Ethical investing and economical truism

So you decide to turn to the stock market, it’s time to invest your money in other peoples businesses, and apply the weight of growth itself to begin turning profits. It’s a good thing, business is essential and communities thrive with industry. Let’s consider for a moment how and why we can make money on the stock market, within a just and discerned moral standard. It’s important, don’t you agree? People like Warren Buffett will show just how much wealth can be gauged from the stock market with application of macro-economic principles. The wealth of nations famously is contrived with aggressive fiscal disciplines, and the economy flourishes through regulation of industry, amid the assumption that investors want more money, and will take it wherever they can. Operating on the contrary would be foolish in fact, if your trying to really make money, where the profits you claim come from other investors ultimately, who lose what you have won; it’s the economy stupid!

The hardline lesson, in the 21st Century, is about getting in first, being the dominate decision maker, and ignoring the ‘downside’, that is actually and what most feign to recognise, as the poverty of the masses. After-all if you can succeed to make billions of dollars playing the stock market, that money comes directly from the coffers of industry, put there by the consumer, and your billions, equals more struggles, hardship and poverty for a lot of other people ultimately. So how do they do it, how are the investors wealthy? Drugs, crime, and corruption normally, is what divides the winners from the losers, and more than that, your guess is as good as mine for now, but the question I will put to you is, and something I can answer already, is is unethical investment ok? Is this not taking money wherever possible alright in the end, because it’s just numbers on the books? If you believe that humanity is chosen to ascend, and the death or destruction of the planet is inevitable, then ok, maybe your right, and you do whatever you want with your money. Or if you believe that community is a blessing, that we should live in harmony with our fellow men and women, in justice and peace; well certainly you’d be wrong to assume the greed of unethical investing should go unpunished. So taking this distinct divide, I’ll tell how my own investments recently within my first independent portfolio has brought the issues to forbearance, and what my insights are on what is really making the wheels turn in government, across industry, and ensuring happy, peaceful and prosperous citizens can live in good moral standards. Importantly of course, I’m exposing a rift of economic imperatives, to demonstrate how unethical investing works, and how and why these investors are corrupt, and operating secretly, behind the numbers towards the wider destruction of the environment, and break-up of community.

The economy has certain essentials to it as already mentioned. A balance is key, and whilst Warren Buffett is playing an ‘end of life’ game, where his investments are spiralling to a critical mass, which will be apportioned to his passing; this is meaning that he need not actually deal with the final consequence of having amassed unlimited wealth. He can happily pass it off to others via his last Will and Testament, and in the process eliminate all the ethical weight his decision making has caused. Let me give an example of pre-life investing instead. If a business is growing and you invest your money, and when the business reaches a optimum efficiency, the stock have matured to a maxim, you can sell your shares, and make perhaps 50% on your original investment. This would be a reasonable and morally just outcome. If you do it again, and again and again, then 100x, effectively your reduction on the maxim of business enterprises begins to emerge. The market will react thus. Before the business has reached it’s zenith, investors will start to take their own maximum valuation, which has figurative independence to yours, because, the essential equity of the economy has balanced to compensate for your acquisitions of the maximum profit. I mean others want maximum profits right? If you have scaled your investments, into that 100th company, if you sold you shares at a maximum, that would in exponential value, have reduced the total value of the company stock by the same equivalent amount. The other investors are taking more and more losses, the more and more profits you take. So the natural solution for a healthy economy is to counter-act your profit margins, and market behaviour thus facilitates your loss instead of your profit, where essentially the natural world is seeking your elimination. This stage of the investors life, is actually normally where the profits are significant enough that the money is useful for their living conditions, and hence the term economy, which is your living standard as enumerative operations proportioned to other members of the economy.

Now my approach has always been in awareness of the fact, that if I am claiming significant profits, it’s carrying a weight of responsibility for my followup investments. So I started with something which was essential to the whole process, in that I couldn’t engage the economy without it; which was lithium for my case. Battery power is the essential for my purposes, and so my first investments in lithium mining turned over some 100% profits over the course of many months. Perhaps you’ll say it’s luck, but no I applied strategic decision making, assessing the company portfolio’s based on value and growth assessments, and in reading the annual statements and investor updates, decided which one’s profit margins were approaching a zenith. Admittantly I didn’t cut my investment at a premium of profits on my primary choice, I wanted to see dividends and stay with them, but my 120% profit, turned to 100%, to 80% to 60% before I decided to sell it all, after selling half at a realistic premium (I’m no super assessor of stock value). That given still you must apply a relative prudence in remaining with businesses, and/or when leaving. Bringing me to the next key investment decision I made to justify my claim of profits against the prerogatives of my fellow shareholders. I invested in the next company, at a premium. Demonstrating significant support for the product irrespective of fiscal certainties, this indicated the extreme possibility of loss. Now remembering that this new investment amount is only partially mine, technically until recently it was within the central economy, which is the half of my investment, and I claimed it more or less from other investors via a mining business. Applying a equity basis thus, the depreciation of half my money in the next company would be just, whereby I have acquired the ethical option, and certainty within a new second business, and so ‘my’ moneys impact on the economy is balanced. The truisms of the economy are that just because your investments matured, the money is essential where it is, and when you take it out to make it your money again, you’ve left a gap which will need filling, or it will collapse. Should you balance with the economy you must lose it again, but by investing in the next company at a premium you’ve justified the balance. Of course if the new company still profits from a premium, you only make more, and double your money again perhaps, but again if take your money out, you should still invest it at a premium, until you hit balance with your original investment. This is the neutral pre-life investors standard. Your money can’t endlessly and exponentially grow by jumping between investments, it’s effectively stealing.

At a time that you can breathe, knowingly your profits are due to time-long real world growth, and you have assessed your actions on the economy acting in just deliberation. So if your sleeping good at night, and haven’t got divorced or caught an STD between investments, stick with your newest company, your a part owner, otherwise bail with your original sum, or even total losses if you’ve copped such terrible reprise. So waiting till the business leaders you trusted, balance your part of the economy, then you have all your profits in the growing economy. The other way, and as the wolves of wallstreet may instil, is to take all the money your can get, via micro-economic decision making, all in an unsustainable dictatorship of the dollar. If it’s just numbers for the investor, not products with company missions and staff with families, then the lifestyle is decrepit, sure they may have a lot of unethically obtained money, but it’s counter-economically justified, carrying it is like a hot-potato, unless the individual sheds all sense of ethical standards, divorcing society in isolated drug, prostitution and hotel embellished megalomania. The wolves have torn to shreds the pre-life investor strategy, in maximisation of the utilitarian prerogatives. It’s why this may appear a fortitude of stupidity, I mean I’m not recommending you lose your money with aggressive investors making it all, namely taking your money out of the economy for themselves. So back it up, why do stocks significantly depreciate? It’s not a pack of wolves ravaging a bull, but a dead bear. What is your part in the business that means your role in the economy is growth based? Money investments aren’t enough themselves, why should you be rich, and not the next investor? Politics, in one word. Products are not always welcome, but you can make a product accessible if it isn’t, if it’s something you like, believe in, trust and know, your part in the economy is vital and pre-life losses are acceptable before growth, where time is your ally (not like lithium batteries rotting in landfill). This is not the burdensome albeit ‘end of life’ strategy, where a dead man’s money is ravaged in blind-sided unethical micro-economic decision making. There are limited resources on the planet and you have a measure of certainty in the economy, if it’s vital your choices will prevail, and the money will grow. If not, leave it to the pros and your losses gambled away, are going to better ends, to those with the means to make a sustainable economy.