Thanks for the responses which all raise interesting points as well. Let me start by saying here that as the community host I view it as my responsibility to foster open discussion where multiple points of views are not only tolerated but encouraged. So, while I think from our discussions so far I don't really have to worry about you backing off your side of the discussion over anything I say, I just want to encourage others to follow your example here. Secondly before I get started as you can probably tell you have touched on some things that are very close to home for me, so I apologize in advance for the hugely lengthy reply that is about to come;-)

With this being said there are a few points here.

Firstly, as I have mentioned in other posts, I believe that over the long term doing the right thing in business will always bring the greatest profits, all else being equal.

As a result of this belief the first place I would need to start to answer your question is to define what I feel is "doing the wrong thing" in the example you have given in your post. I will start here by saying that I am a strong believer in free markets and capitalism, so I do not believe that there is anything wrong with outsourcing or off shoring work to overseas markets. In my opinion if markets are truly free (and there is obviously some debate on how free the market actually is), then allowing people to focus on where they fit best into the free market picture, brings the maximum benefit to everyone involved.

So, with this in mind I see no problem with offshoring in principle.

Offshoring work to a sweatshop that works men women and children 16 hours a day in those types of conditions however, I do see a problem with, and would define as wrong.

So to answer your question of which Option do I feel is the route which would maximize profits for this company? I would say neither. What would maximize profits in my opinion, and fit my definition of doing the right thing, would be outsourcing work to areas where there is a cost advantage to doing so, and treating workers with the respect and dignity that they deserve.

I believe that a company who operates with this mode of thinking will make more money over the long term, than a company who off shores to the same country but offers sweatshop conditions to their workers, to suck as much out of them as possible in the shortest period of time. I believe this because if I was a worker in one of those countries and I could have the same type of job at a company that offered sweat shop conditions vs. a company that air conditioned their factories, had the necessary safety precautions in place, and basically treated me with the respect and dignity that any human deserved, then I am going to take the second one every time.

Not only am I going to take the job with the company that treats me with dignity and respect, but because they treat me so much better than everyone else, I am going to love to work for this company, which means I am going to work twice as hard (because I want to not becuase I am being forced to which means the quality of my work will be much higher), have pride in my work etc etc etc etc. This means my company puts out better products with more efficiency, which end the end gains my company market share and lowers costs at the same time.

So why don't more companies do this now? Two reasons in my opinion:

1. Human nature leads people to sacrafice long term opportunity for short term gains.

2. People are scared to innovate because if they fail doing the same thing everyone else is doing, then oh well "I am not stupid because everyone else was doing that too." If they fail trying something that no one else is trying however, then they are laughed at, or worse fired.

As for the internet point, I feel that yes the internet puts all the powers of word of mouth on steroids, by allowing individuals like us platforms that put our message on the same, or sometimes even a higher level than the message of the corporations of themselves. This in my opinion basically takes the power away from the center (examples: Corporations, Governments, Employers, Static websites) and pushes it out to the edge (Examples: Consumers, Citizens, Employees, Web Communities (ie. web 2.0)). I agree that there are still many examples where the power structure has not shifted, but in my opinion this is because we are still in the early stages of the internet.

On your last point thank you for the compliment there, as I do consider this a strength of mine and one of the reasons why I started this community was to hopefully leverage this strength to bring people together in a way where the most people benefit.

To answer your question no I do not play any intelectual games, I got into chess once years ago but had to stop when I started walking diagonally instead of straight ahead while thinking about a move one day;-)

I would say that I got this skill from my father who is great at explaining complicated thoughts in a simple and easy to understand way. Then I would say that I honed this skill when I was given the opportunity to grow and manage a large team of people at my former job. Because many of the people I was managing were older and more experienced that I was, I learned quickly that I could not rely on title to just tell people what to do, but I had to convince them that I knew what I was talking about, and the reason to do what I was saying was because it was the correct thing for them to do, not simply because I told them too.

I would say that you share this skill do you mind if I ask how you learned it?

My apologies again here for the verbal diarrhea, and thanks for the opportunity to share my views. Keep the interesting posts coming.

Best Regards,
Dave

__________________
Disclaimer: Trading is risky and can result in substantial financial loss. As always my posts are simply one traders opinion and should not be taken as trading advice. I am not a financial adviser so everyone please do their own analysis and take responsibility for their own trades.

Well stated Dave. If only 1/4 of big name CEOs held tightly to the principles you discussed our country would be a better place to reside.

Of course one would not be able to observe the culprit as being lack of intelligence. After all, most CEOs are generally highly intelligent.
In fact, I wouldn't hesitate to say that many of them started out with similar views as yours, and then somewhere along the way they stray.

With money signs in their eyes they exchange the healthy and upright way for the immediate and dirty.

Let us all agree that money changes people.

Have you ever had a friend who asked you what you would do if you won the lottery? "I would help out everyone I knew, give a lot of it to charity, and only keep enough for me to live comfortably." Yet statistics show that most lottery winners are bankrupt within 5 years.

As has been the case for as long as man has had a case, ideals are not closely related to reality. This is not to say that your business ideals are faulty or unrealistic. From the amount of energy you have put into your thoughts on this matter I would say that you would be one of the guys who keep it real. Out of this comes a question closely tied in with trading.

How does one gain immunity from greed?

Greed is the #1 reason there are so many traders, and the #1 reason there are so few.
Most are lured away by the prospect of financial win-falls. Much in the same way CEOs are lured away by the quick and easy way to profits.
Then the day comes when you are in front of the screen and all you can think about is catching that 20 point or 200 pip move. meanwhile you completely miss the smaller, more realistic moves of 2 points or 20 pips.

One of the biggest breakthroughs I had with trading is when I realized that to make $100-$200 a day was not a bad goal. I had to give up the dreams of making loads of cash in order to start making a little chip off the block each day. I can't imagine where I'd be without this realization.

If only I could put my finger on how I dealt with the greed that was clouding my vision. I think it would be good for the trading community to begin to explore the psychological aspects of greed and fear to better understand themselves and thereby make it possible for them to step into becoming better traders. In the coming days I am going to post a few new topics about things related to fear and greed. Hopefully we can get some good topics flowing and generate some stimulation for those who are hungry to learn and become informed traders.

I appreciate the compliment about being able to arrange my thoughts well also. Well, let me first say that I believe creativity to be the beginning of all progress, and that the antithesis of creativity is culture, a statue, a monument, but not alive. I try to live that every day. So for me I think my ability to think this way is driven by the need for me to create ideas. I am also an avid chess player which keeps my mind up to the task of existing in a logical world. A little too logical at times. I had a philosophy professor who always used to say," You cannot dissect a living organism." At the time I thought this to be obvious. I thought he was saying that it would be cruel to attempt this. Now I know he was saying that some things are meant to be lived and not over examined, and as soon as you pick them apart they promptly become deceased. So sometimes being so logical leaves us with more questions than answers, right? I believe that once all of the basic technical aspects of trading are down pat, trading really becomes an art. An expression of who we are through the medium of choice and dominion. Trading is one of the only professions where you are in complete control of the outcome, and it is one of the only professions where you feel the least in control.

Glad to hear back from you and to have the opportunity to continue this discussion.

I agree that the culprit is not lack of intelligence, but from human's "jungle" instinct to focus on the short term rather than the long term, and people's desire to be accepted and part of a larger group.

I would also attribute the fact that so many people end up bankrupt after winning the lottery partially to the above two things. I would however also add here a lack of intelligence as (and I am probably going to get into trouble here but I am going to say it anyway) from my experience the majority of people who play the lottery for anything other than fun, are not very intelligent. I say this because the odds are stacked so far against the player, that in the end, all lottery's are is a way for the government to further tax the population, without having to say they are raising taxes. This is in my opinion especially unfortunate, as the large majority of this "extra tax" comes from the poorest part of the population.

I also agree that ideals are not often closely related to reality, however I feel that the reason I will be able "keep it real" actually stems in part from my answer to your question of "how does one gain immunity from greed".

The reason I feel that I will be able to keep it real and still be highly successful by any standards, is not because I feel that I am immune to greed, but actually in large part because of it.

In order to understand why I feel this way lets first take a look at the definition of greed as defined by Wikipedia.org:

"Greed is the selfish desire for or pursuit of money, wealth, power, food, or other possessions, especially when this denies the same goods to others."

In my opinion this definition, which is how people traditionally think of greed, leads one to think that if you want the most, it has to come at other people's expense.

While trading is a bad example to help me make my point as we have pointed out in our earlier discussions, in business in general I believe that while success can come from denying things to others, the largest successes (especially in the new economy) will come to those who are able to create the most powerful tides which lift all boats.

So I truly believe that, using this site as an example, the more other people benefit here, the more that I will benefit. I think you can see where I am coming from in terms of my benefit as it relates to how much other community members benefit. What really I think will crystallize this point however, is that I believe this about not only members of the community, but also people who would traditionally be considered competition.

There obviously has to be a quality filter here, but outside of this, I believe that the most success will come not to those that view other businesses in the same space as competition that they want to drive into the ground, but those that view them as potential partners.

As I hope this demonstrates, my view of the quickest path to success, flips how people traditionally think of greed on its head, as I believe that the fastest path to the largest success, comes not by focusing on ones own success at the expense of others, but by focusing on helping as many others succeed as possible.

Now let me step down off my soapbox and get back to the question of trading;-). In short, since I have just spouted on for so long on the above, what I will say here is that my personal belief is that it is impossible for most people to become completely immune to things like greed, so it is better in my opinion to learn to channel these types of emotions in the correct direction. From my experience if I try to get rid of the emotion completely, then all I really end up doing is suppressing it, so that when it eventually rises back to the surface it is more powerful and dangerous than ever.

I have some additional thoughts on this, so let me know when you post the greed and fear thread and I will add them there.

Love the below quote. Did you come up with that yourself?

"Trading is one of the only professions where you are in complete control of the outcome, and it is one of the only professions where you feel the least in control."

Best Regards,
Dave

__________________
Disclaimer: Trading is risky and can result in substantial financial loss. As always my posts are simply one traders opinion and should not be taken as trading advice. I am not a financial adviser so everyone please do their own analysis and take responsibility for their own trades.

Well ... I just saw this topic, and was going to comment.

I'll just say: "Ditto" on all of Dave's comments.

Since my own method of trading is discretionary? I don't mind letting people know some of the tools that I use, and even ways that I combine the tools. Some stuff I keep to myself, but some of that also has to do with the fact that I have signed NDA agreements not to reveal a proprietary system. And even that system? I really don't trade. I turned it into my own hybrid. But the principle remains that I can't disclose

But since I am a discretionary trader? I don't mind letting folks know a lot of how I trade. But as those who know me understand? The main thing I preach is money management.

I've watched traders who only followed volume, price with support and resistance. I've actually watched them perform trades, before, during, and at their exits. They're audited, and consistently profitable. Not because they are that hot of a trader? But because they have their money management nailed down to perfection.

__________________
Investing and Trading Blog, with education for the low funded trader ...
Investing and Trading Video Blog (Vlog) at YouTube

Hi Airelon,

Glad to see you joining the discussion. It has pretty much morphed into corporate politics since the inception, but I think it all has to do with trading either way.

If you don't mind me asking, why have you signed an agreement stating that you would not disclose a proprietary system? What does it mean for anyone if you were to reveal such information? who would suffer, and who would benefit?

I can attest to money management being such an important factor in successful trading. I generally focus on price alone, using volume as an indicator as well. Supply and demand are all that matter in my trading world.

I once heard a true story about a columbian cocaine dealer who had managed to fill several rooms in his home with stacks of cash. He had so much money he didn't know what to do with it. " I can only buy so many mansions, so many cars." he said.

In light of this it is easy for me to see how someone like Gates would be able to focus on a more philanthropic role in life, but I believe he would have never gotten to where he is with MSFT had he early on thrown aside the aggressive strategy for a strategy that helps everyone else. The rungs of the ladder of success are made from the heads of men who out of a good conscience would not step on anyone else's head.

I am willing to accept that life is not limited to either the corporate ladder or the soup kitchen, the paradox for me is this question. If you want to be in business what are you doing in the soup kitchen, and if you want to help people what are you doing in business?

It seems maybe these two opposites take part in diluting each other. Think of an Amish robot.

I am in love with the idea of simultaneously fulfilling self interest and the interests of everyone else. However, the rules of the universe are that of an economic origin. Only one side of the planet can be sunlit at one time, and the rich and poor are of mutual necessity.

So how do we have room for helping others when business has always been about profits? I just think that the very nature of business is against the very nature of charity. One attempts rigorously to bring in money, and the other gently distributes.

You state that there is a larger success to be had by creating a powerful tide to lift all boats. And where may I ask is all of this water going to come from?

About your point of viewing what would traditionally be viewed as competition being viewed as potential partners....do you see that this kind of thinking completely goes against everything we know about how to grow a successful business? Why would we split out profits with ten guys when if we can buy them out or suffocate them we are entitled to their share of the market?

I think it just all falls back to the nature of the world we live in. The strong survive. Natural order will have its influence in whatever we do. The stronger triathlete will break the tape every time, and after that the strength of each man will be revealed in descending order as they cross the finish line.

Lance armstrong took first place in the tour de france several times, and then that one guy, the guy who came in second, ummm...gosh what was his name. I don't know his name. You know why? Because no one knows his name.

I once heard a man say that if something was worth doing, it was worth doing well. I believe this, and I struggle to see how there is room for excellence when one is after the best of both worlds.

So, all of this being said, I am beginning to think that our definitions of success are slightly varying. Looks like I borrowed your soapbox for just a moment. You can have it back now.

I also wanted to ask you if you knew of any examples of someone helping themselves and everyone else without sacrificing efficiency or profits.

..........back to you Dave.

Basically - I signed an NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) when I took a look at one system some years back. Can't really get into it that much due to the NDA. Needless to say, if I went around disclosing it to others, I would be opening myself up to a lawsuit.

It works, and I still use it. I don't use it exclusively - as I combined it with some other tools I use (Like Larry Williams 1.28 rule) to sort of come up with my own methods. I don't think traders really need it, although the system does work well.

__________________
Investing and Trading Blog, with education for the low funded trader ...
Investing and Trading Video Blog (Vlog) at YouTube

I wouldn't (and don't) see the two as exclusive. The place of my worship has a pretty diverse economic crowd, which I enjoy. I know millionares who volunteer their time, and work along with people who probably make less than $30k a year. Heck, I've seen incidences where the millionares are taking their directions on what to do from the $30k crowd. They don't donate the money to charity. They roll up their sleeves, grab a shovel, and will be digging and raking dirt along with everyone else. Everyone contributes monetarily, as they see fit, and as they decide for themselves. No one tells anyone else what they should be contributing.

Who of us does not want to live in that sort of world? The problem is implementation, and the problem there is human nature getting in the way. Therefore, it's human nature that needs to be addressed. Not 'charity' vs. 'wealth'. I believe that that wealth, and being a kind, giving, generous person are not exclusive.

I know you asked Dave this question, but I would submit my "Challenge Project" as just such an example. Live money being traded, helping other traders. Demonstrating with live money, how to trade profitably. Announced all the trades before hand, during, and after the exit. There are many reasons I'm doing the Challenge Project, but one of the primary reasons is to help others.

Though the Challenge Project really came about for a multitude of reasons (one of which, admittedly, is to protect my own wealth) - it's not the first of it's kind. Larry Williams has not only traded money live in front of groups of hundreds? He's taken a percentage of those profits for the day during one of his seminars, and then distributed them to everyone present. Does it really affect his efficiency?

Nope. If anything, it increases it. The $10k he distributed that day (if memory serves me correctly)? What's that to a guy like Larry Williams? In addition, it increases his reputation as a Market Educator, which means he sells more books, and more educational materials. It's good PR. Heck, I'd argue that distributing that money to everyone present was about one of the most efficient ways he could have spent it.

__________________
Investing and Trading Blog, with education for the low funded trader ...
Investing and Trading Video Blog (Vlog) at YouTube

Hey Airelon,
Thanks for the reply. I always enjoy the the thoughts of others.

The point I am trying to express is not promoting the exclusivity of business and wealth. I am just pointing out the specific dedication required to succeed at charity or wealth. I would sound pretty ignorant I think if I stated that a person needs to be one way or the other in all things.

As far as the issue being that human nature is what needs to be addressed, what about human nature do you think needs to be addressed dynamically or generally for that matter to deal with... what issue? Being economically segregated? I don't think I was following you there.

I'm sure the sleeves of those millionaires cost more than the entire wardrobes of others, and all though it is good for people to come together in fellowship to worship and serve, I would still say that those men have taken ample part in serving themselves first since no man who ever lived has done millions of dollars of labor by himself. By the way, was he digging the graves of the many men who his money labored into the ground?

I suppose it would be a stretch to say that the lower and sometimes middle class laborers in this country and any country are taking part in a modern and lilly-white form of slavery. Then I thought no, why would that be a stretch? Slaves were provided room and board for their work which their masters capitalized heavily off of. Most who work today live check to check and at the end of the month are only able to afford an apartment, a car payment, and groceries. But slaves were whipped and treated horribly. Well, we can substitute the psychological torture of being stuck in a dead end job that you absolutely need where your boss is an asshole for whipping and mistreatment.

This is not to judge anyone for anything at all. It is simply to not lose sight of the way in which our natural and financial beast breathes. Anyhow, I think most of this is just striking at the branches. The root of my point is that I believe the attempt to offset the inequity which is inherent in our economic set up by trying to use our gain to help others is an oxymoron. If anyone is in this game to make money then he must realize that his gain is someone else's loss, and there is no penance due to begin with. It's just the way the world works. And...if we are in this game to help other people then monetarily is substandard. Jesus himself is certainly not known for his financial offerings. He has changed the world with his deep love demonstrated on the cross, but no one alive today has received a dime from him. Well, other than Kenneth Copeland or Benny Hinn..

Interesting outlook on the Williams seminars. I have a question that would say a lot one way or another. Are his seminars free?

Thanks for listening Airelon...and anyone else who would like to join the dicussion.

Ok 007, but what I was trying to get at was why do you think someone would care to keep a system secret?