John Doe

Yet more now realising/admitting that the oversupply in Eire was indeed a big part of their big crash. And the early emergence of subprime played a big part in the US http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/1001/1224305066691.html Eire and UK were relative latecomers to the subprime party.

I've made a few quid using TA, some of which I have learnt here (thanks very much to all those that have contributed). I've also outlined why I think it has a place too (i.e. if enough traders follow it, it can become self fulfilling). That's not the same as believing it always works, or that space aliens ate my hamster or that Elvis is living in a DUMB I think your frustration with those that dismiss the techniques you describe (doubtless learnt through years of studying your chosen field of expertise), is probably similar to that felt by some of those that try to explain the difference between scientific and philosophical (and sometimes downright crazy) explanations of phenomena described in many threads here. These people also use techniques that they have learnt over many years of studying their chosen field of expertise (e.g the scientific method and statistical techniques), just to have them dismissed and rubbished by laymen that have read a couple of books written by self publicising charlatans. Know what I mean? People who live in glass houses......

And did you actually read the rest of BaB's post? I might be reading it wrong, but to me, it looks to be right up there alongside your (non-science or philosophical) line of thinking.

House prices surge! http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Biz-Bulletin-House-Prices-skynews-3510936810.html?x=0 Yes, a whole 0.1% up Meanwhile Mortgage approvals up. http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/August-mortgage-approvals-reuters_molt-3027747287.html?x=0 More QE on the way as last BoE hawk turns dove http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Global-weakness-persistent-QE-reuters_molt-2168753890.html?x=0 Can't see crash cruise speed yet?

Nice. Of course, totally hyped (misreported) by the press again, after reading the actual paper, they are quite clear that they are not claiming the speed of light is broken and that relativity is wrong, but rather that they have seen some strange results and are looking for help in explaining/repeated/confirming etc. So, while a long way from being proven, it is potentially very exiting and yet another example of why science is so great. This is exactly what we were trying to point out previously. It’s what separates science from faith and belief. Real science does not claim to have all the answers, nor does it have "beliefs". When evidence and observations show a contradiction in a belief, the believers fight it. When the same happens in science, the scientists embrace it. They check, they recheck, they try to eliminate all possible errors, they then try to repeat it, they then ask others to repeat it, and then and only then, they say "Hey, this looks like it might just be real"! Fantastic.

F = (G*m1*m2)/r^2 Say no more

Having "grown our own" for a good few years now, you'd be amazed just how little you actually get from an average sized plot. Tastes great though, which is the reason we do it.

Seems they are now calling it "Twist and Doubt"!

So the Fed going back into the mortgage market (MBS). (Don't think markets are too happy though, not quite the QE they were looking for). Wonder if the BoE's new QE round will follow a similar pattern (and even a twist and shout?)

Well in the UK it’s conference season (as last year, and the year before that etc etc), so the politicians are actually more visible during this period than the lazy b******s are during rest of the year put together!

Really? That’s quite a surprise. I would have thought the subject matter would have been more important, statistically speaking. (Actually, that’s a little white lie. I KNOW that the subject matter would have been more important to any statistician). For example, the statistics governing the lottery, are totally different to those considering an ensemble of elementary particles etc. I’m sure you know this yourself from the old “past performance is no indicator of future performance” when used in relation to stocks etc. Different subject matter = different distributions = different statistical methods and approaches. Please let me know what she thinks once you have charted the data points. PS I took your advice on the trading diary earlier and shorted dow at 11520, just moved stops down to lock in 60 ticks. Cheers!

Indeed, compared to the price of "some" assets, "some" property is starting to look reasonable.

At last! No more EA bull? http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Estate-agents-warned-Office-tele-1683406898.html And before you say anything, no, I wasn't warned, as contrary to the belief of some I am not (nor ever have been) an EA! I won't mention any names, as that would be indiscreet (Wouldn't it Meralti.... Ooops )

Trying to change the subject again Dr B? You cleary told me and WB even though you admitted you were no expert. So, what did your other half say?

Oh please, please do and I'll guarantee you will be very surprised. Not many people understand statistics well, it is actually a lot more complicated (and powerful) than "common sense" and is a discipline in itself. Many people misunderstand statistics, including many researchers (especially in the medical field), this is one of the reasons that so many studies come out with shocking misinformation. I eagerly await her response.

Not really, just a bad year with 21 (also see 1990 had 18 (and 1995 and 1999) with 16 the next year). So statistically speaking there is no variation there. (For example, there were 4 bigger ones in 2007, then only 1 over the next 2 years). Big earthquakes, in particularly active areas, are also thought (by some researchers, with some success) to put stress on neighbouring faults, resulting in "earthquake storms" as they are known, causing more than the normal number over a certain time period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_storm Of course, 20 years on a geological scale is nothing and isn't nearly enough to draw any conclusions (as can be seen from those figures). More historical data (not probably as in depth sources mind) can be found here. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/most_destructive.php

Again, not so long ago, no one would even have known this quake happened, except maybe for a few goat herders or nomads. Indeed, it's only recently that there are monitoring sites everywhere too. Hope the toll doesn’t increase though. These things have a nasty habit of increasing toll hour by hour.

Indeed some do, and many do not. http://www.livescience.com/414-scientists-natural-disasters-common.html The hurricane data is typical of clusters, much like volcanoes and quakes. If you look over historical data (100's of years, which is available from historic writings rather than scientific studies) you will indeed see that the number of deaths is increasing. However, when you compare this with the massive explosion in the number of humans populating the planet, there is no great increase in percentage terms. As I said, statistically there is no change at present to the long term norm. If we have several years of events of increasing in number and severity, year on year, then that would be statistically relevant. Another point to note is housing types and density (something you have been looking at previously). Only in recent times have populations in places like Haiti lived all in one big city. Prior to that, on the whole, they were pretty much spread out. Of course these latest horrible earthquakes don't even come close to the 1556 Chinese quake that killed >800,000 people In todays population terms thats a several million killer!

Well why didn’t you just say so? You have just left another dimension. A dimension not only of sight and sound, but also of made up guff and nonsense. You've completed a journey into a wondrous land where imagination and testable hypothesis work together for the betterment of all, where fact really is stranger than fiction. You have just re-entered, the Reality Zone! Welcome back Dr.B, for a while I thought we had lost you in the Twilight zone. Nor do I, I said many times before, stay open minded, but never stop questioning, that's not the same. I think we have both misundertsood one anothers veiwpoint. As for the 100 year events, by definition, they happen, on average, every 100 years! Thus, that implies they have happened before, about every 100 years or so Just after the Asian tsunami that killed 100’s of thousands, hurricane catrina came along, in a year with loads of dangerous hurricanes (they even went all the way through the alphabet naming them that year). Everyone was saying the world had changed and there would be more and more dangerous hurricanes every year. Since then, there have been hardly any. These are statistical clusters. It would need several years of events ever increasing in number and severity to be classed as anything different. PS The bet on the end of the world was a bit tounge in cheek, as it was no lose bet for me

Obviously not dear Dr. I haven't once said you believe everything. Although, now you have brought it up, implying you don't believe everything he says, it raises new questions. For example, why do you believe some of the things he says, yet (or why) not believe the other things? Furthermore, I haven't ever said reject everything either, I just stated that there is not one statement listed that has any element of tangible proof or evidence of. Your response is that you have had these things corroborated by another source, but (conveniently) you cannot tell me that source. Indeed, does it not sound more like you are saying, "you don't need to know, it's just true as I say it is, now move along, no more questions"? Are you saying just believe, take my word for it, take in on “faith”? (Honest questions). The world has always had earthquakes and tsunamis (the vast majority of tsunamis are caused by quakes, didn't you know?) and volcanoes and hurricanes, sometimes they cluster sometimes they don’t. There have always been extreme weather events. The climate has also always had mini ice ages and mini heat waves. Romans grew grapes in Scotland, the Thames used to freeze and they held fairs on it. Statistically there is nothing different about the present time. One big difference is that the reports of such things are more common due to modern communications and monitoring. Tell you what, I will wager everything I own that the world does not end next year, will you take the opposite bet?

Oh dear, I read those points (and some of the later points) and have to say that this is looking more and more like some crazy religious cult. You talk about us waking up, I would say you need to open your eyes. The emperor really does have no clothes! Are you really taking these statements seriously? There is not one statement there that has any element of proof, nor even any evidence pointing towards any proof. You are essentially sitting in front of a new self made messiah, believing every bit of drivel spouted. Keep an open mind, but never stop questioning, never just take someone’s word for it and keep demanding evidence, otherwise you're wasting your time and energy (and possibly money too) on fairy stories. I'll give him some credit though, he has a great PR machine (just look at the images) and he chose his target audience very carefully it seems. The one group in the world that loves to think they have some hidden knowledge of secret conspiracies, and then fire that around the internet, "spreading the word". Very clever marketing indeed.

Likewise WB. Right, once more unto the breach!!!

Yes, without a doubt it's an extension of the great confidence trick and could at some point all come tumbling down. I guess the converse argument is that in whose benefit is it if it does come to an end? Not the creditors, nor the debtors. I guess that that leaves only the little guy. But heh, when have they ever cared about the little guy? Of course hyper inflation is just as damaging as deflation (which can also ends in civil unrest and wars), but they actually believe they can control hyperinflation, whereas they know they can't control deflation. That's what worries me. As for the footie, I stopped watching when the tickets at Highfield Road went above £6!

I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing the ET's you're talking about aren't Equity Traders?

Nice move on Oz. We had friends that sold up a few gites in rural France and moved out about the same time. Luck or judgment, turned out a fantastic move for them. (Opportunities for their kids as they hit school leaving age was their reason for going). I have always believed that a credit crunch, by definition, is deflationary. I still think it is, but with all the printing and inflating away of debt, they are just about holding it back for now. The deleveraging is ongoing and the printing etc I expect will continue for a good while yet. Of course, it is a fine balancing act and could derail at any time. However, I'm convinced that they are so scared of deflation, that they will risk a high level of inflation to avoid it. It was when they first started printing that I realised just how far they would go and soon after got a nice run down house for a song. As such, I am hedged as best I can, with safe high div shares during printing rounds, cash during in-between times and an average size mortgage that I will soon fix for 10 years, with enough savings etc to cover the majority of it if times turn bad. You have just left another dimension. A dimension not only of sight and sound, but also of made up guff and nonsense. You've completed a journey into a wondrous land where imagination and testable hypothesis work together for the betterment of all, where fact really is stranger than fiction. You have just re-entered, the Reality Zone! Shhh, they might hear you. In fact, don't even think about it, I’ve heard some of them are psyc, psyc, now what's the word? ah yes, psychic )