Home   |   Browse       NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

Science vs Corporations - and the need to treat consumerism as a disease, and indeed treat it - find a remedy for it.   Share:  
Thrust of argument: I "am a scientist" - in my early education I was a prolific mathematician in relation to others, although biology, physics and chemistry were subjects I often enjoyed and did well at also, particularly in younger days when they were all one subject - as you grow older they become split up and the odds of one teacher boring the pants off you with respect to an entire subject increases for each subsection! Direction of resistance / implied resistance: At university (St Anne's College, Oxford) I was a linguistician, amongst other things, with Saussure and Chomsky on my reading lists, amongst others.


bp AT APPROX 468.90 bt AT APPROX 231.65 capita (at half strength)
AT APPROX 170.25 hammerson (at half strength)
AT APPROX 465.60 icag (at half strength)
AT APPROX 612.40 m&s AT APPROX 297.50 pearson (at half strength)
AT APPROX 696.20 sage (at half strength)
AT APPROX 701.20 standardlife AT APPROX 380.60 taylorwimpey AT APPROX 189.90 vodafone AT APPROX 200.90



Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:


Removal of resistance: After uni I gained much practical experience of computer sciences, having written many programs in my youth and been a programmer from a very young age, writing my first football game in BBC basic when I was 11 years old. Unification: Today, although I have kept up my area of computer sciences, which is web development as well as server programming (which has played a huge role in helping me with what I consider my 'main' science at the moment and perhaps for life) - today everyday I work in the area of financial science.

That is why there are on this site various examples, live ones, of what good or successful trading methods can consist of - how they work, potentially - although it makes it clear that nobody can actually guarantee a profit in the financial sector - nobody can.

If you sell bobajobs, for 20 currency units each, and you buy them all at 10 currency units, then before factoring in your rent and labour costs and so on, you can already 'guarantee' a 5 currency unit profit on that - that's the point - 'normal' business comes with a relatively reslient actual guarantee of income - in salaried jobs more so than most, in the short term, but longterm prospects of salaried jobs are a different matter.

When trading your actual guarantee that in hour x you will generate profit not loss, let alone quantify a profit, is nonexistent - you cannot guarantee that - it's not even true - sometimes you are losing something - at that particular time the attempt to guarantee not losing is dead - and it is not rational in our universe to imagine that any financial trader can do so without actually ever losing anything. So you see it's a different world - and a very tough science.

I have found that probability is one of the most important aspects of what I spend my time attempting to comprehend, utilise, etc etc.

I am satisfied that my 'basic trading method' run by me patiently and strictly by my rules will always give a person longterm profits, taking into account the types of crashes which human history has already seen. If a crash so immense that it melts down the entire financial sector permanently and replaces it with something else should occur then no doubt my basic trading method will be defunct - although I'm sure I'd set about looking to study whatever it had all been replaced with.

Currently I am also testing something which may be an additional method - a good one - one which outside of volatile periods can even be a successful 'day trading method' - although it's really only possible if the pricing and services offered by the third party (through whom you trade) are good enough - the model would have been possible for me 3 years ago but for costs which were removed in October of last year, perhaps in the run up to ESMA regulation - costs making the removal of risk too expensive for that particular method to work - at least as a day trading model - and had I not tested it apparently successfully in day trading form I would not have the confidence in the version of it which one can use even during immense volatility, safely, (eg right now, with the S&P's volatility still very high after rocketing upwards - perhaps falling soon or perhaps subject to more volatility but by no means calm). This version of it takes much longer, so having faith in the overall outcome is harder, unless one has seen it work in a faster form, across a hell of a lot of trades, and I have.

As for whether I will share this method with the public also, as I have done the day trading method - that is unlikely.

As for whether my robot will calculate possible triggers for you - it's not possible - because one would really need a live readout of data for that, ie every second counts when measuring what to do next. So it's nothing I can share, technically. But if it works out, if it is as 'correct' as my basic trading method - then perhaps you will see exponential upgrading and growth of tvhobo and its turning into a major commercial outlet sooner than is currently possible!

TVhobo is here to be a commercial media entity doing something useful for society.

My financial writing and demos on this site are part of that - financial science is a real science, as much as civil engineering is real physics. To scoff at it out of some alleged 'ethical' objection is to overlook many key aspects of the situation - from your own consumerism and whether or not you are qualified to cast the first stone to the very idea that any use of financial science is bad. Today's perversions of the financial sector's alleged purpose are an awful thing, and TVhobo is here to face all that with the strongest political, social and scientific arguments humanity can through at it - but as for the function of financial systems - it is absurd, at this stage of our history, to pretend that we would be 'better off' without any financial system or money - it is an evolution from what we once had (the wilder the beast, the better fed it was - that was long ago - monkeys hid in trees, ferocious beasts occupied the ground - they had priority usage. Today we monkeys live freely - how all this has happened is one thing, but the fact that instead of hunting or even gathering we only have to buy - is a great leap forwards. If many forces attempt to restore the previous ways of living, with most of us desperate and without enough money to buy, effectively like those who are less vicious and can hunt less callously - that's no reason to go back to knuckle dragging times. What has to be done is to overpower the fools and to install a better way - and that involves changes for most people too - consumerism is an addiction/disease most humans have caught. They have to treat that illness first.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns


Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

1 versions:

1. Server time: 19:6:35 on 12/2/2018

Related points:




previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid


Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.

Browse the index: 1 | 2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22