For a concise, readable summary of iTulip concepts developed over the past 16 years and a vision of a challenging next decade and how to navigate it, read Eric Janszen's book "Post Catastrophe Economy".
Join the discussion of today's events with a wide range of professionals with an interest in economics and finance.
Register to join our 50,000 plus member registered community from 78 countries today.
Subscribe to iTulip Select for access to the longest running, deep, accurate, and unvarnished macro economic trends analysis and forecasting available, since 1998.
If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen
Originally posted by raja
Care to tell us what leads you to your opinion that Mish is an idiot and a hack?
Inconsistent. Changes his colors then lies about it. Not data driven. Not objective.
The worst? Won't admit he's wrong. Everyone is wrong at some point, those who refuse to acknowledge errors cannot be trusted for anything.
Note: I saw all this in a mere 3 weeks reading his crap, as well as looking at past work to that point. Since then I've completely ignored him so cannot comment on his record since then.
For what it's worth, coming from a somewhat dispationate observer, I note the following. First, EJ's reponse -- while assertive -- crossed no line. There was no ad hominem attack, no unecessary embellishment or denigration. It remained intellectually honest, if mocking in tone. Second, I respect Eric taking the time to explain the underlying reason for departing from what appears to be a traditionally more moderate tone. Finally, I find the explanations convincing. I can't imagine Mish would care much about stopping his misrepresentations absent a direct confrontation and the truth does tend to get burried -- to much collective detriment.
Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen
Exactly on point about the tortured definition of deflation that Shedlock uses. It fails all kinds of tests for a good technical argument, as in simplicity wins.
Thanks to all the editors here. Compared to others they are straight shooters.
The only beef I have against a lot of people, including the ITulip portfolio is its lack of diversification. It is very hard in reality to commit to one or two asset classes over long periods. Of course, if you're right, you're a genius. If not, well....
I have done almost as well by some tactical asset allocation techniques and taken much less risk over the past 10 years. Precious metals have been a big contributor to the good returns.
The worst? Won't admit he's wrong. Everyone is wrong at some point, those who refuse to acknowledge errors cannot be trusted for anything.
From Mish's post now under discussion, three examples of him admitting he was wrong:
1. "In March 2009, financial assets valuations soared. That action kept up for longer than I expected"
2. However, I also clearly pointed out "Every deflationist on the planet understands inflation will be back at some point and the Fed will attempt to do everything it can to avoid it." In retrospect, the word "every" in the above sentence is too strong.
3. I wish I had worded the condition a bit more thoughtfully. In a period of deflation GDP will be weak, not necessarily continually falling.
However, let's call this a near miss.
Perhaps Mish has improved since the time when you read him, and corrected the tendencies you observed at that time?
Also, contrary to what you experienced, I find Mish to be very consistent, objective, and data-driven . . . but not data-driven in the same way that EJ is. Mish does not do the in-depth data analysis that EJ does -- coming up with a lengthy article every month or so -- but that's not what he's trying to do. When people criticize him for not providing the same type of info EJ does, that is a mistake.
Exactly on point about the tortured definition of deflation that Shedlock uses. It fails all kinds of tests for a good technical argument, as in simplicity wins.
Mish's definition: "Deflation is a net decrease in money supply and credit, with credit marked-to-market."
Mish's definition: "Deflation is a net decrease in money supply and credit, with credit marked-to-market."
What's tortured or complicated about that?
At least three massive problems with it.
1. It ignores gov't debt. If new debt can't be spent like money (as in a medium of exchange), then he has little clue what money really is.
2. He also used to (and for many years) not consider credit as money in spite of massive efforts and evidence to the contrary, and would go off in rant/attack mode on anyone who thought otherwise. That's arrogance in my book.
3. It ignores that "marked to market" frequently has little to do with actual value - and is also *extremely* difficult to measure, thereby giving him an easy out when confronted with contrary facts.
There's also the issue of it being yet another of his invented definitions. It's also 100% contrary to Hayek.
You also didn't note that he basically doesn't consider generally rising or falling prices as evidence of inflation or deflation. That's serious tortured logic.
Those items and many more (a complete failure and refusal for many years to take any of shadowstats facts about CPI being way too low into account, using an attempted CPI mod that uses Case Shiller instead of OER with an implied assumption that folk move and trade housing way more frequently than they actually do to support his bogus deflation thesis [which has been 100% wrong since at least 2004], an assertion that gold doesn't track inflation which is 100% contrary to the facts, calling folk "Keynesian clowns" while always ignoring that Keynes said that one must save and pay down during good times, a complete failure to note that currency intervention does work [the Paris & Louvre Accords worked for years as just one example - and that interventions can massively zap shorter term returns is another area that has conveniently never been addressed], etc. etc.) tell the actual story for those who see a broader picture.
From Mish's post now under discussion, three examples of him admitting he was wrong:
1. "In March 2009, financial assets valuations soared. That action kept up for longer than I expected"
Originally posted by bart
He was about 18 MONTHS late in that admission - hardly evidence of good analysis.
2. However, I also clearly pointed out "Every deflationist on the planet understands inflation will be back at some point and the Fed will attempt to do everything it can to avoid it." In retrospect, the word "every" in the above sentence is too strong.
3. I wish I had worded the condition a bit more thoughtfully. In a period of deflation GDP will be weak, not necessarily continually falling.
Originally posted by bart
The last two in my opinion are simply evidence of how many times he has "gone off" without substantial thought and analysis, and it has continued for years.
Perhaps Mish has improved since the time when you read him, and corrected the tendencies you observed at that time?
Originally posted by bart
Just a few days ago, he went off about Switzerland and gold soaring there as a result - and that was completely wrong.
Also, contrary to what you experienced, I find Mish to be very consistent, objective, and data-driven . . . but not data-driven in the same way that EJ is. Mish does not do the in-depth data analysis that EJ does -- coming up with a lengthy article every month or so -- but that's not what he's trying to do. When people criticize him for not providing the same type of info EJ does, that is a mistake.
As I noted above, its my strong belief that the data he uses is both heavily filtered by his ideology and is also a subset of all the data available.
His continual and long term misrepresentations about EJ and iTulip's positions and record... OMG... well, they speak for themselves and without even pointing out the public track record of his employer.
U.S. core producer prices rose at their fastest pace in six months in July...according to a government report on Wednesday that could stoke inflation fears.
Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen
the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of investment-oriented economic analysis is long-term performance.
if your long-term performance sucks, it's very hard to assert that your analysis was correct, unless your analysis was probabilistic, included the possibility of sucking, and is able to explain why what you thought was a very low probability outcome actually came to pass.
Originally posted by yernamehear
The only beef I have against a lot of people, including the ITulip portfolio is its lack of diversification. It is very hard in reality to commit to one or two asset classes over long periods.
i disagree re how hard it is to commit to a concentrated portfolio. the issue is really understanding why you own what you own, and also seeing through the false diversification that most people pursue. i call that diversification false because when you really need it, i.e. when tshtf, everything that is uncorrelated in a relaxed environment, suddenly becomes highly correlated.
Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen
Originally posted by raja
From Mish's post now under discussion, three examples of him admitting he was wrong:
1. "In March 2009, financial assets valuations soared. That action kept up for longer than I expected"
2. However, I also clearly pointed out "Every deflationist on the planet understands inflation will be back at some point and the Fed will attempt to do everything it can to avoid it." In retrospect, the word "every" in the above sentence is too strong.
3. I wish I had worded the condition a bit more thoughtfully. In a period of deflation GDP will be weak, not necessarily continually falling.
However, let's call this a near miss.
Perhaps Mish has improved since the time when you read him, and corrected the tendencies you observed at that time?
Also, contrary to what you experienced, I find Mish to be very consistent, objective, and data-driven . . . but not data-driven in the same way that EJ is. Mish does not do the in-depth data analysis that EJ does -- coming up with a lengthy article every month or so -- but that's not what he's trying to do. When people criticize him for not providing the same type of info EJ does, that is a mistake.
Mish actually uses the words "I was wrong" in a few areas, but I never saw them used in any area which Sitka Capital is involved.
This is a big problem.
Each of the examples above is a passive-aggressive statement: I was right, but not completely right.
EJ has stated flat out that he was wrong in a number of examples where the facts showed this to be so - starting from the housing bubble, to the length/breadth of the first bounce, etc etc.
Tweet
Comment