John, I re-read the article and chart
What I meant is that the cycle missed the August high by two months, but if one is going to call that 10.19.87 date a low for the purposes of the cycle, then to be consistent wouldn't the 1989.95 turn have to be a lower low? That's part of what I meant in my question about what guidelines apply in that case. I still view the cycle chart's 1987.8 high as a high (rather than a low) for the purposes of the cycle.
When you get time, if you know of a link that shows an overlay of the Dow to that cycle, please let me know. I might change my mind if I can see how things actually lined up against the cycle's predictions.
As for the bearish case, I read where he says "such periods of economic strife will begin to grow in intensity particularly following 2002.85 and moving into 2007.15. Only when economic chaos reaches a sudden state of eruption is it possible to see a successful revolution." As much truth as I can read into that statement with economic conditions and fundamentals as they currently are, it's a bit vague, don't you think? I believe that part of the reason people are looking at the cycle right now is to help them determine something more specific in its usefulness a timing tool, something that the 4.3 year period between 2002.85 and 2007.15 is far short of.
One last question, do you know of any cycles that, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, are useful for short term trading?
TIA |
