Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

jackb

Paul Tudor Jones V. Dr. Alexander Elder

Doubling Down With A Loser?  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Doubling Down With A Loser?

    • Yeah, no biggie. Can't say I won't use this when warranted.
      4
    • PTJ has it right. I have no need to throw good money after bad.
      18
    • Double Down? Shoot, I'm all for tripling, quadrupling, etc until I'm proved right.
      1
    • Money management...what's that?
      2


Recommended Posts

if your first analysis was faulty,

which got you into a bad trade,

what make you think doubling down will somehow correct a faulty analysis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Tams said:
if your first analysis was faulty,

which got you into a bad trade,

what make you think doubling down will somehow correct a faulty analysis?

 

Good question. I don't know if I can answer. All I can say is that it has corrected a faulty analysis more times that it has failed. At least for me. Faulty analysis is hard to put a finger on because even the most perfect analysis do not always work out. I see intraday stops as not carved in stone. I am not the slave of intraday stops. They are simply a tool I USE. The only thing I must be a slave to is PA. If PA has turned momentarily against me but I have good reason to believe it is quickly going to turn back in my favour then I have no problem adjusting my stop and even doubling at what I think is the precise moment to do so. Since I trade almost pure price action I feel I can do this. I have and always will be a discretionary trader. All of my rules are rules but they are flexible to some degree simply because the market is flexible. I can live with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  bathrobe said:
You are much better off stopping out and re-entering if you still like the trade.

 

Dr. Elder has created some excellent Indicators. I use them constantly.

PTJ has certainly manages a vast amount of other peoples money.

Doubling Down can only be done in fluid trading instruments.

I seldom double down but do maintain tight stops.in short-term trading.

Scaling out of a winning Trade is a tool if the directional bias is strong.

O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  jackb said:

 

Contrast this with Paul Tudor Jones' statement: "Only losers add to losers.:

 

Let's see how TL members feel about this topic...

 

 

Hi Jack,

 

Seeing how Paul Tudor Jones is soooooo much more successful a trader than Dr. Elder...

 

You decide.

 

 

Luv,

Phantom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This story might help, you decide.

 

After I proved to my father I could trade he backed me with a large amount of money, late 08-mid 2010. I traded well made money more than I could ever have imagined. One day I got into trouble and thought I would use my size to bail me out. I ended up exiting +1 tick but I had the most harrowing 2 hours of my life, I thought I was going to have a heart attack and I was not yet 30. I could feel my heart beating throughout my body. I was very very very lucky to get out but learned from the experience and changed my risk management to not do this ever again.

 

Also, who is Dr. Alexander Elder, I don't know but I would bet he is a vendor of some sort and if I am right about that why is he not just trading. I am sure selling whatever takes up time he could be working on entries. Averaging losers will always catch up to you, check out the threads about Robert Hoffman with his -312k in a day.

 

Best of luck to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Patuca said:
in day trading doubling down has saved me from a loss many times more than causing me a further loss. however, it all depends on where it takes place. if price reaches a support level and hold and turns bullish then it makes sense to do it. The basic idea is price has to travel less distance back up to my breakeven point. And it should be before price reaches my puke point stop. For me it makes sense to use an intraday somewhat flexible stop but have a trade management stop at puke level. Of course one could argue just let the intraday stop take you out. How many of you have seen your stop get knocked out and seconds later price is back up and you are in the money if you wouldn't have gotton taken out. With all the HFT going on nowdays the computers algo's create some problems. I prefer to use an intraday trading stop that is adjustible within certain guidelines and a puke point stop that nevers gets moved.

 

  Tams said:
if your first analysis was faulty,

which got you into a bad trade,

what make you think doubling down will somehow correct a faulty analysis?

 

  Patuca said:
Good question. I don't know if I can answer. All I can say is that it has corrected a faulty analysis more times that it has failed. At least for me. Faulty analysis is hard to put a finger on because even the most perfect analysis do not always work out. I see intraday stops as not carved in stone. I am not the slave of intraday stops. They are simply a tool I USE. The only thing I must be a slave to is PA. If PA has turned momentarily against me but I have good reason to believe it is quickly going to turn back in my favour then I have no problem adjusting my stop and even doubling at what I think is the precise moment to do so. Since I trade almost pure price action I feel I can do this. I have and always will be a discretionary trader. All of my rules are rules but they are flexible to some degree simply because the market is flexible. I can live with that.

 

ever heard of the Hoffman effect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  bathrobe said:
I googled him, he goes to traders expos and writes books, does he trade? PTJ does, and spends his free time counting his billions.

 

no he does not trade,

he gambles, with the martingale method.

he had a spectacular blowout recently -- He over extended by keep adding contracts to a losing trade. Eventually he ran out of money; the broker shut him down and he lost 312K in a single TF trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Tams said:
no he does not trade,

he gambles, with the martingale method.

he had a spectacular blowout recently -- He over extended by keep adding contracts to a losing trade. Eventually he ran out of money; the broker shut him down and he lost 312K in a single TF trade.

 

ah yes Hoffman, have you seen his youtube video where he says losing 312k is a learning experience! He promises another where he goes over the trade, I look forward to it.

 

I googled Dr. Elder, I don't know if he trades/gambles or not.

 

Is what Hoffman doing even legal? I am sure most of his "students" have very small accts. and are unaware that martingaling always leads to a blowup and most cannot afford to average losers like him I assume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole business of entering a position based on whether you already own the stock or not seems a little childish. Does anyone seriously think that the stock knows that you own it? Do you think that a stock's behavior is influenced by whether or not you own it? I certainly don't.

There are times when, based on rules I've developed, it makes sense to buy a stock. And, 5 minutes later when the stock is at a lower price, it makes even more sense to buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  bathrobe said:
I googled Dr. Elder, I don't know if he trades/gambles or not.

 

Well, they all claim to trade, right? And they all imply they do it well.

 

It doesn't cost anything to make a claim.

 

-optiontimer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  david77 said:
This whole business of entering a position based on whether you already own the stock or not seems a little childish. Does anyone seriously think that the stock knows that you own it? Do you think that a stock's behavior is influenced by whether or not you own it? I certainly don't.

There are times when, based on rules I've developed, it makes sense to buy a stock. And, 5 minutes later when the stock is at a lower price, it makes even more sense to buy it.

Exactly! I could not have said it better. I do whatever the market is telling tell me to do. Sometimes that means doubling up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Tams said:
no he does not trade,

he gambles, with the martingale method.

he had a spectacular blowout recently -- He over extended by keep adding contracts to a losing trade. Eventually he ran out of money; the broker shut him down and he lost 312K in a single TF trade.

 

he had no puke point stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Patuca said:
Exactly! I could not have said it better. I do whatever the market is telling tell me to do. Sometimes that means doubling up.

 

To each his own.

 

If it works continue obviously

 

My way of trading does not involve this and I was sharing my point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  bathrobe said:
To each his own.

 

If it works continue obviously

 

My way of trading does not involve this and I was sharing my point of view.

I agree everyone has to float their own boat. I too was simply sharing my point of view. I would be the first to say it will not work for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Patuca said:
in day trading doubling down has saved me from a loss many times

 

Just to be picky but I have to point out the obvious flaw here (as Tams does) - you already have a loss so doubling down does not save you from a loss.....

 

disclosure - I go with the PTJ method

 

While every one has their systems and everyone can and should do what works for them.....there is one thing that often most users of martingale systems dont recognise or want to admit - and this is what riles others up, and this is ....

 

at some stage you will blow up (or even if using puke stops) the losses will be large and these are often large enough to either close and account or at least do enough mental damage as to impede future trading.......if you can accept that then great, but if you fail to even recognize that and then you are deceiving yourself (and possibly others if that view is "sold" without the added risk disclosure.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  SIUYA said:
Just to be picky but I have to point out the obvious flaw here (as Tams does) - you already have a loss so doubling down does not save you from a loss.....

 

disclosure - I go with the PTJ method

 

While every one has their systems and everyone can and should do what works for them.....there is one thing that often most users of martingale systems dont recognise or want to admit - and this is what riles others up, and this is ....

 

at some stage you will blow up (or even if using puke stops) the losses will be large and these are often large enough to either close and account or at least do enough mental damage as to impede future trading.......if you can accept that then great, but if you fail to even recognize that and then you are deceiving yourself (and possibly others if that view is "sold" without the added risk disclosure.)

 

I have done it many times. Double up and it has to go back up (in case of a long position)` a lessor amount to breakeven and soon you are in the money again. Of course, as I stated I would only do this if PA turns bullish and I think it may not be bullish enough to make it back up to my original entry point but it will travel back enough for me to get out at a gain (even if slight). If I think it may well do that then I will not hestitate to double or even triple up. If I am wrong then I will immediately take all losses. It has to move up right away after doubling or I am out. So, I have, many times thrown good money after bad (and I know it breaks all the orthodox rules) and many times..more often than not I have come out with a profit. Doing this has never caused me to blow an account that I can remember and I have been trading since the late 80's.

 

Perhaps it has to do with my method of trading??? I average an 87% to 90% win rate.

 

Anyway it works for me and I am not afraid to use it anytime I think there is a legimate reason to do so. If I don't think there is a reason to do it then obviousley the best thing to do is to take the loss immediately.

 

BTW I don't use a martingale system. This is not standard operating procedure for me in my trading. However, it is a tool I will use if I think conditions warrant using it. I have my rules but none are carved in stone. Only price is the dictator I listen to. This makes my trading highly discretionary and sometimes a gray fog but I am ok with that and it works for me. The market can change my opinion on a dime. I will not hesitate to adapt to it.

 

For others this may not ever work and could be dangerous. I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Patuca said:
I have done it many times. Double up and it has to go back up (in case of a long position)` a lessor amount to breakeven and soon you are in the money again. Of course, as I stated I would only do this if PA turns bullish and I think it may not be bullish enough to make it back up to my original entry point but it will travel back enough for me to get out at a gain (even if slight). If I think it may well do that then I will not hestitate to double or even triple up. If I am wrong then I will immediately take all losses. It has to move up right away after doubling or I am out. So, I have, many times thrown good money after bad (and I know it breaks all the orthodox rules) and many times..more often than not I have come out with a profit. Doing this has never caused me to blow an account that I can remember and I have been trading since the late 80's.

if your original analysis was faulty,

what makes you think your second analysis cannot be not faulty?

I am not saying it could not be good, I am just asking a rhetorical question.

 

 

  Patuca said:
Perhaps it has to do with my method of trading??? I average an 87% to 90% win rate.

Hoffman had a 100% win rate -- 535 straight days without a losing trade !!!

 

 

  Patuca said:
Anyway it works for me and I am not afraid to use it anytime I think there is a legimate reason to do so. If I don't think there is a reason to do it then obviousley the best thing to do is to take the loss immediately.

 

BTW I don't use a martingale system. This is not standard operating procedure for me in my trading. However, it is a tool I will use if I think conditions warrant using it. I have my rules but none are carved in stone. Only price is the dictator I listen to. This makes my trading highly discretionary and sometimes a gray fog but I am ok with that and it works for me. The market can change my opinion on a dime. I will not hesitate to adapt to it.

 

For others this may not ever work and could be dangerous. I don't know.

 

In early June this year, I predicted that Hoffman will have a blowout within 12 months.

It happened in 5 weeks.

 

I wish better luck to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High win rate is a sucker's game; it is only a number, a meaningless number.

But noobie suckers will suck up to it.

 

as you can see, Hoffman had a 100% win rate -- 535 straight days without a losing trade !!!

yet he blew out spectacularly.

 

High win rate can mean 2 opposite things...

 

1. you are sooooo gooooood, you don't lose.

 

2. you are afraid to lose, so you hang on to your losers until break even.

 

 

if we drill down deeper, we will find out that:

 

1. if you don't know how to trade, you will be afraid to lose.

If you are afraid to lose, you will hang on to your losers.

One of the strategy to accomplish break even (or small profit) is to double down.

 

2. high win rate accompanied by a history of high draw down simply means one thing -- Hope is your main strategy

 

3. high win rate accompanied by high commission to profit ratio means your are either a scalper, or gambler. You don't really know (or care) where the market is going.

 

4. high win rate accompanied by occasional blow out... means you are really a nobody.

 

... and the list goes on...

Edited by Tams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Tams said:
if your original analysis was faulty,

what makes you think your second analysis cannot be not faulty?

I am not saying it could not be good, I am just asking a rhetorical question.

 

 

 

Hoffman had a 100% win rate -- 535 straight days without a losing trade !!!

 

 

 

 

In early June this year, I predicted that Hoffman will have a blowout within 12 months.

It happened in 5 weeks.

 

I wish better luck to you.

 

Again I am not doing what hoffman did/does. I do not double up everytime the market turns against me. And of course I could be wrong the second time too. If so, then the answer is to cut losses immediatley. How many times have you dutifully taken the loss to see the market turn on a dime and shoot right back up. Those kind of losses can add up too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote
... high win rate accompanied by occasional blow out... means you are really a nobody.

 

That was a great post! ...right up to the part about "really a nobody." Tams, None of us are nobody's . Not a single one of us.

 

Still, a great post... telling it like it is.

 

You are pointing out the inevitable destruction waiting for a trader who is doubling down for psycho-neurological reasons instead of reasons related to actual market actions. Been there - done that :crap:. I think Patuca is talking about reasons related to actual market actions. From what I can tell skimming the posts, I have systems similar to Patuca's. Also very high hit but rates, but since mine are only applied under certain market conditions, they aren't a high percentage of the whole bottom line. They are at once extremely precise for some aspects and almost totally imprecise for other aspects - like where and when subsequent add ons will be. Anyways, in these systems I 'double down' all the time. Sometimes when price comes to a good buy or sell point, it will turn immediately. But other times so it will make more thrusts down or up. If the first thrust is a good quality signal, then subsequent thrusts are also good. Adding more and more is warranted (again, only in certain market conditions). I want to be in any which way the turn occurs, so I don't skip the first and wait for more better entry. I get in, willing to get in some more all the way down or up to a certain precise / stop point. ( ie I shouldn't be deprived if it takes certain 'crowds' a little longer to catch on ;) )

 

A real time example from this morning is attached. It does not have any examples of thrusts that go way past the first entry point and still being good for piling on size - but those happen all the time too. In any case, I would add more if the signal is there - whether next entry price is better or worse than first entry price.

In the first example on the attached, the price went further than the first short entry signal shown at far left arrow. Add more at 2nd red dn arrow.

In the next example price went beyond first entry twice. Add more each signal, 2nd and 3rd green up arrows.

In the next two, price did not go higher than first entry, Still add more at the 2nd red arrow in middle of illustration.

In the final two, again price did not go beyond first entry. Still add more at the 2nd green arrow.

The first signal of each of these trades qualifies the subsequent entries. If they are at even better prices - fine. If they are not at better prices - also fine. None showed on this example and I'm not taking time to go cherry pick one in history. but if they are at far better prices (as long as it doesn't go past stop loss point) - even better! Even if it looks like stupid doubling down !

addingMore.thumb.jpg.0f969b9e80537b76809594f7f6deb1c5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  zdo said:
That was a great post! ...right up to the part about "really a nobody." Tams, None of us are nobody's . Not a single one of us.

 

Still, a great post... telling it like it is.

 

You are pointing out the inevitable destruction waiting for a trader who is doubling down for psycho-neurological reasons instead of reasons related to actual market actions. Been there - done that :crap:. I think Patuca is talking about reasons related to actual market actions. From what I can tell skimming the posts, I have systems similar to Patuca's. Also very high hit but rates, but since mine are only applied under certain market conditions, they aren't a high percentage of the whole bottom line. They are at once extremely precise for some aspects and almost totally imprecise for other aspects - like where and when subsequent add ons will be. Anyways, in these systems I 'double down' all the time. Sometimes when price comes to a good buy or sell point, it will turn immediately. But other times so it will make more thrusts down or up. If the first thrust is a good quality signal, then subsequent thrusts are also good. Adding more and more is warranted (again, only in certain market conditions). I want to be in any which way the turn occurs, so I don't skip the first and wait for more better entry. I get in, willing to get in some more all the way down or up to a certain precise / stop point. ( ie I shouldn't be deprived if it takes certain 'crowds' a little longer to catch on ;) )

 

A real time example from this morning is attached. It does not have any examples of thrusts that go way past the first entry point and still being good for piling on size - but those happen all the time too. In any case, I would add more if the signal is there - whether next entry price is better or worse than first entry price.

In the first example on the attached, the price went further than the first short entry signal shown at far left arrow. Add more at 2nd red dn arrow.

In the next example price went beyond first entry twice. Add more each signal, 2nd and 3rd green up arrows.

In the next two, price did not go higher than first entry, Still add more at the 2nd red arrow in middle of illustration.

In the final two, again price did not go beyond first entry. Still add more at the 2nd green arrow.

The first signal of each of these trades qualifies the subsequent entries. If they are at even better prices - fine. If they are not at better prices - also fine. None showed on this example and I'm not taking time to go cherry pick one in history. but if they are at far better prices (as long as it doesn't go past stop loss point) - even better! Even if it looks like stupid doubling down !

 

zdo:

 

thank you for your reply and comments.

 

there are 2 types of doubling down:

 

1. double down to average up, or accumulate more position.

 

2. double down as a bail out technique.

 

 

we should not be confused with our intent when executing such.

 

I am sure there are times when doubling down can save your skin,

I do wish you luck.

 

for the mere mortals,

we should just slow down a minute and think:

if your trading technique is so good that you can use double down as a bail,

I am sure if you just stand aside and wait for a minute,

your trading prowess can also get you into the next major wave and make a major killing.

Edited by Tams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  zdo said:
That was a great post! ...right up to the part about "really a nobody." Tams, None of us are nobody's . Not a single one of us.

...

 

Thanks

 

the nobody part was said tongue-in-cheek.

 

Honestly, only the market can tell you if you are a nobody or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote
only the market can tell you if you are a nobody or not.

 

... taking it from the sublime to the ridiculous now...

The market can not tell you if you are a nobody or now.

Nobody is a nobody...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.