"In late spring, the backroom number crunchers who powered Barack
Obama’s campaign to victory noticed that George Clooney had an almost
gravitational tug on West Coast females ages 40 to 49. The women were
far and away the single demographic group most likely to hand over cash,
for a chance to dine in Hollywood with Clooney — and Obama.
[[Statisticians like Nate Silver looked at all polls and concluded
President Obama would win. They may change how races are predicted — and
conducted.]]
[[Others decry the injection of mathematics in something as personal and
heated as presidential politics. Their fear is that computers, rather
than well-spoken pundits, might not only take the fun out of the races,
but also change the way they're conducted.
Wang, the Princeton professor, believes pundits and computer-aided
analysts can coexist.
"It's possible to be Homer and write about the wine-dark sea," he said.
"But sometimes you want the guy with the thermometer."]]
> [[Statisticians like Nate Silver looked at all polls and concluded
> President Obama would win. They may change how races are predicted and
> conducted.]]
> [[Others decry the injection of mathematics in something as personal and
> heated as presidential politics. Their fear is that computers, rather
> than well-spoken pundits, might not only take the fun out of the races,
> but also change the way they're conducted.
> Wang, the Princeton professor, believes pundits and computer-aided
> analysts can coexist.
> "It's possible to be Homer and write about the wine-dark sea," he said.
> "But sometimes you want the guy with the thermometer."]]
Perhaps. I suspect its more like the co-existence of magical accounts
of Creation vs science.
> [[Statisticians like Nate Silver looked at all polls and concluded
> President Obama would win. They may change how races are predicted —
> and conducted.]]
> [[Others decry the injection of mathematics in something as personal
> and heated as presidential politics. Their fear is that computers,
> rather than well-spoken pundits, might not only take the fun out of
> the races, but also change the way they're conducted.
> Wang, the Princeton professor, believes pundits and computer-aided
> analysts can coexist.
> "It's possible to be Homer and write about the wine-dark sea," he
> said. "But sometimes you want the guy with the thermometer."]]
It's well-known that no stock market boom goes on forever; and there
are reasonably good methods of determining when a stock is overpriced.
This does not stop investors from buying at market peaks; or pundits
from saying "This market will never go down!"
In 1964, statistics showed that Goldwater was unlikely to win. But
many conservatives KNEW the majority of potential voters hadn't been
voting because they didn't have a real conservative to vote for.
In 1972, there was this book: _How McGovern Won The Presidency: And
Why the Pollsters Were Wrong.
-- Dan Goodman
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
David Friedman wrote:
> In article <xn0i5c5vn1c6se...@news.iphouse.com>,
> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > It's well-known that no stock market boom goes on forever; and there
> > are reasonably good methods of determining when a stock is
> > overpriced.
> If you know such methods, you ought to be rich.
The methods aren't _infallible_; but anyone applying them could at
least lose less money than some of the experts.
-- Dan Goodman
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>David Friedman wrote:
>> In article <xn0i5c5vn1c6se...@news.iphouse.com>,
>> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> > It's well-known that no stock market boom goes on forever; and there
>> > are reasonably good methods of determining when a stock is
>> > overpriced.
>> If you know such methods, you ought to be rich.
>The methods aren't _infallible_; but anyone applying them could at
>least lose less money than some of the experts.
1. If a stock is mentioned on the front page of USA Today, it is overpriced.
--scott
-- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> In 1964, statistics showed that Goldwater was unlikely to win. But
> many conservatives KNEW the majority of potential voters hadn't been
> voting because they didn't have a real conservative to vote for.
> In 1972, there was this book: _How McGovern Won The Presidency:
> And Why the Pollsters Were Wrong.
> > > It's well-known that no stock market boom goes on forever; and there
> > > are reasonably good methods of determining when a stock is
> > > overpriced.
> > If you know such methods, you ought to be rich.
> The methods aren't _infallible_; but anyone applying them could at
> least lose less money than some of the experts.
If they are substantially better than random, applying them ought to make money. To improve the odds of doing so, risk spread across multiple stocks.
