Trading Contexts on Trust

One could say that trust is something that is a basis for a trade. That is, one trusts that one has made a purchase such that over the ensuing time, it will return in your favor. Whether there was any basis for this trust, or simply random events construed this outcome is not necessarily important, except for the fact one may want to make another trade and another. What I could say is that the basis for such trust, if it exists, is contextual.

One can look at fear and greed in terms of trust, that is one deviates away from trust with fear and with greed. But of course can one in any sense trust a trading market. If trust is highly limited, then the effects of fear and greed may become amplified.

Which comes back to systematic approaches of some kind, because one has no alternative to act in the market. One can find trust here, by saying that a given systematic approach may have some validity in market function, or past performance (in both cases that validity, if it exists, can change).

But what is a non-systematic market stance without fear and greed like. Market driven, perhaps.

If one could use a trading market a bit more like an investing market, that is loosen the time factor which decides exits of trades (that is, the extent of the move against your position overwhelms the opportunity within the position) one may have a different perspective, if one can find an apparently counterintuitive basis for such trust.

It is interesting to ask if equities have a different time factor than other instruments, ignoring issues of leverage and is this related to that growth. That exists in forex for example, market participants may seem to effectively grow a forex pair, but without that stability from company structure, except perhaps in the way markets may interact.

But, again, is there something else in that space between trust and simply doing. If one considers responsiveness, one can say that the human brain, as long as it deals with fear and greed can respond (this is what it does, it was designed to do so, within the limits of such design). Assuming there is something to respond to.

There is nothing one can do about or with the news event, it happened somewhere else just as one cannot really do anything about what is happening about the market, especially markets like forex. The consequence of responding in forex is not not necessarily really growing, just a collection of responses. That points to the question in markets, do valuations really grow in some sense, or is it just trader response which may make for changes.

Is there something real in the way information changes over time, what structures it or even appears to structure it. It possibly comes down to a sense of predictions of accuracy being made, that is the way these are collectively done. This points perhaps to the importance of making such predictions to the generation of information.

In the case of forex, there may be something that at least guides those predictive statements. In the case of equities this may be more the case, in some circumstances.

New Media and Freeing Expression

What can we characterize as trust in new media, does it matter in the way it matters in old media. Now, media itself is something one may tend to trust and have that basis of time and again, to trust. One has criteria to know to what extent that basis remains constant and filters events, which may themselves be highly filtered anyway.

But new media has this sense, it is so immediate, that those filters are disengaged. It is so granular that one might expect any disinformation, to be re-patterned away, or it is filtered from top down to remove what may be seen as noise. In a sense one does not need to trust new media, as its best. What I mean ideally one can make up one's own mind, or at least surf on all that information. One can simply reference the raw data coming at you, with established media, indeed.

Thus old media has a crucial role as long as at least part of it, is part of new media as well (that is there is a something to reference). Now this raises the question, can new media take over that role, without impinging on the experience of rawness and the possibility of people to come to their own conclusions, which is surely the very foundation of a free press. That is can we get something really new, or even can we maintain new + old media.

New media is to a reasonable extent the people, for now, it is people getting the news as it happens, as it grows from point zero, taking on new interpretations and vistas as it does. One needs to grow with it, but that means one needs to get that growth unimpeded, or at least very lightly filtered. I think that growth itself is important, as that is potentially where the most information can be for a while (i.e. the 'noise' is needed).

I might say that there is something inherent to that which old media does, that is part of this growth. But partly what is new, what makes it new media, is that people are there from point zero. A thrilling experience, running the gamut of emotion, like watching something on TV, except it references real world events ? But to me there is something more, that extraordinary process as ripples make waves around you, in the world of the Internet.

It is important that many voices can add to this process, but it is the process itself that is of interest to me. What is it about growth, does it mean anything. I think it means something for people to be in on it. That is what I mean by growth, which does that process result in. It is a great question, what did that sharing of information and opportunity at the beginning of the US do to it. Putting people in, because of words written on a document.

Growth here is opportunity, because being so close to the development of the news, does not have risks, one assumes. But whether that opportunity becomes anything, is the same question it always is. That come back back to trust. Leaps into the connected unknown, because the connectivity does not necessarily enhance the accuracy of the information, and assuming accuracy is required for effective opportunity (one could say that it may be, over time and for sustainability, but not necessarily).

This opportunity may happen if the connectivity enhanced the accuracy of the other media, or created a more complex way to express the development of information, either short terms events, or longer term issues.

But is there something in that space between trust and simply doing. If one considers fast moving conditions in new media (which is where this comparison is coming from), one can consider that perhaps there is no information really at all, except for the experience of it, or one can possibly consider that again the individual's brain responds.

There is nothing one can do about or with the news event, it happened somewhere else. The consequence of responding in new media is getting a sense of being more immediate with news events, what I would take from it, is that sense of a story growing and being with it. But not necessarily really growing, just a collection of responses, expanding and inputs into it.

Can we see anything that guides responses, something for them to fit into. The only thing one might say is that the process of growth of a story may reveal something in its granularity such that there may be something otherwise not to be seen. That is the core of a free press though, that greater precision potentially on what actually happened, widely disseminated.

But here those myriad responses matter, and that to me is an argument for finely grained new media news: the flow of expression through news, that is news shapes expression, but to how much of an extent (but not so much the other way around). Is that something new for media.

New Media brings the first amendment to life in this way: one trusts that one can express oneself, therefore one brings the flow (i.e. another part of that amendment is crucial here, but as noted each relevant part can work together, now).

The question is more and more, how valid is that trust and what are the consequences for new media if it is not the case, these are not really privacy issues, as the idea here is dissemination, they are issues of freedom.

Freedom of expression, in the sense of what it may do, is nothing except possibility. But enduring possibility seems to produce the most astonishing creations, there is a point to it. And new media may create a realization of possibility, or at least seem to.

Whether that 'seem to' is or is not or a drive in your (future) direction, is another matter. One could ask what happened to all that freedom of expression, and importantly feeling free to express oneself in the early days, but hopefully not about new media, yet. It is like another chance.

I might say more optimistically, that all that granular freedom, on the technology of printing presses and possibility did not disappear (it couldn't), it just became more formalized, yet that rawness tends to be where it is at, without necessarily implying that the content itself is raw.

That we can see as an advance, technology genuinely has given further possibilities for expression and its generation over pieces of paper and print, this time around. So freedom and and its expression liberty evolves in some sense, on this optimistic note.

Markets: Lack of Change and Changing Value

Each iteration of the Internet has resulted in what remains of the earlier iterations lingering on. What lingers sometimes does not seem to integrate with that is new. Markets also have a similar feature. In fact one can distinguish a new market from the fact that these structures remain, but do not forge ahead.

Can we see anything like this in forex. One might look for it in behavioral effects, that is one could characterize a market phase as having a certain behavior which has changed, with the possibility that fragments of the old market remain. As the old market fragments, can we note this.

One can note that the kind of valuations that are being returned by the market change over time, but unless one feels that these repeat or may repeat, then this may not be a helpful observation. However one may note constants, but the effect of structure may be that how these constants affect returns of value may change.

But what would change the permeability of levels. If a pair has directionality one might expect increased permeability, in effect, but not necessarily of cause, as the directionality may be due to something else, such as a rising, or collapsing equity market. However we could note that permeability may be related to reference, to clumping of valuations over time at that valuation.

We could see the crisis as a washing away of such references, and indeed we have noted this in some pairs. That is, the reference seems necessary for directionality, that is the permeability gives a way for pairs to move. But too much lingering of these fragments of earlier markets, may produce an inelasticity of valuation, that may result in instability (those knots perhaps).

This does not seem to be a problem for the development of the internet, but in markets there is not that kind of intentionality driving things forward. Everything looks the same. One does not say I do not want that pattern of valuation, except in the sense of waiting for a pattern.

In equities one does to an extent, as certain items may not be so prone to value changes, for the time being. However in another sense one does not, as positive outputs from the company will bring it to notice again, assuming any efficiency. We assume thus that there is a life to these items out of the market, that is everything probably does not look the same.

Of course while in forex, one may say, one yearns for the days when Eur/Usd rode up and up, in fact the way the pair values may be more suitable for programs, for example, or certain kinds of trades. That is, it does not look the same, as that which is viewing it may have changed. One may also note that when this pair rode up it retraced at as always unpredictable times.

However all this may suggest the value of fragments for ascribing value to artifacts and a sense of construction of artifacts, but one temporally extended, that is the past is part of the present, and more importantly that which can be valued into the future. That is temporally, it does all look the same.

Thus looking for an asymmetry as one viewing, one could say there is one between forex and equities. One could ask about participation, to what extent is this asymmetrical with viewing. Is that always the same. An intriguing question.

I would suggest that ideally these should be symmetrical. Thus one may tend to approach the forex market as a participant in less changing ways over time than the equity market, but that change is dependent on views which lengthen to investing time frames.

That is, here the temporal effect is to enhance change over time, there is a granularity to structure in time. We are saying there is no such granularity in forex. It also may be seen as growth, which can be seen as effacing past structure, versus forex growth which may simply tighten past structure. There may be a relaxation and tightening over time.

In fact we may be witnessing a relaxation now. Assuming that the market is still functional, viewed over time. One could view perhaps this relaxation as part of maintenance of its functionality. That is, while to do this, the equity market may need to massively retrace and wash away structure, the forex market may rather need to relax to preserve structure.

Can one ask of past structure can be made to work in the present, I would suggest that it may be that it can work in the future. That is its time comes again. In forex one might say its time is always now, that is there is an appearance of structure. Is it possible to emulate this.

Well, if one sees forex as being a vast network of partly referenced intentionality, all those elements which create a value for a pair for a moment, with weak predictability, one might say that to emulate this, one deconstructs and then re-constructs, without destroying underlying order and considers not whether it will do what one wants now.

Underlying order may in some cases be to do with connection, which is something that could be intentionally preserved. It is more like a free market in a wide sense provides a freedom for all sorts of things to be enabled to happen, including or especially, the unlikely, possibly where it makes sense for them to happen.

New Media: Opportunity Within its Flow

One could ask if one of the things which differentiates new media somewhat from old media is around a concept of personality. New media for certain has this, personality based prominence saturates it, yet is there something new in this, in new media. Firstly, one asks what is it that enables personality in media. Background, even looks all of this and more.

But in new media (I am not considering video based content here, rather textual speech and expression based media) it seems particularly what the person produces, to at least some significant extent. They can ground this in their persona in different ways, perhaps depending on the platform.

One sees that those who may have a prominence in other media, new or old, may not have same inherent prominence in a given new media. Their stature may force this, and perhaps this will overwhelm any subtlety in new media, but it may not (that may is important). It comes down to what the persona does, which then becomes a kind of personality, because new media tends to make what one does an expression of personality, like old media.

Thus we have a development of a persona on new media. What opportunity exists in this, what would thrive this development. Opportunity expands into freedom. One might say that old media is not necessarily about this kind of opportunity, it is about platforms with high barriers. New media is about platforms, but the opportunity may lie in the extent to which these personas can develop on these platforms. Ideally this would be opportunity for all concerned, including for old media.

Is new media really different, as media. One could say it can be very free, free flowing and somewhat occasionally inclusive like conversations in a garden party, or club. It flows, it can be highly forceful and astonishingly affective. One can look at possible signs of its effects - the way it seems so hard to pass laws which restrict it, it even seems like those laws are unstoppable until they stop, people perhaps don't protest from power but from edges of despair.

Why is it nonetheless forceful - is it numbers. One sees often enough this sense that the people will be swayed from the top down, but it seems that this sometimes these days may not happen. Has something changed because of new media.

It is democratic still, even in areas where it is less explicitly free. It can be hard to see where power lies within it, if it does, but it is usually easier to see this in society. Democracy may make a powerful few, from the people though. Capitalism, similarly, ideally from the people as well. But new media makes a powerful many, of the people. And so far it seems to be overwriting the effect of the powerful few, and not to their disadvantage either, for they are as well the people.

There is a voice to the people now, which there was not, a media voice. But is there a place for the individual, that is, is there a way an individual can add value, to their advantage and the advantage of others, as they can once they are over the barriers in old media. In the usual way in society there, it is called opportunity, as long as it is not restricted. Once restricted it tends to become something else.

Opportunity is not necessarily for all, to the possible disadvantage of society. New media is nonetheless for all to a very considerable extent, for now, that is partly what is being defended. Backstopping all this is the power of Madison's words, which are one assumes intentionally hard to get by, because as well one might assume nobody really wants to, especially once they experience what they give. Despair ends where those words begin. It is a kind of abstracted power and reassurance.

But what I mean to say, is there opportunity in new media. If there is something to individuality something with which the fact of capitalism can resonate, then it may be, for a time something new media can make. It is not what one does, but what one is, for a while. The reason is what one does, is dampened in the democracy of production based new media, to an extent, thus what one does may have to cohere with what one is or can be, which though is opportunity and is one source of that something change.

As new media expands out all this may get washed away in the power of the world outside. But it may not, and that 'may' could be because of what opportunity is. It is that spirit to make and succeed somehow, that is it is taken by people if it can be and even if it can't be it is made. New media may have a capacity to create enhancement from little, a kind of source of that which creates value.

I say this because of what it has done already in creating enormous value, those signs, but also because there may be something within that fluid occasional inclusion which makes for innovation, new orderings of configurations of structure that may endure or at least endure long enough to be reconfigured without decay of value, in a stable structure (such as a company or something like this).

New media itself comes from opportunity, born from machines of liberation in silicon valley (computers) and maybe it will endure and not collapse into media, or a form thereof, if it enables the expansion of opportunity in freedom. For new ways for new growth, that is an easy and powerful route. It has happened before, in new countries and new worlds, but can it be such in the content of this new world of increasing connective flow, resistant to stabilization.

Future Markets in the Past

When one considers future markets, one is narrowly constrained in some sense, as the market is by its nature opaque to change as it happens. If the market has not evidently changed, what can we make of an approach and passing of the old highs of 2007. What can we consider as pointers to the durability of a rise.

One could say that precisely the valuation aggregation required to find these highs was approached and has been exceeded and note that some companies which were part of this in 2007 do not exist or have sharply reduced valuations. But can one say that the aggregation is more primary, than its parts (one way of saying the preceding sentence does not matter).

In those rushes to great highs, one can note that indeed the aggregation itself is primary, but one might note that in the long build up they may not be. For the market at some stage made a transition from bear to a bull market. That is, something happened that was not part of any kind of exuberance at all, in fact may be part of a great depression.

So what was value then. It seemed to me value lay in orderings, such and such companies fell this much, other this much, thus there was some kind of retention of real value, but in an aggregation still.

That is, even if what happened was a bounce, something real remained. One could characterize here a bounce as a series of valuations which are free floating, because they exist from reasons of market behavior. But one might say that if the crisis retracement was a revaluation, there may be real value to what happened next, including the actual bounce (clearly there was some kind of bounce at the end of the crisis fall).

It is those transition points which are of great interest. If one notes a trading market, one may see that great moves come from nowhere. One can say there is always something of a gamble in an entry. That is, even of one sees signs of some kind of a move, for it to go somewhere is something else.

However, one could note that one may indeed see signs of that move, but the question is in terms of time, whether it matters in those early moments of any such move. That is, is the move deterministically set at the beginning, or is it like a dice spinning until a certain point.

It may be like a dice spinning throughout the move, it is just that it continues to spin a certain way. However this is a useful view of bounces/not bounces, the spinning dice which enables a sharp reversal. One could note that at equity hours, that some forex pairs may have no spinning at all, it is simply that they are pulled along.

Why would this matter, because it becomes impossible to see those signs native to the pair. One might suggest that equities do not evidence those spinning dice, except that perhaps some companies may. It is this which one may mean by the idea of a new market, that initially is company driven, that is for a time there is an overriding of that aggregation value, but we assume it still survives.

One might note that the appearance of such spinning is a random event: that is it may or may not appear during that transition, when it is really needed (it is always needed though). This gives great possibility to companies at an early stage, in fact more, if one strips away the effect of accumulation of penumbras of valuation over time. This is a slightly stronger sense of the importance of start-ups to create value above and beyond.

But might something like this happen with aggregations of companies, the appearance of the spin, which may result in crashes, nothing or a bull market. That is again, the nature of phases of the market is set at this early random event. So what is it that Reagan did, did he unleash a bull market or help it emerge. By freeing it, in a very certain sense.

Is this what approaches of the past few years is doing to the market. One might say that that is the heart and soul of a free market, one which can unleash its *own* power, to bring great wealth, but unleash a potential for a random event to act, rather than burying it. Thus effectively removing some controls from the market may have had the effect indeed of shortening the interregnum since the great retracement valuation of 2008, by effectively reversing the effect of controls prior to this.

So in a trading market can one see effects consequent on releases on valuation as causal (that is things coming from nothing, coming from something). That is a reason for looking at effects after the closing of markets, which was an interest of mine during the crisis itself. But these seem dependent on larger grained effects, perhaps similar, effects to have any utility.

The effects of controls may be a structure breaking of some kind, suggesting another similar market driven route for such changes, with cascades of value releases. One may note that constrictions on market may produce such structure breaking. Thus constrictions -> structure breaking -> relaxation ->free markets -> until...

From this we can see some kind of determinism, but not quite the intended outcome, but an interesting one nonetheless. Thus we see free markets as necessary for the market to do what it does, find creative jumps to higher values, which as a secondary effect, brings assets higher (something from nothing, but more from the transition to freedom).

But with the caveat that reversals are always there, but maybe the reversals can be reduced by a different kind of approach to programming the markets, that is not programming them in a certain way (but maybe not).

However, given the success in programming since the crisis, there may indeed be a call for them, except they may not be programmable in a causal way, to do something (like how traders cannot force a free market up and up). But one can reduce it to this program/not program and get effects this way from the way the market deal with inputs, of a certain kind.

This raises the interesting question of whether the content of the program matters. Simply to input from a sufficient position of strength, one might assume may be sufficient. Simply to refrain may thus also be sufficient. However one may note that what one needs to refrain from, may be something that was strongly inputted over time (in terms of structure breaking).

The strength of this or the time may be related to the relaxation, which may or may not express itself as a sharp revaluation. That is structure breaking may precede relaxation, but with the caveat that it may occur in bursts which may not be random, but will appear random. The lack of randomness may be related to the way valuations clumped over time.

There may be long term survival, even if we view structure breaking as destructive to information. That may be expressed in the unlikely appearance of spinning dice, reflect perhaps in a sense certain companies, that wake up the now free market and make unlikely but enormous changes, that once in full flow, seem like they will never end, and could never start.

We might note that the transition to free markets may not happen, but that is the chance, which may or may not be dependent on the content of the input. So we may count our lucky stars that we have free functioning markets, and note what happens when they are not...malaise for so long.

But we want to consider that which did not happen as well, that is the sense of a core element of the market, that anything could have happened. We can see this as the spinning dice if we want. Or more properly perhaps, as the spin. It is anti-determinism, but the history of the Dow suggests that aggregations, at least do not follow this, except perhaps at a trading level.

But at our free-market market we are looking at less aggregation. But there is a determinism to companies, we can analyze them, and see that there is such and such a functionality that we can expect such and such changes in valuation in the future. But money flow itself may be important, and we are talking about markets bolstered at least by this. And that can go anywhere, but I would not see it as anything like that core element of the market.

That is there may be something more nonetheless, that sense of possibility is itself a reason for optimism, but what it does may be obscured to a lesser or greater extent. But whether seen or unseen, or obscured, even functionally obscured, it seems to do what it does.

One might ask if one can see a company as layered with the past expansion. That is, what might one make of a possible ordered transition from expansion -> retracement -> expansion such that: least affected, last up. That is instead of gainsaying a possible new expansion by noting that such and such a company is not rising yet, one might note that part of it exists in the past, but a good part and that may be part of the functionality of the future expansion, something that may not be affected by inputs.

But one could expect companies that emerge in the new expansion, or at its start to have a more conforming structure. The idea here is that it may be more optimal to have the new and the old as well, for a more durable expansion. It gives memory and possible extension over time. But we may note different behavior, if it is possible again, to see in that opaqueness.