Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (3270)	12/12/2003 3:32:38 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 110194

And if your daddy smacked you on the bum more often as a kid when you got arrogant like this, maybe I would love you more :-) My daddy DID smack me on the bum. That's what made me arrogant. Haven't you heard of child abuse? :-) Look at the first couple paragraphs of section 3 starting on page 13 and all of section 4 starting on page 14. That's where the "Well, yeah, but ..."'s are buried. My first impression was that it appeared these guys had something like 10 free parameters in their least-square-fit equations. You can fit practically ANYTHING with that many parameters. Also, what are you doing with that complex an equation without theoretical justification for its complexity? It appears to be simply a way to arbitrarily force a fit. Complex equations are not necessarily wrong; in fact, far more complex correct equations occur in the sciences. It's just that the complexity needs justification. AND money supply has nothing to do with inflation? The Fed could increase by 10 times the number of bucks on the loose tomorrow and nothing would happen unless cap util went up? Are they serious? Obviously more than just cap util is involved in inflation as is pointed out in sections 2 and 4. There are too many instances of high cap util and low inflation and low cap util and high inflation for this to be the case. I'll wipe your attempt at exonerating de Gaulle later. :-)