Your thoughts on trading and life are good to hear and if it works for you, more power to you.
The part I quoted above however, is incorrect....
The "zero-sum" theory to market efficiency is viable but unfortunately outmoded when applied to trading in a global economy as vast, complex and sophisticated as the one we inhabit. Rather [trading] is a qualified "non-zero-sum" event; whereby interest payments on the trades we make are how money is created out-of-thin-air ... exempting the involutional accounting by Central Banks of course:nerd:
In other words, the lending (ask) and borrowing (bid) rates inherent to every trade we make generates interest every time. An exemplary non-zero-sum dynamic b/c lending rates are always higher than borrowing rates. You see? The broker/lender owns the underlying asset; the trader/borrower doesn't. The broker either pays or charges the interest back to your account but it's capital that prior to hadn't existed anywhere before your trade was executed. It didn't come about b/c you either won or lost the trade with someone else the other side of it. This fundamental discrepancy is what I alluded to in my last post as "the generative power of leverage" as a matter of interest.
It's also a derivative of how banks make money. Otherwise, speaking of crazy accounting, I believe our economical zero-sum baby finds its only homage on a Central Bank's balance sheet where the "zero" represents a pivot point of "elasticity" for gauging the country's money supply. Of course that just goes to show that a non-zero-sum can be theoretically reduced to a zero-sum. (Hence thy "Tragedy of the commons" our Fed and Central Banks of the world have donned as their fate.) However the brutal fact remains, that if [zero-sum] were really the way it worked, then poor Bernanke would be w/o a paycheck from the Treasury
Well, I think he's still interested in keeping his job but that's just a speculation...
