I also refuse to participate in this "recession" depression . . . Ha Ha Ha !

There is always the same
> three people that post "this is
> spam" .

> It's like if their names are not there as a
> stamp of approval then we can't
> figure out it spam. By the way they are
> regulars at fib forum.

its fun to play with the trolls. If you can't make jokes about Elvis sunglasses and chilled rolls what good are these forums. LOL

I also agree with you that the networks should have waited until the polls closed to declare any projected wins. But, these are the same networks who promised us they wait until the polls closed in each state before they would make their pronouncements. The blew that one, as several counties in the Florida panhandle are in Central time zone, and were still open.

Needless to say, the networks held a trial and declared themselves innocent of any wrong doing.

So when does the American public get to be judge and jury?

Dennis Bevers




Fighting the recession one customer at a time!

Hi Dennis

>its fun to play with the trolls. If you can't make jokes about Elvis
>sunglasses and chilled rolls what good are these forums.

This has nothing to do with Elvis or chilled rolls. They do this on
other forums I visit. Seems you know who I'm referring to.

>Needless to say, the networks held a trial and declared themselves
>innocent of any wrong doing.

I have to agree with the networks, I live in the Tampa Bay area of
Fl. where a lot of this mess happened. And what happened in the
panhandle had no influence on the out come.

But to go a little further there was 10 million votes that were not
counted in all the 50 states. But you don't hear anything about that.

Do a little arithmetic and divide 50 states into 10 million and you
come up with 200,000 voters from each state that didn't count.

I know Ca. and NY have more voters then the smaller states, but
this will give you an idea of the problems that need to be corrected.

They keep telling us "every vote counts". Looks like a few slipped
through the crack.

Regards,
D.R.(Don)McArdle

> Michael, you say: "Events don't cause
> trends ... they compound and cause
> them."

> Could you both explain what you mean by your
> statements?

Individually, an event, whatever that event may be, does not cause a trend. A series of events, sometimes unrelated, compound over time and create the trend...

After 9/11 last year, a lot of airlines asked for assistance because without it they would have to fold.

The 9/11 event itself didn't cause them the trouble. They had been in trouble for a long time before hand. Struggling. The 9/11 event highlighted it. Sped up what was most likely going to happen anyway.

A baby being born is an event. And individually, not a major thing. Yet, when it happens many many times above "normal" then we have a "baby boom."

As each individual in this "boom generation" buys the things they are interested in, the little buying event compounds with the little buying events of all the other individuals in the generation to create a trend.

If these people have children when they are 20, ten years later the child now needs more stuff... but the parents are also producing more so they can spend more.

As the adult moves towards 70 and retirement, they take money out of the stock market and spend again - some of their retirement money pays off personal debt, some goes on holidays, etc.

Either way, they stop working.

Their children, now 40 to 50, are paying off their homes, buying middle age toys, and generally not having money in stocks. They may, at this stage, begin to put money away for retirement. Then money stays out of the economy.

Individually, the events are not major - birth, spending, working, debts, saving, retiring, etc. But as a large group of people do the same things, it compounds and becomes a trend.

Two dollars is not a lot of money. So it's easy to spend it on coffee every day. It's also easy to buy a newspaper everyday for $1. And a $5 a week magazine. Yet just these three expenses add up to $110 ($60 for coffee, $30 for newspaper, $20 for magazines) after one month.

Throw in a $6 video rental once a week, and $20 on booze a week, and you can add $104 to the previous $110 and have now blown $214 on stuff. Yet you didn't notice it going because individually, the spending event was not major. But compounded over time it adds up and forms a $214 a month short-fall trend.

Businesses do not suddenly go bust. A series of bad financial decisions and bad other decisions, compounds over time to send the business down the tubes.

Let me give you an example of a "trend" which has no real single cause, and yet it is plainly visible...

Books stores in shopping malls.

If my memory serves me right it went something like this...

The classic old book store in the city. That's all there was.

Cars allowed people to live out of the city and drive in to work.

WWII encouraged people to move out of the city. Books stores followed. Shopping malls sprang up and books stores moved in. To be profitable they needed to have as many books covering as many topics as space would allow. They had to attract the walking by customer.

Without the car, it would not have happened. Without WWII it would most likely not have happened... at least not as soon as it did. Without shopping malls (or land developers taking the risk, or the large supermarkets being the major tenant and the reason people went to the shopping mall in the first place etc.)... and so on.

No single event made it happen. Events compound to create the trend.

Michael Ross

> Evidently Michael has never study cycles and
> trends, or he would never make
> that statement. I think he's saying that
> events causes trends.

Don,

Please do not talk about me to someone else and do it in front of me. If you want to say/imply I have not studied cycles or trends than please say it to my "face."

And please don't make observations about what I meant or why I said something when the question was directed at me and you haven't yet seen my answer.

Michael Ross

> Because when you get into big business deals
> they want to know
> your net-worth.

Most people won't ever get into big business deals, though.

> You said you do it every month. That is a
> waste of time. If you make three
> lines of people, one line of people that do
> it every month, that line would
> be pretty short. The other line once a year,
> that line would be very long.
> The third line for people that never make
> one out, that line would go from
> coast to coast.

Once a month might be a waste of time to you... being "retired"... but it does me quite fine and takes hardly any more time than updating my financials for the month.

I'm certainly not going to do it only once a year because that's how often most people who figure it out, do it.

> I been retired now for 9 years, and my
> retired income is in the top 10%
> of retired peoples income. So I think I have
> made some good decisions in
> my life. So once a year has worked just fine
> with me.

Yes. Just as once a year works good for you, once a month works good for me.

I look at it from a business point of view... it would be foolhardy for a business to not know what was going on except for once a year...

There's a company who keeps such a sharp eye on their financial status they know it by the hour!!!

Their reason... if they did it once a week, they could be blowing loads of money. And it's hard to argue with them seeing as since implimenting their hourly update their company has boomed. It has boomed because knowing their financials by the hour allows them to make production decisions by the hour.

> These exit polls are used in every election
> and they are right on the money.
> All they want to know, who did you vote for.
> Nothing tricky about that question.

A seemly simple question. But it still leaves a lot to be asked about... WHO is doing the polling, WHEN are these polls taken (that is, the results of the polls mentioned), WHICH booths are taken into account when the poll is released, Is everyone being asked or is it so-called random, and so on.

I mean, if there is a trend (:o) HA!) for Democrats to vote early in the morning and Republicans to vote later in the day, then an early poll will give a misguided figure. As will revealing early polls in Democrat strong areas.

And none of this takes into account the trend of not answering the question in combination with political leaning - do Democrats answer more or less than Republicans.

> Nice talking with you Michael.

Yes, thank you. Shows we can disagree? and discuss at the same time without calling names.

Michael Ross

Hi Don -

Please don't take this wrong because I respect your endeavors to predict economic cycles with K-wave and Elliott Wave theory.

I, however, take a more objective approach to anticipating major turning points in real estate cycle. My approach, called "The Campbell Method" is based on five key real estate indicators - which I call "Vital Signs" - which careful market research shows are highly correlated with with the direction (up or down) that real estate prices are likely to move.

Basically, my Vital Sign indicators are measuring supply and demand in the real estate marketplace, which we all know is the true driving force in all markets.

So where are real estate prices headed?

That is a difficult (impossible?) question to answer for the reason that you should look at real estate markets from a local, not a national, perspective. This is because all local markets are driven by their own local dynamics; therefore, like the weather, it could be "sunny" in Chicago, for example, and "stormy" in San Diego.

Don, here is my standing rule for determining buying and selling points in real estate markets - or any other market for that matter:

"Whatever your "opinion," whether it is based on K-wave, Elliott wave, or whatever else, MAKE the market itself "confirm" your opinion before you make important market decisions to buy or sell.

In other words - and this is Market Truth #2 in my book Timing the Real Estate Market - "The market is alway right, and you aren't."

I enjoy reading your viewpoints, Don.

Best wishes,

Robert M. Campbell

Hi Michael -

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

Please allow me to share my viewpoint in light of your concluding words.

You say "No single event made it happen. Events compound to create the trend."

In subscribing to Chaos Theory, I believe that any single event can indeed cause the beginning of a trend.

Are you familiar with the "Butterfly Effect?"

Briefly, it goes something like this: a butterfly in China can cause air movements that can eventually turn into a storm in Los Angeles.

In other words, according to Chaos Theory, small events often set up a chain reaction of events that will continue to compound over time that ultimately result in a big event.

This is the way I view things, both in the markets and in the weather.

Best wishes, Michael.

Robert M. Campbell


New book in 30 days: Timing the Real Estate Market

> You say "No single event made it
> happen. Events compound to create the
> trend."

> ...according to Chaos Theory,
> small events often set up a chain reaction
> of events that will continue to compound
> over time that ultimately result in a big
> event.

Pretty similar to each other, eh?

And so, according to Chaos Theory could you say: internal combustion engine, vehicles, global travel, gas, more lethal and varied forms of war, power generators built with the aid of machines, electricity, modern cities, aeroplanes, 9/11???

Why stop with just the engine, though? Why not go back further... the iron age? Or further still... when man first discovered how to smelt metal (for without metal we have not engine).

Or better yet... the invention of the wheel! Or Fire!!!

Reminds me of a show called "Connections" which was about inventions and how "connected" they were/are. And it really showed how much of a fluke our modern world is.

What gets me though, is that trying to predict where a certain event could lead is near on impossible (do you think the first person to create fire would have ever thought it would, via a series of "connections," end up in the world in which we now live?). And yet, looking back, things can seem so clear cut and "obvious." (I've noticed this many times with events within my life.)

Michael Ross


Subscribing to The Great Ideas Letter may be the event you are meant to experience...

Don,

While we disagree on cycles (not whether they exist, but the degree to which they matter), the following web site will take you to a book that you may find interesting:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000819071355/www.pei-intl.com/Research/GBM/GBM-MAST.HTM

It's a link to the now-defunct Princeton Economics International group, who's work on cycles was some of the most original I'd seen. This link will take you to one of their best books, called The Greatest Bull Market in History. The book is about the Great Depression (most people don't realize that the great depression was preceeded by an amazing bull market) and is full of historical material from the newspapers of the time. One of the book's conclusions is that the government did quite a bit to exacerbate the damage. It's a bit long, but utterly fasciating, especially if, like me, you like seeing history as it was. The PDF files appear to still be available.

Hope that's of interest.

Best,
Phil

PS -- Doesn't the Kondrateif wave assume a predominantly agricultural economy?


Learn how to invest profitably in the stock market...

Hi Michael -

In looking at the stock market, for example, or any speculative market for that matter, if your claim that "events don't cause trends" is correct, then what causes trends to reverse direction?

Robert M. Campbell