Working with your hands is better - page 22
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
You can still work with a kyle.
I'm going to argue that it's only with a pickaxe. Whoever disagrees is a jerk.
If you can't work with your head - use your hands, if you are not very good with your head, you can use a pick... If you are good with your head and also good with mechanics, you may try to operate an excavator - but if you are not good with your head, the latter is very dangerous ;).
:)....
Well, yes - you are the only one who graduated - no one else here has a higher education.... What a conceit.... Maybe you passed your B.A. in economics as well ;) ?.... Do you have your own thoughts, and not just quotes from university lectures? Do you trade in the market based on lectures or your own beliefs?
Good luck....
Vlad, I am never ceasing to be amazed at your ability to attribute your flaws in thinking to other people. You don't understand your interlocutor's thoughts correctly, and you start using literal terminology in your conversations, confusing yourself in the process. Frankly speaking, since our last conversation I haven't understood how the liquidity of a business may be measured by the liquidity of currency, I've thought it over and spit it out). Sorry of course I had to say it, but that's why we're mates))))))).
SZS: You are not an accountant by the way?
If you are not very good with your head, you can use your hands, if you are not very good with your head, you can use a pick... If you are good with your head and also good with mechanics, you can try "to control an excavator" - but if you are not good with your head, the latter is very dangerous ;)...
:)....
- Makes sense. The question is whether it makes sense to trust a program to drive an excavator.
Of course it is very convenient, but I still think it is dangerous. Even if the programmer is smart (I assume there are such people here), he should still be careful.
It seems to me that the question should be raised as to the degree of autonomy of the MTS , but not as to the appropriateness of its use.
Vlad, I never cease to be amazed at your ability to attribute your flaws in thinking to other people. You don't understand your interlocutor's thoughts correctly, and you start using primitive terminology in your conversation, and you confuse yourself. Frankly speaking, since our last conversation I haven't understood how the liquidity of a business may be measured by the liquidity of currency, I've thought it over and spit it out). Sorry of course I had to say it, but that's why we're mates))))))).
SZS: You're not an accountant by the way?
If you don't mind - correct me where the flaws in your thinking - that is where the logical contradictions are. Maybe you are right and I am missing something.
About liquidity - as far as I remember we were discussing the wrong thing ;) - We were discussing how an asset's liquidity affects its demand. More precisely, your first thesis was that demand for an asset is supported by margin trading (which, IMHO, is wrong) and your second was that liquidity is formed by supply and demand (which, again, IMHO, is also wrong). My answer was in the sense that demand/supply from investors (traders) holds higher for more liquid assets and this demand/supply does not form liquidity itself. Liquidity is the ability to buy/sell an asset at a market price at any given time. If there is an asset that can ALWAYS be bought or sold, then the demand for it from investors (speculators et setera) will be higher than for an asset that can be bought or sold with restrictions. What is unclear there ?
Now the question - what is it that I did not understand (what thought?) in that post to which I was responding?
>> Good luck.
If you don't mind correcting me, where are the flaws in my thinking - i.e. where are the logical contradictions. Maybe you are right and I am missing something.
As for liquidity - as I recall, that's not what we were discussing ;) - We were discussing how the liquidity of an asset affects its demand. My answer was in the sense that demand holds higher for more liquid assets. If there is some asset that can ALWAYS be bought or sold, then the demand for it by investors (speculators et setera) will be higher than for an asset that can be bought or sold with restrictions. What is unclear there ?
Now the question - what did I not understand (what point?) in the post I was responding to?
>> good luck.
You did not understand that the author of the topic already knew everything that was written in your posts, I do not think he does not know what a derivative is... That would be OK if you were just taking a liberty, but your first post sounded arrogant in tone, I think you just got nervous and spoiled the mood of the man ... why. I don't like it, so I spoke out.
And where we started the conversation, I remember very well, the question was about a method of creating new liquidity, not accelerating inflation and restricting the money supply, and not the method of maintaining the existing liquidity - intervention is the most clumsy method available to the regulator (the market maker, which you mentioned). So what is primary and what is secondary, you have to choose... I have the feeling that you are thinking in microeconomic terms, so I asked about the accountant and you did not respond.)
You did not understand that the author of the topic already knew everything that was written in your posts, I do not think he does not know what a derivative is... It would have been OK if you were just taking the liberty, but your first post sounded arrogant in tone, in my opinion you just got on your nerves and spoiled the mood of the man... why. I don't like it, so I spoke out.
And where we started the conversation, I remember very well, the question was about a method of creating new liquidity, not accelerating inflation and restricting the money supply, and not the method of maintaining the existing liquidity - intervention is the most clumsy method available to the regulator (the market maker, which you mentioned). So what is primary and what is secondary, you have to decide... I have the feeling that you are thinking in microeconomic terms, so I asked about the accountant and you did not answered.)
I see. I'll answer about the accountant - no, I'm not an accountant by training. I am a mechanical engineer and researcher. That was a specialty in the USSR :). Applied mathematics in mechanics, to put it simply.
About the tone - did not even think. The author of this thread confidently asserts controversial postulates without distinguishing between his own thoughts and those derived from other sources, which in itself is not correct. Perhaps about the tone you understood from the subsequent post, to which I was responding in the sense that the author wanted to enlighten us about university courses? He wasn't the only one who studied them. Where you see an arrogant tone I do not understand - if so, I apologize to the author - it was not my intention. As for thinking in terms of macroeconomic criteria - rather controversial area and while it does not help to earn in the market (at least for me) I try not to get into it. I will pay attention when it is necessary.
Good luck.
SZZ reread the first post again (you're referring to it): I don't see any arrogance... Maybe I don't see it well, but if I do, I apologize - it's not "good" in any case.
.... "I don't care", "don't bother answering" .....)
Why are you being so rude? I don't think we'll meet at the next championship, it will be more embarrassing for you. There was no discussion as I do not intend to stoop to your level.
You just have to learn how to trade hands on the demo - earning the right amount for life.
This statement is already a masterpiece.
Although, the sum needed for life is much easier to earn in the tester, so that you can sleep soundly at night and spend it in your sleep.
Please, please, without the usual lyrics and demagoguery. It does not matter what he trades and under what fat or thin circumstances. There is only one criterion - profit. And only profit. The only question is how to measure it.
I mean that profit, even related to something, counts differently on different instruments, including the costs of providing and selling. Besides, these words could have been said in some context, for example to hedge futures or contractual obligations.