%HTMLlat1; %HTMLsymbol; %HTMLspecial; ]> Naked short selling
Roland van Ipen­burg
To be stolen or blogged
BETA

Naked short sell­ing

Satur­day 29 May 2010 17:57

The blog frei­heit­denken.org usu­al­ly has good stuff, but I'm not buy­ing Robert P. Mur­phy's crap.

The eco­nom­ic the­o­ry is all OK, I'm not ar­gu­ing with that. But what we're deal­ing with here is the re­al­i­ty of a fi­nan­cial in­dus­try that some­how trans­lates that the­o­ry to the right to make a liv­ing out of how the econ­o­my or­ga­nizes it­self. Traders aren't peo­ple who are will­ing to get an­oth­er job when there isn't enough trad­ing to do to make a liv­ing, they will just keep on trad­ing to make more mon­ey even if the econ­o­my doesn't even need that trad­ing to func­tion prop­er­ly. In the­o­ry the econ­o­my needs traders to de­ter­mine the price of stuff, but do we re­al­ly need to sup­port a whole in­dus­try of traders to de­ter­mine the price of stuff hun­dreds of times per sec­ond with the ac­cu­ra­cy of frac­tions of a cent? No, only oth­er traders need that so they can make more mon­ey us­ing that data. The trans­paren­cy of the sys­tem has got­ten to the point where de­pend­ing on the scale you're op­er­at­ing at you're look­ing at a brick wall or through in­ter­mol­e­c­u­lar space. For those who can af­ford to mon­i­tor the mar­kets on the lev­el of in­ter­mol­e­c­u­lar space it's all trans­par­ent, while for the rest of the world it's about as trans­par­ent as a brick wall. It's hard to jus­ti­fy what's hap­pen­ing when only a cou­ple of or­ga­ni­za­tions can see through the brick wall, and call that trans­paren­cy.

"Bill Gates could spread ru­mors about Mi­crosoft and be­gin un­load­ing his huge po­si­tion." I hate Bill Gates as much as the next man, but com­pared to price ma­nip­u­lat­ing traders he's a de­cent guy. And what strikes me is that this ex­am­ple shows Robert P. Mur­phy's to­tal lack of ethics in this. Can't we as­sume Bill Gates val­ues the lit­tle trust peo­ple have in him more than a cou­ple of hun­dred mil­lion dol­lars? Are traders re­al­ly so­ciopaths that lie and cheat when­ev­er they think they can get away with it and make a quick buck? Just be­cause de­cent peo­ple don't do bad things doesn't mean the gov­ern­ment shouldn't be in­volved in reg­u­lat­ing those bad things and let a cou­ple of so­ciopaths ruin so­ci­ety.

"Go­ing the oth­er way, why don’t ma­nip­u­la­tive spec­u­la­tors spread pos­i­tive ru­mors about com­pa­nies?" Well, be­cause it's for ex­am­ple a bit eas­i­er to spread the ru­mor Steve Jobs has died than to spread the ru­mor he is alive again - even when it's Steve Jobs. And there is of course the psy­cho­log­i­cal ef­fect that fear caused by a neg­a­tive ru­mor re­sults in a much more emo­tion­al re­sponse than a pos­i­tive ru­mor pro­vokes. Robert P. Mur­phy's point just makes no sense, it only em­pha­sizes he's just spread­ing cap­i­tal­ist pro­pa­gan­da the sheeple that buy his books like to hear. They prob­a­bly also like to hear they are not stu­pid. But if they are all not stu­pid, who are they trad­ing with? Either you're smarter than the trad­er you buy from, or you're more stu­pid than the sell­er. You can't be both not stu­pid and do the right thing.

"Short-sell­ing vast­ly broad­ens the num­ber of peo­ple, and thus the per­spec­tives and in­for­ma­tion, in­volved in the pric­ing process." And all those peo­ple ex­pect to make a prof­it to make a liv­ing from be­ing in­volved in the pric­ing process? If I as an in­di­vid­ual won't ever need mas­sive amounts of for ex­am­ple rub­ber, how do I con­tribute to so­ci­ety by spend­ing my life gath­er­ing huge amounts of in­for­ma­tion and have a per­spec­tive about the rub­ber mar­ket when my only goal is to trade in it to make a prof­it so I don't have to get a prop­er job? At some point it just gets cheap­er to em­ploy all those "not stu­pid" peo­ple in a cen­tral plan­ning bu­reau and go for com­mu­nism as the pric­ing process. War­ren Mey­er doesn't like to see any­one who has a ca­reer as a trad­er has a per­son­al in­cen­tive to keep that ca­reer go­ing, whether the world needs it or not, try­ing to make mon­ey for no good rea­son in the big pic­ture.

Ban­ning naked short sell­ing isn't the right so­lu­tion, but if the fi­nan­cial in­dus­try doesn't see how it's in­volved in an arms race that is go­ing to cost more than the plan­et is worth they shouldn't be sur­prised some­one starts to get in their way in a man­ner they don't like or un­der­stand. And then hav­ing naked short sell­ing banned is prob­a­bly a bet­ter op­tion than be­ing burned alive in your of­fice by some rev­o­lu­tion­ary forces.

Soul­less bor­ing dorks…

:

Book­mark this on De­li­cious

Add to Stum­bleUpon

Add to Mixx!

Share/Save/Book­mark


:

Com­ment/Con­tact
application away browser buy cool data days different flash game gta html ibook internet linux movie open play playstation possible run screen server side site stuff system train web windows work

Blog Posts (418)

Image Gal­leries

ipen­bug Last.fm pro­file

ipen­bug last.fm pro­file

Fol­low me on Twit­ter

Roland van Ipen­burg on face­book
Lin­ux Regis­tered User #488795
rolipe BOINC com­bined stats

Sub­scribe

Add to Google

Valid XHTML + RFDa Valid CSS! Hy­phen­at­ed XSL Pow­ered Valid RSS This site was cre­at­ed with Vim Pow­ered by Bri­co­lage! Pow­ered by Post­greSQL! Pow­ered by Apache! Pow­ered by mod­_perl! Pow­ered by Ma­son! Pow­ered by Perl Made on a Mac Pow­ered By Mac OS X XS4ALL This site has been proofed for ac­cu­ra­cy on the VISTAWEB-3000 Creative Com­mons Li­cense
This work by Roland van Ipen­burg is li­censed un­der a Creative Com­mons At­tri­bu­tion-Non­com­mer­cial-Share Alike 3.0 Un­port­ed Li­cense.
Per­mis­sions be­yond the scope of this li­cense may be avail­able at mail­to:ipen­burg@xs4all.nl.