Saying this destroys your credibility in this discussion.
Then, you don't believe what you say, and your intellect is too weak to understand why you're tripping all over the place.
Is being less dovish...hawkish?
CNBC's Pisani said, "Berdoo will be sounding more dovish over the next few days". Pisani gave that opinion because the stock market is up. However, Berdoo will be taken by WS to imply he's more hawkish. The complement of dovish is hawkish. Contrary opinion rules WS. Therefore, if Berdoo sounds more dovish, then WS will take what he says as hawkish, and tomorrow the stock market will decline. Then Pisani will say,
"Berdoo will be sounding more hawkish tomorrow". Do you get it?
It is this kind of thinking in which you engage and which I call nonsensical. WS is filled with myths. There's no point in dealing with them. It works like this. If stocks decline, Berdoo will be interpreted as hawkish based on dovish remarks taken under contrary opinion. If stocks rise, Berdoo will be interpreted as dovish. All these interpretations are applied after the fact. They're worthless. You have to base judgment on fact. Instead, you prefer to engage in this word game. IT MEANS NOTHING. |
