Timmy Geithner the debt serf: Out of the pan and into the FIRE Economy - Eric Janszen

[santafe2]

Re: Timmy Geithner the debt serf: Out of the pan and into the FIRE Economy

I've studied Graham and Buffet at length for years now, and I agree with you...[that investing like these two is no longer possible]

Um...I have an idea how you could invest just like Buffett...you could maybe buy BRKA? That would be exactly like investing just like Buffett and you could do it without any of the work or the staff.

Then you could use MACD historgrams, 50 DMA and support and resistance just like Luke does to be like a super Buffett, (Luke, I'm being sure not to talk around your posts...is this sufficient homage?).

[Guest]

Re: Timmy Geithner the debt serf: Out of the pan and into the FIRE Economy

Santafe2 -

I'm not some sort of rabid technical analysis aficionado. The spoof about my being some superman-warren buffet thanks to recognising the usefulness of support and resistance lines is frankly nonsense. I don't even have any huge interest in technical analysis. If one or two people were more alert to the wider issue that would never have even been your assumption.

What I object to is the occasional casually delivered, over-assertive throw-away iTulip claim, which suggests that about half the entire population of finance or economic analysts (or in other words, about one half of the professionals who maybe got a Phd in economics and are market watchers as is iTulip) is comprised merely of frauds because maybe they even just incorporate a "technical analysis" approach among theor various eclectic methods. Meanwhile iTulip barely wave a hand in the vaguest terms (other than ample ready caricature) to even define what "TA" is, yet there are dozens of ways this term may be construed. And I'm treated to the spectacle of the entire iTulip readership sitting there like so many marshmallows, not uttering the smallest peep. Not even something bland, like: "but Fred, wouldn't it be just a shade more prudent of iTulip, to assert that they distrust this technician's approach, as opposed to referring to it as fraudulent"?

I don't care so much about the technical analysis, nor have a huge fascination for it. What I do care about and object to, is editors being able to throw out brazen statements consigning half the market professionals out there (many quite smart, skeptical and discerning, even with doctorates) to the status of patsies and frauds while the readership sits here mutely, in uncritical and approving silence. Tell me, how would iTulip know that "beyond any doubt", exactly? Anybody ask? And what about that irksome WD Gann guy? Crack open a book of his essays on technical analysis and it's enough to give Fred dyspepsia over how inane Gann sounds with that "technical mumbo jumbo" while he was raking in 50 million dollars.

But the irksom fact is, the guy pulled more speculative money out of the market than you, I, Fred, EJ, the facilely doubting Spartacus and Metalman, and the whole fricking pile of people reading here will likely earn or speculatively win, collectively - in a lifetime.

No comment? No-one offers a murmur because this place is a place where you open the lid on the top of your head, and the editorial staff fill up the actionable-intelligence-pan underneath that lid, with their (occasionally overweening) opinions as to what's real and what's not in the world, and it would be terribly bad form for you to once in a while tell iTulip their summary dismissals of the life's work of people like WD Gann beg the question whether they've ever heard of the concept of an even perfunctory professional modesty (let alone courtesy). The guy ran circles around iTulip as far as outguessing the markets, and would likely have done so even with one hand tied behind his back and one leg in a cast. It is not technical analysis that I'm infatuated with at all. Rather, it is the overweening claims to have encompassed sufficient "absolute truth" to dismiss the other half of the professionals working around you beyond any possible appeal - that's what sticks in my throat like a chicken bone. Not your throat, apparently.

Um...I have an idea how you could invest just like Buffett...you could maybe buy BRKA? That would be exactly like investing just like Buffett and you could do it without any of the work or the staff. Then you could use MACD historgrams, 50 DMA and support and resistance just like Luke does to be like a super Buffett, (Luke, I'm being sure not to talk around your posts...is this sufficient homage?).

We have the same attitude about trading based on TA as we have toward casino gambling and state lotteries ... schemes designed to seperate people from their money based on marketing that selectively presents the product's or service's performance ....

... easy to debunk technical analysis. All you have to do is collect a series of forecasts that were based on technical analysis and compare them to actual results ... such is human nature and the dogged determination of the gambling mind to accept the fantasy ....

We make about ten cents every time a member buys the book, by the way. Not as good as the hundreds of dollars we'd make selling trading junk, but that's the difference between what you can make on get rich quick schemes versus cold, hard reality.

[ze100]

Re: Timmy Geithner the debt serf: Out of the pan and into the FIRE Economy - Eric Janszen

I don't see why all types of analysis cannot be used to form a hypothesis. Certainly technical analysis can provide insights as can macro economic analysis, fundamental analysis or behavioural analysis.

Just take it all - put it together and at some stage you'll clear out the BS from the important.

[santafe2]

Re: Timmy Geithner the debt serf: Out of the pan and into the FIRE Economy

I'm not some sort of rabid technical analysis aficionado.

Um...I was just having some fun?! Your charts with the silicon implant diagrams jutting left and right made me misjudge your intention. My mistake, but weren't you a little rabid at the edges? I assumed you were making the point that with your magical gold chart you could take the 2001 up move and turn it into an exponential move mere mortals could not imagine.

I don't even have any huge interest in technical analysis. If one or two people were more alert to the wider issue that would never have even been your assumption.

Thanks for acknowledging my joke. I can mine that one much deeper when I have time.

What I object to is the occasional casually delivered, over-assertive throw-away iTulip claim, which suggests that about half the entire population of finance or economic analysts (or in other words, about one half of the professionals who maybe got a Phd in economics and are market watchers as is iTulip) is comprised merely of frauds because maybe they even just incorporate a "technical analysis" approach among theor various eclectic methods.

Half of all economic PhDs are frauds...It must be exponentially higher than that. Really, do you only think it's half?

...many quite smart, skeptical and discerning, even with doctorates...

Everyone with enough money can have one. You really don't want to put yourself in the position of defending children in school getting their 3rd degree with no experience. If it's an MD, fine. Otherwise the damn thing better be in a hard science.

...to the status of patsies and frauds while the readership sits here mutely, in uncritical and approving silence...

Huh?

And what about that irksome WD Gann guy? Crack open a book of his essays on technical analysis and it's enough to give Fred dyspepsia over how inane Gann sounds with that "technical mumbo jumbo" while he was raking in 50 million dollars.

Can Fred take this on right after his assault on astrology?

But the irksom fact is, the guy pulled more speculative money out of the market than you, I, Fred, EJ, the facilely doubting Spartacus and Metalman, and the whole fricking pile of people reading here will likely earn or speculatively win, collectively - in a lifetime.

Sorry Luke, you know this false logic is complete BS. It's not up to this community to prove that Gann is not astrological BS, it's your job to prove how that astrological BS could possibly provide a regular profit today. We await your proof.

[santafe2]

Re: Timmy Geithner the debt serf: Out of the pan and into the FIRE Economy - Eric Janszen

I don't see why all types of analysis cannot be used to form a hypothesis. Certainly technical analysis can provide insights as can macro economic analysis, fundamental analysis or behavioural analysis.

Just take it all - put it together and at some stage you'll clear out the BS from the important.

To answer your question, I would not use astrology but it's been advocated, although indirectly, (Gann). That's one type of analysis that might be suspect. Do you have a particular group of technical tools you're advocating? I don't mean to call you out with this post, just give you fair warning that you'll need a strong argument around here if you want to offer TA as something with value.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Timmy Geithner the debt serf: Out of the pan and into the FIRE Economy

No comment? No-one offers a murmur because this place is a place where you open the lid on the top of your head, and the editorial staff fill up the actionable-intelligence-pan underneath that lid, with their (occasionally overweening) opinions as to what's real and what's not in the world, and it would be terribly bad form for you to once in a while tell iTulip their summary dismissals of the life's work of people like WD Gann beg the question whether they've ever heard of the concept of an even perfunctory professional modesty (let alone courtesy). The guy ran circles around iTulip as far as outguessing the markets, and would likely have done so even with one hand tied behind his back and one leg in a cast. It is not technical analysis that I'm infatuated with at all. Rather, it is the overweening claims to have encompassed sufficient "absolute truth" to dismiss the other half of the professionals working around you beyond any possible appeal - that's what sticks in my throat like a chicken bone. Not your throat, apparently.

From what I have seen here, EJ has created a financially viable business for the long term, pays his bills and makes a good living for himself and his associates. He has done that in his own way. Not my way, or your way either. I salute them as a team for their obvious success. They have not set out to advocate anything other than create a forum where anyone may voice their opinions and for others to debate.

A very simple, effective and successful business model. But business is way more than any technical analysis of any trade in anything being traded. No one succeeds without an underlying successful business model.

[Guest]

Re: Timmy Geithner the debt serf: Out of the pan and into the FIRE Economy

Santafe2 -

I can't make heads or tails of any of your responses. Why can't you offer straight answers rather than this cute stuff? "Half of all Phd"s are frauds". "Can Fred take this on right after his assault on astrology?" - Well you seem in fine form with the throwaway lines this evening chum. Right up there in the tall saddle with the editors today.

Um...I was just having some fun?! Your charts with the silicon implant diagrams jutting left and right made me misjudge your intention. My mistake, but weren't you a little rabid at the edges? I assumed you were making the point that with your magical gold chart you could take the 2001 up move and turn it into an exponential move mere mortals could not imagine.

Thanks for acknowledging my joke. I can mine that one much deeper when I have time.

Half of all economic PhDs are frauds...It must be exponentially higher than that. Really, do you only think it's half?

Everyone with enough money can have one. You really don't want to put yourself in the position of defending children in school getting their 3rd degree with no experience. If it's an MD, fine. Otherwise the damn thing better be in a hard science.

Huh?

Can Fred take this on right after his assault on astrology?

Sorry Luke, you know this false logic is complete BS. It's not up to this community to prove that Gann is not astrological BS, it's your job to prove how that astrological BS could possibly provide a regular profit today. We await your proof.

[Guest]

Re: Timmy Geithner the debt serf: Out of the pan and into the FIRE Economy

Chris -

I can only congratulate you for "commending them on their success". I certainly do as well. But what is your point exactly? My point was that they have here dismissed large segments of their competitors in a quite obviously peremptory way. Yes? Please understand the point. It is not their competitors dismissing iTulip for being specious. It is iTulip dismissing it's competitors (with a very broad wave of the hand towards "TA" whatever that supposedly encompasses) for being specious. You say "they have not set out to advocate anything other than" - not true. My only objection here is precisely that they are advocating a very broad group of other analysts as being incompetent.

It seems to this reader that any party making such advocations should prepare for one or two readers to legitimately challenge them to substantiate such sweeping assertions. Santafe2 above seems to get it back to front, wanting me to substantiate any objection. But it is not me who is "advocating" that one or the other group are a bunch of "incompetents and willful frauds". I advocate that BOTH they AND iTulip have valuable contributions. It is ITULIP who is actively advocating that others are incompetent and fraudulent. Apparently the doughty Santafe2 wants me to "substantiate" my objection. :rolleyes:

Seems a back to front logic to me. Without using any fancy language or misplaced diplomacy (where it is manifestly abandoned elsewhere), here's the point: If anyone wants to sling their ego around claiming broad groups of others are incompetents and frauds, particularly when those others are not leveling similar denigrations at you - seems to my old fashioned sense of fair play, the burden is on iTulip to substantiate it's claims or tone them down. Go ahead and show us for instance, where that WD Gann guy came by his 50 millions despite his "delusions" about technical insights to be gleaned from the markets. Or at very least, put up with comments from a reader or two here, that such assertions of incompetence among technicians may seem a little cavalier.

From what I have seen here, EJ has created a financially viable business for the long term, pays his bills and makes a good living for himself and his associates. He has done that in his own way. Not my way, or your way either. I salute them as a team for their obvious success. They have not set out to advocate anything other than create a forum where anyone may voice their opinions and for others to debate.

A very simple, effective and successful business model. But business is way more than any technical analysis of any trade in anything being traded. No one succeeds without an underlying successful business model.

[*T*]

Re: Timmy Geithner the debt serf: Out of the pan and into the FIRE Economy - Eric Janszen

To answer your question, I would not use astrology but it's been advocated, although indirectly, (Gann). That's one type of analysis that might be suspect. Do you have a particular group of technical tools you're advocating? I don't mean to call you out with this post, just give you fair warning that you'll need a strong argument around here if you want to offer TA as something with value.

I've given a strong argument and references elsewhere on these pages.

To summarise:
Either prices are Markov or they're not.

There is good, empirical evidence that prices are not Markov. Also that probability distributions of future price returns are not stable.

I used to market-make options for one of the top three US houses. Efficient market theory and Black-Scholes assumes the Markov property and stable distributions. In fact, volatility (i.e. options) trade with skew, and a term structure. A term structure to implied volatility implies mean reversion or trending. This implies dependence of price on price history. This is mathematically provable. And empirically, with the right kind of study. See Mandelbrot's thesis for example. A pariah in Economics for his heresy, where he started, he pretty much invented a whole new area of mathematics (fractals).

The existence of a business cycle also implies long-range order. Minsky talked about expectations informing buying decisions. Soros also refutes the idea of an efficient market.

My own opinion is that the use of credit in markets is what gives it these dynamics and price history.

If the markets have no long-range order, you could make billions in the options markets.

For an introduction, read for example A Non-Random Walk Down Wall St, a collection of serious academic studies on the issue.

I am NOT saying 'all technical analysis works'. I am NOT advocating use of astrology in investment.

I AM saying some technical analysis has verifiable empirical basis. And I AM saying that the received wisdom of Black-Scholes, efficient markets, rational expectations, stock returns as a Markov chain etc, is empirically WRONG.

To lump people like Mandelbrot together with astrologers is insulting to the serious academic work done and is plain ignorant. What we are presented is a straw man argument and dogma.

And whenever I say this, NO ONE has disagreed. So I issue the challenge, where am I wrong?

[Slimprofits]

Re: Timmy Geithner the debt serf: Out of the pan and into the FIRE Economy - Eric Janszen



Billy Ray Valentine on the fundamentals of pork bellies:

[c1ue]

Re: Timmy Geithner the debt serf: Out of the pan and into the FIRE Economy - Eric Janszen

SF,

It is useless debating with Lukester.

Far better to let time take its toll.

His rapid peak oil pronouncements underpinning his $200 oil in 2 years is at grave jeapordy; his silver ratio rising vs. gold also has been a rough ride.

Might as well let him continue to place his faith in technical analysis.

After all, if WD Gann or whomever modern Rasputin made XXX dollars, they must be right.

Just like Bernie Madoff - after all, $50B invested must be right too?

[Guest]

Re: Timmy Geithner the debt serf: Out of the pan and into the FIRE Economy

why don't even well educated people understand that? have a friend who is dogmatic about elliot wave. i ask, 'have you ever counted up all of your trades and figured out if, minus what you spend in the wave stuff, trading costs, taxes, etc, you are making money?'

his answer... 'i don't need to. i know i'm making money!'

I remember how you used to hear about "biorhythms", they even had machines where you could pop in some money and it would do its magic and print yours out for you.

[Spartacus]

Re: Timmy Geithner the debt serf: Out of the pan and into the FIRE Economy - Eric Janszen

After all, if WD Gann or whomever modern Rasputin made XXX dollars, they must be right.
Just like Bernie Madoff - after all, $50B invested must be right too?

I've read of Gann a few times

Never published his entry and exit points before hand, claimed to have made money much later.

Like the psychics and faith healers and ESPers and astrologers and cancer curers, "the effect" vanishes when you ask for repeated, verifiable proof.

As the Quebequois say, "SUIVANT!!!"
(for you anglos, "NEXT !!!")

[Spartacus]

Re: Timmy Geithner the debt serf: Out of the pan and into the FIRE Economy

I remember how you used to hear about "biorhythms", they even had machines where you could pop in some money and it would do its magic and print yours out for you.

If you don't ask for proof for small woo-woo, how will you stop yourself from letting that small thing build?

It IS the thin edge of the wedge.

When I used to get into knock-down drag-out Interwebs arguments about this I'd always ask, if you want to give your own personal woo-woo (or Rasputin, as C1ue would say) the benefit of the doubt, why not this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(cult))

or any of a hundred other links to various of Applewhite's fellow travelers, Jones, Koresh, Cruise, Travolta ...

Not that I ever convinced any true believer ...
As someone who had his mind changed it amazes me how closed minded these people are. Of course, they are always the first to throw out "you're closed minded".

[metalman]

Re: Timmy Geithner the debt serf: Out of the pan and into the FIRE Economy

i'm equally closed minded about santa claus and technical analysis and for the same reason... they were both made up to fool children.