This (bolded) is pretty funny. I dabbled with it in the past but I am not an expert by any stretch, but one thing I do know for sure, is that traders who actually make money trading, work their ever loving butts off *for years*, studying almost every available waking hour  of hundreds of different things from TA (which is a science in and of itself) to platform, to entries/exits/size/time/date/events and on and on - the list goes on just about forever.

Then there's years of trial and error - which error almost always costs them a lot of money. Even the successful traders lose a lot of money, but their gains are typically larger or more frequent than their losses - thanks to their years of study, trial and error.

Don't believe the social media hype of blue collar guys who decided to start trading and almost instantly make huge money, own mansions, planes and yachts, as if it's so easy so that you believe it's as said in the bolded above, it's not. Whomever does not put in years of study will never make it. Probably +95% lose all their money because they are not disciplined and don't know what they're doing - because they never put in the work required to be a success.

But again, no, technical analysis is not a form of divination.

He doesn't mean doing nothing as in it takes not effort, but that it doesn't produce anything. It's just money creating more money, and the unnatural reproduction of money was Aristotle's argument against usury.

It's related to usury, the principle behind it, that something should be sold or exchanged for basically its intrinsic value.  When we fill our gas tanks, a decent percentage of what we pay goes right into some Jew's back pocket, even though he didn't lift a finger from when the oil was taken out of the ground, transported, refined, transported again, and dispensed, and yet somehow he feels entitled to a share in the profits because he speculates in it, drives the price up, and makes a profit ... without having done anything to earn it.  Nor does it mean a lick that he spends lots of time speculating (as if that were real work).  It's a fraudulent economy with giant sucking sound headed toward the Jews, and anyone else involved with it.  It's unjust and immoral.  Now, if someone wanted to buy stock in a company and then hold it, in the traditional view, that's like becoming a part owner in the company and sharing in its profits, and then if the company's worth increases legitimately over time, could sell the ownership stake, but due to the Jew speculation, derivates, trading in these stocks as if they had intrinsic value, the P:E (price to earnings) ratios are absurd and out of line with the ACTUAL worth of the stock.  It's a garbage immoral economy, and making money by stock trading (trading them as if they were entitles with intrinsic value) is immoral for the same reasons that usury is immoral.

I think the difference is that technical analysts don't actually believe there's magic going on. They just accept the common wisdom that markets move in cycles or patterns, and try to refine it down to a science.

Discerning the invisible hand and all that. Some may call the right trades often enough to attribute the wins to skill; yet what's the rational explanation for all the trades that don't pay off or that totally bomb out?

As much of it is being in on who, not what, to watch. (As if it's a level playing field... As if there's equal access to all the information needed to make an informed decision...) What do the blue jackets talk about on their smoke breaks outside with their most trusted buddies? "I know a guy..."

It's not usury per se, but closely related to usury.  Jobs don't have to directly produce anything physical.  Could be a service provided, and many jobs are in "support" of said service, doing paperwork, etc.  Of course there's inefficiency and most companies make misjudgments about how much "middle management" they actually need (obviously they would get rid of these if they weren't stupid in many cases).  But that's not even close to being in the same ballpark as treating stocks as if they have intrinsic value and are commodities in and of themsleves.  Just like currency, they're mediums of exchange for an ownership stake in the company (or at least they used to be with tradtional stocks), and to profit off the currency exchange itself is absolutely aligned with usury.  Just as currency is merely a medium for exchange with no intrisic value, same thing with stocks, and people are profiting off the exchange of the trading instruments, something which has not intrinsic worth.  This is absolutely in the same category as usury.  Now, there have to be "markets" for exchanging these instruments, and those can involve real jobs, just as you have tellers at a bank, etc., where they provide a service ... but that's not what I'm talking about.

Yes, there are a ton of crooks and crooked deals that happen every day and all the time, it IS, after all, all about money, and there are many ways for the unknowing, as well as the knowing, to get cheated out of theirs - of this there is no doubt imo.

But the jist behind using TA is simple and is wholly based on "certain price actions repeat" or "price remembers" ...a stock has been bouncing between $2.00 and $2.25 for a few weeks, so, your plan is to buy at $2.00 and sell at $2.25. Do that 10 times over the next few weeks with 100 shares and you can make $250. Simple right?

The problem is, you buy at $2.00 and instead of it going to $2.25, it falls to under $1.00 right after you bought at $2.00 - that's what happens all the time using TA. Were the jews responsible? Were other crooks responsible? Or what? Ultimately it was because, for whatever reason, there was a lot more selling than buying, and you lost. That's investing using TA.

Well, I could give plenty of examples of 9-5 jobs that pay very well while producing nothing, so that doesn't fly. And it has nothing to do with Usury.

Like Lad, you're basing your ideas off ridiculous social media pump jobs, which are pure deception aimed at the unknowing, who are looking to make easy/free money, lots of it.

From the Catholic Dictionary 1958

This definition is poor. Opportunity cost is not a real thing, (ontological). Also any interest in usury is a grave sin, it's not about the % but whether the contract is usury.

This cannot be.

The nobleman, who is actually Christ Himself in the parable, does not condemn "any interest in usury as a grave sin" at all.

The parable begins at Luke 9:11, where before the nobleman left to attain a kingdom, He gave his servants money to trade, he said to them: "Trade till I come."

Upon his return, He very, very generously rewarded those who traded well, but one servant who out of fear of losing that money, did nothing with the money, instead he just saved it and gave the money back to him, which angered Him, to which the nobleman scolding his servant said to this servant: "And why then didst thou not give my money into the bank, that at my coming, I might have exacted it with usury." Luke 19:23

So as we see in the parable, there is nothing wrong with usury and it can in fact be justly used as a means to make money.

Usury is a sin under conditions of a loan shark or credit cards, where the going interest rate is low, but they charge you 10 times or whatever the going rate, this is what the definition from the Catholic dictionary is saying. That's when usury is a grave sin.

Trading, as you can see if you read the parable, is something altogether different from usury, they are two totally different things, the two are not related in the slightest.

On the contrary - scripture against usury

Domine, quis habitabit. What kind of men shall dwell in the heavenly Sion.
 1 A psalm of David. Lord, who shall dwell in thy tabernacle? or who shall rest in thy holy hill? 2 He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice: 3 He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours. 4 In his sight the malignant is brought to nothing: but he glorifieth them that fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his neighbour, and deceiveth not; 5 He that hath not put out his money to usury, nor taken bribes against the innocent: He that doth these things shall not be moved for ever  [Psalms 14:5]

I also recommend this playlist on usury (see Church fathers and Church teaching)

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB9wsq--mkdPrWy746GHun2je_NtA6pQV


Regarding the parable, it is not literal usury with actual money

JEROME. But what he thought would be his excuse is turned into his condemnation. He calls him wicked servant, because he cavilled against his Lord; and slothful, because he would not double his talent; condemning his pride in the one, and his idleness in the other. If you knew me to be hard and austere, and to seek after other men’s goods, you should also have known that I exact with the more rigour that is mine own, and should have given my money to the bankers; for the Greek word here (ἀζγύριον) means money. The words of the Lord are pure words, silver tried in the fire. (Ps. 12:6.) The money, or silver, then are the preaching of the Gospel and the heavenly word; which ought to be given to the bankers, that is, either to the other doctors, which the Apostles did when they ordained Priests and Bishops throughout the cities; or to all the believers, who can double the sum and restore it with usury by fulfilling in act what they have learned in word.

GREGORY. (Hom. in Ev. ix. 4.) So then we see as well the peril of the teachers if they withhold the Lord’s money, as that of the hearers from whom is exacted with usury that they have heard, namely, that from what they have heard they should strive to understand that they have not heard.

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/catena/untitled-32.shtml

CHRYSOSTOM. In the payment of earthly riches the debtors are obliged only to strictness. Whatever they receive, so much must they return, nothing more is required of them. But with regard to the words of God, we are not only bound diligently to keep, but we are commanded to increase; and hence it follows, that at my coming I might have required the same with usury.

BEDE. For they who by faith receive the riches of the word from a teacher, must by their works pay it back with usury, or be earnestly desirous to know something more than what they have as yet learnt from the mouth of their preachers.

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/catena/untitled-80.shtml

Also see; https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-or-money-on-the-pill/#1

1) What is Usury?

Usury is lending money for profitable interest. The term “usury” often specifically refers to the interest itself – interest charged on a mutuum (personally guaranteed by the borrower) loan.


3) Is usury always morally wrong?

Yes. Usury, profit from mutuum loans, is always morally wrong without exception.


4) What if the interest rate is reasonable?
Usury is always immoral no matter what interest rate is charged.  The idea that usury is only charging “unreasonable” interest is a modern fiction. Usury is not an “unreasonable” rate of interest: it is any interest whatsoever as a term of agreement in a particular kind of contract, the mutuum loan.

Quote

One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the money borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one’s fortune, to purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions. – Vix Pervenit

[Note: in the English translation of Vix Pervenit, the term “loan” is a translation of (forms of) the word “mutuum”].


5) What is the key difference between a mutuum and other contracts?
With a mutuum the borrower is personally obligated under the contract to repay the full amount of the principal, no matter what is done with the proceeds or with other specific assets tied up in the contract.

Well, I was definitely wrong about usury and want to thank you very much for correcting me. Yet trading is trading and usury is usury, I fail to see trading or investing as any form of usury.

For usury, you lend your money and charge interest to make money over time = wrong.
For investing, you use your money to make (or lose) money over time by freely selling your investment to others, who freely buy your investment at a higher (or lower) price than you paid. Same as all markets since creation.

Two completely different things.

As I said, it's RELATED TO usury.  If you read St. Thomas' explanation for why usury is wrong, the same principle applies to treating stocks as if they had intrinsic value (vs. being a certificate establishing partial ownership of the company).  Jews have taken this to a new level through the notion of "derivatives", which completely eclipse the REAL value/worth of the underlying assets by orders of magnitude.  They're using it to siphon off the real wealth in the world, just as they've used the fake fiat currencies and 0% fractional reserve "lending" to do similar.