NATURAL INTELLIGENCE as the basis of a trading system - page 37
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 don't even like Kant anymore :-(. You should be ashamed, at least read his writings. Or for you Zhirinovsky is a star of thought and word
The first time I learned about trading was ...ny years ago from the film Invisible Man, where the hero is skiing in the final shots.
The second time from a newspaper - it said it needed English, but it was not explained that just buy/sell with the numbers clearly articulate.
The third time - started with MT-4 i.e. very late.
Special thanks for your forum thread about adaptive digital filters,
I was about to start digging and recalling, searching for old Fortran packages and dusting Forsythe and Tikhonov, but thanks to you I succeeded.
It's gibberish. Like Kant. You can say it plain and simple, but no, we're just tempted to get a little more convoluted....
I don't know in which of the 4 words of my question did you find a condescending tone? Is it in "respected" ?! :-)
And my question arose out of a kind of dissonance. Not so long ago you unilaterally took it upon yourself to refer to Better as "you" (it was you, wasn't it?). And now it turns out that Kant's language is gibberish. So I began to wonder at what age it is already possible to address people around you with the word "you", but Kant can still be incomprehensible. I hope I haven't offended you in any way.
Speaking of "old Kant".
The fact is that K. Marx's formula of supposedly surplus value is translated to us in Russian in a degenerate form - so, (allegedly again) Goods-Money-Goods, therefore the whole Marxist-Leninist economic theory in Russian language and in Russian space turned out to be degenerate, i.e. coming from a set of linearly dependent maxims.
In reality, in Marx our commodity is denoted by the word die Wert = value!
That is, the basic formula of Marx's surplus value is
Value-Money-Value.
Since Time is money, which we do not have (M. Twain), let us substitute
Value -Time -Value. (this is a trading formula).
So, what value are we investing (buy or sell), and what value are we gaining by spending time discussing Natural Intelligence as the basis of a trading system?
I don't know in which of the 4 words of my question did you find a condescending tone? Is it "respected" ?! :-)
My question arose out of a kind of dissonance. Not so long ago you, referring to your age, unilaterally took for yourself the right to refer to Better as "you" (it was you, wasn't it ?). And now it turns out that Kant's language is gibberish. So I began to wonder at what age it is already possible to address people around with the word "you", but Kant may not be understood yet. I hope I haven't offended you in any way.
so I don't think he had any complexes about "you" or "you".
I read Kant very, very long ago, when I was a student, but I still remember the sensation of gibberish - it's impossible to read it for an ordinary man without damaging his mental health.
And as to whether I've hurt you or not, it turns out that I'm with you and the majority of people from different worlds, different generations. It is very difficult for me to communicate here.
Speaking of "old man Kant".
So, what value are we putting in (buy or sell), and what value are we extracting by spending time discussing Natural Intelligence as the basis of a trading system?If the trade is going well - you admire the intelligence shown here, if it's not - all these clever speeches annoy you...
And on the other hand, where else can one take a shower, where to talk to fellow wrestlers...
By the way, we can also talk about old man Krupsky (who is lying in the mausoleum). He also has a direct and IMPORTANT connection - to stock trading...
If the questions of all the participants in the Topic were addressed to her, it would be a very wonderful Topic for her...
Let me explain in a bit of a lengthy way why Value - Money (Time) - Value is a trading formula.
K. Marx has an example of a market gap when in the morning everyone rushed to the bank for money and there was no money, and in the evening again everyone brought money. Marx took this example to substantiate the rottenness of the capitalist system. However, exchange trading as such did not yet exist in those years. Capitalism had failed Marx's predictions and survived by taking over the stock exchange, but communists did not know about it.
It's the same with the usual green bazaar - in summer, agricultural products are plentiful,
In autumn in winter - empty (remember the Soviet times).
However, a trader has come to the market and has been there all year round. The result is that in winter and summer the same colour, everything on the agricultural market is there.
The trader's value is in balancing the market.
The value that each trader puts into the market is his presence in the market, buy/sell, dilute the number of true sellers/buyers.
The value for the market is that traders are constantly buying/selling even when there are no producers/consumers.
I.e. once again, the value is for the trader to be ( not to supposedly invest the market and walk away).
The personal value of this value to the trader is this - it creates a sense of involvement in market regulation, it creates a personal brain tuning to the market globally.
And brain tuning, moreover, the ease of tuning to the world processes - is expensive.
When choosing an entry point, a trader can and often does fall into the state of "telephone, telephone - I am hungry".
But as soon as one thinks "is this war mine or not" and that's it, the obsession is over - consciousness expands to a safe level.
So, what value are we putting in (buy or sell), and what value are we extracting by spending time discussing Natural Intelligence as the basis of a trading system?
Not too agree with the arithmetic preceding this question, but as humour will do. :-)
As for the question itself, we certainly invest and we certainly derive value. Only this value is not measured in money or time, although it exists in time and can be used to make money. But the parallel with surplus value, oddly enough, is appropriate. Some come out of this discussion richer than they went in, though certainly not all. Maybe that's why these "not all" are so nervous about this thread: they're being clever, they're in the wrong business, etc.