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.

Politics : Welcome to Slider's Dugout -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NOW who wrote (11298)	8/26/2008 4:09:17 PM
From: painterx	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50101

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.