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

Nobody knows. That's the point.   Share:  
Thrust of argument: In episode 799 of the Keiser Report, Stacy Herbert explains 'there's a never ending supply of chumps who want to give you their money and believe your story that you're gonna somehow make them rich'. Direction of resistance / implied resistance: And Max Keiser explains 'The rule on Wall Street is to shear never slaughter. Shear don't slaughter. So you have a book of clients, just constantly shear them every day - skim money off the top of your client book, but don't kill them, don't slaughter them'.

 

I WOULD TRADE NOW ON:
bae (at half strength)
AT APPROX 565.00 capita (at half strength)
AT APPROX 486.20 centrica AT APPROX 145.00 directline AT APPROX 358.70 g4s AT APPROX 252.90 gkn AT APPROX 298.40 glencore AT APPROX 343.00 m&s AT APPROX 319.30 rollsroyce (at half strength)
AT APPROX 839.50 rsa (at half strength)
AT APPROX 601.00 standardlife AT APPROX 417.90

THIS IS NOT TRADING ADVICE. CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS.

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: Patriarchy and jingoism are the key ingredients to ensuring the chumps remain deluded. A great deal of the time you may see instrument or currency x suddenly fall a lot, and then it goes back up a tiny bit, and the degree of change is reported with the same strength of language in the media - so a drop of 2000 is reported as a fall and then a rise of 150 a 'rebound' - ie the reader is deceived by the media and its emotional hysterical tactics into perceiving the word 'rebound' as 'regain' - ie to imagine that of the 2000 lost, much has been regained. In fact if it drops 2000 and then 'bounces' up a few hundred that does not mean anyone can hope that it will not then go down a further 1000 - all instruments move in a zig zag most of the time, yet 'journalists' reporting events often report part of a zig zag as though it's a new zig zag. When even most of the traders are scientifically illiterate, what can we expect, though? Unification: Herbert informs us that Marketwatch.com writes 'research shows, over and over, that stock brokers can't do anything demonstrably valuable. They don't know which stocks will go up or down and when. They don't know which asset classes will outperform this year or next. Nobody knows. That's the point'.
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

2 versions:

1. Server time: 13:30:6 on 28/11/2017
2. Server time: 13:34:2 on 28/11/2017

Related points:

References:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmXX6cYMRrU

 

 

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.