Reason's why you invest/ Also nice collection of silver.

[BiGs]

Maybe I have it figured out.

If you don't buy an actual commodity, just a piece of paper, it is an investment.

If you buy the actual commodity instead, that is speculation.

Does that work?

You can invest your money in a commodity. But it will be based on speculation of spot going up.

So you disagree with trew, who says "A stack is not an investment"?

I often see those who clearly are pro-Wall Street, say PMs are not an investment.
As far as I can see, it is simply a matter of perspective, opinion.

Definition of investment in English:
investment

noun

1 [mass noun] The action or process of investing money for profit.

1.1 [count noun] A thing that is worth buying because it may be profitable or useful in the future.

1.2 [count noun] An act of devoting time, effort, or energy to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result.

So it is a matter of opinion of whether it is an investment or not. If you say it is, it is. But trew was mentioning the difference between speculative investment where you only hope that your invested capital will go up, and one that has a secondary income to the capital (even though stock dividends comes straight out of capital anyway).

 

[trew]

When 401k mutual funds were daily losing money, were monthly consuming not only principle, but new purchases as well, the prudent person might say they were speculating, not investing.

Well that entirely depends on the particular mutual fund, what companies it was invested in and how it was being managed.
I agree many fund managers these days often behave more like speculators than investors.
But just because it is valued on a daily basis doesn't mean it is losing or making money on a daily basis - that is just a reflection of the stock prices fluctuating on a daily basis.

As my reference from those in the financial world indicates- "In an economic sense, an investment is the purchase of goods that are not consumed today but are used in the future to create wealth." AKA, stacking.

I use Benjamin Graham's definition:

"An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return.
Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative."

But that never stopped the likes of Warren Buffet speculating on commodities - he owned millions of ounces of silver at one time.

 

[BeHereNow]

Well that entirely depends on the particular mutual fund, what companies it was invested in and how it was being managed.
I agree many fund managers these days often behave more like speculators than investors.
But just because it is valued on a daily basis doesn't mean it is losing or making money on a daily basis - that is just a reflection of the stock prices fluctuating on a daily basis.

There is the whole basis of our disagreement.

In 2007/2008 when the DOW went from 14,164, to 6,547, over a period of about 18 months, it did not matter what company, or how it was being managed.
It was a blood bath.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia2000.html

Anyone who bought, or retained shares in DOW stocks were speculating that there would be a recovery.
you would have us believe during this nosedive the market was a sound investment.
As it turned out, it did recover. The tens of thousands of dollars we lost, has recovered. It took longer to recover than to lose. That is the way these things normally work.
Loss of wealth rapid, recovery - slow.
If you want to say, 'Well, it always recovered in the past, so it will always recover in the future.', I say hogwash. Pure speculation on your part. An example of fallacious reasoning for those of us familiar with logic.
Like they say, 'Past performance is no guarantee of future results.'

Since you like Graham, I looked him up, and found this:

Graham and Dodd's Definition of Speculation
In their 1934 classic text, Security Analysis, Benjamin Graham and David Dodd provided a general definition of speculation: "An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative."

By this definition, most people who buy stocks are speculators.
http://www.jesse-livermore.com/speculation-definition.html

So there you have it.
Most stock bought and sold is done as speculation, according to the usage of 'investment operation' by Graham, and the rest of us, with our long term investments, are at their mercies.
Will the next nose dive of the world stock markets only last 18 months, or longer?
Will recovery occur in 36 months, or longer?
I speculate the next one will occur faster, recovery will take longer, spelling 'hard times' for those who have most of their investments in stocks.

I will just add that "an investment operation", should not be considered the same as "an investment".
I do not consider one person's stacking of PM to be 'an operation'.

 

[atlas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmr-pXZLOe4&list=UUmCdlO-o9Kxb-hoEKfh4w-Q

Just watched this video and it reminded me of this discussion.

 

[wrcmad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmr-pXZLOe4&list=UUmCdlO-o9Kxb-hoEKfh4w-Q

Just watched this video and it reminded me of this discussion.

I thought that was great. I'm with him.

 

[bordsilver]

Central bank insurance and civil liberties.

 

[Pirocco]

According to trew my ASE cannot bring me income.
It would have been clearer as "I have no income each month to pay my bills?
Sorry for the confusion.

I interpreted trew as 'no extra income'.
For ex, if you buy a house, and let others use it, they pay you rent. You own the house, and it gives an income without selling the house.
In the case silver coins, it doesn't. They need to be sold.
I don't see silver as an investment too, for exactly this reason. In my eyes, an investment is something that increases production, as to return more than the investment. My silver coins are just dead metal, I do nothing with them, they just sit there, and when sold, they will be exactly the same as when I bought them. I have not any economical right on 'more'. If I get more, then it's just a shift in a zero sum market, meaning that my 'more' implies anothers 'less'.
SELLING ASE's does give an income. If I had 1000 ASE's, and I sell 100 every month, then I have an income for 10 months. It's that simple.
And obviously: in the end, this is just a postponed spending. In some past, I didn't spend, I kept it as money, and in the future of selling the ASE's for what I really wanted, I finally spend.

One of our posters buys silver under spot $20, sells when it increases - for a profit. Drains off some of that profit, waits for spot to again drop, again buys when spot is under $20, a quantity as much as previously sold.
This is what retail merchants do.
Buy a commodity (wholesale or on sale), sell at full price, siphon off the profit, buy more commodity (wholesale or on sale), wait, sell.

If you think a landlord - house renter - is not selling his structural property (not the land) a bit at a time......
That structure needs replenished, maintained, repaired, just to keep an even keel.
Put no money into it, and in a decade or two no one will pay rent.

As the definition I borrowed from investopedia indicates, "investment' has two faces.
With one, the investment generates new 'things', produces 'stuff', and this is sold for profit. Profit comes after expenses, which includes not only initial investment, but overhead, labor, energy, taxes, more.
With the other, a commodity is bought, and in a different market climate it is sold, for profit.
This 'different market climate' can include many things, geographical area, seasonal changes, or just time passing, and market prices increasing.

When my parents operated a dry goods and food store, they did not produce a single thing.
Created nothing.
Produced no new thing, in order to maintain an income. They were middlemen. That is what retail sales is.
Sales, retail or wholesale, is not about producing widgets, it is about transfer of wealth.
Give me your fiat so I can pay my bills. In exchange I will give you food to feed your family.

Can a person or family provide for all of their needs just from buying and selling 'dead metal'?
Ask the owners of JM Bullion.

As silvlerlight has said, and I believe you have at least implied, many of us are happy to retain the value of what we have. We do not expect to pay our daily expenses. However, down the road, it may do exactly that.
Keep fiat, and it evaporates. Guaranteed.
Any commodity may evaporate, but we choose some commodities that we expect to increase in value, and stay ahead of inflation.
For many of us that is PM.

For others it is the stock market or similar.
The days of watching your money grow in a savings account, or in your home, are no more.
I would not advise anyone to take all of their money out of stocks to buy commodities, like PM, but I would advise that before putting all money into stocks and no commodities, like silver.

If one or more of my children or grandchildren could change silver bullion into desirable jewelry or other merchandise, then one kind of investment has turned into the other, a la Silver Bullet Silver Shield, and others.

When I use the word 'produce', it includes delivering a service that people want. From an economical viewpoint, a service is the same as a product, just like a machine, and a human employee are both means of production.
For ex, someone that speculates, delivers a service too. Why: because succesful speculation stockpiles in times of surplus, to sell in times of shortage, stabilizing price trends. Thanks to the well foreseeing of the speculator, and rewarding him (read: profit).
But alot stick the tag 'speculation' undeserved. Not bad speculation, just not speculation. It's essential that in a discussion this is made clear, or the discussion has two possible subjects without knowing which one, and generalizing them / classifying them under 1, just makes that even worser.
Just saying.

 

[BeHereNow]

Pirocco

It my readings on the subject it was pointed out that speculation is not for the weak minded, sort of implying 'investing' takes a lot less brain power - less observation abilities.

The difference between speculation and investing really is a matter of opinion.

One person examines a mining stock and concludes 'Excellent investment opportunity.'
Another examines the same data, and says 'Too risky for me to speculate.'
Who is to say which is right or wrong.

As far as I am concerned, the odds of the stock market being manipulated is ten fold over PM, it is all speculation.
Even so, what are the choices.
The prudent investor will have stocks or comparable, but commodities have their place too.
By the end of the year I hope to have 25% in silver, 75% in mutual funds.
As the grim reaper approaches, my financial vulnerability does too - At some point I don't have 10 years to wait for the Market to recover.

I remember looking at my quarterly 401k report and seeing it had lost $200. Well, I thought, that's not too bad.
Then I realized I had put in about $400 - also all gone. and this was a small 401k - about $10k. The larger one lost $30k in about a year PLUS the new contributions of about $2k
I have since converted the smaller one to silver.
I sure felt like I was speculating, not investing.

Classifying stacking as pure speculation implies there are no studious stackers, with a plan.
Classify all stock market holdings as investments, is a sign of denial.
JMHO

In a healthy economy investment will be money put into an operation or enterprise.
"Healthy economy" - none that I can see. Time for a back up plan.

 

[Pirocco]

If I summarize:

Speculation: recognizing times of surplus, that would cause price to drop, and anticipating times of shortage, that would cause price to rise. Essential: the cause of the surplus or shortage, is mainly above peoples power. For ex, winter, bad weather>bad harvest and so on. It's an existing risk. Speculating is trying to foresee, and putting money in the involved risk of being wrong. Speculation could be described as improving the allocation of resources in time.

Investing: putting money into something, as to achieve a value higher than the invested value. The involved risk is mainly within peoples power, being that success/failure depends on peoples abilities.

Gambling: putting money into something, as to achieve a higher value, with the risk only coming into existence on the moment of the act of gambling. Previously, there is no risk. If you don't gamble, you don't risk to lose. It is unrelated to peoples abilities, smart or stupid, lazy or motivated, it doesn't matter, it's irrelevant.

And then there is a 4th 'thing', aside of above. It isn't given a name, because the incentive is present to name it investing/speculating, while it actually isn't.
It could be described as a kind of gambling, where the risk is tampered with, in one or another way, for ex, a casino, you're friend of the owner, and when you come to play, he sets his slotmachines on a higher winning chance, with this selective approach being actually cheating relative to others. Another example is insider information. The principle of achieving profit is based on misleading and frontrunning the real, notselected speculators/investors/gamblers.

Alot talk about price manipulation, but it isn't made exactly clear how. Is it tampering with the price mechanism? Is it selling what doesn't exist, or buying what doesn't exist? I say it's none of both. It's simply frontrunning in/out then misleading others to follow in the same direction. Take for ex. that "trading" as some name it. It's not even worth that name. Instead, it's much similar to what thieves do on street: they observe people, they distract them, then they steal, then they get out, with speed being the key element. Some name the observing part 'technical analysis'.

 

[BeHereNow]

Pirocco

I am in the habit of identifying what would be considered universally accepted meanings.
In general these have to be broad enough to be agreeable to a wide variety of persons.

What you have is rather narrow meanings.
You have created meanings that many will find agreeable.
As I have pointed out, the 'textbooks', say commodities may be bought, with the hopes that in the future they will increase in value, and this is a form of investing.

Meanings of terms are for those who use them, within a group - outsiders do not matter.
Those who use them are free to agree on any meanings they choose.

As I see things, you have attempted to find meanings (definitions) that are mutually exclusive, with the possible exception of the fourth, but even that seems to be worded such that - no it is not investing, and no it is not speculation, rather its own unique hybrid. It seems to me as a hybrid - rather like a mule, part horse, part donkey, but neither, so mutually exclusive from the others.

I retain my position that the terms; investing, speculation, gambling, are highly subjective, opinion based, will vary from person to person.
Mutual exclusivity is not in their nature.
Slippery slope all the way.

If I need money to stock the shelves of my new grocery store, to buy inventory, would I be seeking a loan for speculation, or investment?
If I go to my bank - how do they view things?

If I go out in the community, and sell stock, to raise money for inventory, pay dividends from profit, it there are any, are the people buying my stock investing, or speculating?
Are they investing in my speculation? Seems like that should not be possible - under your usage - of mutually exclusive, I don't know.
Maybe it matters that I have been doing this successfully for 30+ years, lost everything in a natural disaster, and am starting all over again.
Or maybe it matters that I am a graphic artist, switching fields, no retail experience.

I agree that what you present would be agreeable with many of our posters, but I would say it is contrary to 'conventional wisdom'.

Those who favor Austrian economics use many words that are spelled just like Chicago and Keynesian words, but they put different meaning on them.
I suspect that is what we have here.

~ ~
As for market manipulation, yes on inside trading, yes on front running, yes on others things as well.
Not sure what you mean by "selling what doesn't exist".
Buy my snake oil (it does exist), it will cure your illness (but it does not have that property).
Lots of snake oil salesmen on Wall Street and similar, and part of market manipulation, IMO.

 

[Pirocco]

Pirocco

I am in the habit of identifying what would be considered universally accepted meanings.
In general these have to be broad enough to be agreeable to a wide variety of persons.

What you have is rather narrow meanings.
You have created meanings that many will find agreeable.
As I have pointed out, the 'textbooks', say commodities may be bought, with the hopes that in the future they will increase in value, and this is a form of investing.

Meanings of terms are for those who use them, within a group - outsiders do not matter.
Those who use them are free to agree on any meanings they choose.

As I see things, you have attempted to find meanings (definitions) that are mutually exclusive, with the possible exception of the fourth, but even that seems to be worded such that - no it is not investing, and no it is not speculation, rather its own unique hybrid. It seems to me as a hybrid - rather like a mule, part horse, part donkey, but neither, so mutually exclusive from the others.

I retain my position that the terms; investing, speculation, gambling, are highly subjective, opinion based, will vary from person to person.
Mutual exclusivity is not in their nature.
Slippery slope all the way.

If I need money to stock the shelves of my new grocery store, to buy inventory, would I be seeking a loan for speculation, or investment?
If I go to my bank - how do they view things?

If I go out in the community, and sell stock, to raise money for inventory, pay dividends from profit, it there are any, are the people buying my stock investing, or speculating?
Are they investing in my speculation? Seems like that should not be possible - under your usage - of mutually exclusive, I don't know.
Maybe it matters that I have been doing this successfully for 30+ years, lost everything in a natural disaster, and am starting all over again.
Or maybe it matters that I am a graphic artist, switching fields, no retail experience.

I agree that what you present would be agreeable with many of our posters, but I would say it is contrary to 'conventional wisdom'.

Those who favor Austrian economics use many words that are spelled just like Chicago and Keynesian words, but they put different meaning on them.
I suspect that is what we have here.

~ ~
As for market manipulation, yes on inside trading, yes on front running, yes on others things as well.
Not sure what you mean by "selling what doesn't exist".
Buy my snake oil (it does exist), it will cure your illness (but it does not have that property).
Lots of snake oil salesmen on Wall Street and similar, and part of market manipulation, IMO.

I think that your problem is that you don't like clearly identifyable/distinguishable terminology.
Take for ex. your sentence:
"As I have pointed out, the 'textbooks', say commodities may be bought, with the hopes that in the future they will increase in value, and this is a form of investing."
See, if I would describe it, I would add the 'kind' of value. You don't, and by doing so, you introduce ambiguity.
What am I talking about? This: you don't say which value. Is it mathematical (relative to zero). Is it economical (relative to other prices)? And this difference matters a great deal, because if it's mathematical, then if all the involved product prices rise equally, then your 'value increase' is in economical terms a zero.
For ex my case: I buy silver with the hope that in the future it will have RETAINED its value relative to the other products I'm interested in and will buy later. See: no increase, no decrease, but a retainment, and in economical terms. To stress the latter again: suppose that the mathematical value of silver would have dropped from $20 to $10 (OMG I LOSE) but those other products I want (later) ALSO halved, then my loss is only in mathematical terms.
You blame me for 'narrow meanings', and 'meaning creation', and 'insider definitions', but in reality, you are obscuring meanings, and general meanings of textbooks are what they are: general. A blue balloon and a red balloon are both balloons. You talk about balloons and ignore the specification color. I don't. And why: because ambiguity is often where confusion, and misleading, starts.

 

[Aureus]

I invest only to make money. I don't believe in impending global economic doom, nor am I too concerned about inflation (to the point I want to run from cash).

I consider myself to be completely out at the moment, buying the odd thing to flip but that's about it.
These days I just sit here at stupid o'clock waiting for news announcements to make a quick paper buck - one day it'll be the fed doing something dumb enough to get me interested in physical metals again.

But that seems a while away IMO.

 

[BeHereNow]

Pirocco I think that your problem is that you don't like clearly identifyable/distinguishable terminology.
Take for ex. your sentence:
"As I have pointed out, the 'textbooks', say commodities may be bought, with the hopes that in the future they will increase in value, and this is a form of investing."
See, if I would describe it, I would add the 'kind' of value. You don't, and by doing so, you introduce ambiguity.

So you think I might mean something other than financial value?
I would think that in a discussion of monetary issues (investment, speculation, etc.), that economical issues would be understood.
Yes, I suppose I could mean emotional value, or moral value, although it never occurred to me.

Pirocco What am I talking about? This: you don't say which value. Is it mathematical (relative to zero). Is it economical (relative to other prices)? And this difference matters a great deal, because if it's mathematical, then if all the involved product prices rise equally, then your 'value increase' is in economical terms a zero.

Value is something completely separate to price, selling point, etc. you muddy the waters by bringing that up.
Value has to be measured against other commodities.
Value only increases if relative to other commodities, the value is greater than previous.
If my commodity now sells for twice the fiat price it had previously, but the buying power of the of the fiat is 25% of what it was, then my commodity has not increased in value, period. Yes, it increased in price, who cares.
'Value' is an absolute sort of thing, relative to 'price', which is very capricious.
It seems to me, by using 'value', I was being very precise.

Pirocco For ex my case: I buy silver with the hope that in the future it will have RETAINED its value relative to the other products I'm interested in and will buy later. See: no increase, no decrease, but a retainment, and in economical terms. To stress the latter again: suppose that the mathematical value of silver would have dropped from $20 to $10 (OMG I LOSE) but those other products I want (later) ALSO halved, then my loss is only in mathematical terms.

Well, you are not an investor, not a speculator. Both of those sorts expect a return, or pay off, increased value from one moment in time to another.
You simply use PM as a hedge - a barrier.

I invest.
I speculate.
I build a hedge - against poverty.
All by buying silver.
If I wanted to, I could pick one, and that would be my only motivation.
As it turns out, some purchases satisfy multiple motivations.
Silver $3 over spot, that has a market track record of being collectable, and has a consumer market beyond stackers, can be bought in large quantities for speculation, but if that does pan out, still a well priced piece of hedge.

When people here say "I want spot $40, so I can unload this white elephant." - we all understand "all things being equal."
In any discussion, it is default that 'all things being equal', unless it is stated otherwise.

Pirocco You blame me for 'narrow meanings', and 'meaning creation', and 'insider definitions', but in reality, you are obscuring meanings, and general meanings of textbooks are what they are: general. A blue balloon and a red balloon are both balloons. You talk about balloons and ignore the specification color. I don't. And why: because ambiguity is often where confusion, and misleading, starts.

We are all free to create our own meanings for words and terms.
We should not expect others to agree with us.

I offer the classical, textbook meaning, and you disagree.
You want to change it to special usage.
I understand.

 

[Pirocco]

Pirocco I think that your problem is that you don't like clearly identifyable/distinguishable terminology.
Take for ex. your sentence:
"As I have pointed out, the 'textbooks', say commodities may be bought, with the hopes that in the future they will increase in value, and this is a form of investing."
See, if I would describe it, I would add the 'kind' of value. You don't, and by doing so, you introduce ambiguity.

So you think I might mean something other than financial value?
I would think that in a discussion of monetary issues (investment, speculation, etc.), that economical issues would be understood.
Yes, I suppose I could mean emotional value, or moral value, although it never occurred to me.

You could also mean the value relative to other products. It's not that hard. car = X bicycles. house = Y cars. Emotional, moral, is just your whatever, not mine.
You can think whatever you want, and assume whatever you want is understood, I just make it clear, instead of assuming.

Pirocco What am I talking about? This: you don't say which value. Is it mathematical (relative to zero). Is it economical (relative to other prices)? And this difference matters a great deal, because if it's mathematical, then if all the involved product prices rise equally, then your 'value increase' is in economical terms a zero.

Value is something completely separate to price, selling point, etc. you muddy the waters by bringing that up.
Value has to be measured against other commodities.
Value only increases if relative to other commodities, the value is greater than previous.
If my commodity now sells for twice the fiat price it had previously, but the buying power of the of the fiat is 25% of what it was, then my commodity has not increased in value, period. Yes, it increased in price, who cares.
'Value' is an absolute sort of thing, relative to 'price', which is very capricious.
It seems to me, by using 'value', I was being very precise.

You again 'assume' the word value is interpreted the way you want. I don't assume. I say it, to make the point clear. Just look at the amount topics predicting fiat-expressed price levels, short and long periods, interpreted as profit/loss, totally ignoring what other prices could have done, despite the latter defining profit/loss in real economical terms.

Pirocco For ex my case: I buy silver with the hope that in the future it will have RETAINED its value relative to the other products I'm interested in and will buy later. See: no increase, no decrease, but a retainment, and in economical terms. To stress the latter again: suppose that the mathematical value of silver would have dropped from $20 to $10 (OMG I LOSE) but those other products I want (later) ALSO halved, then my loss is only in mathematical terms.

Well, you are not an investor, not a speculator. Both of those sorts expect a return, or pay off, increased value from one moment in time to another.
You simply use PM as a hedge - a barrier.

I invest.
I speculate.
I build a hedge - against poverty.
All by buying silver.
If I wanted to, I could pick one, and that would be my only motivation.
As it turns out, some purchases satisfy multiple motivations.
Silver $3 over spot, that has a market track record of being collectable, and has a consumer market beyond stackers, can be bought in large quantities for speculation, but if that does pan out, still a well priced piece of hedge.

When people here say "I want spot $40, so I can unload this white elephant." - we all understand "all things being equal."
In any discussion, it is default that 'all things being equal', unless it is stated otherwise.

That's what you say people understand. That's what you say is default. I don't say what others understand or not, I don't say what is default. I say how I see it, in such a way that it is clear and thus minimizes the possible interpretations. I speak for myself, I'm not playing some1 elses spokesman on my behalf.

Pirocco You blame me for 'narrow meanings', and 'meaning creation', and 'insider definitions', but in reality, you are obscuring meanings, and general meanings of textbooks are what they are: general. A blue balloon and a red balloon are both balloons. You talk about balloons and ignore the specification color. I don't. And why: because ambiguity is often where confusion, and misleading, starts.

We are all free to create our own meanings for words and terms.
We should not expect others to agree with us.

I offer the classical, textbook meaning, and you disagree.
You want to change it to special usage.
I understand.

I offered red and blue balloons. You offer balloons. People know they get a balloon from you. People know they get a red, or blue, balloon from me. In which case do people know best what they get?

 

[BeHereNow]

If someone wants a red balloon, they should ask me what color mine are, and I will tell them.
I'd better ask what part of the spectrum they consider 'red'. They might think mine are pink, or purple, or orange.
Some blues tend to the purple hue, and some even appear black in certain light.
I've even seen some blues that are called 'aquamarine', or 'turquoise'.
Sky blue, baby blue, navy blue, so many kinds of blue.
To you, simply 'red', or 'blue'.

I'll also need to know if they want it on a stick, or a string with helium.
Do the want the round kind, or the long kind.
Balloons have many other qualities besides 'red' or 'blue'.
If you want to be precise........

 

[Pirocco]

If someone wants a red balloon, they should ask me what color mine are, and I will tell them.
I'd better ask what part of the spectrum they consider 'red'. They might think mine are pink, or purple, or orange.
Some blues tend to the purple hue, and some even appear black in certain light.
I've even seen some blues that are called 'aquamarine', or 'turquoise'.
Sky blue, baby blue, navy blue, so many kinds of blue.
To you, simply 'red', or 'blue'.

I'll also need to know if they want it on a stick, or a string with helium.
Do the want the round kind, or the long kind.
Balloons have many other qualities besides 'red' or 'blue'.
If you want to be precise........

Hey, you focus on usage of terminology, instead of what is described.
I'm gonna wipe out your discussion 'subject', by repeating what I said, and replacing the terms with a common and numbered one:

Behaviour 1: recognizing times of surplus, that would cause price to drop, and anticipating times of shortage, that would cause price to rise. Essential: the cause of the surplus or shortage, is mainly above peoples power. For ex, winter, bad weather>bad harvest and so on. It's an existing risk. This behaviour is trying to foresee, and putting money in the involved risk of being wrong. This behaviour could be described as improving the allocation of resources in time.

Behaviour 2: putting money into something, as to achieve a value higher than the invested value. The involved risk is mainly within peoples power, being that success/failure depends on peoples abilities.

Behaviour 3: putting money into something, as to achieve a higher value, with the risk only coming into existence on the moment of the act the behaviour started. Previously, there is no risk. If you don't do it, you don't risk to lose. It is unrelated to peoples abilities, smart or stupid, lazy or motivated, it doesn't matter, it's irrelevant.

Behaviour 4 And then there is a 4th 'thing', aside of above. It isn't given a name, because the incentive is present to name it behaviour 1 or 2, while it actually isn't.
It could be described as a kind of behaviour 3, where the risk is tampered with, in one or another way, for ex, a casino, you're friend of the owner, and when you come to play, he sets his slotmachines on a higher winning chance, with this selective approach being actually cheating relative to others. Another example is insider information. The principle of achieving profit is based on misleading and frontrunning the real, notselected ones that exhibit behaviour 1,2 or 3.

Alot talk about price manipulation, but it isn't made exactly clear how. Is it tampering with the price mechanism? Is it selling what doesn't exist, or buying what doesn't exist? I say it's none of both. It's simply frontrunning in/out then misleading others to follow in the same direction. Take for ex. that "trading" as some name it. It's not even worth that name. Instead, it's much similar to what thieves do on street: they observe people, they distract them, then they steal, then they get out, with speed being the key element. Some name the observing part 'technical analysis'.

And here you are now, having lost the focus you wanted to hide behind, as to evade discussing the behaviour itself.