the kill every time. Many peoples retirement funds are ploughed into the market whether they realise it or not.
  • #59
  • Aug 23, 2009 10:26am Aug 23, 2009 10:26am
I would like to add to this discussion.
Hard to speak of morals since everyone got their own.
I think that "parasitic" is relative. On a scale 1 to 10, 1 being less parasitic, (ex. growing corn for sale), and 10 being most parasitic, (ex. living off government handouts), I would place retail fx trading somewhere under 5.
Since the market is huge, there isnt really a subject of parasitism. Poor hedge fund lost $$$ to John the trader hence John is parasiting on a hedge fund? Not even funny. Though, John makes a decent living, consumes goods and pays off his mortgage, and there is no person to say "John, thank you for being here for me and doing great job, here's the cash for you!", as it would be(at least in some way), if John had a "real" job or "real" business. On the other hand, there are creatures like property owners, who collect rent for generations and dont know what jobs are, just because they are
on the title, they are far more parasitic that John, and my opinion they are far outperforming foodstamps recipients in their parasitism. There were human beings purchasing multiple houses to sell when price goes up(god knows I'm so
happy they got screwed), creating artificial demand and inflating prices, while hardworking folks in their neighborhood had to rent. Imho arguing its free market, in this case is highly "unethical". Imagine school bus driver selling heroin, because "it's a free market"? Thats not right, we all agree, and this agreement doesnt make us socialists, its just that we dont want our children dead. We dont leave people to die by the hospital door because they can't pay either, because we care for others and may sometimes act outsides of our financial interests. I think that housing should be, and on our lifetimes will be, regulated as well, (ex. taxed in such a way that one cant afford to have more than primary residence), this is not an area for profiteering, housing is an essential human right. Sorry for sliding off topic, and this may sound biased,
well it is because I lived out of my car for a couple years, because I wanted to be the change I want to see in the world Didn't want real parasites to suck my hard earned cash. So I think its still relevant to the question in the first post.
Back to the subject, imho unless one would be like a doctor or a police officer otherwise, I wouldnt bother worrying about parasitic properties of fx trading. There are too many things around that are so much worse, and nobody cares. Parasites are there for a reason, too. Now I wonder what divides a parasite from a predator, I mean its easy to come up with examples of both, but there may be no straight line between them, and fx traders may very well hang out somewhere in between these 2 classes. Glad to see traders concerned with things other than profits, I think this is very important for being successful.

Quoting GEfx
I am sorry, but your question is foolish. You need to study the bible before asking such a question. I do not mean to be rude, but come on.
Sometimes I walk down the street, and there's a pile of dog poop on the sidewalk. I just walk by. Now I wish I could do that same thing when I see poopy post on a forum, yet I cant resist replying, which is equivalent of jumping into doggy doo with both feet and then shooting dogs owner. Pretty silly, and I do need to work at this aspect of my personality, but for now here we go, sir:
"Sorry, but I think you need a ban for this. You say read bible, I say you're nazi. And please note I'm not rude, but come on."
Qqq Return Today: 0.7%
  • #60
  • Aug 23, 2009 12:49pm Aug 23, 2009 12:49pm
"The Ethics of Trading - Is Trading Parasitic?"

To answer your question, Mate, I would have to say, "YES". There is a winner and a loser. Some traders bust out. They lost it all. They were "eaten" by other traders.
1 trader viewing now