Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Trading 101
Jesse Livermore's 1940 book, "Reminiscences of A Stock Operator", is considered the Bible of the trading world (guess I should read it then, huh?). I saw the following written on Friday and felt it was worth posting for my own reminder, as well as anyone else who may gain some wisdom from it. From Jesse's book:
"The speculator's chief enemies are always boring from within. It is inseperable from human nature to hope and to fear. In speculation when the market goes against you you hope that every day will be the last day - and you lose more than you should had you not listened to hope - to the same ally that is potent a success-bringer to empire builders and pioneers, big and little. And when the market goes your way you become fearful that the next day will take away your profit, and you get out too soon...etc."
The translation: Unlike our spiritual lives, hope is our worst enemy in trading when we are holding a losing position and fear is our greatest enemy when holding a winning trade. As Jesse Livermore writes elsewhere, we are to fear that our losses get worse and hope that our profits grow larger, but as humans we tend to cut our profits short, fearing they will grow smaller, and we allow our losing trades to remain intact, hoping that they will turn for the better. Rarely, however, do they.
To this end, the worst trading advice anyone can be given is "You never go broke taking a profit," for that literally forces one to take profits early...to cut them short...to abandon trades that are working well, almost certainly at that point in time when they are going to begin working even better. Poor speculators, poor investors, the poorest of traders take small profits...dozens of them...hundreds of them, and yet bury themselves with one or two enormous losses, all the while telling themselves, "You never go broke taking a profit." Yes, you do; Yes, you really, really do.
"The speculator's chief enemies are always boring from within. It is inseperable from human nature to hope and to fear. In speculation when the market goes against you you hope that every day will be the last day - and you lose more than you should had you not listened to hope - to the same ally that is potent a success-bringer to empire builders and pioneers, big and little. And when the market goes your way you become fearful that the next day will take away your profit, and you get out too soon...etc."
The translation: Unlike our spiritual lives, hope is our worst enemy in trading when we are holding a losing position and fear is our greatest enemy when holding a winning trade. As Jesse Livermore writes elsewhere, we are to fear that our losses get worse and hope that our profits grow larger, but as humans we tend to cut our profits short, fearing they will grow smaller, and we allow our losing trades to remain intact, hoping that they will turn for the better. Rarely, however, do they.
To this end, the worst trading advice anyone can be given is "You never go broke taking a profit," for that literally forces one to take profits early...to cut them short...to abandon trades that are working well, almost certainly at that point in time when they are going to begin working even better. Poor speculators, poor investors, the poorest of traders take small profits...dozens of them...hundreds of them, and yet bury themselves with one or two enormous losses, all the while telling themselves, "You never go broke taking a profit." Yes, you do; Yes, you really, really do.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Piper commenting on C.S. Lewis
Here is a striking sentence about Lewis’s lifelong pursuit: “Lewis’s perpetual task both as a defender of Christianity and as an advocate of medieval literature is to call people to delight” (p. 190).
One of his paths to this “perpetual task” was his analysis of the devil’s use of pleasure. Screwtape (speaking for the devil—“Our Father”—in The Screwtape Letters) says to one of his under-devils:
Never forget that when we are dealing with any pleasure in its healthy and satisfying form, we are, in a sense, on the Enemy's ground. I know we have won many a soul through pleasure. All the same, it is His invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one. All we can do is encourage the humans to take the pleasures which our Enemy has produced, at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which he has forbidden.... An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula.... To get a man's soul and give him nothing in return—that's what really gladdens Our Father's heart. (quoted in The Narnian, 189)
This is an astonishing view of pleasure. Hell has never been able to produce one! It can only misuse the ones that God created—in “times,” “ways,” and “degrees” that God forbids.
This means that all the debased enjoyments of the world are echoes of the joys of heaven. The analysis of this is worth a lifetime. And one effect of such an analysis would be to take the notion of “seeker-sensitive” ten miles deeper into Truth. How to penetrate the soul whose every desire is for Heaven while hating Heaven—that is the task.
"To get a man's soul and give him nothing in return." Wow...meditate on that for awhile.
One of his paths to this “perpetual task” was his analysis of the devil’s use of pleasure. Screwtape (speaking for the devil—“Our Father”—in The Screwtape Letters) says to one of his under-devils:
Never forget that when we are dealing with any pleasure in its healthy and satisfying form, we are, in a sense, on the Enemy's ground. I know we have won many a soul through pleasure. All the same, it is His invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one. All we can do is encourage the humans to take the pleasures which our Enemy has produced, at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which he has forbidden.... An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula.... To get a man's soul and give him nothing in return—that's what really gladdens Our Father's heart. (quoted in The Narnian, 189)
This is an astonishing view of pleasure. Hell has never been able to produce one! It can only misuse the ones that God created—in “times,” “ways,” and “degrees” that God forbids.
This means that all the debased enjoyments of the world are echoes of the joys of heaven. The analysis of this is worth a lifetime. And one effect of such an analysis would be to take the notion of “seeker-sensitive” ten miles deeper into Truth. How to penetrate the soul whose every desire is for Heaven while hating Heaven—that is the task.
"To get a man's soul and give him nothing in return." Wow...meditate on that for awhile.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
The Cross
I have been thinking about this for awhile and I keep coming back to the same conclusion. I don't think Christians should treat Jesus' death on the cross as a shocking or surprising event. I think we should be amazed at the love God showed for us in that act but not amazed that it transpired. I'm not saying this because of the many prophetic messages spoken concerning Jesus' death and resurrection in the centuries leading up to the first Good Friday. I am saying this because this is what a loving God does. Yes, God is just and holy and I suppose some would say that He would have been completely within His right to just let us be lost for eternity. God is sovereign and in that sense...yes...He could have allowed that.
However...God is love (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16). Should we really expect God to turn His back on those He created in His own image? After all, since God is omniscient, He knew before He even created us that we would fall away. He knew the consequences of giving us free will. So why would He create a people that He loved unconditionally only to see every single one of us lost for eternity with no hope of "life to the fullest"? Was the Father not going to rescue His children? Was the groom not going to come for His bride?
Even if not one resurrection prophecy had ever been uttered, we should have expected this to happen. Sure, we might not have expected it to transpire in exactly the manner it did but the fact that God came for us is perfectly in line with who God is and what God has done since the beginning of creation. Even today, I think most of us don't completely expect that God will come through for us. That is why we are reluctant to give over control of our lives 100%. But the cross stands as the most vivid reminder in the history of this world that God DOES come through...and we should continue to expect nothing less.
However...God is love (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16). Should we really expect God to turn His back on those He created in His own image? After all, since God is omniscient, He knew before He even created us that we would fall away. He knew the consequences of giving us free will. So why would He create a people that He loved unconditionally only to see every single one of us lost for eternity with no hope of "life to the fullest"? Was the Father not going to rescue His children? Was the groom not going to come for His bride?
Even if not one resurrection prophecy had ever been uttered, we should have expected this to happen. Sure, we might not have expected it to transpire in exactly the manner it did but the fact that God came for us is perfectly in line with who God is and what God has done since the beginning of creation. Even today, I think most of us don't completely expect that God will come through for us. That is why we are reluctant to give over control of our lives 100%. But the cross stands as the most vivid reminder in the history of this world that God DOES come through...and we should continue to expect nothing less.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
"It's a piece of junk"
This is my favorite commercial right now. I know the kid's line is probably scripted but I like to think it is a spontaneous comment.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Didn't Obama say something about there being room for all opinions?
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration is firing back at Sen. Jon Kyl for calling for an end to economic stimulus spending, and they're aiming for where it hurts the most - at home in Arizona.
The White House on Tuesday released letters from four cabinet secretaries to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, citing Kyl's comments and outlining transportation, housing, Indian education and other projects in his home state they said would be eliminated if the senator has his way.
Kyl, the No. 2 Senate GOP leader, has said the stimulus spending hasn't succeeded in boosting the economy and that it's adding to the deficit. He's suggested on his Senate Web site and in interviews that spending not already allocated be halted.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, one of two Republicans in Obama's cabinet, made no attempt to conceal his needling.
Kyl "publicly questioned whether the stimulus is working and stated that he wants to cancel projects that aren't presently under way," LaHood wrote Brewer. "If you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Senator Kyl suggests, please let me know."
LaHood noted in the letter that at least $520.9 million of the $48 billion for transportation projects under the economic recovery act are intended for Arizona projects, including transit projects in Phoenix.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Arizona would lose $45 million for 500 single-family housing loans if projects not already under way were canceled. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said the state would forfeit $73 million his department oversees, including $22 million for homeless programs.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a Westerner who formerly served with Kyl in the Senate, didn't mention the Arizonan by name in his letter, but referred to "some key Republican leaders in Congress." He said the state would lose $60 million for Bureau of Indian Education schools, among other money.
Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said the governor wants Arizona taxpayers to "receive their fair share" of any stimulus dollars.
"We certainly hope that they're somehow not threatening Arizona's portion of federal funding based on their disagreement with Senator Kyl," Senseman said.
Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon, a Democrat, said he called Brewer's office requesting that the governor continue to accept stimulus money. He also sent letters to cabinet officials volunteering Phoenix to act as a fiduciary for all Arizona stimulus funds if Brewer were to turn them down.
"The Senator is 2,000 miles away," Gordon said at a news conference Tuesday. "We're here trying to build roads and put people to work."
Kyl didn't immediately reply to a request for comment from The Associated Press.
The president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry came to Kyl's defense, however, posting a column Tuesday on the chamber's Web site under the headline: "Don't Bully Arizona."
"It is one thing to joust with Senator Kyl over his position, but it is an entirely different matter for Cabinet secretaries to write letters to the chief executive of a state and threaten funding if support isn't provided," wrote Glen Hamer.
On Sunday, Kyl said of stimulus spending that "the reality is it hasn't helped yet." He said it may be years before all the money gets spent and that the economy could recover before then.
"Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent. What I proposed is, after you complete the contracts that are already committed, the things that are in the pipeline, stop it," Kyl told ABC's "This Week."
Last week, Kyl argued in a column posted on his Senate Web site that the economic stimulus program has been a failure. He said he agreed with those who "want to cancel the rest of the stimulus spending."
The White House on Tuesday released letters from four cabinet secretaries to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, citing Kyl's comments and outlining transportation, housing, Indian education and other projects in his home state they said would be eliminated if the senator has his way.
Kyl, the No. 2 Senate GOP leader, has said the stimulus spending hasn't succeeded in boosting the economy and that it's adding to the deficit. He's suggested on his Senate Web site and in interviews that spending not already allocated be halted.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, one of two Republicans in Obama's cabinet, made no attempt to conceal his needling.
Kyl "publicly questioned whether the stimulus is working and stated that he wants to cancel projects that aren't presently under way," LaHood wrote Brewer. "If you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Senator Kyl suggests, please let me know."
LaHood noted in the letter that at least $520.9 million of the $48 billion for transportation projects under the economic recovery act are intended for Arizona projects, including transit projects in Phoenix.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Arizona would lose $45 million for 500 single-family housing loans if projects not already under way were canceled. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said the state would forfeit $73 million his department oversees, including $22 million for homeless programs.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a Westerner who formerly served with Kyl in the Senate, didn't mention the Arizonan by name in his letter, but referred to "some key Republican leaders in Congress." He said the state would lose $60 million for Bureau of Indian Education schools, among other money.
Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said the governor wants Arizona taxpayers to "receive their fair share" of any stimulus dollars.
"We certainly hope that they're somehow not threatening Arizona's portion of federal funding based on their disagreement with Senator Kyl," Senseman said.
Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon, a Democrat, said he called Brewer's office requesting that the governor continue to accept stimulus money. He also sent letters to cabinet officials volunteering Phoenix to act as a fiduciary for all Arizona stimulus funds if Brewer were to turn them down.
"The Senator is 2,000 miles away," Gordon said at a news conference Tuesday. "We're here trying to build roads and put people to work."
Kyl didn't immediately reply to a request for comment from The Associated Press.
The president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry came to Kyl's defense, however, posting a column Tuesday on the chamber's Web site under the headline: "Don't Bully Arizona."
"It is one thing to joust with Senator Kyl over his position, but it is an entirely different matter for Cabinet secretaries to write letters to the chief executive of a state and threaten funding if support isn't provided," wrote Glen Hamer.
On Sunday, Kyl said of stimulus spending that "the reality is it hasn't helped yet." He said it may be years before all the money gets spent and that the economy could recover before then.
"Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent. What I proposed is, after you complete the contracts that are already committed, the things that are in the pipeline, stop it," Kyl told ABC's "This Week."
Last week, Kyl argued in a column posted on his Senate Web site that the economic stimulus program has been a failure. He said he agreed with those who "want to cancel the rest of the stimulus spending."
How can you NOT call the Democrat Party the party of death?
The Senate HELP Committee continued its markup of the Kennedy healthcare legislation yesterday. Several amendments were offered to protect conscience rights and to prevent funding or mandating of abortion. Sen. Orrin Hatch's (R-Utah) amendment to prevent funding of abortion failed. Sen. Michael Enzi's (R-Wy.) amendment to prevent the healthcare bill from mandating abortion coverage was defeated. Since there is nothing in this legislation to prevent mandating abortion as a covered service, it would be mandated--the Obama Administration health bureaucracy will see to that.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) also offered several amendments to the Kennedy legislation. His amendment to codify the Hyde/Weldon conscience protection law was defeated. His amendment to prevent the healthcare bill from preempting state laws on abortion was defeated. With the exception of Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), the HELP Democrats voted against it. They opposed preventing this legislation from trumping various state laws, such as parental consent laws. One bright note, Sen. Coburn's amendment to protect healthcare workers' conscience rights with regard to euthanasia passed by a voice vote. The amendment ensures that doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers, including healthcare plans, are not forced to violate their conscience on the issue of euthanasia.
Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-Mass.) amendment supposedly protecting conscience rights on abortion passed by a voice vote. This amendment says that no one should lose a contract with the healthcare Gateways because they refuse to perform abortion except in the case of emergencies. Given that the Democrats voted against the Coburn conscience amendment on abortion, which mirrors current conscience law, this amendment is a deceptive and even dangerous substitute for real conscience protections on abortion.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-york-legislature-votes-to-protect-roe-legalize-abortion-up-to-birth
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) also offered several amendments to the Kennedy legislation. His amendment to codify the Hyde/Weldon conscience protection law was defeated. His amendment to prevent the healthcare bill from preempting state laws on abortion was defeated. With the exception of Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), the HELP Democrats voted against it. They opposed preventing this legislation from trumping various state laws, such as parental consent laws. One bright note, Sen. Coburn's amendment to protect healthcare workers' conscience rights with regard to euthanasia passed by a voice vote. The amendment ensures that doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers, including healthcare plans, are not forced to violate their conscience on the issue of euthanasia.
Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-Mass.) amendment supposedly protecting conscience rights on abortion passed by a voice vote. This amendment says that no one should lose a contract with the healthcare Gateways because they refuse to perform abortion except in the case of emergencies. Given that the Democrats voted against the Coburn conscience amendment on abortion, which mirrors current conscience law, this amendment is a deceptive and even dangerous substitute for real conscience protections on abortion.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-york-legislature-votes-to-protect-roe-legalize-abortion-up-to-birth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)