PDA

View Full Version : Gold price will fall by 35% after 2010



ikitov
05-23-09, 10:44 AM
The evolution of gold price can be predicted at a several year horizon in two steps.

1. Sustainable trends in PPI
It was found that the difference between the overall producer price index, PPI, and individual subcategories of the PPI is characterized by the presence of sustainable trends (Kitov, Kitov, 2009b). Similar trends were initially revealed in consumer price indices (Kitov, Kitov, 2008). Therefore, the presence of sustainable (linear and nonlinear) trends is an inherent feature of consumer and producer prices.
For gold price, this feature is also observed. Figure 1 demonstrates the difference between the PPI and the price index for gold ores, both variables retrieved on May 22, 2009 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics web-site http://www.bls.gov/data (http://www.bls.gov/data). The index for gold was originated in 1985. The difference has two distinct quasi-linear branches: between 1988 and 2001 (June), and from 2001 to 2008 (January). Red and blue lines highlight segments between 1988 and 2001, and from 2001 to 2008, respectively. Corresponding linear regression lines in Figure 1 have slopes of 4.7 and -11, respectively.
The presence of linear trends in the difference between the PPI and the index for gold ores is now a trivial fact. However, it describes the past rather that foresees the future. Second step is less trivial and is based on an assumption that the presence of sustainable trends will last in the years to come.

2. The trend after 2009
After 2008, a period of high volatility has been observed. This period is related to the turn to a new trend after 2008. A nave assumption about the new trend is that it will repeat that between 2001 and 2008 but with an apposite sign. (Actual trend may be different but inevitably with a positive slope. Here, we do not consider any other option except the nave one.) Green line predicts the evolution of the difference after 2008 as a mirror reflection of the linear trend between 2001 and 2008. Because the green line has a positive slope the index for gold will lag behind the PPI since 2009. According to our assumption, the rate of the deviation from the PPI will be 11 units of index per year. However, this lag is only a relative one not absolute. So, we do not know where the index for gold ores will go, if we do not know how the PPI will grow. For example, Figure 2 shows that the PPI has been growing since 1985, but the difference in Figure 1 has different slopes before and after 2001. In other words, the growth in the difference after 2009 does not indicate that the index for gold ores will decline. The decline will happen only in the case if the PPI will grow at a rate lower than 11 units of index per year. So, the question is how fast the PPI will grow?
We have answered this question several years ago. After 2008, inflation in the United States will be falling down to and then below zero (Kitov, 2006ab; Kitov, Kitov, Dolinskaya, 2007). Accordingly, the PPI will not be growing during the next 5 to 10 years, after it recovers by 20 units by the end of 2009 due to increasing oil price (Kitov, 2009; Kitov, Kitov, 2009a).
So, now we can refer the index for gold ores to the constant PPI since 2010. Without loss of generality, we put the 2010 level of PPI at 190. Then, the index for gold ores will fall from 230 units in 2008 to 165 in 2015. Figure 2 illustrates the prediction the price for gold ores will drop by 75 units or by 75/230=0.33 or 33%.

Conclusion
The difference between the PPI and the price index for gold ores is characterized by the presence of two sustainable quasi-linear trends between 1988 and 2008, with a turning point in 2001. It is likely that the difference in the next 5 to 10 years will show similar behavior, i.e. we will observe a new robust trend. To continue the previously observed pattern, the new trend should be characterized by a positive slope, which absolute value can not be currently determined.
For the sake of simplicity, it is assumed that the new trend will repeat the previous one but with an opposite sign. At the same time, the PPI will not be growing during the next decade because inflation in the US will approach the zero line. As a result, gold price will be falling by ~11 units of index per year during the next seven years. If the slope will be higher than 11 units per year, the next trend will be shorter, and vice versa. The absolute change of 75 units is likely to be the same for any slope.
Apparently, the above estimates are only crude ones and actual duration and slop will be determined only in several years. However, the fall in gold price by about 35% is practically inevitable, if the link between the PPI and the index for gold ores will retain.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mU_FH0SZ_Ig/ShgGuma_1mI/AAAAAAAABkc/umHaoAUMfWk/s400/image002.gif Figure 1. Evolution of the difference between the PPI and the price index for gold ores between 1985 and 2009. Red and blue lines highlight segments between 1988 and 2001, and from 2001 to 2008, respectively. Green line predicts the evolution of the difference after 2008, as a mirror reflection of the linear trend between 2001 and 2008.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mU_FH0SZ_Ig/ShgGquId0TI/AAAAAAAABkU/X5v-5tQPXXc/s400/image004.gifFigure 2. Evolution of the PPI and the index for gold ores since 1985. Green line the prediction of the index for gold ores between 2008 and 2015. Thick black line the PPI at constant level between 2010 and 2015.


References


Kitov, I. (2006a). Inflation, unemployment, labor force change in the USA, Working Papers 28, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, http://www.ecineq.org/milano/WP/ECINEQ2006-28.pdf


Kitov, I., (2006b). Exact prediction of inflation in the USA, MPRA Paper 2735, University Library of Munich, Germany, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2735/01/MPRA_paper_2735.pdf


Kitov, I., Kitov, O., (2008). Long-Term Linear Trends In Consumer Price Indices, Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Financial Management and Accounting Craiova, vol. 3(2(4)_Summ), pp. 101-112.


Kitov, I., (2009). ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil stock price, MPRA Paper 15334, University Library of Munich, Germany, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15334/01/MPRA_paper_15334.pdf


Kitov, I., Kitov, O., (2009a). A fair price for motor fuel in the United States, MPRA Paper 15039, University Library of Munich, Germany, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15039/01/MPRA_paper_15039.pdf


Kitov, I., Kitov, O., (2009b). Sustainable trends in producer price indices, Journal of Applied Research in Finances, (in press). (Working paper is available: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15194/01/MPRA_paper_15194.pdf)


Kitov, I., Kitov, O., Dolinskaya, S., (2007). Inflation as a function of labor force change rate: cointegration test for the USA, MPRA Paper 2734, University Library of Munich, Germany, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2734/01/MPRA_paper_2734.pdf

WDCRob
05-23-09, 11:17 AM
At the same time, the PPI will not be growing during the next decade because inflation in the US will approach the zero line.

I'd be curious to hear you address iTulip's disagreement on this point. Where do you think their thesis is wrong?

ikitov
05-23-09, 11:48 AM
As a matter of fact, I have written several papers on this issue, which are cited in my post. It would be difficult to repeat everything.

FRED
05-23-09, 12:55 PM
As a matter of fact, I have written several papers on this issue, which are cited in my post. It would be difficult to repeat everything. If you would not like to read these papers, you could try posts on deflation in my blog http://itulip.com/search/label/deflation.

Please review our spam policy here (http://www.itulip.com/forums/faq.php?s=&do=search&q=anti-spam&match=all&titlesonly=0).

WDCRob
05-23-09, 01:05 PM
Ikitov... you elected to post your paper on iTulip - a place that has a well-argued thesis regarding inflation that's 100% contrary to your own. It's not on them to rebut your paper.

To post something you wrote without addressing the same issue vis the position of site you're freeloading off of for publicity is poor form IMO. If your goal is to spark a discussion on your paper without regard for iTulip's arguments - you can always put it on your blog and build your own audience.

I'm with Metal. I'm tired of this kind of thing.

ikitov
05-23-09, 01:44 PM
Please, cancel my account and remove this thread.

FRED
05-23-09, 02:25 PM
Please, cancel my account and remove this thread.

But you do not have an account.

metalman
05-23-09, 02:40 PM
Ikitov... you elected to post your paper on iTulip - a place that has a well-argued thesis regarding inflation that's 100% contrary to your own. It's not on them to rebut your paper.

To post something you wrote without addressing the same issue vis the position of site you're freeloading off of for publicity is poor form IMO. If your goal is to spark a discussion on your paper without regard for iTulip's arguments - you can always put it on your blog and build your own audience.

I'm with Metal. I'm tired of this kind of thing.

say i ran metalman's hammer co. then let's say i wanna sell my hammers. i could spend $$$ getting retailers like home depot to stock and sell my hammers, pay them... say... 50% of revenue to resell them.

but, hey... why not just set up a little booth inside of home depot and get 100% of the revenue? they won't mind.

duh.

Rajiv
05-23-09, 03:59 PM
I think it would be quite useful to have Ivan Kitov's (Russian Academy of Sciences - Institute for the Geospheres Dynamics) views on Itulip.

It appears that he has done much research on income inequality. While he may have his own blog on that topic, I for one shall be open to hearing his views on income inequality.

As regards gold prices, I am still unclear on the methodology used for making the prediction of a 35% reduction.

Contemptuous
05-23-09, 05:55 PM
I second Rajiv's observation, without a moment's hesitation. Having said that, I doubt I would be convinced by this author's work, and my view on the future gold price is mostly congruent with iTulip's work.

However, I also consider the suggestions made here that this poster's providing links to his work was intended to "poach readership away from iTulip and towards his own web pages" is complete and utter rubbish. I could not imagine a thicker pasting of patronizing applied to a new posters submittal.

It presumes that most people in the world submit ideas here with a venal, or cynically commercial intent in mind, which is a really silly presumption. When I meet someone for the first time, and they start giving off signals that they percieve my intent as venal before any other consideration, I take it as a significant gratuitous insult.

This is in essence what you are doing here, by insinuating this person posts links to their website for venal, commercial or self interested reasons.

I know all of our members posting here to be fine contributors, and well meaning people, who have provided many considered opinions here for years, so they have "earned" a right to a summary opinion on this. But in this particular instance, this response gives (at least to this member!)every appearance of being insular, bigoted, clubby and patronizing.

Has it crossed anyone's mind that if Ikitov has indeed assembled a series of papers on this topic (implying lengthy research), then posting links to that work in lieu of a paraphrased response here is actually a legitimate reply?

Instead, we have the uniform conclusion of members here, that by declining to paraphrase that content the author of this post "confirms" he is merely introducing a spam assertion. Weak, self serving, insular iTulip arguments here. I am not proud of this display on "our" part.

Personally I think the itinerary for gold will be precisely the opposite of what Ikitov suggests - that it has a weak period ahead for it for about another 18 months to two years, and as it gets into the first five years of the next decade it will encounter it's strongest rise of the past 15 years.

But I absolutely don't agree with this "instant flyswatter" approach, complete with the implicitly self congratulatory, verging upon intellectually intolerant remarks offered this newcomer. You guys get so good at spotting spam on the basis of a two minute acquaintance, soon you'll all be like Billy the Kid. Fastest guns in the west. :rolleyes:

______________


To post something you wrote without addressing the same issue vis the position of site you're freeloading off of for publicity is poor form IMO. If your goal is to spark a discussion on your paper without regard for iTulip's arguments - you can always put it on your blog and build your own audience.

I'm with Metal. I'm tired of this kind of thing.

WDCRob - I really am friendly to you, and I've felt you've been a friend of mine here for the past two years. I like and respect you, and hope you'll accept my criticism as offered with respect. But you are getting a bit addled with this "iTulipers can aggressively reject invading unsubstantiated spam" syndrome.

It is a construct zealously formulated by Metalman. His position is "if you post an opinion questioning or rebutting iTulip formulated arguments, then you must provide rebuttals which meet EJ's assertions point for point, else you are not credible". Meanwhile, Itov is steering you towards some entire papers he's written to satisfy that request of yours, for your eventual intellectual curiosity.

But you conclude, in accordance with Metalman "parameters for entry to the club", that this person must "re-elaborate their conclusions to you as a synopsis" else his post here should not be tolerated. Pull a step back from this state of militant fervor and ponder that for a moment.

This shit gives me a real headache. I don't like it.

WDCRob
05-23-09, 06:11 PM
I'd also like to hear our new visitor's views on iTulip and why he disagrees with their ideas. He seemed like he probably had an opinion.

Contemptuous
05-23-09, 06:24 PM
OK, then I must have misread you. However maybe we should offer the guy a minimal apology that we recognise (or are willing to provisionally allow!) that he is not offering links to related papers he wrote, in an effort to "drum up traffic for his website" or some other dreary commercial-publicity-poaching interest on his part? Look at his reaction!! The guy was so disgusted with our collective response he just replied, "OK, please remove my original post and forget it". Yeesh. iTulip in my opinion has a bit of a runaway problem with this intolerant syndrome. It sounds good on the surface of it, but it's a clubby syndrome which can be abused. IMO it is being abused.


I'd also like to hear our new visitor's views on iTulip and why he disagrees with their ideas. He seemed like he probably had an opinion.

WDCRob
05-23-09, 07:01 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree Luke. I read iTulip for the quality of its analysis. If someone wants to challenge the resident thesis it should be welcomed. As I recall, EJ and everyone has been especially welcoming to folks like Ackerman and Mish in the past - in an effort to hear dissenting viewpoints and, presumably, look for holes in the resident theory.

What I object to (and you're an offender IMO) is people posting alternative views that really don't engage the existing conversation at all. It's a fine line, and there's certainly a lot of gray area about what's relevant or related - but for someone to come here and post a paper that 100% rejects iTulip's basic position, but make no effort to expain why they assume that as a starting place or why iTulip is incorrect seems a bit odd to me. Spamish even.

Let them post their opinions on their own site and promote them. I pay (well, have paid/will pay again) for iTulip's analysis. And agree with Metal that the noise to signal ratio has gotten fairly out of whack.

Some of that's expected - every good website with a forum eventually gets overrun and loses what drew people to it in the first place. I'm sure some PhD somewhere has even written a dissertation on the half-life of quality discussions on a public forum. I just wish it were policed it a bit better than has been done.

Again, none of this is a comment on Ikatov or the value of his work. And this is just my opinion.

Rajiv
05-23-09, 08:31 PM
Kitov's papers are not on his blog websites, but rather on sites that host collections of papers on economic research.

I found his work quite fascinating. Somewhat akin to Nikolai Kondratieff's work. But of course with much more data and statistical analysis behind it than Kondratieff's work did.

I did spend a few hours browsing around his work. Still haven't got to his blog sites.

Contemptuous
05-23-09, 08:54 PM
You are quite right we must agree to disagree WDCRob, for I find much in your newfound approach which frankly raises my hackles a bit. We will have to learn to coexist despite your newfound "content militancy". Good luck to you and Metalman in your noble quest.

Meanwhile, you'll find me on the opposite end, suggesting you put a cork in the prescriptions to other members, regularly reminding them as to "what posts are permissible" from the vantagepoint of your keen and duly humble discrimination. It is akin to our ceding to you the discretion to percieve infallibly which posts are constructive and which are not.

At the age of 53 I have learned that many people are utterly convinced of "truth" being in many different places. When you satisfy one, you must squelch another. IMO you are chasing a bad influence with this notion. Meanwhile, what are you going to have to say to me if in 18 months we have a notable bull market under way, eh?

Will you say "gee, maybe we should have let you post all of those suggestions without hindrance after all"?

And it appears your enlightened approach (you, Metalman and Fred) has resulted in our apparently summarily losing an interesting new input. Nice work! Also, I will get back to you with this "offender" epithet in a year's time WDCRob, if my thesis proves correct. Better have your diplomatic replies practiced, as I actually think we have a good shot of precisely that occurring.


We'll have to agree to disagree Luke. I read iTulip for the quality of its analysis. If someone wants to challenge the resident thesis it should be welcomed. As I recall, EJ and everyone has been especially welcoming to folks like Ackerman and Mish in the past - in an effort to hear dissenting viewpoints and, presumably, look for holes in the resident theory.

What I object to (and you're an offender IMO) is people posting alternative views that really don't engage the existing conversation at all. It's a fine line, and there's certainly a lot of gray area about what's relevant or related - but for someone to come here and post a paper that 100% rejects iTulip's basic position, but make no effort to expain why they assume that as a starting place or why iTulip is incorrect seems a bit odd to me. Spamish even.

Let them post their opinions on their own site and promote them. I pay (well, have paid/will pay again) for iTulip's analysis. And agree with Metal that the noise to signal ratio has gotten fairly out of whack.

Some of that's expected - every good website with a forum eventually gets overrun and loses what drew people to it in the first place. I'm sure some PhD somewhere has even written a dissertation on the half-life of quality discussions on a public forum. I just wish it were policed it a bit better than has been done.

Again, none of this is a comment on Ikatov or the value of his work. And this is just my opinion.

ThePythonicCow
05-23-09, 09:21 PM
I'd be curious to hear you address iTulip's disagreement on this point. Where do you think their thesis is wrong?
I read one of his papers just now: Kitov, I., (2006b). Exact prediction of inflation in the USA (http://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/2735.html), MPRA Paper (http://ideas.repec.org/s/pra/mprapa.html) 2735, University Library of Munich, Germany, http:// (http:///)mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2735/01/MPRA_paper_2735.pdf (http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2735/01/MPRA_paper_2735.pdf).

My take is that he finds a very strong correlation between


the available work force in the United States (the adults not in prison, times the fairly stable percentage of American adults who choose to work when they can find a job), and
inflation in the United States, as measured by the GDP deflator.

Once a number of reasonable sounding adjustments are made to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the available work force in year X accurately predicts the inflation in year X+2, over the period from the early 1960's until the early 2000's.

More workers now, more inflation in two years.

As he states in this paper:

After 2002, the relationship is also valid and will be valid before economic behavior of the US population and institutions changes in some dramatic way.In the small portion of Kitov's work that I have scanned so far, I see no substantial discussion as to the cause of this correlation. He claims the same two year delay is seen in France, but that the correlation of work force size and inflation has no delay in Japan, Germany, UK or other European countries.

Since future work force size can be predicted rather easily for the next two decades from the size and ages and death rates of the existing population, barring catastrophic die-offs, immigration or emmigration, therefore so long as this correlation of work force size continues to hold, one can predict future inflation rather tightly for the next two decades.

Since no cause for this correlation is presented that I noticed, I cannot speculate, based on what little I read of this work, what Kitov might accept to be the "dramatic" conditions under which that correlation broke down.

The primary motivation that Kitov presents for the usefulness of his work is how very tightly the two statistical curves correlate, after the proper adjustments.

Apparently, further work in the papers that I did not read develops further correlations between more specific data series and inflation. If one can predict inflation well, and if one can correlate general inflation with more specific data series, then one can predict those more specific series as well.

In particular, in the work described at the beginning of this thread, the price of gold ore is correlated with inflation, hence predictable. In short, since America's work force will decline over the next decade, gold will decline.

So ... what do I think of this?

Data mining is fun and Kitov does it well. The lack of curiosity (at least in what little I read) as to the mechanisms causing the correlations he observes, or even into why the two year lag in correlations only works for some industrialized countries but not all, frustrates me.

If I don't understand why something works, I cannot predict when it will stop working.

My hunch is that certain core mechanisms of the American economy were relatively unchanged in their structure and feedback over the last half century, accounting for these excellent correlations.

My further hunch, which is consistent with my newbie understanding of the iTulip thesis, is that these mechanisms are now encountering the "dramatic" change that Kitov admitted could break down the observed correlations in the future.

cindykimlisa
05-23-09, 09:30 PM
So Luke

Have you taken any anger management classes lately

Cindykimlisa

WDCRob
05-23-09, 10:00 PM
Better have your diplomatic replies practiced, as I actually think we have a good shot of precisely that occurring.

Lukester, if defending our predictions every time they're wrong is a requirement here at iTulip you'll be far too busy fulfilling that obligation to worry much about anything I said.

Contemptuous
05-23-09, 10:29 PM
Sorry Rob old sport. I believe your content vigilance efforts will inevitably go to some people's heads. Bad idea. Too many flawed, subjective people sallying forth to propagate a dozen slightly differently interpreted versions of this new directive. Also I think you guys proliferating with that notion will quickly breed a hermetic mindset here which could go even viral. Birinyi and Barton Biggs for instance, for you are "well banished" to Rant and Rave.

Multiply WDCRob's viewpoint by a few hundred and pretty soon we have a nicely regimented environment here in terms of conflicting ideas.

Can't say I much relish the prospect.

Have your view. My significant "predictions" as you wish to paint them, are all compiled in a neat list. Here is my neck, and here is an axe for you to scratch your itch with in that regard. Meanwhile, there is no need for you to presume I would spend time having to vouch for these "predictions". They are either wrong or right, eventually, just like anyone else's expectations here.

Anyway Rob, don't be tiresome. Lots of people here have opinions on where these markets are going to go. It is only in my case that you wish to regard every last utterance as a "solemn prediction".

I'm thinking your radar regarding my improprieties is likely only ticked off in that regard because I feel no inhibition to maintain some positions at 180 degree variance with the iTulip view. I've done it before you know. For a quite extended wrangle, I have done this before and been proved 100% correct.

Let's meanwhile say goodbye to the chap who checked in here earlier to start this post, eh? :rolleyes:

ThePythonicCow
05-23-09, 10:52 PM
Sorry Luke old sport. You've just joined a fairly elite group of iTulipers on my ignore list.

The proportion of your posts that is complaining with little humor about this and that is higher than I choose to read.

jk
05-23-09, 11:23 PM
like pythoniccow i went over and took a look at kitov's papers. i found his arguments unpursuasive, based as they were, as pc pointed out, purely on correlation and not mechanism. the data sample is LATE 1950s to 2006 and doesn't include, for example, the 1930's, the last u.s. debt deflation. i guess the deflation back then was because the working population shrunk so much, and the observed "unemployment" was an illusion. or maybe things were different then. and maybe things are different now.

the correlation between small year over year variations in workforce and inflation during a period of relatively steady growth punctuated by fed-induced recessions, doesn't tell me what's going to happen when work force shrinks because of the retirement of baby boomers, with the resultant strain on entitlement programs and the imbalance between consumers and producers. lots of consumers maintain demand. a reduced population of workers or producers means constrained supply. it doesn't sound like a recipe for deflation to me.

ThePythonicCow
05-24-09, 12:00 AM
like pythoniccow i went over and took a look at kitov's papers. i found his arguments unpursuasive, based as they were, as pc pointed out, purely on correlation and not mechanismCorrelation studies do have a good use. They give us hints as to where we might look for causes and mechanisms. But correlation does not imply causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation).

Contemptuous
05-24-09, 01:17 AM
I have been catching a lot of flak here for posting some comments insisting that we have a considerably better than even chance to see this past March as the low, although that is not cast in stone to the very letter. What should be much more significantly evident, is something that looks increasingly like a "persistently uptrending market" unfold in the next 3-5 years.

I stand by that. First benchmark, 18 months from now a market that is *significantly* net higher than today nominal. I am not a tight arsed accountant by personality. Make that 3000 points higher on the DOW within 18 months minimum, on the way to a 30K dow by 2015? There, see? No wiggle room. No mealy mouthed suggestions from me on this.

iTulip have forecast the start of a reinflation kicking in "within 2009-2010". I'm saying "yes, within 18 months IMO the stock market could well be strongly reflecting that", and despite the point that a sharply rising stock market response to hyper, or very high inflation is an idea not exactly incompatible with iTulip's 10 year long inflationary predictions, we instead have this peculiar picture of iTulipers getting really upset because I have "not provided plausible arguments for that eventuality".

The notion of a stock market evidencing inflation has been at the core of iTulip's own thesis for a full decade, but you guys are having conniptions because someone here is suggesting it's arrival "before schedule". :rolleyes:

What I indeed do, is deposit these things that are called "expressed personal opinions", but apparently they sit on your pillows like a virtual tarantula. Have we spotted any "expressed personal opinion tarantulas" wandering around here otherwise? And meanwhile, presumably, everyone else is standing in a queue, with an orderly queue ticket, waiting to pass the turnstile where comments are vetted, stamped "approved", and then posted.? :p

I uphold the right of people like Ikitov, to post threads like this, without censure, regardless of their substantiation. Nothing here whatsoever against JK's inspection , but JK going over there and suggesting the examined thesis is not particularly well elaborated - if this were carried forward as standard operating procedure before "admitting" newcomers "expressed personal opinions" - that would be a singularly uninspired and suffocated way to foster a growing community here.

You will create a "dead zone" rather than a "life zone" if you seek to enforce a policy whereby people here can only post assertions if they provide fully elaborated arguments. Elaborated to whose satisfaction?

I'm unperturbed by consecutive old acquaintances here giving me the shoulder on this question. The proof will be in the pudding of what unfolds over the next 24 months. I say it's a ripping bull market that will unfold in the US indexes over the next five years, with ample evidence within two. Historic. Let's all sit back and see who collects the winning call.

It isn't me who insists that others here cannot post views outside of certain "sound argument parameters", it is you guys. The preface "you can't post an opinion here unless" ... is a can of worms. I think I just need to sit back and let this thing unfold. Then if it goes my way like I'm expecting it to, I need to come around and ask some of you fellows what the heck you thought you were clarifying.

Anybody else here venturing to make some mid-term calls? I sure don't notice any, but a lot of complaints instead, that "we are not supposed to make any calls unless they are substantiated". If your macro call on this is what it appears to be (Lukester's call is rubbish) then you sure are going to look foolish for all this solemn putzing two years from now if the markets refuse to stage a "depression" for the required 24 months.

We could all proceed amicably towards a discovery of whose call proved to be the correct one. But you choose instead to make it a matter of "prestige", invoking "site-wide policies for sound content, to be settled here and now". All posts must be submitted in the form of an elaborated mini-thesis, except the Ikitov's elaborated theses, which are an attempt to post spam here. :D

Oh, and we need "more content regulation" to keep our "standards" up. Fellas, I'm sorry but this sounds like a crock of officious porridge to this reader. This is the same porridge that is getting Birinyi and Barton Biggs consigned to Rant & Rave for comprising "second-rate" analyst input. The assertion that we need this to "maintain sitewide coherence" is horseshit, pure and simple. Because "second-rate" becomes so darned convenient to use as a dispose-all, that it rapidly becomes the most over-used ID tag around.

"Whose call is going to be correct", for some of you chaps, is more a matter of prestige than of collegial curiosity. What ever are you going to do if the next three years prove we are indeed embarking on a rip-roaring bull market? Pat me on the back, say "let bygones be bygones" and offer me a beer?


Sorry Luke old sport. You've just joined a fairly elite group of iTulipers on my ignore list.

The proportion of your posts that is complaining with little humor about this and that is higher than I choose to read.

metalman
05-24-09, 01:31 AM
I uphold the right of people like Ikitov, to post threads like this, without censure, regardless of their substantiation.

spammers of the world unite!

Contemptuous
05-24-09, 01:33 AM
No Metalman, you really should allow them to post freely.

metalman
05-24-09, 01:47 AM
No Metalman, you really should allow them to do so.

'my name is professor vladimir voodoo. i have a theory about gold. it contradicts the theory proposed by the establishment where i am here posting my theory. i have no track record for gold investing to point to. i personally do not own a single ounce of gold. yet... i feel compelled by generous impulses to allow the fine members of the community collected at this site at a cost of... what... $100k or $1m? over 11 years... read by millions... to come read clever my theory, over at my site that's read by no one.'

give. me. a. friggin. break.

there are as many dumbass theories about gold on the internets as porn sites. you wanna read 'em? go for it. i'm happy to see itulip stupid theory free.

jk
05-24-09, 01:52 AM
Correlation studies do have a good use. They give us hints as to where we might look for causes and mechanisms. But correlation does not imply causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation).



http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png


http://xkcd.com/552/

metalman
05-24-09, 02:03 AM
http://myhome.iolfree.ie/%7Elightbulb/Images/Research2.jpg (http://myhome.iolfree.ie/%7Elightbulb/Tone.html)
(http://myhome.iolfree.ie/%7Elightbulb/Tone.html) http://myhome.iolfree.ie/%7Elightbulb/Images/Research4.jpg (http://myhome.iolfree.ie/%7Elightbulb/Tone.html)
(http://myhome.iolfree.ie/%7Elightbulb/Tone.html) http://myhome.iolfree.ie/%7Elightbulb/Images/Research6.jpg (http://myhome.iolfree.ie/%7Elightbulb/Tone.html)


(http://myhome.iolfree.ie/%7Elightbulb/Pastel.html)

Contemptuous
05-24-09, 02:09 AM
Over to Rajiv, and out.

BDAdmin
05-24-09, 11:05 AM
I second Rajiv's observation, without a moment's hesitation. Having said that, I doubt I would be convinced by this author's work, and my view on the future gold price is mostly congruent with iTulip's work.

However, I also consider the suggestions made here that this poster's providing links to his work was intended to "poach readership away from iTulip and towards his own web pages" is complete and utter rubbish. I could not imagine a thicker pasting of patronizing applied to a new posters submittal.

It presumes that most people in the world submit ideas here with a venal, or cynically commercial intent in mind, which is a really silly presumption. When I meet someone for the first time, and they start giving off signals that they percieve my intent as venal before any other consideration, I take it as a significant gratuitous insult.

This is in essence what you are doing here, by insinuating this person posts links to their website for venal, commercial or self interested reasons.

I know all of our members posting here to be fine contributors, and well meaning people, who have provided many considered opinions here for years, so they have "earned" a right to a summary opinion on this. But in this particular instance, this response gives (at least to this member!)every appearance of being insular, bigoted, clubby and patronizing.

Has it crossed anyone's mind that if Ikitov has indeed assembled a series of papers on this topic (implying lengthy research), then posting links to that work in lieu of a paraphrased response here is actually a legitimate reply?

Instead, we have the uniform conclusion of members here, that by declining to paraphrase that content the author of this post "confirms" he is merely introducing a spam assertion. Weak, self serving, insular iTulip arguments here. I am not proud of this display on "our" part.

Personally I think the itinerary for gold will be precisely the opposite of what Ikitov suggests - that it has a weak period ahead for it for about another 18 months to two years, and as it gets into the first five years of the next decade it will encounter it's strongest rise of the past 15 years.

But I absolutely don't agree with this "instant flyswatter" approach, complete with the implicitly self congratulatory, verging upon intellectually intolerant remarks offered this newcomer. You guys get so good at spotting spam on the basis of a two minute acquaintance, soon you'll all be like Billy the Kid. Fastest guns in the west. :rolleyes:

______________



WDCRob - I really am friendly to you, and I've felt you've been a friend of mine here for the past two years. I like and respect you, and hope you'll accept my criticism as offered with respect. But you are getting a bit addled with this "iTulipers can aggressively reject invading unsubstantiated spam" syndrome.

It is a construct zealously formulated by Metalman. His position is "if you post an opinion questioning or rebutting iTulip formulated arguments, then you must provide rebuttals which meet EJ's assertions point for point, else you are not credible". Meanwhile, Itov is steering you towards some entire papers he's written to satisfy that request of yours, for your eventual intellectual curiosity.

But you conclude, in accordance with Metalman "parameters for entry to the club", that this person must "re-elaborate their conclusions to you as a synopsis" else his post here should not be tolerated. Pull a step back from this state of militant fervor and ponder that for a moment.

This shit gives me a real headache. I don't like it.
Lukester,

Your personal opinioned feelings expressed in this post, noted and welcome at Rant and Rave forum, are not presently compatible, but a side-track, with the subject title "Gold price will fall by 35% after 2010" in this "Commodities" forum. Will greatly appreciate a "re-direct" to Rand and Rave forum from this thread.

Thanks,

Contemptuous
05-24-09, 11:15 AM
Lukester,

Please use PM feature for your personal question to me instead of posting it in "Commodieies" forum.

Thanks,
BDAdmin

FRED
05-24-09, 11:57 AM
Audiences cost money to attract, whether to a restaurant to consume food and beverages, a stadium to attend a sporting event, or to a web site to consume ideas that were developed over a decade at great cost. Others may wish to take a free ride, but we will continue to discourage this as we see fit.

We did not create iTulip as a place for others to promote their own ideas. They have their own web sites for that. They can spend their own time and money attracting an audience to their ideas. If they'd like to partner with iTulip, we are open to it and have many partners and will continue to expand our partner's group.

Contemptuous
05-24-09, 12:29 PM
With respect I believe this reply is proposing a false premise for an answer to Kitov here. He was quite clearly not posting links here to "draw traffic" to his web pages. They were pages posted to an academic bulletin board, and he is affiliated with a portion of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which renders all of these observations flatly inapplicable.

Meanwhile, to openly suggest to this new poster that their reason for posting links referencing their articles here, had a venal, or commercial intent, is an open casual slur which in any common day occurrence would be considered more than just mildly insulting. This is the consequence of your policy, carried out without a more diligent look before labeling a new poster's links spam.

We have the great majority of posters here routinely posting links to all sorts of cited articles, without the slightest hindrance from the editors.

To "crack down" on a poster citing links to his own thesis papers, in support of an argument for gold going down, which was incorrectly labeled here by one of our members, as being "contrary to the entire iTulip thesis" (what? iTulip's sole thesis is that gold is going up maybe?) - this amounts to not much more than an *arbitrary* exercise of the essential oversight you describe.

When your members start to "lean forward" in militant application of the notion you clarify here, you create at least the beginnings of an unattractive environment.


Audiences cost money to attract, whether to a restaurant to consume food and beverages, a stadium to attend a sporting event, or to a web site to consume ideas that were developed over a decade at great cost. Others may wish to take a free ride, but we will continue to discourage this as we see fit.

We did not create iTulip as a place for others to promote their own ideas. They have their own web sites for that. They can spend their own time and money attracting an audience to their ideas. If they'd like to partner with iTulip, we are open to it and have many partners and will continue to expand our partner's group.

jk
05-24-09, 12:38 PM
as much as i am unpersuaded by kitov's arguments, i did not see his post as especially promotional, neither did it seek to draw traffic to a commercial website. as "fred" knows, i am quick to send a pm with a link whenever i spot spam on the site. but fwiw i think kitov's post was ok, and i would not have treated it as spam.

Contemptuous
05-24-09, 12:48 PM
No kidding.


as much as i am unpersuaded by kitov's arguments, i did not see his post as especially promotional, neither did it seek to draw traffic to a commercial website. as "fred" knows, i am quick to send a pm with a link whenever i spot spam on the site. but fwiw i think kitov's post was ok, and i would not have treated it as spam.

BDAdmin
05-24-09, 01:01 PM
as much as i am unpersuaded by kitov's arguments, i did not see his post as especially promotional, neither did it seek to draw traffic to a commercial website. as "fred" knows, i am quick to send a pm with a link whenever i spot spam on the site. but fwiw i think kitov's post was ok, and i would not have treated it as spam.
That's because I've "edited" kitov's post.

Thanks,

jk
05-24-09, 01:08 PM
That's because I've "edited" kitov's post.

Thanks,
ahh... thanks for telling us that.

Ann
05-24-09, 01:10 PM
as much as i am unpersuaded by kitov's arguments, i did not see his post as especially promotional, neither did it seek to draw traffic to a commercial website. as "fred" knows, i am quick to send a pm with a link whenever i spot spam on the site. but fwiw i think kitov's post was ok, and i would not have treated it as spam.

Most sites like this one discourage linking to outside sites. Wonder how many of those arguing for this policy of "free traffic from iTulip" post to other sites and link back to iTulip. :cool:

Try posting a link back to iTulip from Mish's site. They prevent posters from linking to competitors.

Another thing. All those blogs give posters zero privilege to post their own threads. Think about it!

If I were running iTulip.com, I'd come down like a ton of bricks on any abuse of that privilege. Posting links to competitors' sites? With Ann in charge we'd have none of that nonsense!

Question for FRED(s): How many links to iTulip do you see come in from zerohedge, etc? Let me guess: zero. They must dig all the traffic you send to them for nothing. Nice of you.

I wonder if Ikitov approached FRED(s) ala Steve Keen, Michael Hudson first before posting a thread here? I bet not.

jk
05-24-09, 01:38 PM
can't speak for anyone else, of course, but although i read other sites [jesse's and fleck's come most quickly to mind], and scan others, there are no other sites on which i spend any sustained time. there's only itulip. i'm curious if anyone finds any other sites/forums on finance/economics worth sustained effort? [i'm leaving aside special topic sites like the oil drum, which i've visited only a handful of times, but can imagine others frequenting.]

cjppjc
05-24-09, 01:49 PM
can't speak for anyone else, of course, but although i read other sites [jesse's and fleck's come most quickly to mind], and scan others, there are no other sites on which i spend any sustained time. there's only itulip. i'm curious if anyone finds any other sites/forums on finance/economics worth sustained effort? [i'm leaving aside special topic sites like the oil drum, which i've visited only a handful of times, but can imagine others frequenting.]

If I were on another site 1/2 as much as iTulip I would never get any sleep. Earn any money. Get any nookie.

Seriously, the range of expertise, backgrounds, and the general level of intelligent discourse (for the most part) cannot be duplicated I'm sure. The owners of this great place should feel proud of their accomplishments.

Certain members who have been here for years bring such a range and willingness to share that I always feel anxious if I've haven't gven enough of my attention to one of their posts or links.

*T*
05-24-09, 02:04 PM
like pythoniccow i went over and took a look at kitov's papers. i found his arguments unpursuasive, based as they were, as pc pointed out, purely on correlation and not mechanism.

Agreed. However, they are better thought out than a lot of user contributions (including some of my own) and should be encouraged, not slapped down. I didn't view it as self promotion. He is not selling anything. I don't see why it needs any response at all from FRED. The readership is smart enough to decide who is talking sense and not. If the readership's response is 'must try harder' it strikes me that ikitov probably would try harder.

To paraphrase EJ, truth is a process, not a fact. The value of iTulip is to a large extent the process of discussion of ideas. Banning someone like ikitov who participates in that process would strongly discourage me from renewing my subscription.

metalman
05-24-09, 08:56 PM
He is not selling anything.

all respect T, the very title is selling a gold forecast... Gold price will fall by 35% after 2010 (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=99743#post99743)

when wdcron asks, 'I'd be curious to hear you address iTulip's disagreement on this point. Where do you think their thesis is wrong?'

the guy replies...

'As a matter of fact, I have written several papers on this issue, which are cited in my post. It would be difficult to repeat everything.'

in other words.... go to his site.

but rob doesn't ask him to 'repeat everything' but respect his hosts by addressing itulip's position.

anyway...

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f159/RaulMonkey/Animated/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

BDAdmin
05-24-09, 09:14 PM
Agreed. However, they are better thought out than a lot of user contributions (including some of my own) and should be encouraged, not slapped down. I didn't view it as self promotion. He is not selling anything. I don't see why it needs any response at all from FRED. The readership is smart enough to decide who is talking sense and not. If the readership's response is 'must try harder' it strikes me that ikitov probably would try harder.

To paraphrase EJ, truth is a process, not a fact. The value of iTulip is to a large extent the process of discussion of ideas. Banning someone like ikitov who participates in that process would strongly discourage me from renewing my subscription.
(1). iTulip welcomes, has been welcoming and will continue to welcome, all challenges of different point of view with creditable theory that are supported by impeccable analysis explaining their own assumption.

(2). Please be corrected that ikitov is not banned, for the reason I mentioned on above (1) - despite the fact that not 1, not 2, but all of his posts has been self-promoting with links to his own blog site.

(3). ikitov is not the subject matter, Gold is, of this thread, in this forum entitled "Commodities".

All discussions/postings/opinions focus on the subject title of this thread is encouraged and appreciated. All opinions about iTulip's administrators action and iTulip's spam policy please use "contact us (forum@itulip.com)" or post them in Rant and Rave forum.

Thanks,

Andreuccio
05-25-09, 03:09 AM
If I were on another site 1/2 as much as iTulip I would never get any sleep. Earn any money. Get any nookie.

Seriously, the range of expertise, backgrounds, and the general level of intelligent discourse (for the most part) cannot be duplicated I'm sure. The owners of this great place should feel proud of their accomplishments.

Certain members who have been here for years bring such a range and willingness to share that I always feel anxious if I've haven't gven enough of my attention to one of their posts or links.

What he said, except the part about getting nookie.