Every discussion board I've read or participated in through the years, has had it's ruling orthodoxy. It's human nature and part of our hierarchical tendencies. So no doubt my response will not sit well with Slider and his supporters.
I do not, nor care not, to give advice to others. I have no such illusions of grander. I have seen what happens to the analyst when their following grows (i.e., Sinclair, Mish, Denninger, Gartman, et. al.). I read boards for the information and insight and when warranted to add some as well. Point is, while we and others can pour over charts and see how they comport to various economic theories, what many then tend to do is to overlook other factors as well. IMO, this is now occurring with the analysis of the eighties and nineties, especially when it comes to the currency debasement at the time and why it didn't appear in the "aggregate numbers." I believe this type of mistaken or incomplete analysis is called: "unable to see the unseen." Slider's analysis only gave part of the picture of what occurred at the time, the other part does not show itself in numbers and graphs.
As to my final conclusion, I said it was "implied." You and others are free to imply differently. |
