I've taken an exchange John and I had from another forum and moved it here because it now belongs in financial topics. John alleges that he has been very good at predicting things. In the last paragraph I dispute his predictive skills.
Oakwood wrote:> <JOHN:As far as I know, there is no web site or analyst or journalist
> in the world with anything remotely close to the predictive
> success of this web site, for the last 8 years. Assuming that's
> true (and I believe it is), then this is the only web site in the
> world that will tell you what's really going on in the world.>>
> Well, aren't we full of ourselves? I read you web site because you
> often provide some interesting insights. But you seem to have a
> rather inflated view about how remarkable and/or unique those
> insights are. Sure, your theory is a unique amalgamation, but that
> doesn't mean that you're the only web site in the world that's
> will tell us what's "really going on." You provide some of the
> answers to a small part of the puzzle. There are a lot of other
> great web sites that provide a lot of great information/ideas too
> (e.g. The Automatic Earth, Zero Hedge). The problem with any
> theory, no matter how great, is that it also limits your
> vision. Your beginning to sound a bit grandiose, kind of like
> Glenn Beck, who now says God's been talking to him and has given
> him a hundred year plan for America.
JOHN: Oakwood, there are many excellent web sites, and I depend on them
myself for information and insight. But the Generational Dynamics
forecasting methodology, which is documented on numerous places on
this web site, has no peer, and has produced one correct prediction
after another. That's why no other web site in the world, as far as I
know, has anything remotely close to the predictive success of this
web site. And I've been called a lot worse than "grandiose."
Many of these other web sites infuriate me, because the writers refuse
to draw the obvious conclusions. They'll say that debt is increasing,
the dollar's in danger, the euro's in danger, etc., etc., but instead
of biting the bullet and saying we're headed for a crash, they make
some vapid, meaningless statement like, "Unless the Bush/Obama
administration changes direction and follows my left/right ideological
path, then things are going to get worse." Many of them, like
Roubini, change their forecasts every time the weather changes. They
all brilliantly forecast the past, but this is the only web site that
goes out on a limb and successfully forecasts the future.
However, not to be entirely negative, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has
written a lot of realistic stuff, as has Wolfgang Münchau. I've
quoted both of them a number of times, as they stand out well above
most of the mainstream journalists.
OAKWOOD: John, you've entirely failed to predict the recent liquidity-driven 50% or so rise in the stock market over the last year. Yes, I agree the stock market is going to crash again, big-time, but timing is the key. So yeah, one day you will be right, and you will be able to say I've been telling you!!! But admit it, for the past year, you've been wrong, and yelling chicken-little hasn't helped many of your Dear Readers.
On March 20, 2009 you said: "So for those of you wondering how long this dead cat bounce will last, it might be over already, or it might last several more weeks."
5/9/2009: " And so, Dear Reader, if you plan to stay in the stock market because your assets had lost over 50% of their peak value, and now are down only 40% of their peak value, then let me assure you that this current rally is a "bear market rally." ... Much worse is yet to come. "
6/5/2009: "I wish you the best of luck whatever you decide to do, but if you buy long into this market, you're going to lose a lot of money. "
7/15/2009: "So I'll be joining everyone else to watch breathlessly what happens this week. Will this week's earnings reports clarify the direction of the market? I guess we'll know by Friday afternoon. " (Events were actually in the opposite direction you expected. Since you phrased your prediction as a question you couldn't lose. If something bad had happened you would have said you predicted it).
8/8/2009:"For readers of this web site, I'm warning you again as I've warned you so many times before: I wish you the best of luck, whatever you decide to do, but if you invest in this stock market, then you're going to lose a very great deal of money. "
9/17/2009: "If true, then this new stock market bubble is actually being caused by day traders competing with each other to bid up stock prices. This is dangerous because bad news can cause stock prices to fall very rapidly, if day traders begin to panic. " (Wrong: The increase in stock prices has been driven by increased liquidity and HFT).
10/5/2009:"Is the bear market rally finally over? " (No, it wasn't, but since you phrased your prediction as a question, you couldn't be held to it again. Had the rally been over, you could've said, see, I predicted it on October 5th!)
10/27/2009: ""What would Nouriel Roubini say if he believed that a global market crash was imminent? And the answer is that he'd be saying what he said in the above transcript. " (Roubini predicts a global market crash is coming--but not in the 'near future'--but you believe his words have an ulterior meaning. Looks like he was right, at least the way I define "imminent.").