Boston Tea Party--A Terrorist Act?

by GinnyTosken 40 Replies latest jw friends

Trilobite

Amazing,
Well, you say that you cannot lose. That simply isn't the case. If it were then you could make an infinite amount of money given enough time. The examples you provide seem OK but they don't reflect the actual risks involved. They rely on assumptions that might not hold. That is, you seem to working on the assumption that if you hold long enough you'll be OK. But that is not guaranteed, i.e., you can lose.
Imagine that you sell IBM Calls with a strike price of $100 for $10.00 a share. A contract is 100 shares which means that each contract brings you in $1000. For simplicity imagine you buy 100 shares of IBM at $100 to cover the call. So, you are $1000.00 in hand and have laid out $10,000 for your shares assuming no margin. After a month IBM falls to $80.00 which means that you are now in the hole for $2000 - $1000 = $1000. This doesn't factor in commisions, or the return that you could get from, say, T-bills had you put your 10K there. When the options expire, if IBM is trading at $80.00 you have lost $1000.00 no matter how you look at it. Next you again write calls to cover your 100 shares. This time you get, say $8.00 per share and IBM then drops to $60.00. You are now out a further $1200 for a total of $2200.
The only way your strategy is guaranteed to make money is if your stock is guaranteed to go up. An additional problem is that if your stock does go up, no doubt your persistent call writing will be rewarded by the calls being exercised and so you don't make the profit you might have had you simply held only the stock.
I'm not saying that you cannot make money doing what you suggest. My point is that your statement that you "cannot lose" is not only incorrect but way off the mark.
I don't really see how it is a generality to argue that you have a sure fire way of making money in the markets when that isn't the case, or even close to being the case.
T.
Trilobite

Ginny,
Thanks for the link!
wasasister,
Who's Wade Cook?
Amazing,
Here's a link I found that goes into it in greater detail.
http://www.888options.com/learning/strategies/covered_call.htm
T.
Amazing

Hi Trilo: I want to move on after this unless something of real substance needs to be discussed.
You said,
"Well, you say that you cannot lose. That simply isn't the case. If it were then you could make an infinite amount of money given enough time."
I never said that you can't lose. I proposed an average normal situation where one normally buys stock, writes Call Options, and will make money. Of course if I buy a stock at $10, and sell for less I will lose money. But I feel that my presentation supports the positive cash flow in most cases.
You continued,
"The examples you provide seem OK but they don't reflect the actual risks involved. They rely on assumptions that might not hold. That is, you seem to working on the assumption that if you hold long enough you'll be OK. But that is not guaranteed, i.e., you can lose."
Agreed. That is understood with any investment. I am talking about short term. Bin Laden buys a pile of stock, rams a few planes into buildings, stock drops, he will make money on Put or Shorts depending on what instruments. Yes, I well understand that a stock can tank out and be a loser. Again, I was merely speaking of averages in normal markets.
You continued,
"Imagine that you sell IBM Calls with a strike price of $100 for $10.00 a share. A contract is 100 shares which means that each contract brings you in $1000. For simplicity imagine you buy 100 shares of IBM at $100 to cover the call. So, you are $1000.00 in hand and have laid out $10,000 for your shares assuming no margin. After a month IBM falls to $80.00 which means that you are now in the hole for $2000 - $1000 = $1000. This doesn't factor in commisions, or the return that you could get from, say, T-bills had you put your 10K there. When the options expire, if IBM is trading at $80.00 you have lost $1000.00 no matter how you look at it. Next you again write calls to cover your 100 shares. This time you get, say $8.00 per share and IBM then drops to $60.00. You are now out a further $1200 for a total of $2200."
Agreed. But your example assumes that I either bought on margin, in which case I would have to make up the difference and lose that way. But the $1000 I got from the Call Option would reduce my loses. And, if I did as my first scenario suggested, bought the stock cash before writing calls, then I would only lose IF I sold. When I was trading, I never bought on margin. Margin is too risky for me, but works for many other investors. I buy the stock for the long term growth, and for quarterly dividends. Then with a Call option I can make money in the short term if I expect a sluggish market, but slightly growing.
You said,
"The only way your strategy is guaranteed to make money is if your stock is guaranteed to go up."
Incorrect. Writing Call Options does not require that I buy on margin. I can write calls on stock I am 100% vested in. And as long as I don't sell the stock, I have lost nothing. I never suggest no risk, but ion the long term, historically looking at the stock market, my stock will recover in most cases. My rate of return will be shot to hell, but I can hedge and save my principle in most cases. Yes, one can lose money, but that is one reason why investors use short term hedges. And when the markets move up, then good profits are made as well.
Also, in a declining market, one cal write a Put Option and hedge in the other direction.
You said,
"An additional problem is that if your stock does go up, no doubt your persistent call writing will be rewarded by the calls being exercised and so you don't make the profit you might have had you simply held only the stock."
True. That is why writing Calls is a specialized business for either certain market windows, short term holding, or as a hedge.
You said,
"I'm not saying that you cannot make money doing what you suggest. My point is that your statement that you "cannot lose" is not only incorrect but way off the mark."
Ah yes, my 'cannot lose statement'. Okay. Yes, tomorrow terrorists could bomb 20 cities, drop a nuclear bomb, etc. And the whole thing can go into the tank and everyone loses. Yes, a certain industry can go way down, like technology stocks and many will lose. I never meant that was absolutely no risk ever. So I retratc that 'cannot lose' statement since it fell into the 'literalistic' bin. I meant that in normal day to day markets as an economy chugs along with moderate growth, you can buy a stock, sell a Call, and guarantee yourself about 10% to 20% return and get out of it. Short term trading is a major business. You can sell Put Options if heading into a slow or declining market.
If you hold the stock for long term, you will make money on the earnings over time. And eventually the stock should recover. Bluechips are good for this, but I don't like the Options because thay are not leveraged as well for the buyer. I like a stock with a little 'zing' so that buyers will be attracted by better leverage on the Options, and my risks are low.
You said
"I don't really see how it is a generality to argue that you have a sure fire way of making money in the markets when that isn't the case, or even close to being the case."
Again, I think you may have mistaken my comments for that of a person sold on get rich quick schemes. I am saavy and sophicated enough to know better than that. Let's say, though, that I knew a stock were going to rise, but I was not sure how much or how fast. But, I also had control over what happened to it, such as a terrorist who blows up airplanes. Then I could buy a buch of stock, sell Put Options and make a short term safe bet. That was my point.
And, Wasasister spoke of Wade Cook. I am familiar with him, but I have not read his books. But he makes the argument that one can make steady income writing Call Options. As long as you hold the stock, then it matters not that it tanks out at times. You have to be careful, and if I saw a decline I would make a choice to hold or sell and stop writing Calls.
Hope this helps. Sorry I created some confusion here. But I think we do agree, it is just that the professional investors I know, and based on my own successful trading, one can make a steady income in the Options market by owning stock and writing Calls. It is a hedge method, not without any risks, but you do make money. If not, if it were such a risk that people didn't make money, then the CBOE would not exist. Instead it has grown because stock holders see the hedge and profits in a more secure, less risky ebvironment, and Options buyers see a chance for excellent leverage, and are willing to take the higher risks. - Amazing
GinnyTosken

Teejay,
I'm not sure I know Bigboi's view on this and will not assume. Otherwise, yes, the ends do sometimes justify the means. Everyone knows that.
Bigboi mentioned Machiavelli recently, so I was thinking specifically of the maxim "The ends justify the means." I'm not sure they do, even if you modify it to "sometimes."
Gloria Steinem's comments in a commencement address to Hobart and William Smith Colleges in 1998 are worth considering:
In fact, the means are the ends. The means we choose dictate the ends we achieve, which is why we can’t use violence on children and expect children not to be violent, or have slogans like "Kill for Peace," or create strength in people by telling people what to do, or have a truly democratic nation without starting with democratic families, or start a group that is inclusive unless it is inclusive when it starts, or have a revolution that leads to love and poetry and music and humor without revolutionary tactics that include love and poetry and music and humor.
from http://www.hws.edu/new/speakers/steinem.html
Does the designation "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" depend on one's perspective?
Of course. Duuuhh.
This does sound like a simple question, but it has me pondering the meanings of these words.
Who is a terrorist? One who uses terror as a means of coercion.
Who is a freedom fighter? One who fights for freedom. Can one truly fight for freedom while at the same time coercing others by means of terror? Isn't that like saying, "Oppress for Freedom!"?
Not all freedom fighters are terrorists. I think an accurate distinction between the two is determined by the means one chooses to fight for freedom, not the perspective of onlookers.
Is bin Laden's reasoning sound...
Absoulutely.
I've missed your humor before. Was your response meant to be funny? Do you really believe that terrorism is an effective and commendable means of abolishing tyranny and corruption?
Ginny
Trilobite

Amazing,
Margin is a red herring. I never stated or implied that you needed to buy on margin. In fact, the example I gave specifically excluded margin. I said, as you even reproduced what I said, i.e., "assuming no margin." Didn't you read what I wrote?
Really, your post is unfathomable to me. Take a look, say, at a chart of Exodus Communications for the 18 months or so and apply your strategy. The stock has gone from about $90.00 to about 50 cents. Think it will come back?
Your whole argument amounts to saying that until you take the loss by actually selling the stock then there is no actual loss. What if the stock goes to zero? Do you serious think that the people who bought 1000 shares of EXDS at 90 bucks are smugly saying that they haven't taken a loss?
You originally stated that you strategy was the best option strategy an dthat it makes money "no matter what the market does" and that "you can't lose." That is, you stated, in effect, that your strategy carries no risk. I provided realistic counter examples. You admit now that there is risk but persist in posting examples of how your plan makes money, not how it can send you to the poor house. I really don't see any point in going on if the facts don't convince you.
T.
teejay

Ginny
Was your response meant to be funny? Do you really believe that terrorism is an effective and commendable means of abolishing tyranny and corruption?
Not funny -- dead serious. I won't be joking about Mr. Bin Laden.
I don't necessarily believe that terrorism is "commendable," but from the standpoint of an oppressed people that does not have the same avenues of redress as other people, it may be the ONLY means.
Effective? Damn skippy, if only to get attention, even if the "attention" leads to unhappy consequences for some. Often, it leads to the exact end that the terrorist hoped for.
tj
GinnyTosken

Teejay,
I don't necessarily believe that terrorism is "commendable," but from the standpoint of an oppressed people that does not have the same avenues of redress as other people, it may be the ONLY means.
Effective? Damn skippy, if only to get attention, even if the "attention" leads to unhappy consequences for some. Often, it leads to the exact end that the terrorist hoped for.
I see. So much for Ghandi and Martin Luther King.
I can't say that I share your views. Intent and means are as important to me as the ends. I think people often choose violent means because of anger and impatience.
The way you describe it, terrorism doesn't sound much different than a 2-year-old throwing a tantrum. If bin Laden is responsible, maybe he needs a time out until he understands that such behavior is inappropriate.
Ginny
teejay

Ginny,
I see. So much for Ghandi and Martin Luther King.
Whatever. Didn't know we were talking about those two. My bad.
I can't say that I share your views.
It will be a struggle, but I have overwhelming confidence that I'll get over the daunting realization that you don't see things as I do.
Intent and means are as important to me as the ends.
... she said, from the comfort of her living room. If you were oppressed for decades, your flowery platitude might carry more weight. As it is...
I think people often choose violent means because of anger and impatience.
Okay.
The way you describe it, terrorism doesn't sound much different than a 2-year-old throwing a tantrum. If bin Laden is responsible, maybe he needs a time out until he understands that such behavior is inappropriate.
Was that an attempt at humor? I've missed offerings from your piercing sense of humor before. If so... ha ha.
Sitting in judgment of people you don't understand -- and perhaps have made no attempt to understand -- is easy. Working to fit oneself into another's shoes, getting off one's high horse, trying to see a point of view you don't share, is a bit more difficult, not to mention uncommon. It's probably the MAIN reason we're in the major jam we're in. People, particular people with big sticks, would rather dictate than listen. But, hey... it's the American Way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose you were a young, attractive Black woman. Suppose it was 1950 Mississippi, and you had been raped by a group of white men. Suppose you knew where attacks like the one you experienced were regularly planned and from which they were implemented -- hell, the whole town knew. Suppose your father did the right thing... went to the police and was subsequently laughed out of the station and harassed all the way home by teens throwing rocks and hurling verbal insults. Suppose he took a Molotov cocktail and burned the building down, with people inside it.
In the above, entirely fictitious scenario (thank god), answer me this: Is dad a terrorist?
Whatever your answer, was dad "justified"?
Ever read the book or see the movie A Time to Kill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You started this thread by using a reference to the Boston Tea Party. As I mentioned, I was working up an essay using the BTP as a centerpiece to demonstrate how misdirection, deception, even terrorism, in the proper setting, can be viewed as a good thing -- it's all in the presentation -- and that current events may simply be a replaying of history.
In your top note, you did not state your opinion or your point. In the note I am responding to now, you did... sorta. You say that people choose violence because they are angry or impatient. That, of itself, means nothing. Some one (or group) is angry. Is their anger justified?
Impatient? That was one of the appeals to Blacks in pre-Civil Rights America. "Sit down (at the back, or else) and just wait. Justice is coming. Y'all know we're all Christians. We'll do right by ya. You're going to get your due. Just be patient."
I'm proud that my forebears displayed more Christian behavior than those who were supposedly superior. But violence (terrorism) might have been justified in certain situations. I think Samuel Adams, his cousin John, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, and all the rest of the early American patriots would (in fact DID) take my viewpoint. Many others have throughout history.
I have no problem with you taking a different viewpoint, but personally, I think there comes a time to kill.
tj
GinnyTosken

Teejay,
Intent and means are as important to me as the ends.
... she said, from the comfort of her living room. If you were oppressed for decades, your flowery platitude might carry more weight. As it is...
You have no idea what oppression I may or may not have endured in my life, Teejay.
Sitting in judgment of people you don't understand -- and perhaps have made no attempt to understand -- is easy. Working to fit oneself into another's shoes, getting off one's high horse, trying to see a point of view you don't share, is a bit more difficult, not to mention uncommon. It's probably the MAIN reason we're in the major jam we're in. People, particular people with big sticks, would rather dictate than listen. But, hey... it's the American Way.
If this accusation is directed at me, I think it is misplaced. For one, I am sitting in judgment of no one; I am simply sharing my views. I do try my best to understand the current situation from a radical Muslim perspective, and I am clearly against coercion with big sticks. Several of my friends are Muslim, my son's day care provider was Muslim, I have attended services at a mosque, and I worked for a student exchange program in which primarily Muslim students came from Malaysia to the United States.
Suppose you were a young, attractive Black woman. Suppose it was 1950 Mississippi, and you had been raped by a group of white men. . . .
In the above, entirely fictitious scenario (thank god), answer me this: Is dad a terrorist?
Whatever your answer, was dad "justified"?
Is dad a terrorist? It depends on the father's intent. Was he trying to coerce and intimidate with fear? Or was he trying to take justice into his own hands?
Was dad "justified"? It depends on what you consider just. Who was in the building when it burned? Were they all rapists, or were there other people who had nothing to do with raping? Do rapists deserve to die?
What will be the consequences of his action? Will the system be changed, or will the cycle of violence escalate?
Ever read the book or see the movie A Time to Kill?
No, I have not.
You started this thread by using a reference to the Boston Tea Party. As I mentioned, I was working up an essay using the BTP as a centerpiece to demonstrate how misdirection, deception, even terrorism, in the proper setting, can be viewed as a good thing -- it's all in the presentation -- and that current events may simply be a replaying of history.
I'd be interested to read your essay.
In your top note, you did not state your opinion or your point. In the note I am responding to now, you did... sorta. You say that people choose violence because they are angry or impatient. That, of itself, means nothing. Some one (or group) is angry. Is their anger justified?
Often people choose violence because they are angry or impatient, not always. Anger can be quite just and still cloud one's ability to think clearly and to carefully consider the consequences of one's behavior. Acting quickly, without much thought, in the heat of anger can lead to behavior one later regrets.
Impatient? That was one of the appeals to Blacks in pre-Civil Rights America. "Sit down (at the back, or else) and just wait. Justice is coming. Y'all know we're all Christians. We'll do right by ya. You're going to get your due. Just be patient."
I agree that patience wasn't the real issue in this case. In other cases, being patient produces a more effective, long-term solution.
I'm proud that my forebears displayed more Christian behavior than those who were supposedly superior. But violence (terrorism) might have been justified in certain situations. I think Samuel Adams, his cousin John, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, and all the rest of the early American patriots would (in fact DID) take my viewpoint. Many others have throughout history.
I have no problem with you taking a different viewpoint, but personally, I think there comes a time to kill.
I'm still not sure where I stand on this issue, so in part I've been playing the devil's advocate. I think I would kill in self-defense. I think I would kill to protect my son, my family, my neighbors. By saying the latter, I have to ask myself the classic Biblical question, "Who really is my neighbor?"
I lean towards the martial arts approach, in which an aggressor's energy is deflected back at him and used against him. In this way, one can defend oneself without rancor, even with compassion for one's opponent.
I see little point in vengeance or revenge. It may relieve one's feelings, but it does not unrape or unkill a person. Usually it leads to more violence. Somewhere, somehow, someone has to be big enough to say, "This is enough. The cycle stops here. I will forgive and work towards a lasting solution."
I do think that criminal behavior must be restrained. Vengeance and revenge are different from justice.
Ginny
teejay

Ginny,
You have interesting viewpoints. I wonder if you have concrete ideas on current events or whether your ideas are still in a state of major flux. Again... just wondering.
Sitting in judgment of people you don't understand -- and perhaps have made no attempt to understand -- is easy.
If this accusation is directed at me, I think it is misplaced. Several of my friends are Muslim...
This "accusation" is directed toward whomever it applies. Like you, I am only sharing my views, but received a slap earlier... something about Gandhi and King, I believe. Seems that I had the wrong view and needed correction -- or an editorial comment. Whatever.
Is dad a terrorist? It depends on the father's intent. Was he trying to coerce and intimidate with fear? Or was he trying to take justice into his own hands?
I wonder how your mind works, I really do...
Put me, teejay, in the role of dad in the scenario I gave, cause I know what I'd be thinking and what I'd likely do. My intent would be revenge, justice, whatever word you want to put on it.
Cite scriptures; say, "Now, now, tj, you know that's not right..."; quote the law; do whatever you have to do... someone is going to pay for what happened to my daughter. Take justice into my own hands? Absolutely. If not my hands, whose? Generations of Americans lived long lives without ever getting a hint of justice, waiting for a justice that never came. In the instance I created, I would indeed be taking justice into my own hands.
Now, I ask you a second time: Would I be a terrorist?
Was dad "justified"? It depends on what you consider just. Who was in the building when it burned? Were they all rapists, or were there other people who had nothing to do with raping? Do rapists deserve to die?
No, it depends on what YOU consider just. I asked YOU, remember? To my way of thinking, yes, I was justified.
Who was in the building? Let's say three of the four who were guilty, plus two who weren't.
Do rapists deserve to die? Do pedophiles deserve to die? Do murderers deserve to die? What does Ginny believe? What would Ginny's perfect world do with such offenders? Sit down and reach an agreement? Turn the other cheek and hope for the best? In the above scenario, Dad (tj) is giving you a clue to what HE thinks by torching the building while knowing that people are inside.
What will be the consequences of his action? Will the system be changed, or will the cycle of violence escalate?
If I have my way, the immediate consequences will be that the building will burn to the ground with everybody inside. I would consider the deaths of the two innocents as does the U.S. military when innocents die: collateral damage. They should've picked better friends.
Will the system be changed? Maybe, especially if one of the rapists was the corrupt sheriff who allowed the laws to be broken and refused to honor the badge he wore by doing his job.
Anger can be quite just and still cloud one's ability to think clearly... Acting... in the heat of anger can lead to behavior one later regrets.
Yes, it CAN. I'd have no regrets.
I'm still not sure where I stand on this issue...
I understand. I am not similarly plagued. I know what I would do.
I learn towards the martial arts approach, in which an aggressor's energy is deflected back at him and used against him. In this way, one can defend oneself without rancor, even with compassion for one's opponent.
How nice.
Truth be told, I lean toward the Quaker approach where there are no heated disagreements to begin with, thus no need to even deflect an aggressor's energy back at him, since in that lovely world of warm, fuzzy feelings, people don't even get angry with each other. Alas, when you find that Utopia, you WILL let us know, won't you?
I see little point in vengeance or revenge. It may relieve one's feelings, but it does not unrape or unkill a person. Usually it leads to more violence.
Again, how wonderfully transcendental your perspective is!
I'm way more in touch with my dark side than you, apparently. While killing the mofos that sullied my daughter may not undo the damage, I will sleep well in knowing that those particular sons of bitches won't be raping or killing anyone else; won't be encouraging anyone else to copy their sick acts; won't be passing their fucked up genes to a 2nd generation. I see we are worlds apart on many issues. I don't know... I'm at peace with that, somehow.
Somewhere, somehow, someone has to be big enough to say, "This is enough. The cycle stops here. I will forgive and work towards a lasting solution."
And you know who that "someone" would be in my scenario? All the relatives, friends and casual acquaintances of the bastards that died in the building that 'mysteriously' burned to the ground. They'd have to find a way to "let go", say, "this is enough." I'd have no problem with that.
I do think that criminal behavior must be restrained. Vengeance and revenge are different from justice.
Criminal behavior is not necessarily equal to vengeance or revenge. Said another way, vengeance/revenge is not necessarily criminal. Imo.
tj

Boston Tea Party--A Terrorist Act?

Share this