The Ethics of Trading - Is Trading Parasitic? | Page 4 | 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?

  • #61
  • Aug 23, 2009 4:36pm Aug 23, 2009 4:36pm
Quoting opie999
.............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?
I don't really have an answer to this question, but I am reminded of something I saw a few years back.

It was just after 9/11.

The "markets" had been closed and where opening up for the first time since the actual event. CNBC had a trader on that day who had made a "boat load" of money by being short coming into this day. His position was triggered early in the morning of 9/11, as I recall. Maybe it was the 10th. Anyway, he told the reporter that he was NOT going to keep the profits because he felt like it was BLOOD MONEY.

Clearly, for him, it was obvious and easy to identify a parasitic relationship. He, as a trader, was the parasite and the bodies of the dead were the hosts.
Without VSA, you're playing checkers while the Smart Money plays chess.
  • #62
  • Aug 23, 2009 5:03pm Aug 23, 2009 5:03pm
Quoting NewFX
I could not find LasVahGoose's post....did he delete it?? why??
Yes, I deleted all my previous post from this thread, because I decided to focus my time and energy on trading. Thought I'd explain since you asked. All part of 'cut your losses short' since this thread will not change anyones mind and probably piss people off pretty good.
Don't wish it were easier, wish you were better. ~ Jim Rohn
  • #63
  • Aug 23, 2009 7:40pm Aug 23, 2009 7:40pm
Quoting wadams
This is not as clear cut as it may seem.



How can someone's need give him a moral right to initiate force against another? ...

In regards to the Opening Post, the person who needs to harm others in order to survive is, almost exactly by definition, a parasite.
Agreed. Once someone introduces the use of force into the argument, the argument is over. I'm not willing to debate someone's "right" to attack me and take my property. The only proper response to force is retaliation...with force. It's not debatable. So I hope the guy with all the food has a gun.

As for the guy with the starving kids, he made his choices and now he and his family have to live (or die) with the consequences of his actions. But the fact that he got himself into such a stupid situation doesn't give him any "right" to go around attacking some random third party that didn't have anything to do with it.

As for his kids... I'd advise them to abandon the dumbass and strike out on their own. Maybe they can get a job from the guy with all the food... who's obviously much better at dealing with the realities of existence than their failure of a father.

You like apples? How do you like THEM apples??
  • #64
  • Aug 24, 2009 12:15am Aug 24, 2009 12:15am
Quoting capitalist88
Agreed. Once someone introduces the use of force into the argument, the argument is over. I'm not willing to debate someone's "right" to attack me and take my property. The only proper response to force is retaliation...with force. It's not debatable. So I hope the guy with all the food has a gun.

As for the guy with the starving kids, he made his choices and now he and his family have to live (or die) with the consequences of his actions. But the fact that he got himself into such a stupid situation doesn't give him any "right" to go around...
Before I answer this I'd first like to point out that you're not answering RoBiK's original hypothetical question. Remember, you aren't the guy with the food. You are the guy with the starving kids. Also keep in mind this scenario is taking place in a vacuum. There are no jobs, no guns, no other people, no society. Just you, the starving kids, and the guy with the food. What would you do, Cap?
  • #65
  • Aug 24, 2009 12:36am Aug 24, 2009 12:36am
Quoting HiddenGap
Clearly, for him, it was obvious and easy to identify a parasitic relationship. He, as a trader, was the parasite and the bodies of the dead were the hosts.
Then he mis-identified the relationship. By definition a parasite gains benefit from a living host. When the host dies, typically the parasite also dies or moves on to another host. Btw, the most successful parasites in nature rarely kill their hosts.

Your anecdotal trader didn't want to be identified as a scavenger, an eater of carrion, not a parasite. Of course we're speaking metaphorically here.
  • #66
  • Aug 24, 2009 12:52am Aug 24, 2009 12:52am
Quoting LasVahGoose
Yes, I deleted all my previous post from this thread, because I decided to focus my time and energy on trading. Thought I'd explain since you asked. All part of 'cut your losses short' since this thread will not change anyones mind and probably piss people off pretty good.
I'm with ya' 100%, Goose ol' buddy. I really do enjoy these philosophical discussions, especially when the participants are as intelligent and civil as the ones in this thread (so far). But the weekend is over and the pips don't bag themselves...
  • #67
  • Aug 24, 2009 1:02am Aug 24, 2009 1:02am
Quoting opie999
There are no jobs, no guns, no other people, no society. Just you, the starving kids, and the guy with the food. What would you do, Cap?
Then the scenario assumes a totally different universe than the one we live in, thus making it inapplicable to any ethical argument in the real world. So I wouldn't do anything, since I live in the real world, not the impossible one described in the scenario.

If someone wants to make an ethical argument, it's not very convincing to start off with, "Suppose reality was totally different than the reality in which we live. Then what would you do if....(insert unrealistic situation here)?"
  • #68
  • Aug 24, 2009 1:16am Aug 24, 2009 1:16am
Quoting capitalist88
Then the scenario assumes a totally different universe than the one we live in, thus making it inapplicable to any ethical argument in the real world. So I wouldn't do anything, since I live in the real world, not the impossible one described in the scenario.

If someone wants to make an ethical argument, it's not very convincing to start off with, "Suppose reality was totally different than the reality in which we live. Then what would you do if....(insert unrealistic situation here)?"
Nice avoidance move there.

This is purely an intellectual exercise. It would be simple to add enough real world detail to make the scenario "possible" without changing its essential nature.

Can you answer now? C'mon, Cap. What would you do? Would you allow the food guy to murder you and your kids? Or would you defend yourself against his passive aggression?
  • #69
  • Edited 5:40am Aug 24, 2009 1:26am | Edited 5:40am
LOL. I think the point the 'moral relativist' are trying to make is that 'Stealing" isn't right or wrong.

Stealing - Taking what does not belong to you without permission.

I'll lay it out. Stealing is always 100% of the time wrong. It can never be made right. It's black and white, nothing gray about it. It is objectively true and no scenario can change it.

If man A steals bread from man B to feed his kids, he still did something wrong. Just because he stole bread to feed his kids doesn't magically making stealing 'RIGHT'. Two wrongs do not make a right.

You can argue 'justification' (a good reason to do something wrong), but a moral relativist would never say that it had justification, they would say it was right to steal.

Now let's really put the moral relativist to the test. My turn to for the hypothetical situation that we can find out who the real moral relativist are.

Let's now say Man B takes Man A to court for stealing his bread. It is shown that $10.00 of bread was stolen.

Should man A repay Man B for the stolen bread?


(I'm weak, I like a good argument)
Don't wish it were easier, wish you were better. ~ Jim Rohn
  • #70
  • Aug 24, 2009 1:43am Aug 24, 2009 1:43am
You're an evil one Mr. Goose!

'night!
  • #71
  • Aug 24, 2009 1:48am Aug 24, 2009 1:48am
Quoting opie999
You're an evil one Mr. Goose!

'night!
No sir, Moral Relativism is evil.
Don't wish it were easier, wish you were better. ~ Jim Rohn
  • #72
  • Aug 24, 2009 1:59am Aug 24, 2009 1:59am
Quoting opie999
Nice avoidance move there.

This is purely an intellectual exercise. It would be simple to add enough real world detail to make the scenario "possible" without changing its essential nature.

Can you answer now? C'mon, Cap. What would you do? Would you allow the food guy to murder you and your kids? Or would you defend yourself against his passive aggression?
Somewhat along the same line LasVahGoose's answer:

In this scenario, the only way taking the food is ethical is if it also ethical for the initial holder to take it right back. And then, for the parent to take it back. And then, for the initial holder to take it back. And, so on...

If we don't allow that back and forth in this hypothetical, then we are ethically inconsistent. Even if people are ethically inconsistent in the real world, we should at least set up consistent hypotheticals.
  • #73
  • Aug 24, 2009 4:26am Aug 24, 2009 4:26am
Quoting wadams
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." - Adam Smith

Even if it is good for the liquidity of commercial interests that we traders exist, we primarily exist for ourselves. To have it any other way would be to make yourself the slave of others.

Actually, trading should be thought of as the most ethical vocation. The only actions are consensual, voluntary exchanges. In every transaction, each side, based on their own circumstances,...

Well put, enough said.
  • #74
  • Aug 24, 2009 7:57am Aug 24, 2009 7:57am
Quoting ThePipDoctor
Is trading moral? Is it parasitic? How do you rationalise it?

Comments?
we don't have to rationalise it... that's up to the politicians and regulators and they are very busy with ethics right now.

if trading is immoral it will change over time because most people try to do the right thing (yes i am an optimist)

i most extreme cases this means when muslims rule: no women trading, christians rule: no gays on tradingfloor, atheists...trading on sunday.

and about parasites... who is the host??? we look at price from interbank market so i guess this market is the host.... if they get sick they will shut the retail market down. i think retail parasites are nice litle snacks to them and the brokers.
even with my eyes open i cannot see everything
  • #75
  • Aug 24, 2009 11:48am Aug 24, 2009 11:48am
Quoting opie999
Nice avoidance move there.

This is purely an intellectual exercise. It would be simple to add enough real world detail to make the scenario "possible" without changing its essential nature.

Can you answer now? C'mon, Cap.What would you do? Would you allow the food guy to murder you and your kids? Or would you defend yourself against his passive aggression?

Are you seriously calling a random person who is just living and leaving everyone else alone... a murderer? Really?

My answer is that it's absolutely 100% wrong to attack, steal from, defraud or in any way violate the right of the guy with the food to be left alone.

Now I'm already aware of the demagogic trap that's waiting for me with this answer: "Ahh, but have you ever been in such a situation? How do you know you would stand by that ethical code, and not give in to hunger... blah blah blah." And the answer to that is... so what? An individual's inability to stick by an ethical code doesn't change the morality of the code.

Maybe I'd go nuts and abandon my code, in which case I would support the food guy's right to defend himself against me (and I hope he wins). Or maybe I'd have the strength to stick by it and take the consequences. Maybe I'd shoot myself to avoid breaking first. But none of those choices change the fact that it's wrong to steal from the guy with the food.

Anyone who argues that it's ok to steal from the guy can't be properly answered by a counterargument. Such a person can only properly be answered by silence... or force.
  • #76
  • Aug 24, 2009 12:44pm Aug 24, 2009 12:44pm
Quoting capitalist88
Are you seriously calling a random person who is just living and leaving everyone else alone... a murderer? Really?

My answer is that it's absolutely 100% wrong to attack, steal from, defraud or in any way violate the right of the guy with the food to be left alone.
I concur. My idea would be to convince the person using my arguments (nothing fraudulent) to give food to hungry by his wish. If he is convinced he will give food otherwise not. Taking the food forcefully would be breaking one moral law for another. Then we should think about the preference of one moral over another which is also a relative concept and subjected to prevailing conditions. This idea is studied in a section under criminal psychology in details, some criminals (specially terrorists) are created based on the mentoring to defend the highest moral law.
The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent.
  • #77
  • Aug 24, 2009 2:15pm Aug 24, 2009 2:15pm
Quoting capitalist88
Are you seriously calling a random person who is just living and leaving everyone else alone... a murderer? Really?
But he's not just a "random person". He is The Food Guy. You've already asked him for food, perhaps even offering to pay for it. By refusing, he is committing the most immoral act of allowing your death. You most certainly will die by his act of refusal. What else can you call it but murder? Food Guy committed the initiatory force (act of refusal). You now are fully within your rights to defend your own life.

Let's compare to an analogous scenario. An Olympic class swimmer is standing poolside and passively watches a child drown. He does nothing to save the child's life. Just another case of a random dude minding his own business?

Quoting capitalist88
My answer is that it's absolutely 100% wrong to attack, steal from, defraud or in any way violate the right of the guy with the food to be left alone.
Of course I agree with that. But I would also say your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. You do not have the moral right to allow someone to die when it is easily within your power to save him. In the case of our Olympic athlete, the popo would be asking him some very pointed questions as the EMTs were taking the kid to the morgue.

I agree it's never ok to steal. It's always ok to defend your life against aggression even if the aggression is passive in nature.
  • #78
  • Aug 24, 2009 3:05pm Aug 24, 2009 3:05pm
Quoting opie999
You do not have the moral right to allow someone to die when it is easily within your power to save him.
Yes I do. And so do you.

Quote
I agree it's never ok to steal. It's always ok to defend your life against aggression even if the aggression is passive in nature.

There is no such thing as "passive agression." It's a contradiction in terms. Words mean things. Physical force is defined by Newton's second law, and is measurable. Neither the food guy nor the lazy guy at the side of the pool initiated any form of physical force against anyone.

They just want to be left alone. Anyone who refuses to leave them alone is the aggressor. Anyone who refuses to leave them alone has initiated force, and deserves to be met with retaliatory force.
  • #79
  • Aug 24, 2009 3:47pm Aug 24, 2009 3:47pm
Dude, reading your post here tells me you do not believe in moral relativism, so why would you defend it?
Moral Relativism basically is saying right or wrong is only depended on the persons belief of what right or wrong is. Another way of saying it, there is no standard objective right or wrong.

You obviously believe there is a standard of right and wrong, so how can you possible believe in moral relativism?



Quoting opie999
But he's not just a "random person"....
Don't wish it were easier, wish you were better. ~ Jim Rohn
  • #80
  • Aug 24, 2009 4:26pm Aug 24, 2009 4:26pm
Quoting capitalist88
Are you seriously calling a random person who is just living and leaving everyone else alone... a murderer? Really?

My answer is that it's absolutely 100% wrong to attack, steal from, defraud or in any way violate the right of the guy with the food to be left alone.

Now I'm already aware of the demagogic trap that's waiting for me with this answer: "Ahh, but have you ever been in such a situation? How do you know you would stand by that ethical code, and not give in to hunger... blah blah blah." And the answer to that is... so what? An individual's...
Yes, silence and rage, the earmarks of fundamentalist thinking and behavior, such as those who wind up bombing abortion clinics. You imply that its wrong to steal someone's food when you are starving, but argue that its ok to respond with violence in the name of self-defense, or defense of your own property, which you may or may not have to spare. There is a glaring inherant contradiction contained there.

For the starving man who has nothing, he himself is only acting in self defense in stealing the food-he is defending his right to stay alive. To do that he must commit a percieved wrong.

For the man who is being robbed, he may choose to act in self defense, most likely from a point of lesser neccessity, and kill the man who is stealing. This amounts to the same thing-he must commit a percieved wrong to defend himself.

You call the idea of putting yourself in the shoes of the starving man demagoguery, but the truth is that you only project yourself into the role of the man who is being stolen from. You know what it is to have things, but you don't know what it is to starve. How can you begin to judge the peniless starving man, who in truth you know nothing about, from a point of moral highground, and without the least bit of compassion? What should we say about his situation? Well, gee, that sucks and all, but...

Absolutism doesn't define morality- understanding and compassion define it. Love defines it. Things like that.. Absolutism only attempts to put morality into a box on which it is written,"This is what it is", but on which should be written,"This is what I think it is and don't you dare differ in your opinion from my own". Is that attitude itself morally correct?
0 traders viewing now