Talk:Stock market/Archive 1

message: I removed the following sentence from the international markets section:
:Because global stock-market indices suggest the state of the global universe of stock opportunities, may shape the choices made by buyers and sellers.
First, it doesn't make any sense.  If the point supposed to be that global indices are a representation of the feelings of global buyers and sellers?  The second part, that it "may shape the choices made by buyers and sellers" can be used to describe any market, let alone a stock-market or even a global stock market.  --Ricky81682 (talk) 22:02, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
This section was almost inexistent. I moved the two sentences there into the history section. -- Typewritten 10:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International markets section 

message: What are the opinions out there : Should it be clarified in this article that securities do NOT represent actual wealth, rather only potential wealth.  When everyone tries to realize the potential wealth of a given security at the same time, the security collapses; when everyone tries to realize the potential wealth of all their holdings, the stock market collapses, as it did in 1929.  These truths should be made clear and emphasized, for many people apparently do not think thru these ideas clearly.
:I think that is a salutory suggestion.  I am not sure that most people have any notion of the fact that, lacking a buyer, a stock certificate is worthless— even if the underlying company is raking in the money hand over fist and the stock, therefore, has great (potential) value!
—>normxxxtalk—>  email 23:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Securities vs Wealth

message: I added derivatives to the intro definition for 'stock market.'  However; I am not sure what the consensis is on that.  The phrase 'stock market' seems to be rapidly devolving into a synonym for securities market.  (The phrases are certainly used interchangeably.) Is there any virtue in keeping the phrase stock market pure?
—>normxxxtalk—>  email 23:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Derivatives Part of the 'Stock Market?' 

message: This article appears to be limited to the functions of the U.S. stock market and/or economic model, though I applaud the author for including histories of other exchanges.  I should also point out also that the references don't appear to follow the Wiki format requirement of hyperlinked ISBN numbers.
Second, the author uses false analogy when equating the (purportedly-U.S.) market with a "farmers' market" (a term with which not audiences of this article may recognize).  It would seem to me that if the author is to keep within the confines of Wiki format, they should follow definitions all ready found on Wikipedia.  In the referent article (Farmer's market) the author defines this type of micro-market as one which cuts out the middleman.  Despite how the author defines a "middleman," it is clear that there are, most likely, more agents between the average stock holder and the Board of directors.  Furthermore the Valuation of goods is less in the hands of those outside the corporate or speculative realm in the stock market.  Within a farmers' market speculation could be said to be more limited in nature (or relative to the U.S. and worldwide exchanges).
Despite my call for a complete overhaul of this article, I would like to add that this also assumes that the audience accepts a Capitalist model.  It could be argued that not all governments participate fully within the frame of a capitalist model and furthermore do not benefit from a stock exchange in the way the author mentions.  The "Importance" section is the most pointed of this disregard for other economic models, as it seems to assume a kind of universalism in terms of financial mechanisms.
There is no doubt that the U.S. economy seems to steer economic trends on  the global level, but it does not give the author grounds to apply a U.S. model in a ostensibly objective definition of "stock market."
::I am not familiar with the subject at all, but if the systems tend to vary alot of country to country (Such as the U.S. and Canada) or region to region (Such as North America and the European Union) then maybe specific pages for the English countries (UK, US, Australia, NZ, Canada..) could be done. Or if systems are somewhat similar but do have key differences, at least make a page, say for the U.S. such as this one, note that the page is U.S. centric and also note in certain sections the differences between the U.S. stock market and those of the other English countries. I would expect the Japanese article to be Japanese centric, et cetera, but because there is a number of English countries, I do find that grouping them as one is not ideal. I would expect English Wikipedia to be a bit more U.S. centric though, just like French Wikipedia is France centric (When there is Canada too). --A Sunshade Lust 21:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think it's right to assume a U.S. audience for all English articles?  That seems a blatant disregard for the spirit of Wikipedia.  If the article is about the U.S. Stock market and not stock markets in general, then I suggest you write a new article.  Have you read any of the other Wiki regional articles dealing with this subject?  Again, I am not trying to dissuade anyone from using the U.S. exchanges as models, but I would hope that the scope of this article is more holistic, otherwise we may limit understanding of the subject as a whole.JuniorMuruin 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldview Tag (though not limited to this problem). 

message: The article is well written, however, I have noticed that a number of sentences speak "directly" to the reader, which I find unencyclopedic. Here are examples:
:(You've probably seen pictures of a trading floor, in which traders are wildly throwing their arms up, waving, yelling, and signaling to each other.)
:Just imagine how difficult it would be to sell shares (and what a disadvantage you would be at with respect to the buyer) if you had to call around trying to locate a buyer, as when selling a house.
:Although there is human contact in this process, don't think that the NYSE is still in the Stone Age'; computers do play a huge role in the process, especially for so-called "program trading".
I could edit those myself but I just want to make sure that it's not just me that feels that these kinds of sentences should be rephrased, for example, the third one I noted could remove the "don't think ... Stone Age" and be fine. There are also those like the first sentence which I'm unsure how it would be edited.
--A Sunshade Lust 20:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What it, or at least a large part of it, reads like to me is the dreaded original research. 81.159.61.96 03:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone of the Article 

message: This section goes into information about bond and commodity trading, which appears to be out of place. Robertknyc 02:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition section 

message: The paragraphs that discuss the 11th and 12th centuries appear to have nothing to do with stock exchanges and should probably be eliminated.  Robertknyc 02:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section