« Current status in de-heging, Mon., Nov. 13, 2006, 9:18 PM | Main | Cara's Daily Planet, Tues., Nov. 14, 2006, 5:46 AM »
November 14, 2006
Community Chat, Tues., Nov. 14, 2006, 5:32 AM
This space is intended for any student-of-the-market who wishes to pursue any topic of interest. Today I'd like to address the issue of "social equity" and invite the readers to help me create a definition for Wiki.
So important is this topic that I even considered taking a couple months off to write a book about it. I'd need that time because unlike the book I'm presently doing, it would entail original thinking, i.e., not market-related, or at least on the margin.
Yesterday, in a busy day for me, I happened to receive a severe criticism from people I happen to have a great deal of respect for. Normally, market-tough people like me just throw off criticism like the proverbial water off the duck's back, but this one also happened just when I was thinking about how polarized our society has become.
And it stopped me in my tracks.
The question had become personal. How polarized have I become, and, more importantly, heaven forbid have I become an agent of polarization like say the media personality Larry Kudlow? Am I trying as hard on the one side to repair the mess that I believe my counterparts on the other side are creating for society, and in doing so forgetting about my own sense of fairness?
It's a fair question because in no way, with respect to Sprott Asset Management, were some of my words anything less than a misrepresentation of truth. I had to look myself in the mirror and admit that I was not being true to my own values.
I wasn't doing a thing with the intention of harm, but I was being harmful.
Later in the day, a HIP blogger " that's a High Influence Person " requested that I initiate a topic for Wikipeda called Social Equity. I haven't been able to think about anything else since, and trust me that is dangerous because I have too many balls in the air as it is. One more may take me out of the game entirely.
But there is an issue here that bloggers must face " especially people who are prolific in their writing and who perhaps engage in a process called "free association thinking". We represent alternative media " unedited media " which means that except for a couple bloggers and blog aggregators like David Jackson (Seeking Alpha) there are few system checks and balances, possibly zero.
In pursuing social equity, perhaps I ought to have the concept better defined in my own mind.
It's not that I haven't written about this subject before: a google search of "social equity" on my own pages turned up 148 items. The problem is that, despite my writing an introductory article to the new ("Bill Cara") blog, entitled "The Meaning of Social Equity", there needs to be a better definition " a generally accepted definition.
So, if you happen to have a literary interest or just an interest in this general topic, perhaps you'd like to send me a private note BCara@BillCara.com and tell me what the term "social equity" means to you, or what you have taken away as its meaning after reading my blog.
Thank you in advance, and feel free to comment publicly here as well.
Posted by Posted by Bill Cara on November 14, 2006 05:32:10 AM | Category: Community Chat
Discourse
mikede, I edited the original blog, which was substantially different to what is there today. And, Sprott would not have commented perhaps because they would not wish to embarrass me, figuring I would probably see the light with a direct letter.
Posted by: Bill Cara ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.billcara.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at
November 14, 2006 6:49 AM [link]
Bill,
I see the investment world as a balance scale with insiders possessing privilege and power on one side (governments, financial companies and their execs) and individual investors on the other. Freely disseminated information is the great leveller. The result is social equity.
Keep doing what you're doing, and thanks.
Posted by: Wayne at
November 14, 2006 8:31 AM [link]
For all of you asking about chart patterns, free pattern recognition assistance software, designed to help you learn the patterns:
Posted by: MarkM at
November 14, 2006 11:45 AM [link]
Bill -
I found your comments on Sprott's role in the Uranium market ESSENTIAL to my understanding of that market and otherwise UNAVAILABLE to me. So, I hope you'll stick by your guns!
And on the subject of "social equity", I don't think markets have much to do with it. Most business people think: "the only thing I want is an unfair advantage". That's what monopolies, and branding, and technical standards battles are all about - getting a durable advantage that creates and maintains a margin.
I think equity comes of out political processes, which lead to regulatory and legal processes. THAT's what is broken, in my opinion. There isn't even any COMMUNICATION about things like Sprott's influence over uranium markets, because media are corporate.
You want business people to fight and scrap for advantage, but to have competitive, honest markets, you need strong, constructive governments at all levels. And you just can't get that now (at least in the US) because of the power of corporate interests, and the complacency of the population.
The mid-term elections were hopeful, but there is a LONG way to go before we have an effective, functional democracy in the US that can bring social equity to the markets.
Jock,
I do struggle as a writer -- I'm not a professional writer -- to say what I mean without being as offensive as I often seem to be.
I write things quickly, much like I speak, and often I forget that the words are going out to tens of thousands of people, some of who have reason to tak offense.
In the future, the words may become somewhat less aggressive, but the intent will remain the same. (smiley goes here)
Posted by: Bill Cara at
November 14, 2006 2:04 PM [link]
An effective, functional democracy = a lynch mob. The majority rules = a lynch mob. The distribution of wealth in the US has been so grossly polarized and concentrated into a minority of hands and institutions that social equity no longer exists.
Our country was founded as a Republic. Most people don't even know what that means. Down with Democracy I say, and long live the Republic (at least whats left of it).
As far as defining social equity ... hmmm.. The first time someone spots the new Ken Lay on a private yaught moored off the coast in the south of France, that I suppose would be social equity, 2006 style.
Posted by: prophetaker at
November 14, 2006 2:49 PM [link]
Bill,
As you have mentioned in your last comment, you have an extensive reach amongst investors now and more you write about some entity, more they will be concerned. But should this convert you to soem one like a top Newspaper Editor that you hesitate to write what you know/feel is happening?
For some of your readers like me, it is a reason we visit your Blog many times a day because I am confident that I am getting knowledge/thinking of a great, honest and selfless successful player of this game.
Not knowing what exact comment of yours triggered this, I will say 99.9% of your Blog is what we want. And if you crossed the boundary on something (that most of readers like me did not even figure out), I will say that put standard disclaimer and keep sharing your knowledge, thinking, feelings the way you have done it so far!
BTW, I became so uncomfortable with your Uranium comments few days ago, that I took my hefty profit in KRI.TO and very little profit on puts sold for CCJ and came out. I sleep well normally when I align my actions with your comments. And my comment to a very small number of people who have commented of losing out on the recent rally, I will challenge them to get a paid Manager and stop visiting this Blog.
Thanks and keep going!
Posted by: Rick at
November 14, 2006 3:01 PM [link]
Bill said
'...Sprott Asset Management Energy Fund, which has taken positions in a great many of these small uranium companies... You should be aware what the meaning is; beware uranium prices that a vested-interest player (ie, Sprott) is setting."
In my opinion Bill was spot on to warn of the vested interests of Sprott... he has done everyone a great service...
I have seen Sprotts 'money managers' on ROB TV tons of times - offloading shares of small cap energy and mining companies that have terrible technicals and are collapsing.
Shameful - in most cases they collapsed all the way back down to where they started.
See PVM (Pine Valley Mining) for an example of what I am talking about (remember the Coal Boom?)- went from $7 to 0.17 cents - and this was their 'top' pick.
IMO These guys have placed one way bets in so many commodity related markets - what happened to Amaranth can happen to them too.
Posted by: Tradesman at
November 14, 2006 6:33 PM [link]
Bill,
I hope you do not change a thing as long as you keep out of legal trouble.
To me, Social Equity is equal opportunity for all and extra help for those who are either out of luck temporarily or were wronged in the past.
Posted by: ghosalb at
November 15, 2006 1:08 AM [link]
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
Bill
I don't see how your description of the uranium market and Sprotts involvement should cause any great concern. It appears to me you are interested in helping the uninformed understand some of the intricacies of the financial market place. Sprott promotes uranium, they are financially involved, investors with Sprott have reaped the rewards, but if it's not a completely free market why shouldn't it be pointed out. I'm sure they are free to open discus in your forum
Posted by: mikede![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.billcara.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at
November 14, 2006 6:39 AM [link]