Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

richard5za wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 11:44 am

Cool Breeze wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 7:09 pm Buy BTC or GBTC next week and you'll be able to trade it and make another profit, in fairly short order (if you don't want to hold long and make more, or deal with the ups and downs).

You're welcome.

I find it difficult to comprehend such faith in crypto currencies. You are I gather, from your previous posts, talking about long term investment not short term trading to take a quick profit, not taking a small portion of your portfolio and taking a flutter. Long term investment!
So using dualist thinking there's either something inadequate about me, such as ignorance or faulty logic, or not seeing the opportunity, and so on, or you have got it wrong?
Your faith in BTC makes me nervous for you. And others of course. I am quite firm in my belief that a disaster is on its way.

Cool Breeze wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 7:09 pm Buy BTC or GBTC next week and you'll be able to trade it and make another profit, in fairly short order (if you don't want to hold long and make more, or deal with the ups and downs).

You're welcome.

Higgenbotham wrote:From 2012.

Higgenbotham wrote:

Flutter is a self-feeding and potentially destructive vibration where aerodynamic forces on an object couple with a structure's natural mode of vibration to produce rapid periodic motion. Flutter can occur in any object within a strong fluid flow, under the conditions that a positive feedback occurs between the structure's natural vibration and the aerodynamic forces. That is, the vibrational movement of the object increases an aerodynamic load, which in turn drives the object to move further. If the energy input by the aerodynamic excitation in a cycle is larger than that dissipated by the damping in the system, the amplitude of vibration will increase, resulting in self-exciting oscillation. The amplitude can thus build up and is only limited when the energy dissipated by aerodynamic and mechanical damping matches the energy input, which can result in large amplitude vibration and potentially lead to rapid failure. Because of this, structures exposed to aerodynamic forces — including wings and aerofoils, but also chimneys and bridges — are designed carefully within known parameters to avoid flutter. In complex structures where both the aerodynamics and the mechanical properties of the structure are not fully understood, flutter can only be discounted through detailed testing. Even changing the mass distribution of an aircraft or the stiffness of one component can induce flutter in an apparently unrelated aerodynamic component. At its mildest this can appear as a "buzz" in the aircraft structure, but at its most violent it can develop uncontrollably with great speed and cause serious damage to or lead to the destruction of the aircraft,[1] as in Braniff Flight 542.

In some cases, automatic control systems have been demonstrated to help prevent or limit flutter-related structural vibration.[citation needed]

Flutter can also occur on structures other than aircraft. One famous example of flutter phenomena is the collapse of the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Another is a particular playground swing in Firmat which "swings itself" with such force that it leads many to believe it is haunted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroelasticity#Flutter

a growing commitment to steady inflation = aerodynamic forces on an object

failure of soft central planning = result in large amplitude vibration and potentially lead to rapid failure

how do you like being a guinea pig = in complex structures where both the aerodynamics and the mechanical properties of the structure are not fully understood, flutter can only be discounted through detailed testing

The stock market, in addition to the 3 megaphone patterns discussed a few months ago is, since then, "fluttering" between 2820 and 2940 on the S&P. According to my analysis, this could "potentially lead to rapid failure".

Higgenbotham wrote:This is a good link to get a long term perspective (5 years) on the rapid flutter currently taking place in the S&P:

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/advcha ... e&state=11

Higgenbotham wrote:

Higgenbotham wrote:

Higgenbotham wrote:This weekend we read on the boards that sentiment has gotten very negative very quickly and therefore the stock market will rally to work off that bearish sentiment. Or something like that.

Is that right? Not necessarily, but it can be right and it has been generally right in the past, though maybe not entirely precise.

Why has it been right? Well, the primary reason in my opinion is because stocks have been in a bull market for, oh, about the last 500 years. Therefore, since stocks have always continued higher at some point after sentiment turns more negative, it seems right to think that will continue. But it won't if stocks have indeed made a 500 year high and are heading much lower for many years, if not forever. In that case, the sentiment figures are accurate at best and overly optimistic at worst.

So sentiment really means nothing. What matters is how accurately the sentiment figures reflect reality.

Higgenbotham wrote: That's another thing that crossed my mind as I was typing. This is a time when sentiment is likely to swing wildly day to day or even hour to hour. So quoting sentiment figures as if they mean something in relation to future stock market prices is most likely bogus anyway. Probably the better indicator is the herd thinking these sentiment indicators they are quoting actually mean something.

This is from last weekend. Strangely, the herd on the boards are no longer this weekend quoting negative sentiment figures and pointing to those as a reason to be positive on the market. I am only reading that the herd is now negative. That means that even though the market is in a position to crash, it could actually rally from here. For me, that is too hard to call at this point because the Fed officials stated on Friday that they will now cut rates versus what we heard before that the July rate cut was mid cycle. The market didn't respond to that, but it might respond positively on Monday.

From Saturday. At that time, the herd was super bearish at the 2820 low of the flutter pattern.

From there, the market has been able to rise to near the top of the flutter pattern at 2940 (currently 2926 or so).

Higgenbotham wrote:

Higgenbotham wrote:This weekend we read on the boards that sentiment has gotten very negative very quickly and therefore the stock market will rally to work off that bearish sentiment. Or something like that.

Is that right? Not necessarily, but it can be right and it has been generally right in the past, though maybe not entirely precise.

Why has it been right? Well, the primary reason in my opinion is because stocks have been in a bull market for, oh, about the last 500 years. Therefore, since stocks have always continued higher at some point after sentiment turns more negative, it seems right to think that will continue. But it won't if stocks have indeed made a 500 year high and are heading much lower for many years, if not forever. In that case, the sentiment figures are accurate at best and overly optimistic at worst.

So sentiment really means nothing. What matters is how accurately the sentiment figures reflect reality.

Higgenbotham wrote:

aeden wrote:Your flutter theory covers more than a few concrete points H.

That's another thing that crossed my mind as I was typing. This is a time when sentiment is likely to swing wildly day to day or even hour to hour. So quoting sentiment figures as if they mean something in relation to future stock market prices is most likely bogus anyway. Probably the better indicator is the herd thinking these sentiment indicators they are quoting actually mean something.

This is from last weekend. Strangely, the herd on the boards are no longer this weekend quoting negative sentiment figures and pointing to those as a reason to be positive on the market. I am only reading that the herd is now negative. That means that even though the market is in a position to crash, it could actually rally from here. For me, that is too hard to call at this point because the Fed officials stated on Friday that they will now cut rates versus what we heard before that the July rate cut was mid cycle. The market didn't respond to that, but it might respond positively on Monday.

Higgenbotham wrote:

Flutter is a self-feeding and potentially destructive vibration where aerodynamic forces on an object couple with a structure's natural mode of vibration to produce rapid periodic motion. Flutter can occur in any object within a strong fluid flow, under the conditions that a positive feedback occurs between the structure's natural vibration and the aerodynamic forces. That is, the vibrational movement of the object increases an aerodynamic load, which in turn drives the object to move further. If the energy input by the aerodynamic excitation in a cycle is larger than that dissipated by the damping in the system, the amplitude of vibration will increase, resulting in self-exciting oscillation. The amplitude can thus build up and is only limited when the energy dissipated by aerodynamic and mechanical damping matches the energy input, which can result in large amplitude vibration and potentially lead to rapid failure. Because of this, structures exposed to aerodynamic forces — including wings and aerofoils, but also chimneys and bridges — are designed carefully within known parameters to avoid flutter. In complex structures where both the aerodynamics and the mechanical properties of the structure are not fully understood, flutter can only be discounted through detailed testing. Even changing the mass distribution of an aircraft or the stiffness of one component can induce flutter in an apparently unrelated aerodynamic component. At its mildest this can appear as a "buzz" in the aircraft structure, but at its most violent it can develop uncontrollably with great speed and cause serious damage to or lead to the destruction of the aircraft,[1] as in Braniff Flight 542.

In some cases, automatic control systems have been demonstrated to help prevent or limit flutter-related structural vibration.[citation needed]

Flutter can also occur on structures other than aircraft. One famous example of flutter phenomena is the collapse of the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Another is a particular playground swing in Firmat which "swings itself" with such force that it leads many to believe it is haunted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroelasticity#Flutter

a growing commitment to steady inflation = aerodynamic forces on an object

failure of soft central planning = result in large amplitude vibration and potentially lead to rapid failure

how do you like being a guinea pig = in complex structures where both the aerodynamics and the mechanical properties of the structure are not fully understood, flutter can only be discounted through detailed testing

Higgenbotham wrote:This weekend we read on the boards that sentiment has gotten very negative very quickly and therefore the stock market will rally to work off that bearish sentiment. Or something like that.

Is that right? Not necessarily, but it can be right and it has been generally right in the past, though maybe not entirely precise.

Why has it been right? Well, the primary reason in my opinion is because stocks have been in a bull market for, oh, about the last 500 years. Therefore, since stocks have always continued higher at some point after sentiment turns more negative, it seems right to think that will continue. But it won't if stocks have indeed made a 500 year high and are heading much lower for many years, if not forever. In that case, the sentiment figures are accurate at best and overly optimistic at worst.

So sentiment really means nothing. What matters is how accurately the sentiment figures reflect reality.

Higgenbotham wrote:

aeden wrote:Your flutter theory covers more than a few concrete points H.

That's another thing that crossed my mind as I was typing. This is a time when sentiment is likely to swing wildly day to day or even hour to hour. So quoting sentiment figures as if they mean something in relation to future stock market prices is most likely bogus anyway. Probably the better indicator is the herd thinking these sentiment indicators they are quoting actually mean something.