We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Strategies & Market Trends2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: ggersh who wrote (168920)2/25/2021 5:48:30 PM
From: TobagoJack
   of 187689
Klaus certainly seems questionable

Do genes make people evil?
—Robert Schreib, Jr., Toms River, N.J.

Daniel Lametti, a neuroscientist at McGill University, responds:

THE MONTREAL apartment where I live is rife with evildoers—well, to be precise, there is at least one. A couple of weeks ago my newspaper, routinely delivered at 5 a.m. to my building’s lobby, disappeared before I could scurry out of bed to collect it. To thwart the criminal, I asked my deliveryman to hurl the paper onto my third-floor balcony (thankfully, he has a good arm).

Admittedly, newspaper theft ranks low on the scale of evil acts. Still, I wouldn’t steal a newspaper. I would like to think that under most circumstances I wouldn’t steal at all. But many people do, and many also commit crimes that are much more sinister.

Scientists would like to know the root causes of evil behavior: Is it a product of our genes or environment? The answer appears to involve a combination of the two.

Since the 1960s psychologists have found that children who were abused and neglected are more likely to commit crimes later in life. Even so, researchers noted that most youngsters who are mistreated do not grow up to be criminals. Now our genes come into the picture.

A 2002 study found that a particular variation of a gene predicted antisocial behavior in men who were mistreated as children. The gene controls whether we produce an enzyme called monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), which at low levels has been linked to aggression in mice. The researchers found that boys who were neglected and who possessed a variation of the gene that produced low levels of MAOA were more likely to develop antisocial personality disorder, commit crimes and grow up to have a violent disposition. But those living in a similar environment who produced more of the enzyme rarely developed these problems.

Psychopaths are arguably the evilest of the evildoers. A study published in August 2010 looked at psychopathic tendencies in teenagers with low socioeconomic resources. The researchers found that adolescents who had a variation of another gene, which contributes to how quickly serotonin is recycled in the brain and which has been linked to hostile behavior in children, were more likely to exhibit signs of psychopathy.

These two recent findings provide strong evidence that evil behavior—mass murder, armed robbery, and perhaps even newspaper theft—might be caused by the right set of genes interacting with the wrong environment.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (168917)2/25/2021 5:50:45 PM
From: sense
   of 187689
The vast majority of dollar transactions are digital already. I hardly ever have or use cash. It's an inconvenience. And, its dirty. Etc.

There is not a question about whether or not transactions will continue to become increasingly digital ?

But, it is an error to assume that transactions are money... rather than transactions... just as it is error to assume that change in the adaptability of currencies to a digital world will... in itself... impose disintermediation as a byproduct.

Disintermediation matters for two dramatically different reasons. One a simple efficiency argument. The other a more meaningful issue of control... that also being the origin of the inefficiency... but inefficiency not defining the limit of the costs of control being extant... or being allowed... or being imposed anyway.

The questions left are about the nature of the changes in transactions that we want to enable... and those that some intend to enable, without asking... whether or not others want them.

And, in the mix... change in the nature of the limits that we do have now... that might be undermined or subverted entirely by a change that obviates intermediaries role in suppression of transactions... and change in what degree "they" are, or their suppression is, a benefit to society... rather than only a benefit to those who have control... who use that control to sustain the control... as the only or primary benefit they intend.

Cryto currencies have a role in exposing flaws in the existing concept of money... by sharing in them... and making them more obvious.

Blockchain technology has value... without that meaning the value it has is "as money".

The discussion over which technology should be used in enabling transactions... is not the same as the discussion over who is going to control money in the future... and how they will accomplish that ?

Bitcoin doesn't have an obvious path to changing the laws... which back those now in control... with force ?

And, the laws that "really" control global banking, and those who impose them... don't have any electorate they're held accountable to... rather more asserting their control in co-opting control of the officials you only think are accountable to you ?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: flashforward2009 who wrote (168921)2/25/2021 6:07:50 PM
From: TobagoJack
   of 187689
re <<been in gold for the past 5 years I don't have any now, but love copper and going forward I think it will be a better inflation hedge. If I've learned anything it is do not fight the tape.>>

have been doing gold since 1982, time of first coin purchase. As annual savings grew so did my annual purchases. Have been and are happy w/ the resultant mineralised savings as we look to phase-change from good in-de-flation to bad in-de-flation. Am reasonably certain that had I not put faith in gold as automatic limiter to what I might do w/ savings, the savings would have been fritted away the too many ways that savings can be.

as hedges go, arguable that useful metals pricing reflect what happed w/I narrow time-horizon windows, and after a bit substitutions happen or economy cools due to same inflation.

as gold is useless, no lives changed should gold zoom to 10K and then zip to 30K, it can, eventually, react to true dire in-de-flation.

bitgold exhibits some of what gold features

true that bitgold is infinitely divisible down the the satoshi and beyond

Cathie Wood Says Bitcoin (BTC USD) Cryptocurrency Can Hit Trillions Market Cap - BloombergCathie Wood says Bitcoin is in “early days” given its new interest from institutions and its diverse use cases.

Speaking as part of a panel for the Bloomberg Crypto Summit, the founder of Ark Investment Management said the largest digital currency has trillions in market capitalization potential.

“When you think the market cap of Bitcoin is roughly $950 billion, think about that in the context of an Apple,” she said. “It’s less than half of Apple’s valuation and here we’re talking about the reserve currency of the crypto asset world.”

Increased adoption by institutions this year has been a positive surprise, Wood said.

“We expected institutional investors to start moving in,” she said. “What we did not expect from institutions was the diversification on their balance sheet and a diversification of their cash assets into Bitcoin.”

Bitcoin gainge about 4% to $50,680 as of 11:07 a.m. in New York after plummeting about 13% earlier this week in the worst pullback in a year. ARKK extended its decline into a fourth day amid a broader tech sector drop.

‘Insurance Policy’Wood emphasized Bitcoin’s role as a hedge and an “insurance policy,” especially in a world of low rates and quantitative easing. There are even instances when it acts as a risk-off asset.

“The dollar is down which is normally a positive cue for gold, but gold is down at the same time, Bitcoin is up,” she said.

Wood also discussed the prospects for a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund approval in the U.S., especially if Gary Gensler is confirmed as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

What's moving marketsStart your day with the 5 Things newsletter.

“We’re going to see a lot of attention on it and the people who are focused on it really know what they are talking about,” she said. “It’s positive ultimately for approval of an exchange-traded product.”

Michael Sonnenshein, chief executive officer of Grayscale Investments, also spoke on the panel which was moderated by Bloomberg Intelligence’s Mike McGlone.

Ark Investment owned 7.3 million shares of the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust at the end of 2020, according to a filing. The firm indirectly holds the token through its ETFs’ investments in Tesla Inc. and Square Inc. The $25 billion ARK Innovation ETF ( ARKK) contains both Tesla and Square, at 10.4% and 4.8% of the fund, respectively. Square is the top holding of the Ark Fintech Innovation ETF ( ARKF), at 9%, and is also in the Ark Next Generation Internet ETF ( ARKW). And Tesla is the top holding of the Ark Autonomous Technology & Robotics ETF ( ARKQ), at 10.6%.

Square said Tuesday that it bought another $170 million in Bitcoin, adding to its previous $50 million and brining holdings to about 5% of the company’s cash and equivalents. Tesla also disclosed a $1.5 billion Bitcoin addition to its balance sheet earlier this month.

Even before the largest cryptocurrency’s 450% rally in the past year, Wood was a believer. She told Bloomberg News in 2015 -- back when Bitcoin had just reached $500 -- that she’d doubled her money in the coin amid emerging market volatility. Earlier this week, Wood told Bloomberg Radio that she considers its recent price correction to be healthy.

— With assistance by Olivia Raimonde

(Updates with Bitcon price, Wood’s additional comments from sixth paragraph.)

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: TobagoJack who wrote (168927)2/25/2021 6:10:04 PM
From: ggersh
   of 187689
This guy? :-O

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: ggersh who wrote (168930)2/25/2021 6:23:00 PM
From: TobagoJack
1 Recommendation   of 187689
... but, hey, the market of at least one stock is up due to economic fundamentals

very tempting to go against the implied volatility, but shall not, because there are no white swans anymore; only black ones.

GameStop Options Bet That the Stock Will Reach $800 on Friday
Fri, February 26, 2021, 6:06 AM
(Bloomberg) -- Shares of GameStop Corp. doubled yesterday and jumped another 19% today. Options traders think the stock can do much better than that.

The most-active option traded on the stock Thursday was a contract betting that GameStop shares would spike to $800 on Friday. Some 52,000 contracts changed hands during the session betting on this one-day gain of 636%

For other options traders, it was a question of when GameStop would hit the $800 mark, not if. The seventh and eighth most-active contracts were call options wagering that the stock would reach $800 by next Friday or in three weeks. It’s hard to say whether the contracts were mainly bought or sold, two traders said.

“It’s speculation gone wild, pure and simple,” said Steve Sosnick, chief strategist at Interactive Brokers LLC. “It is Exhibit A in the nuttiness that is associated with GameStop.”

GameStop’s Reddit-driven roller-coaster ride that roiled markets last month is continuing this week, with shares more than doubling in the final 90 minutes of trading on Wednesday and rising as much as 101% on an intraday level on Tuesday. The rally came as popular tech names from Tesla Inc. to Zoom Video Communications Inc. were battered after U.S. 10-year Treasury yields spiked to 1.6%.

For more articles like this, please visit us at

Subscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.

©2021 Bloomberg L.P.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: TobagoJack who wrote (168927)2/25/2021 7:26:00 PM
From: sense
   of 187689
Or, given the links to enzymes we should have, in context of the rest of the article... you could say the problem is a function of dietary choices, or the lack of them... given MAOA is inhibited by MAOI... which is a not uncommon function of many foods... Serotonin also having food links... Everything, to be in and sustain balance, requiring a range in proper precursors...

Being angry and violent when society isn't delivering what you need to survive or thrive seems... a biological imperative... rather than a genetic disease. Darwin being right... doesn't define who it is that is more fit ? So, the leap to assumption that "the genes are at fault" rather than "society is at fault" seems obvious error.

The suggestion in the article is that kids on common antidepressants would tend to escape the influences noted as "drivers in combination with genetics"... which should be easily proven if true. I doubt it would be proven, given "a pill" as the solution is less likely to work than a pairing of dietary and environmental changes that result in behavioral satiety as a function of unmet needs being met.

But, attacking problems as evidenced in effects rather than in causes isn't invented as a problem in this article...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: TobagoJack who wrote (168931)2/25/2021 7:44:27 PM
From: ggersh
   of 187689
I'd wait til it hit $790 at the casino ;-)

very tempting to go against the implied volatility, but shall not, because there are no white swans anymore; only black ones.

GameStop Options Bet That the Stock Will Reach $800 on Friday

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: TobagoJack who wrote (168931)2/25/2021 8:32:04 PM
From: sense
   of 187689
OMP +8% UVXY +23% SRTY +11%

One of those I didn't call: LUG.TO +5%

Am noting a couple other things worth seeing on a bad day in the market...

A relevance in the sort based on ROE, perhaps... as I cycle through charts on a list organized that way... I see a trend or two emerge in the price moves. Some is explicable as "diamond hands" shareholders in particular issues altering specific stocks performance relative to the market. But, the trend is pretty clear in a divergence right at the 0 limit in the ROE. Stocks above the limit might have had a bad day... if a less bad day for silver shares than others... and those above 0 having a less bad day (more in the extremes than the averages) than those below... but stocks above the limit show a stronger tendency to rise again, in after hours trading... while stocks below it tend to fall even more in the after hours, including some falling more after the close than during the trading day.

Another issue I ran into... still not quite sure what to make of.

Found it first as a news item I intended to address here as "the right way to think about alternative energy" in a proper application... Gold Fields Granted Approval for 40 MW Solar Plant at South Deep

That aspect is not the source of my uncertainty. Solar makes solid sense for overlapping reasons when used at a mine site. For one, it enables power where there might not be any otherwise... as an off the grid solution... or, as here, in response to unpredictable grid supply being an issue. But, it also makes business sense for miners to pay more for power that has better features... including both a less variable quality reducing costs, and the independence from externally imposed issues paired with a predictability in price... so that a higher but predictable price doesn't constantly jerk the rest of the business around between a power based cash flow problem in paying the bills, and trying to manage everything else based on changing power costs.

Freedom from problems others impose on you has value... and that freedom isn't free.

It makes more sense to pay for that freedom when interest rates and inflation are low... since the interest rate sticks... and inflation will make your power independence get cheaper over time... as the alternative gets more expensive.

But, while winding up for that pitch... I noted that in Johannesburg... the mining stocks all had strong performances... up on the day. And the least of those was Gold Fields. Chatting about it with a friend... a seven hour difference with New York... trading hours in Johannesburg 9 AM to 5 PM... trading hours in New York 9:30 AM to 4 PM... lazy bastards. But, ignoring pre-market trading, that still means the close in Jtown is 10 AM in New York. A half hour in overlap in trading... so trading is continuous. There isn't any coincident divergence to exploit in any arbitrage. But, there clearly was a difference in sentiment... between New York and Johannesburg... which wore off the moment Johannesburg closed. New York trading twice the volume in shares as trade in Johannesburg seems about right...

What does that mean ?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: bull_dozer who wrote (168918)2/25/2021 8:41:12 PM
From: sense
   of 187689
"the people's commuting tool": EW ?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: TobagoJack who wrote (168926)2/25/2021 8:57:53 PM
From: marcher
   of 187689
yep, noticing your recent 'appropriation'
this is confirmation
that i do
in case you are wonder

do you have
where those thoughts are
respectfully offered???

just wonder

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10