Will a real BUST ever happen?

[wig]

I'm no economist and do not apply fundamentals in my trading, but they are fun to look at from a macro level.

So, what's your belief? Is the price of US debt and ultimately the value of the US dollar vulnerable to a massive collapse??

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-...RTICLE_ID=33372 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33372)

[Almighty Colin]

US debt as a percentage of GDP is lower today than it was a decade ago. I believe it's about 65% and that it was mid 70's sometime in the middle of the last decade.

I don't view the dollar as falling. I view it as returning to normal, back where it was about 4 years ago.

I'm not a believer in the gold standard.

Will there ultimately be a collapse? Maybe that depends on the definition of "collapse". If the current decade or so long trend continues of debt as a percentage of GDP decreasing, I think it not likely.

[wig]

Colin, I knew you would show up. :D Perhaps you are correct.

But, GDP can swing just like anything else and % can change quickly. Is the measurement of debt to GDP the correct benchmark?

[wig]

Colin, where'd ya go??? You know my ass will be asleep shortly. LOL

I am no long term fan of the dollar right now (long term being next 3 years). In January of 2002 I projected a significant decline in the dollar and even gave the date in March I expected it to accelerate at. The dollar index has fallen from 124 to 92 since then.

Now, I have a large cluster of cycles lined up that I think will usher in an intermediate low. I believe that the US Dollar will see a large rally into December -- perhaps as high as 105-110 but at least 102. We don't live in a linear world. ;-))

I am now bullish on the Dollar! Can't say I am a perennial Bear!

btw, i admire your consistent optimisim.

[Vick]

I do have serious concerns with the amount of debt the US gov is running up currently

If available funds start being used to cover the debt, interest rates rise and the bottom falls out of the current booming housing market we could see some (possibly serious) inflation

But then again I am not an economist

But I am all for a balanced budget and at the risk of incurring the wrath of many here even if that includes NOT having the proposed tax cuts and possibly have slight tax increases or even better - new revenue streams from the US Gov to support it's self

As you can tell I am a huge fan of a balanced budget amendment

[wig]

Vick, I agree in premise, but the books are so cooked it is really hard to tell exactly what the finances are.

The Government knows it can only service the debt and it will never be paid off (not with valuable dollars anyway).
It is the same scheme as all paper money schemes IMO. I don't know what makes the US different.

But, it makes no difference to me, really. I am more interested in how I can profit from things than I am interested in how I can help change them for the better.

I know, I am capitalist scum. :rokk:

[Almighty Colin]

Wig,

I don't know if I'm an optimist. Maybe a little but I think it's realistic that GDP will grow around 3% per year average for quite some time and a little less as the size of the economy grows. It's more difficult to grow faster percentage-wise from a higher base. One need only witness the growth rates in some of the years in the last century. We don't see anything like those numbers anymore and I think that's largely because of the size of the economy.

GDP can swing, yes. How often should one expect a depression magnitude event or a recession?

I just compiled this info from a list of US Recessions:

12 from 1850-1900. 255 months spent in contraction.
12 from 1901-1950. 210 months spent in contraction.
8 from 1951-2000. 85 months spent in contraction.

What I see is that recessions are somewhat frequent with about one recession every 5 years on average and also that they are of considerably less duration and intensity over time. We've nothing seen nothing like the depression in 65 years. There were some very intense recessions of long duration in the late 1800's. In the second half of the 19th century, 42% of the time the economy was decreasing in size. In the second half of the 20th century, that number was only 15% of the time. I think this reflects knowledge and economic policy.

32 recessions in 150 years. 32 presidents in 150 years. Recessions are frequent and normal.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig@Jul 2 2003, 05:18 PM
Is the measurement of debt to GDP the correct benchmark?
I think so. The size of one's debt (whether individual, company or nation) is irrelevant without some benchmark. One might compare to GDP, GNP, income taxes paid or any other such figure but those numbers are going to be correlated somewhat anyway. Since the debt to GDP ratio for the US, Canada, Germany, France, and Japan are similar to the US one thing is for certain is that the major economies of the world all have similar views of what is acceptable or not acceptable regarding debt to size of economy. If one falls they probably all fall. What would happen though in worst case scenario. Is there much of a possibility of a recession-like event lasting longer than a decade? Probably not.

What would monetary policy look like on the other side? The result of the depression was the monetary/economic policies of Keynes and his followers, the same policies that some people today really have a problem with. They have been extremely successful though in their goal of smaller, less frequent recessions. I've never heard a better proposal and so on we go. Increase government spending and tax cuts during recessions is the order of the day.

[wig]

Originally posted by Colin@Jul 3 2003, 10:39 AM
How often should one expect a depression magnitude event or a recession?
Recessions are not as interesting as depressions and I'm sure everyone has their own idea of what makes what.

How often to expect any extreme (cycle analysis) is what I spend most of my time studying (of course, I am usually only concerned with 1-3 weeks at a time). However, it is a good question.

My analysis of historical events and related application of cycles leads me to believe that the easy money years, credit expansion and eventual euphoric peak in equities in 2000 marks the culmination of the expansion from the 16 year distribution (correction) we experienced from the late 60's to early 80's.

I am confident in projecting a correction of atleast this magnitude (after all, we are in the midst of it). There is a reasonable chance that this correction may be 1 degree larger.

I am speaking specifically on equitiy markets, which do not necessarily have a direct correlation to the economy. It is plausible, however, that a severe economic contraction could occur at the same time.

This would have larger implications for debt, currencies and metals. And, as no matter of coincidence, my work on these markets also indicates change on a rather large degree.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Colin+Jul 3 2003, 09:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jul 3 2003, 09:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Jul 2 2003, 05:18 PM
Is the measurement of debt to GDP the correct benchmark?
I think so. The size of one's debt (whether individual, company or nation) is irrelevant without some benchmark. One might compare to GDP, GNP, income taxes paid or any other such figure but those numbers are going to be correlated somewhat anyway. Since the debt to GDP ratio for the US, Canada, Germany, France, and Japan are similar to the US one thing is for certain is that the major economies of the world all have similar views of what is acceptable or not acceptable regarding debt to size of economy. If one falls they probably all fall. What would happen though in worst case scenario. Is there much of a possibility of a recession-like event lasting longer than a decade? Probably not.

What would monetary policy look like on the other side? The result of the depression was the monetary/economic policies of Keynes and his followers, the same policies that some people today really have a problem with. They have been extremely successful though in their goal of smaller, less frequent recessions. I've never heard a better proposal and so on we go. Increase government spending and tax cuts during recessions is the order of the day.[/b][/quote]
Say WHAT???

The government's expansionist monetary policy coupled with stealing money from the private sector and misallocating it through transfer paymentds is precisely what causes the false boom/bust cycle we keep getting.

All you have to do is pull up the MZM (Zero-Maturity Money) history chart and overlay the false boom/bust chart, and you'll see a direct correlation between expanding the money supply and creating a false boom.

In fact, here, let me show you what MZM looks like:

http://askbuff.com/mzm.gif

As you can see, in the mid 90s, the Fed turned on the spicket and pumped the money out. They practically doubled the money stock from 1995-2000, creating an enormous amount of borrowing and expansion by business (extra production, new hirings, etc). Then inventories start piling up, because the demand for all the expansion was never there -- it was an artificially-created expansion based on cheap, easy money (artificially-low interest rates and a doubled money stock).

So then you get a business crash and layoffs. We had one in 2001-2002, and now we're headed for a depression, since the Fed is dropping the interest rates more and pumping out even more money.

They're rendering our money worthless -- each new dollar they create out of thin air from partial reserve banking makes each dollar we own worth less. That's why people are buying gold and dumping the dollar on the international currency markets.

Government cannot artificially manufacture wealth.

Oh well, it took 25 years to recover from the Great Depression, because the government turned to socialism instead of laissez faire to undo the damage it had done in the artificially-created roaring 20s. It would have taken half as long if Hayek and not Keynes had been listened to. We recovered despite Keynes, but now we're headed down the same road.

[Almighty Colin]

Wig,

I agree with you on the stock market. I there's a fair chance that the market could head low enough to really devastate some people. For me it's as simple as a ludicrous bubble should be followed by a horrendous bust. Whether that means the market must trend mostly sideways for a few years or go straight down tomorrow or whether people are insane ;-) and act in such a way as to create another bull run and an even more precipitious drop I would not dare venture to say.

Whatever method one uses, when company stock grows three times faster than the companies they represent ownership in there is probably going to trouble.

As far as the effect such an additional correction would or will have on the economy probably depends on much more than just it's occurence and it's magnitude. I would think the length of the bear market, the severity of the current break, and a number of other variables many more than that including monetary policy, health of foreign economies, intergovernment relations, global stability and even luck.

One depression in the twentieth century. That gives some kind of baseline probability. Less than once a lifetime. I think we learned a lot from the depression and that has decreased the probability of such events dramatically. You don't see skyrocketing income taxes or balanced budgets during recessions anymore which would be a killer like they were in the 1930s. If the twentieth century is not completely misleading, world wars seem to be at least as frequent than depressions and about the same length of time since either.






Last edited by Colin at Jul 3 2003, 11:31 AM

[wig]

Originally posted by Buff@Jul 3 2003, 11:14 AM
Oh well, it took 25 years to recover from the Great Depression, because the government turned to socialism instead of laissez faire to undo the damage it had done in the artificially-created roaring 20s. It would have taken half as long if Hayek and not Keynes had been listened to. We recovered despite Keynes, but now we're headed down the same road.

The one thing we learn from history is that man does not learn from history!

[bpj]

Originally posted by Colin@Jul 2 2003, 05:12 PM
I'm not a believer in the gold standard.

So, you think it's ok to just print money when/as/if needed???
Just curious.... :)

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Buff@Jul 3 2003, 11:14 AM
now we're headed for a depression
Good. You are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with all the other charlatans and crackpots who have predicted depressions ever since the last one. I read the same prediction in line at the super market last week. It was right underneath "Bigfoot Baby Caught on Film!"

Would you like to give some dates and magnitudes or just leave it open so you can write "The Coming Great Crash" post again in 2005? ;-) ;-) ;-)

[wig]

Colin, I agree that trhere are many variables that would eventually be unveiled as the cause. Fundamentals have a way of making a lot of sense in retrospect.

I can certainly see the debate fundamentally for any particular outcome.

That's where I have found studying cycles and market structure to be a more accurate way of assessing the probabilities.

I don't take multi year positions, but methodolgy wise, my work is the same at 1-3 weeks as it is at 1-3 centuries. Of course, synergy of cycles and market structure are always evolving, making longer-term predictions subject to change / tweaking as more data is obtained.

Nevertheless, I see the high probability of an economic upheavel rivaling the Great Depression within the next 20 years.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Colin+Jul 3 2003, 10:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jul 3 2003, 10:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Jul 3 2003, 11:14 AM
now we're headed for a depression
Good. You are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with all the other charlatans and crackpots who have predicted depressions ever since the last one. I read the same prediction in line at the super market last week. It was right underneath "Bigfoot Baby Caught on Film!"

Would you like to give some dates and magnitudes or just leave it open so you can write "The Coming Great Crash" post again in 2005? ;-) ;-) ;-)[/b][/quote]
What will it matter -- you'll be standing in a soup line thinking "damn, Buff was right."

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by bpj+Jul 3 2003, 11:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bpj @ Jul 3 2003, 11:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Jul 2 2003, 05:12 PM
I'm not a believer in the gold standard.

So, you think it's ok to just print money when/as/if needed???
Just curious.... :)[/b][/quote]
I think any standard is artificial. Gold is just a metal dug out of the earth that is shiny and pretty. It's value is determined in markets. There are problems with the gold standard. Well-known problems. That's why we're not on one.

Do I think governments should print money at will causing massive inflation? Of course not. Some have, of course.

[wig]

Originally posted by Colin@Jul 3 2003, 11:47 AM
Would you like to give some dates and magnitudes or just leave it open so you can write "The Coming Great Crash" post again in 2005? ;-) ;-) ;-)

Colin,

Don't pick on Buff. Fundamentals don't allow for this kind of accuracy. LOL


I'll give some dates between now and the end of the year in several markets that i have large synergy of cycles on.

I already gave one in the US Dollar just the other day.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Buff@Jul 3 2003, 11:54 AM
What will it matter -- you'll be standing in a soup line thinking "damn, Buff was right."
Don't back down now. Go all the way! The audience is listening.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig+Jul 3 2003, 11:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wig @ Jul 3 2003, 11:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Jul 3 2003, 11:47 AM
Would you like to give some dates and magnitudes or just leave it open so you can write "The Coming Great Crash" post again in 2005? ;-) ;-) ;-)

Colin,

Don't pick on Buff. Fundamentals don't allow for this kind of accuracy. LOL


I'll give some dates between now and the end of the year in several markets that i have large synergy of cycles on.

I already gave one in the US Dollar just the other day.[/b][/quote]
Wig,

Are you predicting a depression too?

[Buff]

Originally posted by Colin+Jul 3 2003, 10:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jul 3 2003, 10:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -bpj@Jul 3 2003, 11:39 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Jul 2 2003, 05:12 PM
I'm not a believer in the gold standard.

So, you think it's ok to just print money when/as/if needed???
Just curious.... :)
I think any standard is artificial. Gold is just a metal dug out of the earth that is shiny and pretty. It's value is determined in markets. There are problems with the gold standard. Well-known problems. That's why we're not on one.

Do I think governments should print money at will causing massive inflation? Of course not. Some have, of course.[/b][/quote]
Yeah the number one problem with gold standards is that the government can steal from the people as easily.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Colin+Jul 3 2003, 10:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jul 3 2003, 10:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Jul 3 2003, 11:54 AM
What will it matter -- you'll be standing in a soup line thinking "damn, Buff was right."
Don't back down now. Go all the way! The audience is listening.[/b][/quote]
We're in it already. It's gonna keep getting worse.

[wig]

Originally posted by Colin+Jul 3 2003, 11:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jul 3 2003, 11:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -wig@Jul 3 2003, 11:57 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Jul 3 2003, 11:47 AM
Would you like to give some dates and magnitudes or just leave it open so you can write "The Coming Great Crash" post again in 2005? ;-) ;-) ;-)

Colin,

Don't pick on Buff. Fundamentals don't allow for this kind of accuracy. LOL


I'll give some dates between now and the end of the year in several markets that i have large synergy of cycles on.

I already gave one in the US Dollar just the other day.
Wig,

Are you predicting a depression too?[/b][/quote]
Colin,

I think that there is a reasonable probability that you and I will witness a Depression within the next 20 years.

I am not predicting one. Predicting a Depression does not put money in my account (i don't write books). LOL

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig@Jul 3 2003, 11:49 AM
Nevertheless, I see the high probability of an economic upheavel rivaling the Great Depression within the next 20 years.
High probability as in double the normal probability? (which is probably about a decade out of every ten at worst). 10%.

I say that if we start heading down that path we won't raise taxes, we won't insist on a balanced budget, we won't shrink the size of the government and everything will be A-OK.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Buff+Jul 3 2003, 12:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Jul 3 2003, 12:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@Jul 3 2003, 10:57 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Jul 3 2003, 11:54 AM
What will it matter -- you'll be standing in a soup line thinking "damn, Buff was right."
Don't back down now. Go all the way! The audience is listening.
We're in it already. It's gonna keep getting worse.[/b][/quote]
We're not even in a recession. You think we're in a depression?

[bpj]

Originally posted by Buff@Jul 3 2003, 12:01 PM

Don't back down now. Go all the way! The audience is listening.[/QUOTE]
We're in it already. It's gonna keep getting worse.

[/quote]
So, how many contracts are you short??? lol
It's one thing to predict it and yet another to BET on it...

[Buff]

Originally posted by Colin+Jul 3 2003, 11:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jul 3 2003, 11:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Buff@Jul 3 2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by -Colin@Jul 3 2003, 10:57 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Jul 3 2003, 11:54 AM
What will it matter -- you'll be standing in a soup line thinking "damn, Buff was right."
Don't back down now. Go all the way! The audience is listening.
We're in it already. It's gonna keep getting worse.
We're not even in a recession. You think we're in a depression?[/b][/quote]
We're not in a what???
HAHAHA

Unemployment is the highest it's been since... when??
The dollar is collapsing, gold is sitting over $350 and climbing....

And the so-called economic growth of .00000000whatever% the government is touting is a fucking joke.

[wig]

Originally posted by bpj@Jul 3 2003, 12:09 PM

Don't back down now. Go all the way! The audience is listening.
We're in it already. It's gonna keep getting worse.

[/QUOTE]
So, how many contracts are you short??? lol
It's one thing to predict it and yet another to BET on it...[/quote]
Ain't that the truth. :)

[Buff]

Originally posted by bpj@Jul 3 2003, 11:09 AM

Don't back down now. Go all the way! The audience is listening.
We're in it already. It's gonna keep getting worse.

[/QUOTE]
So, how many contracts are you short??? lol
It's one thing to predict it and yet another to BET on it...[/quote]
You want a call? How's this: NASDAQ to 500 by 2006

[wig]

Originally posted by Colin+Jul 3 2003, 12:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jul 3 2003, 12:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Jul 3 2003, 11:49 AM
Nevertheless, I see the high probability of an economic upheavel rivaling the Great Depression within the next 20 years.
High probability as in double the normal probability? (which is probably about a decade out of every ten at worst). 10%.

I say that if we start heading down that path we won't raise taxes, we won't insist on a balanced budget, we won't shrink the size of the government and everything will be A-OK.[/b][/quote]
Colin,

If the last Depression was 1929-37 +/- and a Depression happens about 1 decade out of 10, aren't we approaching the end of the average distance between them?

[wig]

Originally posted by Buff@Jul 3 2003, 12:13 PM

Don't back down now. Go all the way! The audience is listening.
We're in it already. It's gonna keep getting worse.


So, how many contracts are you short??? lol
It's one thing to predict it and yet another to BET on it...[/QUOTE]
You want a call? How's this: NASDAQ to 500 by 2006[/quote]
He asked how many contracts you are short, which I am sure is none.

[Almighty Colin]

Wig,

My goddamned ICQ is broken. :-(

[Buff]

Originally posted by wig@Jul 3 2003, 11:18 AM

Don't back down now. Go all the way! The audience is listening.
We're in it already. It's gonna keep getting worse.


So, how many contracts are you short??? lol
It's one thing to predict it and yet another to BET on it...
You want a call? How's this: NASDAQ to 500 by 2006[/QUOTE]
He asked how many contracts you are short, which I am sure is none.[/quote]
I bought 3 canadian gold coins last summer, and I will continue to buy gold.

[wig]

Originally posted by Buff@Jul 3 2003, 12:27 PM

Don't back down now. Go all the way! The audience is listening.
We're in it already. It's gonna keep getting worse.


So, how many contracts are you short??? lol
It's one thing to predict it and yet another to BET on it...
You want a call? How's this: NASDAQ to 500 by 2006
He asked how many contracts you are short, which I am sure is none.[/QUOTE]
I bought 3 canadian gold coins last summer, and I will continue to buy gold.[/quote]
Haha, Buff. Good one. You are en fuego!

Did you know Segre was long tube socks?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig@Jul 3 2003, 12:16 PM
Colin,

If the last Depression was 1929-37 +/- and a Depression happens about 1 decade out of 10, aren't we approaching the end of the average distance between them?
Doesn't matter if a depression is essentially an independent event. Coin flips? Does a lack of a depression in one decade increase the probability of a depression in the next. There's no data for that. Even my 1 in 10 was just shooting off. What's the error in assigning probability from one event even if all other events were constant? About 100%. (square root of one divided by one).

How does one define a depression anyway? I think "depression" is just the old term for a recession and was pretty much retired after "The Great Depression". In the 1800s, what we call recessions were commonly called depressions.

If a recession is two consecutive quarters of shrinking GDP (I'm partial to that definiton) what should a depression be? If one is making predictions it at least makes sense to define what one is predicting otherwise you're just talking smack ;-). I think it would have to be worse than any of the recessions since the depression to qualify.

[wig]

Originally posted by Colin@Jul 3 2003, 12:40 PM
Doesn't matter if a depression is essentially an independent event.
And what if it is not and independent event?

What if it is part of a natural ebb and flow of human psychology, all flowing in a dynamic, cyclical way?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Buff@Jul 3 2003, 12:11 PM
We're not even in a recession. You think we're in a depression?
We're not in a what???
HAHAHA

Unemployment is the highest it's been since... when??
The dollar is collapsing, gold is sitting over $350 and climbing....

And the so-called economic growth of .00000000whatever% the government is touting is a fucking joke.[/quote]
1994. There was no recession then either. Somehow I don't find the highest unemployment rate since Boyz II Men had a hit single to be indicative of anything major.

GDP growth was 1.4% last quarter and 3.6% last year. Below average but nor recessionary. You're intentionally exaggerating those numbers.

You can make up your own definitions if you wish but then you're just talking to yourself. ;-)

[wig]

Originally posted by Colin@Jul 3 2003, 12:40 PM
Does a lack of a depression in one decade increase the probability of a depression in the next. There's no data for that.
I agree, but this is not my contention. My contention is that cyclically, there is a synergistic alignment of dates that should usher in change.

Observing the structure of the market on a large time frame and applying these cycles, I am anticipating a MAJOR low in equities and I have several dates in the next few years that I am watching.

IMO, the degree that we are at is beyond what we have seen in our lifetime.

We both could be just as easily wrong or right.

I am not doing anything with the information but observing because it is outside of my time frames.

[wig]

A recession is when your friends feel it, a Depression is when you do. :yowsa:

[wig]

Originally posted by Colin@Jul 3 2003, 12:40 PM
If one is making predictions it at least makes sense to define what one is predicting otherwise you're just talking smack ;-). I think it would have to be worse than any of the recessions since the depression to qualify.

When we talk about the "big picture" it is mostly smack to me, anyway.

But, when you consider that what I successfully use to speculate on shorter time frames is just a different degree on a bigger time frame, it is hard for me to dismiss it.

It is all smack because I don't do anything with the information but observe.

I do go out on a limb here and make predictions that I do give specifics for and that I probably have personal position on that reflect it. I'm not afraid to be wrong.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig@Jul 3 2003, 12:55 PM
And what if it is not and independent event?

What if it is part of a natural ebb and flow of human psychology, all flowing in a dynamic, cyclical way?
Yes, what if?

If such events are independent then the average distance between events doesn't matter.

If they are dependent then how many "cycles" would one need to see in order to

1. determine such a pattern even really exists?
2. reach any given degree of accuracy with a prediction?

Just hazarding a guess but I would think 10 "cycles" including depressions would still leave way too much error and at the current rate that would take 1000 years.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig@Jul 3 2003, 01:01 PM
I am anticipating a MAJOR low in equities and I have several dates in the next few years that I am watching.

IMO, the degree that we are at is beyond what we have seen in our lifetime.

We both could be just as easily wrong or right.

I am not doing anything with the information but observing because it is outside of my time frames.
I wouldn't bet against you on equities. I don't think we've had an equities bubble of this magnitude in our lifetimes and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if there was hell to pay for that. NASDAQ has already been hell. NYSE is just heck so far. The market is still a bloody bitch as far as I'm concerned.

I'd take the other side of the depression bet though.

[wig]

Originally posted by Colin@Jul 3 2003, 01:08 PM
If they are dependent then how many "cycles" would one need to see in order to

1. determine such a pattern even really exists?
2. reach any given degree of accuracy with a prediction?


Good question. For me, I can say that after 17 years of looking at futures markets, the repitition of cycles, although dynamic, is too repititious to be coincidence. It is just my opinion.

Also, it is a way to ascertain probabilities, not certainties.

[wig]

Originally posted by Colin@Jul 3 2003, 01:16 PM
I'd take the other side of the depression bet though.

And I would not blame you. :D

It is a moot issue given the definition and time. I hope you are correct and I am wrong.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig+Jul 3 2003, 01:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wig @ Jul 3 2003, 01:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Jul 3 2003, 12:40 PM
If one is making predictions it at least makes sense to define what one is predicting otherwise you're just talking smack ;-). I think it would have to be worse than any of the recessions since the depression to qualify.

When we talk about the "big picture" it is mostly smack to me, anyway.

But, when you consider that what I successfully use to speculate on shorter time frames is just a different degree on a bigger time frame, it is hard for me to dismiss it.

It is all smack because I don't do anything with the information but observe.

I do go out on a limb here and make predictions that I do give specifics for and that I probably have personal position on that reflect it. I'm not afraid to be wrong.[/b][/quote]
How would you even evaluate your own internal prediction without defining the words you are using?

"I predict a depression" only make sense if one defines what a depression is.

I predict a "qwerty horse maneuver" in gold. Care to take THAT bet? How will I know if I am right? Those are just words.

I rather suspect Buff and I would not agree on what a depression even is since we don't agree on what a recession is.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig@Jul 3 2003, 01:16 PM
Also, it is a way to ascertain probabilities, not certainties.
Do you really mean that or just as a figure of speech?

[wig]

Originally posted by Colin+Jul 3 2003, 01:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jul 3 2003, 01:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -wig@Jul 3 2003, 01:08 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Jul 3 2003, 12:40 PM
If one is making predictions it at least makes sense to define what one is predicting otherwise you're just talking smack ;-). I think it would have to be worse than any of the recessions since the depression to qualify.

When we talk about the "big picture" it is mostly smack to me, anyway.

But, when you consider that what I successfully use to speculate on shorter time frames is just a different degree on a bigger time frame, it is hard for me to dismiss it.

It is all smack because I don't do anything with the information but observe.

I do go out on a limb here and make predictions that I do give specifics for and that I probably have personal position on that reflect it. I'm not afraid to be wrong.
How would you even evaluate your own internal prediction without defining the words you are using?

"I predict a depression" only make sense if one defines what a depression is.

I predict a "qwerty horse maneuver" in gold. Care to take THAT bet? How will I know if I am right? Those are just words.

I rather suspect Buff and I would not agree on what a depression even is since we don't agree on what a recession is.[/b][/quote]
I'm not predicting it. Show me where I said that.

I just said I would not be surprised if an event rivaling the Depression of the 30's is seen.

I don't know how to define it other than that if we are in a depression we will know it! :yowsa: In other words, it has to be pretty bad times.

You seem to want to put a measurement to it to divide two sides. I am not interested in jumping on either one.

I don't mind making predictions out 1-3 months or less and just for the fun of it. I don't think it is very interesting to anyonme if I said buy bonds here and two days later, sell them there.

[wig]

Originally posted by Colin+Jul 3 2003, 01:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jul 3 2003, 01:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Jul 3 2003, 01:16 PM
Also, it is a way to ascertain probabilities, not certainties.
Do you really mean that or just as a figure of speech?[/b][/quote]
Of course I mean it. I don't profess any holy grail.

History repeats, markets repeat, there is pattern within the chaos. I look for patterns in both price and time to determine the next probable set of events in market action and then speculate. It is not something that I can observe every single day. Most of the time I look at a given market and I don't have a clue what's next.

And, when something does emerge, there are many factors besides the initial analysis. there is the execution, both in and out (especially the out) and risk management.

I am also adamant that predicting the markets course on a given time frame is much easier than executing that belief!



Last edited by wig at Jul 3 2003, 01:43 PM

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig+Jul 3 2003, 01:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wig @ Jul 3 2003, 01:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@Jul 3 2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by -wig@Jul 3 2003, 01:08 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Jul 3 2003, 12:40 PM
If one is making predictions it at least makes sense to define what one is predicting otherwise you're just talking smack ;-). I think it would have to be worse than any of the recessions since the depression to qualify.

When we talk about the "big picture" it is mostly smack to me, anyway.

But, when you consider that what I successfully use to speculate on shorter time frames is just a different degree on a bigger time frame, it is hard for me to dismiss it.

It is all smack because I don't do anything with the information but observe.

I do go out on a limb here and make predictions that I do give specifics for and that I probably have personal position on that reflect it. I'm not afraid to be wrong.
How would you even evaluate your own internal prediction without defining the words you are using?

"I predict a depression" only make sense if one defines what a depression is.

I predict a "qwerty horse maneuver" in gold. Care to take THAT bet? How will I know if I am right? Those are just words.

I rather suspect Buff and I would not agree on what a depression even is since we don't agree on what a recession is.
I'm not predicting it. Show me where I said that.

I just said I would not be surprised if an event rivaling the Depression of the 30's is seen.

I don't know how to define it other than that if we are in a depression we will know it! :yowsa: In other words, it has to be pretty bad times.

You seem to want to put a measurement to it to divide two sides. I am not interested in jumping on either one.

I don't mind making predictions out 1-3 months or less and just for the fun of it. I don't think it is very interesting to anyonme if I said buy bonds here and two days later, sell them there.[/b][/quote]
You didn't. Buff did. I got that royal plural going on when I said "you" ;-)

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig+Jul 3 2003, 01:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wig @ Jul 3 2003, 01:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@Jul 3 2003, 01:20 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--wig@Jul 3 2003, 01:16 PM
Also, it is a way to ascertain probabilities, not certainties.
Do you really mean that or just as a figure of speech?
Of course I mean it. I don't profess any holy grail.

[/b][/quote]
Then what are the probabilities? Why are you keeping them secret? Holding out? ;-)

[wig]

Originally posted by Colin+Jul 3 2003, 01:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jul 3 2003, 01:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -wig@Jul 3 2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by -Colin@Jul 3 2003, 01:20 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--wig@Jul 3 2003, 01:16 PM
Also, it is a way to ascertain probabilities, not certainties.
Do you really mean that or just as a figure of speech?
Of course I mean it. I don't profess any holy grail.


Then what are the probabilities? Why are you keeping them secret? Holding out? ;-)[/b][/quote]
LOL... I don't try and calculate a number % wise for a probability.

[wig]

And, I am more than willing to share methodology to anyone who wants to formulate their own probabilities. :groucho:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig+Jul 3 2003, 01:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wig @ Jul 3 2003, 01:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@Jul 3 2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by -wig@Jul 3 2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by -Colin@Jul 3 2003, 01:20 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--wig@Jul 3 2003, 01:16 PM
Also, it is a way to ascertain probabilities, not certainties.
Do you really mean that or just as a figure of speech?
Of course I mean it. I don't profess any holy grail.


Then what are the probabilities? Why are you keeping them secret? Holding out? ;-)
LOL... I don't try and calculate a number % wise for a probability.[/b][/quote]
So it is a figure of a speech ;-)

"Probability. Statistics. A number expressing the likelihood that a specific event will occur, expressed as the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the number of possible occurrences. "




Last edited by Colin at Jul 3 2003, 01:56 PM

[wig]

Originally posted by Colin+Jul 3 2003, 01:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jul 3 2003, 01:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -wig@Jul 3 2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by -Colin@Jul 3 2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by -wig@Jul 3 2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by -Colin@Jul 3 2003, 01:20 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--wig@Jul 3 2003, 01:16 PM
Also, it is a way to ascertain probabilities, not certainties.
Do you really mean that or just as a figure of speech?
Of course I mean it. I don't profess any holy grail.


Then what are the probabilities? Why are you keeping them secret? Holding out? ;-)
LOL... I don't try and calculate a number % wise for a probability.
So it is a figure of a speech ;-)

"Probability. Statistics. A number expressing the likelihood that a specific event will occur, expressed as the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the number of possible occurrences. "[/b][/quote]
No, it is what I perceive to be greater than 50/50. I don't assign weights to each indicator that may be one of many indicators to then formally arrive at a %.

For me it is part art and science, not one or the other.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig@Jul 3 2003, 01:59 PM
No, it is what I perceive to be greater than 50/50. I don't assign weights to each indicator that may be one of many indicators to then formally arrive at a %.

For me it is part art and science, not one or the other.
Oh, guessing!





.. j/k, man ;-)

[wig]

ROFLMAO.... yeah, I guess! :D

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig@Jul 3 2003, 01:59 PM
No, it is what I perceive to be greater than 50/50. I don't assign weights to each indicator that may be one of many indicators to then formally arrive at a %.

For me it is part art and science, not one or the other.
So everything is based on where the 50/50 mark is? So you are saying there is a greater than 50% probability of a depression-like event in the next 30 years?

Or .. are you just saying "don't be surprised"? Because that's not a lot of info. I'm not really surprised by much. I don't know how to act ;-)

[wig]

Seriously, though. I have not tried to quantify it because there are so many indicators and there is both price and time to look at.

Not every trade I make has the same set of alignments. I never saw the importance of trying to assign a value and keep track to calculate a mathematical probability.

It is in my head and ultimately will be proven correct or not based on the $$$ (or lack thereof) in my account.

I can live with that!

[wig]

Originally posted by Colin+Jul 3 2003, 02:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jul 3 2003, 02:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Jul 3 2003, 01:59 PM
No, it is what I perceive to be greater than 50/50. I don't assign weights to each indicator that may be one of many indicators to then formally arrive at a %.

For me it is part art and science, not one or the other.
So everything is based on where the 50/50 mark is? So you are saying there is a greater than 50% probability of a depression-like event in the next 30 years?

Or .. are you just saying "don't be surprised"? Because that's not a lot of info. I'm not really surprised by much. I don't know how to act ;-)[/b][/quote]
If you want to make me guess and put a number on it, I would say that I am right 85% of the time.

I suppose we could go back and look at every prediction on the markets I have made on Oprano. There are enough of them to make a judgement.

[Almighty Colin]

Wig, I'm going to go get some more fireworks now. What are the odds that I have too many for what I am about to do this weekend? ;-)

[wig]

100%! Have a good time and don't blow yourself up!