Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

[c1ue]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

I'm backing my arguments up, however this argument just becomes one of atheist vs agnostic.
I'm not denying that apple could be in a bubble from a psychological view, but if you look at old P/E ratio's for those stocks during the dot-com bubble 1,5 trillion would really fit the picture of what Apple's price would be in a future version of that same environment, even with todays earnings. It's just nonsense that they would have to take over the market totally. What i'm reacting to is just your certainty on something that's not sure, and not knowable. What's important is to have a humble attitude and realize your limitations.

I've yet to see any backing for your statements other than cherry picked examples from the past.

It is trivial to look backwards and extrapolate a simple linear behavior from the past; it is far more difficult to understand why events occurred as they did and to then extend this understanding to predict future events.

iTulip does this.

You do not.

[nero3]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

I've yet to see any backing for your statements other than cherry picked examples from the past.

It is trivial to look backwards and extrapolate a simple linear behavior from the past; it is far more difficult to understand why events occurred as they did and to then extend this understanding to predict future events.

iTulip does this.

You do not.

Praise the lord, Amen. And Itullip is not comparing Dow shamelessly with Japans Nikkei? Oh, give me a break. Anyway, don't make this critism of mine to one crusade against itulip. I'm just pointing out flaws in your argument. If you look at real bubbles, like real estate in China, Japanese stocks or real estate or Cisco in the past, price earnings ratio's were close to 100. Where is apple? Cheap in comparison. Some analysts like Jeremy Grantham have earlier said he think's the final stage of the US stock market bubble is yet to come. So it's at least some that's not really as certain as you are.

[c1ue]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

Praise the lord, Amen. And Itullip is not comparing Dow shamelessly with Japans Nikkei? Oh, give me a break. Anyway, don't make this critism of mine to one crusade against itulip. I'm just pointing out flaws in your argument. If you look at real bubbles, like real estate in China, Japanese stocks or real estate or Cisco in the past, price earnings ratio's were close to 100. Where is apple? Cheap in comparison. Some analysts like Jeremy Grantham have earlier said he think's the final stage of the US stock market bubble is yet to come. So it's at least some that's not really as certain as you are.

Again you show your own ignorance.

iTulip compares the Dow and the Nikkei, then discusses the parts that are similar and the parts that are different.

You apparently cannot read beyond the first 3 sentences because iTulip concludes a very different scenario between the US and Japan.

[FRED]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

Again you show your own ignorance.

iTulip compares the Dow and the Nikkei, then discusses the parts that are similar and the parts that are different.

You apparently cannot read beyond the first 3 sentences because iTulip concludes a very different scenario between the US and Japan.

nero3 makes a concerted effort to not read or try to understand iTulip. He is thus likely a plant from a competitor or is a competitor. This is the reason nero3 was absent for a while.

[jk]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

nero3 makes a concerted effort to not read or try to understand iTulip. He is thus likely a plant from a competitor or is a competitor. This is the reason nero3 was absent for a while.

that's interesting. i began tuning out his posts a couple of weeks ago as they didn't make a lot of sense to me. i thought maybe it was just me.

[Chomsky]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

that's interesting. i began tuning out his posts a couple of weeks ago as they didn't make a lot of sense to me. i thought maybe it was just me.

It's not just you.

[flintlock]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

that's interesting. i began tuning out his posts a couple of weeks ago as they didn't make a lot of sense to me. i thought maybe it was just me.

I just assumed it was the language issue.

[jk]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

I just assumed it was the language issue.

frankly, i was also bothered by his unwillingness to discuss his own investments [if any]. we have no way of knowing whether people are misrepresenting themselves and their investments, but nonetheless i have more respect for those who discuss - in a realistic and consistent way- what they themselves are doing financially.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

nero3 makes a concerted effort to not read or try to understand iTulip. He is thus likely a plant from a competitor or is a competitor. This is the reason nero3 was absent for a while.

Hmmm, There are plenty of people on iTulip who respectfully disagree with certain parts of the iTulip thesis. I'm not sure I like the idea that if you disagree with something iTulip says, that you'll be labeled a "plant" or a "competitor". I thought part of the reason for presenting such in depth analysis was for people to have a reasonable discussion about the contents. It's awful hard to advance and explain some technical aspects of the economy if no one is allowed to express disagreement. There are also some here who I feel do not always present a quality data or well reasoned argument for disagreement. I'm the one who gets to decide whether their argument is legitimate or not, and it also presents an opportunity for iTulip to demonstrate why some arguments are incorrect. If bad arguments are censored, or intimidated from presentation, I think it will diminish the iTulip forums. I have the highest regards for readers of iTulip and am fully confident that they have the ability to distinguish from unreasonable and well reasoned data supported arguments.

I'm also curious about why a competitor would try to come to iTulip and try to post a poor quality rebuttal to an iTulip hypothesis? You would have to have a pretty low opinion of your readership to believe that someone could come in as a competitor plant and post a bunch of short posts in disagreement, and somehow you're going to lose your subscribers to them.

Calling people plants and competitors, without any evidence, somehow doesn't seem to fit into the friendly neighborhood bar atmosphere that the forums are suppose to mimic. I much prefer to make decisions with as much information as possible, and I would be disappointed to believe that some readers are intimidated into not posting a disagreeing opinion over fear of some of the name calling that appears to be happening on the site.

$.02

[jk]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

Hmmm, There are plenty of people on iTulip who respectfully disagree with certain parts of the iTulip thesis. I'm not sure I like the idea that if you disagree with something iTulip says, that you'll be labeled a "plant" or a "competitor". I thought part of the reason for presenting such in depth analysis was for people to have a reasonable discussion about the contents. It's awful hard to advance and explain some technical aspects of the economy if no one is allowed to express disagreement. There are also some here who I feel do not always present a quality data or well reasoned argument for disagreement. I'm the one who gets to decide whether their argument is legitimate or not, and it also presents an opportunity for iTulip to demonstrate why some arguments are incorrect. If bad arguments are censored, or intimidated from presentation, I think it will diminish the iTulip forums. I have the highest regards for readers of iTulip and am fully confident that they have the ability to distinguish from unreasonable and well reasoned data supported arguments.

I'm also curious about why a competitor would try to come to iTulip and try to post a poor quality rebuttal to an iTulip hypothesis? You would have to have a pretty low opinion of your readership to believe that someone could come in as a competitor plant and post a bunch of short posts in disagreement, and somehow you're going to lose your subscribers to them.

Calling people plants and competitors, without any evidence, somehow doesn't seem to fit into the friendly neighborhood bar atmosphere that the forums are suppose to mimic. I much prefer to make decisions with as much information as possible, and I would be disappointed to believe that some readers are intimidated into not posting a disagreeing opinion over fear of some of the name calling that appears to be happening on the site.

$.02

you highlight what i would think is a difficult administrative issue for a website such as this. i remember that after i joined in the spring of '06 we had long and [seemingly] endless debates about inflation vs deflation, and about whether oil production was really peaking, about whether asia could "decouple" and avoid the coming recession, about the dimensions of the housing bubble, and so on. after "america's bubble economy" came out late in '06, in which eric wrote a chapter on gold, there was an influx of new members eager to debate the same issues which we had already hashed over at what felt like enormous length. i know that i, for one, was not eager to go back over arguments which seemed drained of all potential new insight, even in the light of the latest data. so, if we as a community are developing a model which helps us to understand what's happening and gives us a glimpse of what is likely or possible in the future, how much time and effort should be put into re-examining issues which have been, to some degree at least, "settled"? [is anything ever "settled"?] it makes me think of trying to run a math course- when you get to later in your calculus course, do you have to go back to argue over limit theory with someone who either just arrived or didn't get it or agree with it in the first place? at some point you have to move on.

i have never felt stifled or inhibited here from debating, questioning, or disagreeing with any proposition that has been put forward. have you?

[c1ue]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

The first several hundred posts by nero3 - I didn't utter a peep.

Over time it has become abundantly clear that this individual is either a troll, or has some other ulterior motive.

I personally have never pushed anyone not to post no matter how inane the results - nor will I ever, but at the same time I do not accept indefinitely an endless stream of FUD.

I challenged nero3 with this in mind, and he of course backed down. And continues to back down.

At this point it is completely clear that there is no substance whatsoever behind anything this poster has been saying, though of course in the future anything is possible.

[nero3]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

The first several hundred posts by nero3 - I didn't utter a peep.

Over time it has become abundantly clear that this individual is either a troll, or has some other ulterior motive.

I personally have never pushed anyone not to post no matter how inane the results - nor will I ever, but at the same time I do not accept indefinitely an endless stream of FUD.

I challenged nero3 with this in mind, and he of course backed down. And continues to back down.

At this point it is completely clear that there is no substance whatsoever behind anything this poster has been saying, though of course in the future anything is possible.

I let the reply from "we_are_toast" speak for me as well. You have read more posts from me, than I have read of your posts, and I think that's the way I want it to be.

[metalman]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

I let the reply from "we_are_toast" speak for me as well. You have read more posts from me, than I have read of your posts, and I think that's the way I want it to be.

1. you are too lazy to read the articles here
2. you lack the good grace to even attempt to understand the articles here
3. you like the people itulip has collected but are too crass to bother to read the material that brought them here
4. you are a troll or competitor
5. ????????????

[sishya]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

But we all know that nero3 brings a different prespective like lukester,symbols etc... And we also remember that
nero3 had been on the correct way back in June 2009 regarding bull market in S&P(nominal terms). I have recently
got off that train, but I think we can encourage diversity here and it is up to each reader to take it or not.

[metalman]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

But we all know that nero3 brings a different prespective like lukester,symbols etc... And we also remember that
nero3 had been on the correct way back in June 2009 regarding bull market in S&P(nominal terms). I have recently
got off that train, but I think we can encourage diversity here and it is up to each reader to take it or not.

i'm all for alternate points of view but i'm with jk on rehashing old arguments & neglecting long established facts. when i go to a site i don't start blabbing without first reading the articles there. that's plain rude. it says 'i don't give a shit what you people think... i'm smart & you're all stupid.' guaranteed to get a neg response.