The Ethics of Trading - Is Trading Parasitic?

Help me understand your point here. We are not discussing what should or should not be done. We are discussing the morality of stealing.

So what you are saying is that 'stealing' is not right or wrong, that it depends? There are times stealing can be right and there are times stealing can be wrong?

See I don't believe that. Stealing is always wrong. Look, a starving man must do what he must do to survive, but the fact that he does steal to eat, doesn't make the act of stealing right.

Now the moral relativist say that stealing becomes right in this case, which I cannot agree. Stealing is either always wrong or always right, but it cannot be both depending on what one person thinks or feels.

If you would be so kind to answer my question in this post:
http://www.forexfactory.com/showpost...8&postcount=69

It will help me better understand your perspective.

mho. is ethics is not a universal rule, it;s personal.

for me the only rule is "do not do to others what you don't want them to do to you" english is not my language but this wiki is about logical ethics that makes sense to me... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

this is summary: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"

i realy believe that black and white thinking is wrong.

Boy, this discussion has really evolved into...something. You all probably know that the definition of stealing has evolved over time. At one time, about 2000 years ago, taking food from someones farm or orchard in order to survive was not considered stealing. If caught, the farmer could hold the person taking food for payment, but the law would not consider it stealing. Different societies have held different definitions for stealing.

There are two commandment covering stealing. If you believe in God, it would be best to not do it and think of another solution. If you do not believe in God, you should not really give a crap -- steal all you want because in the end, it does not matter.

By the way, it is not immoral to defend yourself or your property. As for abortion clinic bombers, they may stand on pretty firm moral grounds but not on very strong legal grounds. Throwing around terms like demagoguery, just weakens this discussion. Finally, understanding and compassion do not define morality, but define societies response to immorality. That is, if you believe in God. If you do not believe, then none of this matters at all, except for some arbitrary discussion of what is acceptable behavior at this point in human history.

Nobody is saying whether you should be mad or not. There are examples of universal ethics and morals. Stealing is one of them.

Stealing is always wrong, whether you believe it or not doesn't change reality. Just because you decide to wake up hungry one day and decide stealing is right, doesn't make it so.

OK, to put things within a more logical type of framework. The first problem that I have with your stance is that you make the attempt to separate the idea that you have of stealing-"Stealing is always objectively wrong", from the fact that you are the one having the idea. Nothing is anything in itself apart from the way you have been conditioned to see it, from what you yourself have shaped it into.

Here is an idea you have from a certain perspective of self that you can't extricate yourself from while having the idea. That isolated perspective and whatever comes from it is simply not applicable in some universal, objective fashion as you would assert. Everything is inherantly relative from the point of view of the mind because the mind dwells in its own little isolated space, not in union with other minds, at least not on a conscious level.

For this reason, if your talking about weather its always wrong to eat frog soup for breakfast, or always wrong to steal, you wind up in a contradiction. You might say, I think its always wrong for me to steal, even if I'm starving and naked on the street in dead of winter. But you can't turn the concept into a universal ideal- no such things exist. At the universal level what is there? Maybe space and something beyond energy, beyond mind.

So relativity is the nature of the mind and the nature of the human condition. Through human extension, communication, tolerance, love, understanding, our little ideas our shared with each other and we can live together peaceably.

As regards your theoretical situation. My feeling is the two men should talk it over and come to some agreement between themselves.

Take Care.

It depends on your belief in God. If you believe in God, then "Thou Shall Not" seems pretty clear, so in matters pertaining to those items the answer to your question is, "Yes, absolutely, 100% correct." Many people today don't like that answer, but that does not make it untrue.

By the way, this is just a discussion on these topics, and I have not heard anyone here demand that there beliefs be adopted by all who post here, so lets everyone take a deep breath and chill out a bit, ok.

I was not aware of that, please enlighten me. Since there is only one definition of stealing.


Please dude... How can a farmer hold someone for payment of something if they didn't steal (take what wasn't theirs) it in the first place? How can they be 'caught' for not doing anything wrong?

LOL -- you study history for a few years and then you will learn something new. Start with ancient history and social development. Man, you guys are tough here, but I will not do your work for you. By the way, anyone who quotes Ronald Reagan is ok by me!

This is a great post, not because I agree with any of it, but because it demonstrates how a person's ethical code is derived from their metaphysical and epistemological views of the world; objectivism vs. subjectivism. Ayn Rand was right. There's a philosophical hierarchy that flows from Metaphysics down to Epistemology down to Ethics down to Politics and Esthetics. Tell me a person's metaphysics, and I'll tell you who they'll vote for and what their favorite movies are.


But now that the Kantians have arrived waving categorical imperatives around, it's sadly time to go on to something more productive. Now where ARE those widows and orphans I was going to exploit this afternoon...

Global currency trading is equivalent to world world 3, 6 days a week.

There is no morality involved. Because there is no obligation on you to provide for the greater good. There is only self-interest.

You can only be a parasite if it's a one-way relationship. You think its easy to suck blood out of the markets? In trading, you can draw from the ATM, but the ATM can draw even more back from you. So no, it's not parasitic, it is war. You're in a global boxing ring with the heavyweight champions of the world, and you are only standing at ankle height. Does that mean they will ignore you? No, because they are trying to knock EVERYONE out, including you. Jab jab jab SWING! Ow there goes my stop, how did they guess it was there.

So don't think too hard about it, there's no need to rationalise.

To put in another practical perspective - you are running your own marathon; you should be focusing on SURVIVAL - your running technique and keeping one foot in front of the other, instead of (ultimately useless) philosophical musings on the morality of beating other competitors... All philosophy is useless unless you put it into practice, and unless you intend to provide for the greater good of all traders by throwing your hard-earned money at us in this instance it will be useless - ultimately despite all the hot air blown about morality, you will still trade as a self-interested entity only. (That's not to take anything away from philosophy as an interesting diversion/pasttime). It's time to move on and refocus back onto the business of trading.

Chngster

Here's a interesting related article written from the point of view of the Torah:

How Far Is Wall Street From Las Vegas?
Jewish ethics of stock-market investment and speculative activity
By Rabbi Asher Meir

As a conclusion, the article says:

"... our sages were concerned that one particular kind of speculation--namely, betting on disaster--may sometimes have a negative effect on the solidarity of our society.

Most kinds of speculation are not regulated by Jewish law and are considered perfectly acceptable. However, each individual speculator should occasionally make sure that he has not created a situation where he is "betting against the home team" and subtly alienating himself from the community."

I thought the crux of the original question was whether or not Forex trading can make life difficult for non traders - and this seems to have been missed in the discussions, interesting though they have been. The implication is the Forex trading is parasitic, and the host is whichever country's currency is being traded.

When trading so called developed currencies, we may argue that this is not really hurting anyone and conclude that this no parasitic. But is this really true?

By betting on the worth of a currency, we effect it's value. This in turn effects everyone who works with that currency, outside of Forex trading.

Our trading effects interest rates, international trade, the guy down the street who imports peanuts from overseas, donations to foreign aid, imports of food etc. The chain of this effect, includes directly, real lives.

At what point can we say we are not responsible for the lives that our trades touch? - or is this indeed not a valid question?

BL

Great question and I feel that this is one of those issues that are very controversial but they really shouldn't be. The only reason why speculation is controversial is because there are lots of uninformed people making opinions, writing books, even making documentaries and what not, without really understanding the nature of this activity.

I don't like to call myself a "trader" because I feel that this word is a euphemism for the word that, in my opinion, best describes us: speculators. When I use the word trader, I feel that I'm hiding something, as if I were embarrased of what I do. "Let's not say the S word, guys. Let's just call ourselves traders." When I use the word trader, I feel that the enemies of speculation win a small battle. We're kind of admitting that what we do is wrong. Therefore, every time I explain to someone what Forex is, I always use the word speculation. That's right, I'm a speculator. I freaking speculate. And you know what? I'm freaking proud of it. Why? Here's why:

People often see speculators as parasites who do not provide anything to the economy, and who are only making money out of other people's work. And the reason why we are seen as non contributting parasites, is because the service we provide is not easily seen. But actually, our service is one of the most important for the well-being of the economy.

Like some people said, we provide liquidity to the markets. That means that we are there to take the risks others don't want to take. And we could write a lot on the advantages of that. But I want to take this post in a different direction.

In my opinion, the most important service we provide is one that is very often overlooked (in fact, I don't remember ever hearing anyone mention this): we generate INFORMATION. Or better yet, we provide easy-to-read information in the form of PRICE.

People don't really understand the huge importance of price. Want to ruin an economy? Mess with prices. Prices are not just arbitrary numbers. There is so much information behind those numbers. Those numbers are a summary of all the other available information in the market. We are constantly getting tons of information, and without prices, it would be almost impossible to understand the whole picture. This is where we, speculators, come in: we take all the separate pieces of information and code them into a simple and yet so complex number: price.

And why is it important to have prices? Because prices tell the rest of the market what to do, and what not to do; where to invest, and where not to invest; what to produce, what to save, what to spend. How are investors going to know on what fields to invest without a price?

Prices tell us in an easy way, how good or bad something is. They unmask the true state of things. And that is why some people (cough, governments, cough) don't like prices. They give away "inconvenient information". How did the world know about the mess Greece got into? Who took that information out for the rest of the world to see? Who told them the king was wearing no clothes? You're welcome.

Can you imagine a world without speculation? People would be investing money in unproductive fields all the time. Maybe some would continue to lend money to irresponsible governments, only to later find out that all of their savings were gone. We are the ones keeping that from happening. Unfortunately, our service are not fully understood, and we are often pointed at by others.

Speculation is not only not bad, it is necessary. Without speculation and speculators, we would be in the dark all the time.

And I'm not defending speculation only because I'm a speculator. If anyone ever proves to me WITH FACTS AND LOGIC that what I do is ethically or morally questionable, I'll stop doing it. And I really mean that. But as long as the arguments against speculation continue to be as ridiculous and fallacious as they are and as long as those arguments continue to come from ignorant people who don't even know what a short trade is, I just won't pay attention to them and I'll continue to do what I love and I'll continue to provide my services to those who need them and use them (even without realizing it).

Speculating / trading is a lot like prostitution.
If you are NOT a losing trader, you are not doing your job. Bad on you.
To be of benefit to a society in a free market economy speculators MUST LOSE.
90 % of traders are doing their job to help the economy -- they facilitate price discovery and provide liquidity for the benefit of the producers.
Speculators / trades are a necessary evil. They are the whores of the financial world. And in the same way as in prostitution, a market economy must tolerate traders -- as long as they fulfill their role, that is, to lose.

In the end we all want to make ourselves happy until our time to leave this existence is at hand. From my perspective, morality is largely a system of complex ideas that at some point come back to the simple question "will this benefit or harm me?".

The trader is simply doing his/her job. A job that requires an amoral stand. Also, who's to say the trader doesn't give to charity?