Why isnt the stock market a SCAM?

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: JS80

All else equal, yes, an increase in demand in securities will push the stock price up but if it's too much above fundamentals there are plenty of shorts willing to sell naked for a profit.

You're referring to generalized historical patterns rather than what may or may not happen. The .com era pummeled pocketbooks of some of the most famous shorters. It happens almost everyday as well in a smaller scale...a company 'might' have a potential medical cure or prevention, a donut company becomes the latest fad...

Yes there is common sense investing that generally prevails in the current system, however that doesn't make the current system any less of a pyramid scheme.

If new money stopped coming into the markets, they would get crushed. Not because of an immediate change in fundamentals, but an immediate change in whether or not investors believed they could make money, which would cause selling.

 

[Miramonti]

 

[biggerRIG]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: biggerRIG

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: JS80

I think you two are just disagreeing over definitions of words. To some people, trading equity at high values that are based on "future earnings" is effectively a ponzi scheme.

I would agree that that's what he is thinking. However, that assumption is incorrect. I would also agree that this is pointless, because people won't learn if they don't want to, it's obvious these guys don't want to learn.

Yes I agree with you, his assumption is incorrect. And yes, it's really futile to explain the market to lay people.

Then explain to me how the market can sustain its huge demand growth rate?

Not sure I understand what you're asking, but it's not a one sided market. There are plenty of short money that try bring bloated stock prices down.

In order for the price of a stock an established stock to go up 7% (adjusted for inflation) then the demand for that stock must increase 7%

Since the stock market is yielding a return over the long term of 5% inflation adjusted (indentical to if you took out a 5% inflation adjusted bond back in 1900) then the demand must also be increasing at 5% per year. The demand cant possibly sustain such a high growth rate like this. This is similar to a ponzi scheme where the scheme organizers rely on a high growth rate of new money coming into the scheme every month. As soon as the ammount of money coming in each month levels off the scheme goes POOF.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: JS80

All else equal, yes, an increase in demand in securities will push the stock price up but if it's too much above fundamentals there are plenty of shorts willing to sell naked for a profit.

You're referring to generalized historical patterns rather than what may or may not happen. The .com era pummeled pocketbooks of some of the most famous shorters. It happens almost everyday as well in a smaller scale...a company 'might' have a potential medical cure or prevention, a donut company becomes the latest fad...

Yes there is common sense investing that generally prevails in the current system, however that doesn't make the current system any less of a pyramid scheme.

If new money stopped coming into the markets, they would get crushed. Not because of an immediate change in fundamentals, but an immediate change in whether or not investors believed they could make money, which would cause selling.

.com era may have resembled a ponzi scheme but fundamentally it was not.

 

[iversonyin]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: JS80

All else equal, yes, an increase in demand in securities will push the stock price up but if it's too much above fundamentals there are plenty of shorts willing to sell naked for a profit.

You're referring to generalized historical patterns rather than what may or may not happen. The .com era pummeled pocketbooks of some of the most famous shorters. It happens almost everyday as well in a smaller scale...a company 'might' have a potential medical cure or prevention, a donut company becomes the latest fad...

Yes there is common sense investing that generally prevails in the current system, however that doesn't make the current system any less of a pyramid scheme.

If new money stopped coming into the markets, they would get crushed. Not because of an immediate change in fundamentals, but an immediate change in whether or not investors believed they could make money, which would cause selling.

And I don't see how that works like a ponzi scheme.

 

[JS80]

OK
Ponzi scheme: You're paying for essentially nothing
Stock Market: You're paying for part ownership in a company that generates/will generate future earnings

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: biggerRIG
In order for the price of a stock an established stock to go up 7% (adjusted for inflation) then the demand for that stock must increase 7%

Since the stock market is yielding a return over the long term of 5% inflation adjusted (indentical to if you took out a 5% inflation adjusted bond back in 1900) then the demand must also be increasing at 5% per year. The demand cant possibly such a high growth rate like this.

Demand has nothing to do with growth.

Stock prices appreciate because companies generate more returns, those returns are either returned (dividends) or reinvested. That reinvestment *ALSO* increases the worth of every stock, retained earnings is *EQUITY* if it increases and shares do not, then EACH SHARE IS WORTH MORE!


For example, if company A had an original book value of $100 and it had 10 investors, then each share is worth $10. Now, if that company earns $10 and DOES NOT PAY DIVIDENDS, it retains $10. Therfore, the company is now worth $110 and there are STILL TEN INVESTORS!!! Therefore, each share is now worth $11. Hmmm...(11-10)/10 = 10%


WOW, HOLY F'ING SHIZZLE! Simple math works!

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: biggerRIG
I think he was saying that the whole market is way overvalued.

In that case, even if it is overvalued now, then the entire market will *STILL* return inflation + equity premium, or 7-10% for probably the next 100 years.

Now, one thing to note about houses. According to most information, they have only appreciated 70% above inflation over the past 115 years, including a 50% jump in the last 10 years. To recap, houses have increased 20% for 105 years and 50% in 10, completely throwing off any good analysis. Even with this massive bubble, houses only returned .26% YOY for 115 years, adjusted for inflation.

Compare that to the stock market, returning ~5% YOY adjusted for inflation.

What's your point, schoolboy? The whole point of the thread is about whether or not the market is a pyramid scheme and your call people ignorant yet you don't even seem to understand at the fundamental level what drives it.

I don't? ROFL! You are the one missing 70% of the equation while focusing on 30%.

Schoolboy? Hrm...yes, I have had lots of school. To run it down...

BS: Psychology, History (01)
MBA: Finance (03)
CFA (3 for 3) (started in 03, finished...today)

After going from under to grad, I started as a Jr. Analyst in securitization, moved to analyst a year later, then Sr. Analyst the year after. Switched companies and started as a securitization manager, I will probably be a director or above in 3 years. So yeah, it's all "schoolboy".

You're outclassed and outsmarted. Go back to reading "Rich Daddy Poor Daddy" and quite spreading FUDD.

I've been in the securities industry since 1986 as a trader and manager, minus 5 years. Goodluck with your career tho. Fvcing insecure wannabee. LOL. :laugh:

 

[iversonyin]

Originally posted by: biggerRIG

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: biggerRIG

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: JS80

I think you two are just disagreeing over definitions of words. To some people, trading equity at high values that are based on "future earnings" is effectively a ponzi scheme.

I would agree that that's what he is thinking. However, that assumption is incorrect. I would also agree that this is pointless, because people won't learn if they don't want to, it's obvious these guys don't want to learn.

Yes I agree with you, his assumption is incorrect. And yes, it's really futile to explain the market to lay people.

Then explain to me how the market can sustain its huge demand growth rate?

Not sure I understand what you're asking, but it's not a one sided market. There are plenty of short money that try bring bloated stock prices down.

In order for the price of a stock an established stock to go up 7% (adjusted for inflation) then the demand for that stock must increase 7%

Since the stock market is yielding a return over the long term of 5% inflation adjusted (indentical to if you took out a 5% inflation adjusted bond back in 1900) then the demand must also be increasing at 5% per year. The demand cant possibly such a high growth rate like this.

Demand doesn't need to increase for stock price to trade up 7%.

Let say Company X beat earning expectation and increase their earning guidence for next year. - which cause Company X to worth 7% more.

The wave of buyers would come in and would pay 7% more for Company X's stock. Did the number of demand increase? No. Because of fundamental change, buyers are willing to pay more.

That's just one example.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

...

If this makes me seem negative about the stock market, then you are right. We've seen a dramatic change in the attitude of corproate CEO's the past few decads from being concerned about the long term health of a company and keeping customers to being only focused on short term value to share holders. As I said above, the value of a stock has little relation to the actual health of a company, so CEO's are often forced to make decision to keep the price of their stock elevated -vs- run a solid business.

DINGDINGDING We have a winner.

There has been a gradual but real shift away from caring about the company to caring about quarter by quarter profit. IMO this is partially because CEO's want to base-rape companies by quickly grabbing stock options and other forms of fast compensation and then quitting a few years later.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: jjsole
I've been in the securities industry since 1986 as a trader and manager, minus 5 years. Goodluck with your career tho. Fvcing insecure wannabee. LOL. :laugh:

I am sure you have been, otherwise you wouldn't be spouting stupid crap like this. I am sure you were born in 1986.

As far as being insecure, hardly. I know my crap and don't spread the stupid stuff you are spreading now. Anybody who is good at securities can (and I have) easily shoot you down.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: biggerRIG
I think he was saying that the whole market is way overvalued.

In that case, even if it is overvalued now, then the entire market will *STILL* return inflation + equity premium, or 7-10% for probably the next 100 years.

Now, one thing to note about houses. According to most information, they have only appreciated 70% above inflation over the past 115 years, including a 50% jump in the last 10 years. To recap, houses have increased 20% for 105 years and 50% in 10, completely throwing off any good analysis. Even with this massive bubble, houses only returned .26% YOY for 115 years, adjusted for inflation.

Compare that to the stock market, returning ~5% YOY adjusted for inflation.

What's your point, schoolboy? The whole point of the thread is about whether or not the market is a pyramid scheme and your call people ignorant yet you don't even seem to understand at the fundamental level what drives it.

I don't? ROFL! You are the one missing 70% of the equation while focusing on 30%.

Schoolboy? Hrm...yes, I have had lots of school. To run it down...

BS: Psychology, History (01)
MBA: Finance (03)
CFA (3 for 3) (started in 03, finished...today)

After going from under to grad, I started as a Jr. Analyst in securitization, moved to analyst a year later, then Sr. Analyst the year after. Switched companies and started as a securitization manager, I will probably be a director or above in 3 years. So yeah, it's all "schoolboy".

You're outclassed and outsmarted. Go back to reading "Rich Daddy Poor Daddy" and quite spreading FUDD.

I've been in the securities industry since 1986 as a trader and manager, minus 5 years. Goodluck with your career tho. Fvcing insecure wannabee. LOL. :laugh:

Trader =/= Analyst

Traders just take orders from the Portfolio Manager. Traders do no fundamentals research nor need any understanding of it. They just need to be able to fill in tickets with the right number of zeros.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: JS80

All else equal, yes, an increase in demand in securities will push the stock price up but if it's too much above fundamentals there are plenty of shorts willing to sell naked for a profit.

You're referring to generalized historical patterns rather than what may or may not happen. The .com era pummeled pocketbooks of some of the most famous shorters. It happens almost everyday as well in a smaller scale...a company 'might' have a potential medical cure or prevention, a donut company becomes the latest fad...

Yes there is common sense investing that generally prevails in the current system, however that doesn't make the current system any less of a pyramid scheme.

If new money stopped coming into the markets, they would get crushed. Not because of an immediate change in fundamentals, but an immediate change in whether or not investors believed they could make money, which would cause selling.

.com era may have resembled a ponzi scheme but fundamentally it was not.

I've referred to it as a pyramid scheme which I believe is different. Its not to say there is no value in the stocks, its to say the application of the stock markets open method of trading is a pyramid scheme. It would collapse without new buyers.

 

[iversonyin]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: biggerRIG
I think he was saying that the whole market is way overvalued.

In that case, even if it is overvalued now, then the entire market will *STILL* return inflation + equity premium, or 7-10% for probably the next 100 years.

Now, one thing to note about houses. According to most information, they have only appreciated 70% above inflation over the past 115 years, including a 50% jump in the last 10 years. To recap, houses have increased 20% for 105 years and 50% in 10, completely throwing off any good analysis. Even with this massive bubble, houses only returned .26% YOY for 115 years, adjusted for inflation.

Compare that to the stock market, returning ~5% YOY adjusted for inflation.

What's your point, schoolboy? The whole point of the thread is about whether or not the market is a pyramid scheme and your call people ignorant yet you don't even seem to understand at the fundamental level what drives it.

I don't? ROFL! You are the one missing 70% of the equation while focusing on 30%.

Schoolboy? Hrm...yes, I have had lots of school. To run it down...

BS: Psychology, History (01)
MBA: Finance (03)
CFA (3 for 3) (started in 03, finished...today)

After going from under to grad, I started as a Jr. Analyst in securitization, moved to analyst a year later, then Sr. Analyst the year after. Switched companies and started as a securitization manager, I will probably be a director or above in 3 years. So yeah, it's all "schoolboy".

You're outclassed and outsmarted. Go back to reading "Rich Daddy Poor Daddy" and quite spreading FUDD.

I've been in the securities industry since 1986 as a trader and manager, minus 5 years. Goodluck with your career tho. Fvcing insecure wannabee. LOL. :laugh:

Trader =/= Analyst

Traders just take orders from the Portfolio Manager. Traders do no fundamentals research nor need any understanding of it. They just need to be able to fill in tickets with the right number of zeros.

Depend on what kind of trader. Most traders read news and some do a more sophisticated analysis.

There are daytraders, insitutional traders, independant swing traders, floor traders. Each of these traders have different kind of knowledge.

 

[biggerRIG]

Originally posted by: iversonyin

Originally posted by: biggerRIG

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: biggerRIG

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: JS80

I think you two are just disagreeing over definitions of words. To some people, trading equity at high values that are based on "future earnings" is effectively a ponzi scheme.

I would agree that that's what he is thinking. However, that assumption is incorrect. I would also agree that this is pointless, because people won't learn if they don't want to, it's obvious these guys don't want to learn.

Yes I agree with you, his assumption is incorrect. And yes, it's really futile to explain the market to lay people.

Then explain to me how the market can sustain its huge demand growth rate?

Not sure I understand what you're asking, but it's not a one sided market. There are plenty of short money that try bring bloated stock prices down.

In order for the price of a stock an established stock to go up 7% (adjusted for inflation) then the demand for that stock must increase 7%

Since the stock market is yielding a return over the long term of 5% inflation adjusted (indentical to if you took out a 5% inflation adjusted bond back in 1900) then the demand must also be increasing at 5% per year. The demand cant possibly such a high growth rate like this.

Demand doesn't need to increase for stock price to trade up 7%.

Let say Company X beat earning expectation and increase their earning guidence for next year. - which cause Company X to worth 7% more.

The wave of buyers would come in and would pay 7% more for Company X's stock. Did the number of demand increase? No. Because of fundamental change, buyers are willing to pay more.

That's just one example.

So your saying the demand is a function of the profits? Exactly what i said earlier. Only problem with stocks is that profits don't directly mean anything to an individual investor the only thing that matters is stock price. It just so happens that people are brainwashed into thinking more profits = a higher price they'd be willing to pay.

 

[shadow9d9]

There are plenty of stocks with 7-10% dividends out there with plenty of growth as well. Try the stocks: Mcgc, Line, apl, etc.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: jjsole
I've been in the securities industry since 1986 as a trader and manager, minus 5 years. Goodluck with your career tho. Fvcing insecure wannabee. LOL. :laugh:

I am sure you have been, otherwise you wouldn't be spouting stupid crap like this. I am sure you were born in 1986.

As far as being insecure, hardly. I know my crap and don't spread the stupid stuff you are spreading now. Anybody who is good at securities can (and I have) easily shoot you down.

Hardly insecure? You have to point to a wannabee resume to 'prove' your point instead of using knowledge and understanding of what you're talking about. I highly recommend a change in fields, you sound like a typical wannabee streeter. Maybe you could use your intelligence to write books for children or something, people that you may be able to fool into thinking you know what you're talking about. 😉

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: JS80

All else equal, yes, an increase in demand in securities will push the stock price up but if it's too much above fundamentals there are plenty of shorts willing to sell naked for a profit.

You're referring to generalized historical patterns rather than what may or may not happen. The .com era pummeled pocketbooks of some of the most famous shorters. It happens almost everyday as well in a smaller scale...a company 'might' have a potential medical cure or prevention, a donut company becomes the latest fad...

Yes there is common sense investing that generally prevails in the current system, however that doesn't make the current system any less of a pyramid scheme.

If new money stopped coming into the markets, they would get crushed. Not because of an immediate change in fundamentals, but an immediate change in whether or not investors believed they could make money, which would cause selling.

.com era may have resembled a ponzi scheme but fundamentally it was not.

I've referred to it as a pyramid scheme which I believe is different. Its not to say there is no value in the stocks, its to say the application of the stock markets open method of trading is a pyramid scheme. It would collapse without new buyers.

Well, yes, it would collapse without new buyers, but so would all economies considering that the best way to raise expansion funds is to disperse investors. Or, we could just stop all buyers, which everybody is one at some point.

That doesn't make it a pyramid scheme.

 

[iversonyin]

Originally posted by: biggerRIG

Originally posted by: iversonyin

Originally posted by: biggerRIG

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: biggerRIG

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: JS80

I think you two are just disagreeing over definitions of words. To some people, trading equity at high values that are based on "future earnings" is effectively a ponzi scheme.

I would agree that that's what he is thinking. However, that assumption is incorrect. I would also agree that this is pointless, because people won't learn if they don't want to, it's obvious these guys don't want to learn.

Yes I agree with you, his assumption is incorrect. And yes, it's really futile to explain the market to lay people.

Then explain to me how the market can sustain its huge demand growth rate?

Not sure I understand what you're asking, but it's not a one sided market. There are plenty of short money that try bring bloated stock prices down.

In order for the price of a stock an established stock to go up 7% (adjusted for inflation) then the demand for that stock must increase 7%

Since the stock market is yielding a return over the long term of 5% inflation adjusted (indentical to if you took out a 5% inflation adjusted bond back in 1900) then the demand must also be increasing at 5% per year. The demand cant possibly such a high growth rate like this.

Demand doesn't need to increase for stock price to trade up 7%.

Let say Company X beat earning expectation and increase their earning guidence for next year. - which cause Company X to worth 7% more.

The wave of buyers would come in and would pay 7% more for Company X's stock. Did the number of demand increase? No. Because of fundamental change, buyers are willing to pay more.

That's just one example.

So your saying the demand is a function of the profits? Exactly what i said earlier. Only problem with stocks is that profits don't directly mean anything to an individual investor the only thing that matters is stock price. It just so happens that people are brainwashed into thinking more profits = a higher price they'd be willing to pay.

What you say its that demand is a function of stock price. More participants= increase in stock price.

Stock price = expectation of future earnings - if those earnings are realize, stock price would stay up. If those earnings expectations are not met, the price goes down.

What is so hard to understand?

It doesn't take increase in population to drive price up.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: jjsole
Hardly insecure? You have to point to a wannabee resume to 'prove' your point instead of using knowledge and understanding of what you're talking about. I highly recommend a change in fields, you sound like a typical wannabee streeter. Maybe you could use your intelligence to write books for children or something, people that you may be able to fool into thinking you know what you're talking about. 😉

Considering I have actually proven how it works while you use conjecture and stupidity. You have yet to provide anything but "If everybody left it would collapse". Well no crap. That doesn't make it a pyramid scheme.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: biggerRIG

So your saying the demand is a function of the profits? Exactly what i said earlier. Only problem with stocks is that profits don't directly mean anything to an individual investor the only thing that matters is stock price. It just so happens that people are brainwashed into thinking more profits = a higher price they'd be willing to pay.

That is incorrect. Retained profits = reinvestment for the future = more profits (assuming +NPV projects). These = higher retained earnings and Book Value (not to mention analyst models which project payout).

Lots of companies have stopped giving dividends and repurchase stock as a dividend, increasing price.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: biggerRIG
I think he was saying that the whole market is way overvalued.

In that case, even if it is overvalued now, then the entire market will *STILL* return inflation + equity premium, or 7-10% for probably the next 100 years.

Now, one thing to note about houses. According to most information, they have only appreciated 70% above inflation over the past 115 years, including a 50% jump in the last 10 years. To recap, houses have increased 20% for 105 years and 50% in 10, completely throwing off any good analysis. Even with this massive bubble, houses only returned .26% YOY for 115 years, adjusted for inflation.

Compare that to the stock market, returning ~5% YOY adjusted for inflation.

What's your point, schoolboy? The whole point of the thread is about whether or not the market is a pyramid scheme and your call people ignorant yet you don't even seem to understand at the fundamental level what drives it.

I don't? ROFL! You are the one missing 70% of the equation while focusing on 30%.

Schoolboy? Hrm...yes, I have had lots of school. To run it down...

BS: Psychology, History (01)
MBA: Finance (03)
CFA (3 for 3) (started in 03, finished...today)

After going from under to grad, I started as a Jr. Analyst in securitization, moved to analyst a year later, then Sr. Analyst the year after. Switched companies and started as a securitization manager, I will probably be a director or above in 3 years. So yeah, it's all "schoolboy".

You're outclassed and outsmarted. Go back to reading "Rich Daddy Poor Daddy" and quite spreading FUDD.

I've been in the securities industry since 1986 as a trader and manager, minus 5 years. Goodluck with your career tho. Fvcing insecure wannabee. LOL. :laugh:

Trader =/= Analyst

Traders just take orders from the Portfolio Manager. Traders do no fundamentals research nor need any understanding of it. They just need to be able to fill in tickets with the right number of zeros.

I've done portfolio and security instrument trading representing a firms trading and investment goals, making my own decisions, as well as managing others doing the same. I've also worked for myself as a trader for almost double-digit years.

Don't get me wrong, there's no brag in me about it, only a response to being challenged by what I refer to an 'ignorant wet under the collar schoolboy fvck.'. 😛 There's plenty that I haven't done and plenty about the vast securities industry that I lack knowledge and expertise in, but I'm pretty well versed on how it trades and what the fundamental factors are. 🙂

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: JS80
OK
Ponzi scheme: You're paying for essentially nothing
Stock Market: You're paying for part ownership in a company that generates/will generate future earnings

i think that's the best way to describe it simply.

In a simplified theory, when a company earns money, the money must go somewhere, a pay out as a dividend, into the company bank account, or reinvested back into the company to improve future earnings. Or of course, some combination of the above.

So the share price is overall dictated by earnings, from which a P/E ratio can be derived. This is used as a valuation tool, so if earnings increase, the value of the stock becomes more attractive and more buyers buy into it. So the market is self balancing.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: jjsole
I've done portfolio and security instrument trading representing a firms trading and investment goals, making my own decisions, as well as managing others doing the same. I've also worked for myself as a trader for almost double-digit years.

Don't get me wrong, there's no brag in me about it, only a response to being challenged by what I refer to an 'ignorant wet under the collar schoolboy fvck.'. 😛 There's plenty that I haven't done and plenty about the vast securities industry that I lack knowledge and expertise in, but I'm pretty well versed on how it trades and what the fundamental factors are. 🙂

1. I doubt that anybody with that experience would be saying such moronic things. Your knowledge (or at least your evidence of knowledge) is that of a preschoolder.

"Hey, if everybody left the market, it would die, therefore it must be a ponzi scheme"

Wow, great idea sparky!

2. I may be "wet under the collar", I have progressed further than most people in 3 years, but at least I don't say stupid crap and I back my stuff up with logic, not only theoretical but applied.

I recently saw a case where some guy was trading bonds for 30 years, his company was merged into another and he was fired for losing money. Just because you do something for a long time doesn't mean you are good at it.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: jjsole
Hardly insecure? You have to point to a wannabee resume to 'prove' your point instead of using knowledge and understanding of what you're talking about. I highly recommend a change in fields, you sound like a typical wannabee streeter. Maybe you could use your intelligence to write books for children or something, people that you may be able to fool into thinking you know what you're talking about. 😉

Considering I have actually proven how it works while you use conjecture and stupidity. You have yet to provide anything but "If everybody left it would collapse". Well no crap. That doesn't make it a pyramid scheme.

"No crap"? You just conceded that its the additional buying that keeps the market up, which is part of what makes it a fvcking pyramid scheme, lol! :roll: Thank you.

Now stfu insecure schoolboy, you were the first to call people ignorant due to your shallow arrogance, and you can now go play pickup sticks on your nearest highway onramp.