When mathematics and belief collide
Randy Poe
>
> The turmoil in stock markets around the world provides a great real world
> scenario for considering basic principles of information theory, as well as
> watching what happens when people's *beliefs* run into the wall of hard
> mathematics.
>
> It may seem strange to you that the stock markets are one of the main areas
> where mathematics rules on a large scale, but it's actually quite simple
> why:
>
> When it comes to stocks information IS money.
The stock market is ruled by psychology and rumor, not mathematics.
Many attempts have been made to model the stock market mathematically,
and a great deal of money is spent by investment companies on
such models. They work about as well as handicapping horses at
the track.
> In fact, it looks like there is now a hidden mini-boom in the American
> economy, which you will probably hear about officially six months from now,
> or maybe even later.
>
> How do I know?
>
> I can feel it.
Ah, applying those proof techniques to the stock market.
Actually, I too believe that the initial panic of investors
will eventually heal. I saw a comparison today of the info sector
bust compared to a similar railroad investment bust in the 1870s.
Memorable line: "Before the 1930s, the term "Great Depressions"
referred to 1873."
I maintain that confidence in the system,
enough that I did a contrarian move of some of my good performing
mutuals into one that took a hit this year. Of course, I'm
gambling with only 2% of my holdings. But I'm curious to see
whether an active strategy can actually outperform "do nothing",
which has done very well for me. Even this last 2 years.
- Randy
Arturo Magidin
Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
>James Harris wrote:
>>
>> The turmoil in stock markets around the world provides a great real world
>> scenario for considering basic principles of information theory, as well as
>> watching what happens when people's *beliefs* run into the wall of hard
>> mathematics.
>>
>> It may seem strange to you that the stock markets are one of the main areas
>> where mathematics rules on a large scale, but it's actually quite simple
>> why:
>>
>> When it comes to stocks information IS money.
>
>The stock market is ruled by psychology and rumor, not mathematics.
>
>Many attempts have been made to model the stock market mathematically,
>and a great deal of money is spent by investment companies on
>such models. They work about as well as handicapping horses at
>the track.
In fact, at least until a couple of years ago, the very best predictor
for the stock market was the Superbowl; I don't recall which was
which, but if one of the conferences won, the market would go up in
the year, and if the other one won, it would go down. It had something
like an 80-85% success rate in prediction.
Which, of course, is why it wasn't called "investing in the stock
market" like it is nowadays, but rather "play the stock market", is in
gambling.
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
mag...@math.berkeley.edu
Jim Ferry
>
> Actually, I too believe that the initial panic of investors
> will eventually heal. I saw a comparison today of the info sector
> bust compared to a similar railroad investment bust in the 1870s.
> Memorable line: "Before the 1930s, the term "Great Depressions"
> referred to 1873."
Interesting. They're both about the creation of a new infrastructure
making people become wildly optimistic about an imagined paradigm
shift. But there was a great deal of corporate corruption during the
railroad boom -- nothing like that now. :@)
> I maintain that confidence in the system,
> enough that I did a contrarian move of some of my good performing
> mutuals into one that took a hit this year. Of course, I'm
> gambling with only 2% of my holdings. But I'm curious to see
> whether an active strategy can actually outperform "do nothing",
> which has done very well for me. Even this last 2 years.
>
> - Randy
There was an article in the Monthly recently about an active
strategy which outperforms Buy and Hold. You might find it
interesting:
The TEAM Approach to Investing, Frank Gerth III,
American Math Monthly, 106 (6), pp. 553--558, June--July, 1999
Virgil
"James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> wrote:
> In fact, it looks like there is now a hidden mini-boom in the American
> economy, which you will probably hear about officially six months from now,
> or maybe even later.
>
> How do I know?
>
> I can feel it.
>
>
> James Harris
If JSH's feel for the stock market is on a par with his feel for
mathematics, now might be a good time to sell before the official
crash in six months.
Arturo Magidin
I don't see why. The prediction is perfectly fine. Wonderful, in
fact. It is a guarantee success, unless we all die horribly in a
nuclear holocaust or a meteorite strike.
I mean: in about six months, or maybe later (unspecified how much
later, so it is an open-ended prediction), the economy will once again
go up.
Great. And I predict that at some time in the future, something good
will happen in the state of Idaho. Or perhaps something bad.
James Harris
"James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:u4UHZRyMCHA.1164@cpimsnntpa03...
> The turmoil in stock markets around the world provides a great real world
> scenario for considering basic principles of information theory, as well
as
> watching what happens when people's *beliefs* run into the wall of hard
> mathematics.
>
> It may seem strange to you that the stock markets are one of the main
areas
> where mathematics rules on a large scale, but it's actually quite simple
> why:
>
> When it comes to stocks information IS money.
>
I should have put that in quotes or elaborated a bit. Or shoot, just admit
it's just wrong, and got past my self-editing.
Insiders CAN trade, what I meant was that they can't use inside information
that has not been made public to benefit at the expense of others. Also
there are limitations on when insiders can make trades, as I did correctly
point out.
Like I've said before, the Internet is still rather wild, since so many
people can post without having to think as carefully as we're used to in
other media before they get a wide readership, so people like me make
mistakes. And I make a lot of mistakes also because I see this as a place
to put out roughly edited work. Basically, I come up with an idea, and sit
here and work it out in a post, so most of my posts are thought about and
sent within a half hour period. Sometimes I can squeeze in two or three
edits, but more often than not, I'll only use one. For this post I actually
went through *three* edits, and still missed the insider thing.
Writing is hard work.
James Harris
Denis Feldmann
Something not caught by the bot. What happened to it? Will we need to write
those remainders ourselves again?
Denis Feldmann
> "James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:u4UHZRyMCHA.1164@cpimsnntpa03...
>> The turmoil in stock markets around the world provides a great real
>> world scenario for considering basic principles of information
>> theory, as well as watching what happens when people's *beliefs* run
>> into the wall of hard mathematics.
>>
>> It may seem strange to you that the stock markets are one of the
>> main areas where mathematics rules on a large scale, but it's
>> actually quite simple why:
>>
>> When it comes to stocks information IS money.
>>
>> Insider trading is outlawed for just that reason.
>
> I should have put that in quotes or elaborated a bit. Or shoot, just
> admit it's just wrong, and got past my self-editing.
>
> Insiders CAN trade, what I meant was that they can't use inside
> information that has not been made public to benefit at the expense
> of others. Also there are limitations on when insiders can make
> trades, as I did correctly point out.
>
> Like I've said before, the Internet is still rather wild, since so
> many people can post without having to think as carefully as we're
> used to in other media before they get a wide readership, so people
> like me make mistakes.
There is (thanks to God) no people like you. If your sentence was intende to
parse "people like me to make mistakes", it could well be true, but I prefer
to believe that nobody likes you.
Sorry for this apparent troll-feding, but the bot seems broken.
And I make a lot of mistakes also because I
> see this as a place to put out roughly edited work. Basically, I
> come up with an idea, and sit here and work it out in a post, so most
> of my posts are thought about and sent within a half hour period.
> Sometimes I can squeeze in two or three edits, but more often than
> not, I'll only use one. For this post I actually went through
> *three* edits, and still missed the insider thing.
>
> Writing is hard work.
You couldn't know.
>
>
> James Harris
Steve Leibel
mag...@math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote:
> In article <vmhjr2-D6A78D....@netnews.attbi.com>,
> Virgil <vmh...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >In article <u4UHZRyMCHA.1164@cpimsnntpa03>,
> > "James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In fact, it looks like there is now a hidden mini-boom in the American
> >> economy, which you will probably hear about officially six months from now,
> >> or maybe even later.
> >>
> >> How do I know?
> >>
> >> I can feel it.
> >>
> >>
> >> James Harris
> >
> >If JSH's feel for the stock market is on a par with his feel for
> >mathematics, now might be a good time to sell before the official
> >crash in six months.
>
> I don't see why. The prediction is perfectly fine. Wonderful, in
> fact. It is a guarantee success, unless we all die horribly in a
> nuclear holocaust or a meteorite strike.
>
> I mean: in about six months, or maybe later (unspecified how much
> later, so it is an open-ended prediction), the economy will once again
> go up.
>
> Great. And I predict that at some time in the future, something good
> will happen in the state of Idaho. Or perhaps something bad.
>
Actually more can be said. The stock market leads the economy by 4 to 6
months. This is well-known to professionals and, like they say, you
could look it up. Therefore there is a strong likelihood of an economic
downturn within the next 4 to 6 months.
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
>The turmoil in stock markets around the world provides a great real world
>scenario for considering basic principles of information theory,
[comments having absolutely nothing whatever to do with mathematics
or information theory snipped...]
>
>Now some are afraid that a change in *belief* by many to the notion that
>America's economy is doing worse than it is could cause a "double dip
>recession".
>
>Well, as I told a major news source over six months ago, there will be no
>double dip.
But this was just un-snippable. _You_ told a major news source about
the future of the economy? Wow.
Do you have any reason to believe that they cared a rat's ass
about your opinion?
>In fact, it looks like there is now a hidden mini-boom in the American
>economy, which you will probably hear about officially six months from now,
>or maybe even later.
>
>How do I know?
>
>I can feel it.
Well, if your feelings about the economy are as accurate as
your feelings about mathematics then this is bad news.
>James Harris
>
>
>
David C. Ullrich
Randy Poe
>
> "James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:u4UHZRyMCHA.1164@cpimsnntpa03...
Having now dismissed the entire population of earth with
"you don't know anything, so I won't read your posts anymore",
James is reduced to conversing with himself.
- Randy
T Block
> was predictable with a simple strategy of buy and hold, invest on the
> downturn, reinvest dividends, and trust in the inevitable, eventual rise
of
> the market.
> That's a *belief* which gained hold in this country with a vengeance.
> It's actually very appealing because what it says is that you do NOT need
to
> gather a lot of information to make money in stocks. Sure, that's right
if
Speculative trading over-supports and under-supports stocks with regard to
mid-term or long-term fundamentals. One way to take advantage of the
situation is to buy fundamentals when trading support is at a minimum.
Identifying stocks with fundamentals is not that difficult...just use a long
term second degree regression on earnings. However, many large cap stocks
can be picked without math. Or consider debt-to-equity ratios as a industry
performance measure.
Small cap stocks and mid-cap stocks requires knowledge of the industry.
Investing in promising companies without current earnings is also expert
territory...especially in light of revenue recognition scandals. However,
just favor balance sheet cash over debt.
Finally, the math of speculative trading is called technical analysis.
T Block
Speculative trading over-supports and under-supports stocks WITHOUT regard
Andrew Boucher
T Block wrote:
> Correction edited below:
>
> Speculative trading over-supports and under-supports stocks WITHOUT regard
> to mid-term or long-term fundamentals. One way to take advantage of the
> situation is to buy fundamentals when trading support is at a
> minimum.
>
> Identifying stocks with fundamentals is not that difficult...just use a long
> term second degree regression on earnings.
Well if you believe that, the stock market will take your money as easily as
any casino in Atlantic City. Regressions on the past do not and cannot always
predict the future.
>
> Finally, the math of speculative trading is called technical analysis.
No. There are many forms of speculative trading, only one of which uses
technical analysis. In fact, since you mention fundamentals, one of the most
basic forms is to analyze "fundamentals" and go long the stocks which you
analyze positively and short those you analyze negatively. This can be done
in conjunction with technical analysis, but usually (?) not.
Andrew Boucher
Steve Leibel wrote:
>
> Actually more can be said. The stock market leads the economy by 4 to 6
> months. This is well-known to professionals and, like they say, you
> could look it up. Therefore there is a strong likelihood of an economic
> downturn within the next 4 to 6 months.
This is not well-known. The US stock market is just one of the indicators in the
US used to calculate the official "leading indicator" index. Others include real
money supply and average weekly initial claims for unemployment. The "leading
indicator" index is suposed to portend the future direction of the economy, but it
has not been infallible.
On the other hand, it is possible that this time the stock market is saying
something, or perhaps even more likely, will be *causing* something (less spending
and a downturn in the housing market).
T Block
as
> any casino in Atlantic City. Regressions on the past do not and cannot
always
> predict the future.
>
Well, I couldn't write a complete book...
KO repeats the past, INTC repeats the past, ORCL repeats the past, GE
repeats the past, MSFT repeats the past, J&J repeats the past, and so on...
The growth stocks really do just have business cycles but they can run a
group of very big years and this allows the myth of growth. At some point
young industries become mature industries but I think we can work with eight
year histories at a time and discover a number a big years within that
history. The point is to identify a true rate of growth and thus not
overvalue but also know to buy on undervalue. This is the essence of
fundamentals-based investing...and can just be instinctive.
A second order regression allows the big years to be kept in persepective
and the small years to be investor positioning opportunities...with actual
quantitative viewpoint.
Moving to (successful) small-cap stocks and mid-cap stocks, there is ramp-up
growth and then mature marketplace delivery of product. The ramp-up growth
is sensational but that mature marketplace delivery of product needs to be
projected into the regression.
> > Finally, the math of speculative trading is called technical analysis.
>
> No. There are many forms of speculative trading, only one of which uses
> technical analysis. In fact, since you mention fundamentals, one of the
most
> basic forms is to analyze "fundamentals" and go long the stocks which you
> analyze positively and short those you analyze negatively. This can be
done
> in conjunction with technical analysis, but usually (?) not.
>
There is fundamentals-based investing which can be long or short positions.
There is short term trading which I called 'speculative trading'. And there
is hedge-based investing.
A fundamentals-based long position does not overlap anything. It is
inherently long term and not trading.
A fundamentals-based short positon overlaps with hedge-based investing. And
hedge-based investing can be short term or long term...
But the idea of the subject heading that there is some special information
that is key, that ignores the larger current...and that current is long term
fundamentals.
jmfb...@aol.com
David C. Ullrich <ull...@math.okstate.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>>Well, as I told a major news source over six months ago, there will be no
>>double dip.
>
>But this was just un-snippable. _You_ told a major news source about
>the future of the economy? Wow.
Well, if that impresses you :-))....I often talk to the TV.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
James Harris
"T Block" <tbl...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:M2P%8.326$xH4.14...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > Well if you believe that, the stock market will take your money as
easily
> as
> > any casino in Atlantic City. Regressions on the past do not and cannot
> always
> > predict the future.
> >
An excellent reply from Andrew Boucher. I wish you'd left in what he was
replying to as well, but anyone curious can just go read it themselves.
> Well, I couldn't write a complete book...
I don't think that's a bad thing.
As I've said repeatedly information is money on the stock market.
If you had information that would *really* lead to a signficant reduction in
risk, that is, advice with high upside potential, then it's value would drop
as soon as you started talking about it.
You see--and I want to emphasize this--the market *would adjust*, which is
why the stock market is one of the more exciting areas to test mathematics.
The reason is amazingly simple.
Let's say that there were a method for "beating the market" which usually
translates into high gains over long periods. Then other people would be
fools to ignore such a method as they watched you get rich, and people tend
not to simply watch someone else get rich, when they could apply the same
techniques, um, *except* if it's Buffett telling them that it's exhaustive
research and eternal vigilance, and luck *still* plays a factor with
impressive gamblers like Buffett. But I digress, so other people *would*
use your technique. If it were really a nice and relatively easy way of
stock picking or maneuvering or whatever, eventually everyone would be using
it. Well that means that everyone would be a winner!!!
We could end world poverty! Everybody would be rich! Paradise on earth!!!
It reminds me of a story about monkeys that I'm sure you've all heard. My
version may be somewhat apochryphal, though I'm sure I read something like
this in a science textbook years ago. Ok it's how scientists were studying
tool use among monkeys, and this one monkey figured out a better way to get
termites with a stick, or something like that, and the scientists watched as
the knowledge propagated out to the other monkeys over a *wide* area.
Well we know that human beings are smarter than monkeys, right?
> KO repeats the past, INTC repeats the past, ORCL repeats the past, GE
> repeats the past, MSFT repeats the past, J&J repeats the past, and so
on...
>
> The growth stocks really do just have business cycles but they can run a
> group of very big years and this allows the myth of growth. At some point
> young industries become mature industries but I think we can work with
eight
> year histories at a time and discover a number a big years within that
> history. The point is to identify a true rate of growth and thus not
> overvalue but also know to buy on undervalue. This is the essence of
> fundamentals-based investing...and can just be instinctive.
Really? Then name an "instinctive" trader who has consistently beat the
market.
Sure there have been some stars but they always flame out over time as the
mathematics catches up to them.
Besides, you're talking about more information than a LOT of investors in
America are bothering to use.
My point has always been that information is money when it comes to stocks.
Inside information on companies is worth more money yet. There are legal
ways to get inside information, and investors have to realize they cannot
use a technique to pick stocks, any more than you can use a technique to
pick a dentist--you have to get up close and just a little bit personal,
since they're going to be messing around inside your mouth.
Remember, I'm talking about the consequences of a *belief* that you could
invest relatively worry free with a technique, which includes things like
monthly buys through a mutual fund. It even has a name that escapes me at
the moment. Now people are saying no, use an index fund you fool, but what
will they be saying next year, or the year after that?
> A second order regression allows the big years to be kept in persepective
> and the small years to be investor positioning opportunities...with actual
> quantitative viewpoint.
>
> Moving to (successful) small-cap stocks and mid-cap stocks, there is
ramp-up
> growth and then mature marketplace delivery of product. The ramp-up growth
> is sensational but that mature marketplace delivery of product needs to be
> projected into the regression.
The simple fact is that the market *will adjust* to any technique including
the best one available which is to find out all you can about each company
you invest in.
However, the smart investor will do what they can to get all the information
available, realizing that our inability to predict the future means there is
ALWAYS RISK.
After all, you could have the best company around with amazing potential,
and a big rock could come out of space and flatten it.
> > > Finally, the math of speculative trading is called technical analysis.
> >
> > No. There are many forms of speculative trading, only one of which uses
> > technical analysis. In fact, since you mention fundamentals, one of the
> most
> > basic forms is to analyze "fundamentals" and go long the stocks which
you
> > analyze positively and short those you analyze negatively. This can be
> done
> > in conjunction with technical analysis, but usually (?) not.
> >
>
> There is fundamentals-based investing which can be long or short
positions.
> There is short term trading which I called 'speculative trading'. And
there
> is hedge-based investing.
>
> A fundamentals-based long position does not overlap anything. It is
> inherently long term and not trading.
>
> A fundamentals-based short positon overlaps with hedge-based investing.
And
> hedge-based investing can be short term or long term...
>
>
> But the idea of the subject heading that there is some special information
> that is key, that ignores the larger current...and that current is long
term
> fundamentals.
The special information that is key is knowing the future.
Everything you mentioned essentially revolves around predicting the future
based on past results.
I think of people who tout that as being equivalent to those in Las Vegas
who'll tell you they know how to beat the wheel. It's bogus.
The only valid stock picking methods depend on *knowing as much as you can
about the companies in which you invest*, and that STILL can't remove all of
the risk.
Ultimately, risk is inevitable in stocks, so the real place where
mathematics and belief collide is with people trying to prove otherwise.
Thanks for the input as I'm glad some people chose to reply along the actual
subject line in the thread.
James Harris
James Harris
"Andrew Boucher" <Helene....@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:3D3FA3C0...@wanadoo.fr...
>
>
> Steve Leibel wrote:
>
> >
> > Actually more can be said. The stock market leads the economy by 4 to 6
> > months. This is well-known to professionals and, like they say, you
> > could look it up. Therefore there is a strong likelihood of an economic
> > downturn within the next 4 to 6 months.
>
> This is not well-known. The US stock market is just one of the indicators
in the
> US used to calculate the official "leading indicator" index. Others
include real
> money supply and average weekly initial claims for unemployment. The
"leading
> indicator" index is suposed to portend the future direction of the
economy, but it
> has not been infallible.
This stock market is already changing what's "well-known", and the "experts"
are scratching their heads.
However, having played my hand at predicting what the US economy would do
for several years now, and having racked up an impressive record, which can
be verified by a major news source (sorry folks, you're not in the loop), I
stand by what I said about there not being a "double dip" recession.
With that said, I'm not guessing further than six months out, so I'm not
making predictions about first quarter 2003 at this point, as things are
kind of murky.
That is, before 2002 started I made some predictions which were for slow
growth through the entire year.
At that time I also predicted the same for 2003 (yes, I predicted the entire
year), but I'm backing off from that now.
> On the other hand, it is possible that this time the stock market is
saying
> something, or perhaps even more likely, will be *causing* something (less
spending
> and a downturn in the housing market).
The housing market can't keep up at the levels we've been seeing, and it
looks like its settling into a more sustainable level, so it shouldn't be a
major concern.
The telecom sector is still the big worry, and will be for some time.
Overall though, the economy is performing surprisingly well.
Since the steep drops on the stock market were expected by many as it's been
well-known for some time that many stocks are overvalued, I don't see it
having the major impact that many apparently think it will.
As far as I'm concerned, a lot of people are just looking for reasons to get
worried.
Of course, others lost a lot of money ON PAPER, while some made serious
mistakes investing at the wrong time, and lost lots of real money as
investments they recently made are worth much less now.
But folks, you have to be responsible for your decisions and their
consequences.
The system has been working very well so far, as the stocks have fallen
closer to their true price, as they must. Corporate crooks are being
prosecuted. Meaningful reforms may be at hand, but more importantly, the
wisdom of the market is ruling. "Irrational exuberance" can only boost
stocks for so long, and then the math takes over.
James Harris
Andrew Boucher
James Harris wrote:
> That is, before 2002 started I made some predictions which were for slow
> growth through the entire year.
I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you admitting you were wrong? Or do you
still think (because you don't know the facts) that you were right?
Real gross domestic product increased at an annual rate of 6.1 percent in the
first quarter of 2002,
according to the revised estimates released in late June by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis.
Second quarter will probably be strong as well. Yøur prediction will only
start making sense for the second half, but then the average for the year
shouldn't be too bad--better than slow.
The Fed expects growth to be 3.5-3.75% for the entire year (Q4 01 to Q4 02).
Given the stock market's problems, you should probably shave 0.5% off, which
leaves 3.0-3.25%. On the other hand if the market really caves, a distinct
possibility but one which you seem to exclude, growth will be lower and less
than 3.0% and in the range of your "slow" bracket.
Sorry, but I'll stop my contribution to this thread with this mail.
T Block
An endeavor where the big years and the small years are kept in perspective
and decisions based on the perspective, is very reasonable. This can be
mathematical statistics or it can be instinctive view based on macro view of
news.
Categorical rejection of an investment strategy is childish because there is
no single gifted strategy. There are many successful strategies.
Also, many things are investment positions. Cash values against gold and
against other currencies. The ten year treasury bond has unrealized capital
gain as it moves from 5.3% coupon to 4.3% current market rate...this to
weigh against drawing of above market coupon. Bank CD's have a choice of
term to match against possible interest rate movement. It's not reasonble to
deny that risk is fundamental or that planning is fundamental.
James Harris
> Yeah, I didn't even read your post.
Ok.
___JSH
James Harris
>
>
> James Harris wrote:
>
> > That is, before 2002 started I made some predictions which were for slow
> > growth through the entire year.
>
> I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you admitting you were wrong? Or do
you
> still think (because you don't know the facts) that you were right?
>
> Real gross domestic product increased at an annual rate of 6.1 percent in
the
> first quarter of 2002,
> according to the revised estimates released in late June by the Bureau of
> Economic Analysis.
Mostly due to increases in government spending from the war on terrorism.
Since I made my predictions before the terrorist attack, I stand by them
holding up so well against one time events like a significant increase in
government spending that couldn't be predicted.
As for the reasons for the predictions, they were based on my sense that
Greenspan and others had succeeded in a "soft landing" for the American
economy.
Many would like to see the economy roar back but that's because people don't
like change (got used to the growth through the nineties) or they're greedy.
I deleted your other opinions as they were unsupported, and your attempt at
attacking my position didn't impress me at all.
Don't worry about me replying to you again, as I don't like wasting my time.
Time is money, after all.
James Harris
Virgil
and a half-assed programmer ( for one professing to be a profesional
at it), is now setting himself up as a guru on the behaviour of the
stock market.
He could hardly do worse in this new role than he has done in the
previous ones.
Nico Benschop
>
> In article <vmhjr2-D6A78D....@netnews.attbi.com>,
> Virgil <vmh...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >In article <u4UHZRyMCHA.1164@cpimsnntpa03>,
> > "James Harris" <jst...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In fact, it looks like there is now a hidden mini-boom in
> >> the American economy, which you will probably hear about
> >> officially six months from now, or maybe even later.
> >
> >If JSH's feel for the stock market is on a par with his feel for
> >mathematics, now might be a good time to sell before the official
> >crash in six months.
>
> I don't see why. The prediction is perfectly fine.
> Wonderful, in fact. It is a guarantee success, unless we all die
> I mean: in about six months, or maybe later (unspecified how much
> later, so it is an open-ended prediction), the economy will once
> again go up. Great. And I predict that at some time in the future,
> something good will happen in the state of Idaho.
Re[*]: Something of a sawtooth_like evolutionary 'Law':
Extremes increase, and then collapse (etc.)
JSH Info
For information about James Harris see:
http://www.geocities.com/williamrexmarshall/cranks/jsh1.html
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING:
"Responding to James May Result in
Brain Injury, Premature Senility, and Low IQ."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have you ever read the story of the boy who cried
"wolf"???
-- The above is part of a post by Bob Silverman to sci.math.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A message similar to this one is automatically
posted to every thread in sci.math started by James.
The primary purpose of these posts is to give
newbies a pointer to some background information on him.
It appears that he starts a new thread whenever he considers
himself to be losing the argument in a previous one.
This is automatic post number 271.
New threads started by James in the last 7 days: 7 (1.0 threads/day)
New threads started by James in the last 30 days: 33 (1.1 threads/day)
New threads started by James in the last 90 days: 107 (1.2 threads/day)
James: It would be nice if you included JSH in the subject.
Some news readers allow the user to filter out
postings with a particular phrase in the subject.
--
JSH Info, version 1.0.0.235