BS or Not?

[Spartacus]

Re: Bullshit or Not?

didn't even make it down to the fractal part - the alarms started ringing for me when he claims a commodity's price has energy - energy that can expand


Some of these guys need a huge raspberry right in their faces. Or even better, DON"T BUY their EFFIN bull chip filled "reports"

My emphasis added, here's the link:

edit: one can construct analogies to real energy but from the tone I guessed he's not the rigorous type, despite using some cargo-cult-incantations of rigour.

[nero3]

Re: Bullshit or Not?

that was the perfect time to buy it. now less so.

many gold 'bubble' calls by hacks have fallen by the wayside.

gold will be a bubble some day.

i trust itulip to tell me when. plus i think i can see for myself now anyway.

In my opinion, gold began it's rise for different reasons that everyone is thinking. I think it's because Bank of Japan started to run the printing press, or QE, from march 2001, I think gold even started to rise from that day. I'm not calling that a bubble, however, I do have the view that from 2003, when the first truly "global bubble" or whatever guys like Jeremy Grantham called it.
http://www.tradersnarrative.com/jere...trees-907.html

Initially gold lose with the same kind of liquidity, from 03, that drove more or less everything else. that should worry gold bugs. It then became a part of the commodity bubble that took off as the federal reserve lowered rates in 2007, however, in my opinion, the final top is not in. It then, in spite of having taken a ride of the global liquidity since 03, started to decouple, because gold then got a fear premium. If this decoupling is going to last, and even worsen, without the type of 73-74 bear market retrenchment, before it against start to rally after the economy starts to stagnate. If that 73-74 scenario is not to play out, and the economy instead are just going to get worse and worse, without a recovery, I think that's pretty much what gold need, to keep track with the nasdaq, making this correction like 1998 for gold. However, with some sort of recovery, I think it's almost sure that gold will come down, unless the recovery is very inflationary, straight out from the pit.

[santafe2]

Re: Bullshit or Not?

I have found astonishing similarities between all of the "name-brand" parabolic bubble patterns over the last century: The Dow in the 1920s, the Nikkei in the 1980s, the Internet bubble in the 1990s, as well as the recent bubbles in housing and crude oil.
Gold is the next such bubble pattern, and it is just now approaching the most intense part of the pattern, where the energy expands at exponential rates.

The hyperbolic statement is a nice touch but he's got to show he's right and I don't see that here. The font is wrong, no underlining, no exclamation points, no caps...really no feeling. Here's astonishing:

GOLD - NOW - OR DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That shows you've got marketing chops and the research to back it up. It also helps if you'll keep saying the same thing in different ways for 20 pages.

[Supercilious]

Re: Bullshit or Not?

In my opinion, gold began it's rise for different reasons that everyone is thinking. I think it's because Bank of Japan started to run the printing press, or QE, from march 2001, I think gold even started to rise from that day. I'm not calling that a bubble, however, I do have the view that from 2003, when the first truly "global bubble" or whatever guys like Jeremy Grantham called it.
http://www.tradersnarrative.com/jere...trees-907.html

Initially gold lose with the same kind of liquidity, from 03, that drove more or less everything else. that should worry gold bugs. It then became a part of the commodity bubble that took off as the federal reserve lowered rates in 2007, however, in my opinion, the final top is not in. It then, in spite of having taken a ride of the global liquidity since 03, started to decouple, because gold then got a fear premium. If this decoupling is going to last, and even worsen, without the type of 73-74 bear market retrenchment, before it against start to rally after the economy starts to stagnate. If that 73-74 scenario is not to play out, and the economy instead are just going to get worse and worse, without a recovery, I think that's pretty much what gold need, to keep track with the nasdaq, making this correction like 1998 for gold. However, with some sort of recovery, I think it's almost sure that gold will come down, unless the recovery is very inflationary, straight out from the pit.

Nero, Finster and bart have some great charts and content about gold (and many other things) I would recommend you (without any trace of sarcasm) to dig deeper in those two forums. Since you seem to be on somewhat similar wavelenghts you may find some of the information there extremely interesting.

And now as a reply for jtabeb, I'm really not impressed with stuff about parabolic increase where energy expands at an exponential rate with some fractal mumbo jumbo thrown in as a bonus. It smells like BS to me.

Saying that that doesn't mean we won't see a gold bubble. It is very possible. Gold and treasuries are ultimate safe storage of wealth. Those who want safety and want to avoid being fleece put their money in:
-gold if they belive the dollar will collapse
-treasuries if they believe the dollar will not go the Zimbabwe way

I don't know vey much about gold and pm's, but from a financial flows POV, gold may not shoot up in price even if we will have some inflation, that means in terms of real wealth you may take a haircut on your portfolio at least in the short term. Anyway compared with a guy losing their shirt on stocks trying to play the smartass game with Mr Market you will be definitely do much better plus you can have a good sleep knowing your physical gold can never go the Lehman way.

I prefer to stay in stocks because I'm doing much better than staying in gold and I feel confident I've learned my lessons long time ago and I can play the stoks game on the safe and profitable side. But I wouldn't dare to reccomend my strategy to anybody theses days.

Even if a gold bubble comes and the price of gold tanks, a long term goldbug like you should not be very concerned. It will be just a good opportunity to buy more gold at an attractive price. Those who bought gold for purely speculative reasons may have a rude awakening though.

Basically it will be like nero says. If the stoks will recover above inflation (stoks will provide a realt positive return) and the market will be percieved as safe and stable then gold will tank and we may have a bubble if the recovery is preceded by a dip which will make everybody to fudge their pants and go into gold.

For time being the dow/gold ratio is quite low which is a sign of the flight for safety .

[Spartacus]

Re: Bullshit or Not?

Did you see Religulous?

Where BM starts talking about the Scientologists, the audience laughs and Maher says

Oh, yeah, the talking snake and the 7 day creation and the virgin birth are OK, but the scientologists, THEY're the crazy ones.

And now as a reply for jtabeb, I'm really not impressed with stuff about parabolic increase where energy expands at an exponential rate with some fractal mumbo jumbo thrown in as a bonus. It smells like BS to me .

But the astrologers, THEY're the SANE ones.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!

(apologies if I've mis-remembered your views on astrology )

[nero3]

Re: Bullshit or Not?

Nero, Finster and bart have some great charts and content about gold (and many other things) I would recommend you (without any trace of sarcasm) to dig deeper in those two forums. Since you seem to be on somewhat similar wavelenghts you may find some of the information there extremely interesting.

And now as a reply for jtabeb, I'm really not impressed with stuff about parabolic increase where energy expands at an exponential rate with some fractal mumbo jumbo thrown in as a bonus. It smells like BS to me.

Saying that that doesn't mean we won't see a gold bubble. It is very possible. Gold and treasuries are ultimate safe storage of wealth. Those who want safety and want to avoid being fleece put their money in:
-gold if they belive the dollar will collapse
-treasuries if they believe the dollar will not go the Zimbabwe way

I don't know vey much about gold and pm's, but from a financial flows POV, gold may not shoot up in price even if we will have some inflation, that means in terms of real wealth you may take a haircut on your portfolio at least in the short term. Anyway compared with a guy losing their shirt on stocks trying to play the smartass game with Mr Market you will be definitely do much better plus you can have a good sleep knowing your physical gold can never go the Lehman way.

I prefer to stay in stocks because I'm doing much better than staying in gold and I feel confident I've learned my lessons long time ago and I can play the stoks game on the safe and profitable side. But I wouldn't dare to reccomend my strategy to anybody theses days.

Even if a gold bubble comes and the price of gold tanks, a long term goldbug like you should not be very concerned. It will be just a good opportunity to buy more gold at an attractive price. Those who bought gold for purely speculative reasons may have a rude awakening though.

Basically it will be like nero says. If the stoks will recover above inflation (stoks will provide a realt positive return) and the market will be percieved as safe and stable then gold will tank and we may have a bubble if the recovery is preceded by a dip which will make everybody to fudge their pants and go into gold.

For time being the dow/gold ratio is quite low which is a sign of the flight for safety .

I will look into it. Time magazine have a datebase that it's possible to search. They have several articles about gold, from the early seventies, to the end in 1980. The feel from the 1980 article as I recall it, was that gold was pretty unstable, much like the NASDAQ, it certainly was possible to spot it was in a bubble from reading the article, it's also interesting because it reveals the. Nothing like now. back then it was a very different environment.

back at above 74 peak levels.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...916342,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...920179,00.html (79, building up)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...923918,00.html (80, top)


last leg of boom, 75, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...912664,00.html
76 bust
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...914457,00.html


This is the only article I found in my quick search. from 2009:

http://www.time.com/time/business/ar...885217,00.html

[*T*]

Re: Bullshit or Not?

In my opinion, gold began it's rise for different reasons that everyone is thinking. I think it's because Bank of Japan started to run the printing press, or QE, from march 2001, I think gold even started to rise from that day.

I think there is a lot of truth in this observation. Yen liquidity and China's lending were the twin forces that drove the world economy. I would point out that the whole world is going Japan, with local variations. QE is my new best friend.

I don't think nero3 is a troll, just different ;)

But that report is still a bunch of crap.

[nero3]

Re: Bullshit or Not?

I think there is a lot of truth in this observation. Yen liquidity and China's lending were the twin forces that drove the world economy. I would point out that the whole world is going Japan, with local variations. QE is my new best friend.

I don't think nero3 is a troll, just different ;)

But that report is still a bunch of crap.

I still think there are a lot of countries that can just expand through the money multiplier without the liquidity trap, that is, most emerging economies, I don't recall the number in China, around 4 for the multiplier I think.

Think of Japan kind of pump priming their economy, and boosting the west through various carry trade during the 1990-s. I now think a similar carry trade can develop between the developed, vs the emerging countries. It's like in 2002-2003, just even more sluggish. And now it's not any wars.

[rjwjr]

Re: Bullshit or Not?

I still think there are a lot of countries that can just expand through the money multiplier without the liquidity trap, that is, most emerging economies, I don't recall the number in China, around 4 for the multiplier I think.

Think of Japan kind of pump priming their economy, and boosting the west through various carry trade during the 1990-s. I now think a similar carry trade can develop between the developed, vs the emerging countries. It's like in 2002-2003, just even more sluggish. And now it's not any wars.

Nero,

In this thread you state that you never traded a stock until after 2000 and in 2001 had no idea or interest in the price of gold. Elsewhere in the thread you're quoting articles from the 1970's. In other threads you are constantly comparing current periods, trends, and/or activities to many, various historical time periods, but most prevelantly the '70's and '80's. I think I speak for many of us, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic or insincere, when I state that we're just trying to figure out who/what you are. You post with such volume and vigor that we'd like to know more about your background and area of expertise. Based on your history to date, I'd have to guess that you are early to mid 20's with a recent University degree in Finance and a passion for investing. Am I close?

[Supercilious]

Re: Bullshit or Not?

But the astrologers, THEY're the SANE ones.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!

(apologies if I've mis-remembered your views on astrology )

Something like that! Actually the astrology issue was a question in reverse. If there are some astrologers (not all of them, only a minority) with a solid track record of prediction, and very respectable big companies and top politicians are using astrologers for taking decisions, then, what is the scoop behind astrology and how can that be explained in a logical non-esoteric frame? It is like when you suspect someone is right for the wrong reason, than what is the true reason? But let's not revive the astrology thread here at News. The thread is on Bart's forum and should stay there.

[Guest]

Re: Bullshit or Not?

Objection. No one here gives out such details obligatorily, and actually very few here even feel obliged to give out such details at all. Further, he posts sparingly, not "with such volume and vigor" as you arbitrarily describe it. I don't see you having bosted any sort of bio. Plus, with respect, you are a recent arrival here, talking in clubby terms, as though you know the customs of this place like the back of your hand? If you read around here some more you will notice that the vast majority of iTulipers divulge little to any information about who they are. You think this guy has a "special obligation" to do so here maybe, because his "credibility" is at stake? :rolleyes:

Nero,

In this thread you state that you never traded a stock until after 2000 and in 2001 had no idea or interest in the price of gold. Elsewhere in the thread you're quoting articles from the 1970's. In other threads you are constantly comparing current periods, trends, and/or activities to many, various historical time periods, but most prevelantly the '70's and '80's. I think I speak for many of us, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic or insincere, when I state that we're just trying to figure out who/what you are. You post with such volume and vigor that we'd like to know more about your background and area of expertise. Based on your history to date, I'd have to guess that you are early to mid 20's with a recent University degree in Finance and a passion for investing. Am I close?

[rjwjr]

Re: Bullshit or Not?

Objection. No one here gives out such details obligatorily, and actually very few here even feel obliged to give out such details at all. Further, he posts sparingly, not "with such volume and vigor" as you arbitrarily describe it. I don't see you having bosted any sort of bio. Plus, with respect, you are a recent arrival here, talking in clubby terms, as though you know the customs of this place like the back of your hand? If you read around here some more you will notice that the vast majority of iTulipers divulge little to any information about who they are. You think this guy has a "special obligation" to do so here maybe, because his "credibility" is at stake? :rolleyes:

Lukester, come on, the guy can speak for himself...as can I, and I'll do it in any manner I choose, whether or not you label it "clubby", "chummy", "flubby" or whatever.

I'm trying to help the guy to have his views become more accepted (that's why I made a point to mention that I wasn't being sarcastic or insincere), because right now he is rubbing people the wrong way and his base message typically isn't getting across...which obviously you notice as you are his primary defender going so far as to make excuses for his "non-primary language" and "non-binary thinking".

As intelligent as you are, I continue to find it surprising that you belittle the like-minded thinkers on this site simply because they are like-minded thinkers. Obviously, most people here found this site, and remain active, for the very reason that there are like-minded participants. It makes for a comfortable home. That doesn't mean these like-minded thinkers are lemmings or in some way less aware or less accurate in their opinions than you. On the contrary, in the short, but active time I have enjoyed this site, I see each and every opinion discussed and debated quite openly, with new ideas and perspectives often being accepted and appreciated.

As I said many weeks ago, and as others have mentioned since, you seem to get a thrill out of simply being contrarian. That in itself is fine. The problem is once you take an "I'm contrarian so I'm wholier than thou" attitude, similar to your "I've been on this site longer so your opinions are less important" attitude that you have taken with me, you move the discussion away from the merits of the topic and toward a more personalized, unnecessary war of words.

I hope you continue to remain an active member of the forum here, but stop expecting the majority to change their views and stop poking the hornets nest with a stick. It's irritating the hornets, and you are smarter than that.

[Guest]

Re: Bullshit or Not?

You definitely sound like a participant with the herding instinct rjwjr. Enjoys theses to get nice and comfortably settled, with lots of comfy positive reinforcement ...

"like-minded thinkers on this site simply because they are like-minded thinkers. Obviously, most people here found this site, and remain active, for the very reason that there are like-minded participants. It makes for a comfortable home."

In terms of a healthy societal profile, this is excellent. Suggests you are a well adjusted individual. In terms of investing, it's at least a small grounds for caution.

Lukester, come on, the guy can speak for himself...as can I, and I'll do it in any manner I choose, whether or not you label it "clubby", "chummy", "flubby" or whatever.

I'm trying to help the guy to have his views become more accepted (that's why I made a point to mention that I wasn't being sarcastic or insincere), because right now he is rubbing people the wrong way and his base message typically isn't getting across...which obviously you notice as you are his primary defender going so far as to make excuses for his "non-primary language" and "non-binary thinking".

As intelligent as you are, I continue to find it surprising that you belittle the like-minded thinkers on this site simply because they are like-minded thinkers. Obviously, most people here found this site, and remain active, for the very reason that there are like-minded participants. It makes for a comfortable home. That doesn't mean these like-minded thinkers are lemmings or in some way less aware or less accurate in their opinions than you. On the contrary, in the short, but active time I have enjoyed this site, I see each and every opinion discussed and debated quite openly, with new ideas and perspectives often being accepted and appreciated.

As I said many weeks ago, and as others have mentioned since, you seem to get a thrill out of simply being contrarian. That in itself is fine. The problem is once you take an "I'm contrarian so I'm wholier than thou" attitude, similar to your "I've been on this site longer so your opinions are less important" attitude that you have taken with me, you move the discussion away from the merits of the topic and toward a more personalized, unnecessary war of words.

I hope you continue to remain an active member of the forum here, but stop expecting the majority to change their views and stop poking the hornets nest with a stick. It's irritating the hornets, and you are smarter than that.

[nero3]

Re: BS or Not?

In a way it's like a market controlled version of the 73-74 bear. Where the interest rates are controlled by the fed indirectly through stimulating the liquidity bubble through quantitative easing. It's not that different from 2003, the push that is needed is just bigger. I think they will have to ease further. I see from the moves in the carry currencies, that the bubble dynamic is fully intact.

I think Nourel Roubini is wrong, because the way he thinks, you have a XXX trillion gap of demand destruction that needs to be filled with an extreme amount of government spending. In my opinion they need to pump enough to keep the bubble alive. I think the differences between in view are significant. If they spend as much as someone like Roubini or Krugman on infrastructure would be dreaming about on green infrastructure, I think there would be much more inflation, than if they simply pushed the bubble directly through quantitative easing and let the private market allocate capital. I think a green infrastructure bubble can be made possible, and that there can be another round for the US consumer. Inflation just needs to hit the level that makes the psychology towards borrowing turn.

[cjppjc]

Re: Bullshit or Not?

Did you see Religulous?

Where BM starts talking about the Scientologists, the audience laughs and Maher says

Oh, yeah, the talking snake and the 7 day creation and the virgin birth are OK, but the scientologists, THEY're the crazy ones.



But the astrologers, THEY're the SANE ones.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!

(apologies if I've mis-remembered your views on astrology )

A lot of cultures have similar stories to Christianity. Reptiles, Floods, Joseph Campbell covers a wide area: