Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

Monument politics has been around a long time. I would think it safe also to say when suicide bombers stop so would drones rhetoric.
http://generationaldynamics.com/forum/v ... 630#p18001
Monolopy on violence always has a monolopy on truth. As we have noted voters get what they deserve.
There is no path since they are owned entity's and that is not rain on you from these lunatics all over the globe.
More have been butchered between 1945 and 1955 than 1940 and 1945. Some times we have to remember the sanctioned books are
rubbish to very large and terrible extent.
On the other hand opportunity abounds. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=64763
I found the numbers interesting.

Higgenbotham wrote:

Higgenbotham wrote:In a post to jcsok a few weeks back I mentioned cycle decay in the stock market.

On the following dates the stock market made highs:

5/02/2011
4/02/2012 (336 days later)
9/14/2012 (165 days later)
12/3/2012 (80 days later)
1/11/2013 (39 days later)

165/336 = 0.491, 80/165 = 0.485, 39/80 = 0.488.

The decay ratio of this series is approximately 0.49.

The above is from earlier this month. The next point in this series was today (it is still January 30 here). No stock market cycle decay series I have ever tracked has extended this far toward the limit. My view of this would be that the farther the series extends toward the limit, the more significant the high. This is because it takes more and more emotional imbalance to recycle enough energy to hit high after high with less respite in between.

The next point in the series is in 9 days.

The all time high in 2007 extended to the equivalent of January 11, 2013 in a similar series.

The next point in this series was today (February 8), as the stock market closed on yet another high, though this time it struggled to reach it.

The next point in the series after today is in 4 days. The series will reach its limit 4 days after that.

I find the decay rate an interesting facet, or I mean the other side to view as in turning it 180 degrees to see the ROC noted.
I would consider this in my view a deflationary note we considered as a cardinal utility effect a few days back noted. This is still defined as
the idea that Cardinal utility is considered outdated except for specific contexts such as decision making under risk, utilitarian welfare
evaluations. As I noted we shifted (a) assets since I am under the impression as the decay has a varable constant we encountered
as distortion's "left brained tards" and we suspected ngdp cost push bias which we confirmed earlier here. Our numbers then factored rather close then
as the -8 ngdp print drift. That was my value forwarded and it confirmed rather close to all the head winds and tire strips "kill swithes rancour" placed
and subordinated in the market at that time. The elated to confirmation bias recently noted, as rotation but not by our acount of asset shift we still
consider errant in regard to the view early in the week. Given the risk curve of technicals we thought it wise to shift lower to not really circle alpha but stranded costs "also referred to as stranded investments or stranded commitments" are not to be ignored so I can see a slight decay as other zones "Niche differentiation" come around. I define this as zone gdp per capita fact since these are responsibility's if they wish to acept it or not as we factored the baskets for this. We have discussed this as energy margins for berivity and it defines what we touched on as Kulturkampf. As I noted we faded this move out and changed the asset composition of the regional baskets, since I feel less is more later on risk reduction on my conviction for this first window noted. I will leave it as a long wave count for simplicity and time out to adjust going forward if needed. Point being an air pocket can be tolerated since we are poised to defend a position better in theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDFksWprHQc
January 1, 1948 GATT began its provisional existence http://www.ciesin.org/TG/PI/TRADE/gatt.html
NAFTA signed into law on Dec 8, 1993
Liberal states: One way to see this is to compare today’s economic situation with the environment prevailing during an earlier round of defense cuts: the big winding down of military spending in the late 1980s and early 1990s, following the end of the cold war.

Nafta cost over 850,000 jobs for a design I could list reason they cannot even remember today on why it was done.
Peso hit 17 to $ was one.
http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingp ... _bp147.pdf
I still do not like liberal spin on why they bulldozed economy's on design in agrarian zones they still deny.
It's like cheap faith and they adorn themselves in it.
Personally not at all convinced that it’s possible to have economic development
without environmental and social destruction.
Years later this is fact that moderation is not in the mind of the same lunatic fringe.
There never was a balance of acounts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYVlCwFvOq8

Washington Times Newspaper Article wrote:
Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Saturday night that President Obama has jeopardized U.S. national security ...

Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hagel, a former Nebraska U.S. senator, was chosen ( by Obama to be Secretary of Defense ) because Mr. Obama “wants to have a Republican that he can use to take the heat for what he plans to do to the Department of Defense.”

He said Mr. Obama’s plans are to allow severe cuts in U.S. defense spending, which would limit the capability of the U.S. military to respond to future foreign crises well after Mr. Obama has left office.

“He is today … establishing what limitations will be on future presidents,” Mr. Cheney said.

...

President Obama has jeopardized U.S. national security by nominating substandard candidates for key Cabinet posts and by degrading the U.S. military.

“The performance now of Barack Obama as he staffs up the national security team for the second term is dismal,” Mr. Cheney said

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... d-rate-na/

On the following dates the stock market made highs:
6/11/2009
5/02/2011 (690 days later)
4/02/2012 (336 days later)
9/14/2012 (165 days later)
12/3/2012 (80 days later)
1/11/2013 (39 days later)
1/30/2013 (19 days later)
2/08/2013 (9 days later)

336/690 = 0.487, 165/336 = 0.491, 80/165 = 0.485, 39/80 = 0.488, 19/39 = 0.487, 9/19 = 0.474.

This is the complete series going back to the March 6, 2009 low. June 11, 2009 was the first significant high from that low.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2u9lor9.jpg

In the first graphic it appears that the small box way over on the right of the chart is a fractal of the large box that occupies most of the chart. That can be seen a lot better by looking at an hourly chart of the small box. In both boxes, the series missed the big spikes in the middle of the boxes due to the QE1 and QE4 effects. Both of the boxes had/have 4 cycles, and 4 cycles was enough for implosion in the first case. Some evidence that these are fractals of each other would be that both boxes contained flash crashes, on May 6, 2010 and December 20, 2012.

The second graphic is something I've noticed as a oddity - the specific fact that in odd years very major stock market highs occur near new moons whereas in even years they tend not to. I can't attribute that to anything, though the odds of that being strictly chance are very small.

The third graphic shows that the price movement within the second period of ascension came to a stop on April 2, 2012 at a ratio of 0.629 versus the major point it also stopped at in the first period, April 26, 2010. The ratio of 0.629 is close to the important ratio phi, 0.618, found in nature. It would remain to be seen whether the movement stops at the same ratio of the entire second and first periods, but it is there now, both in time and price.

The 47 year cycle noted in the second graphic would also be approximately in the ratio of phi to the generational cycle. 47 divided by 0.618 is 76 years, and the March 10, 1937 rebound high in the stock market was 75 years, 11 months ago from today.

I don't think the stock market was necessarily destined to get this high but, surprisingly to me anyway, there have been no accidents or objections, as the looting process continues.

I didn't repeat the blurb about the 25 year cycle that has also been covered by others but that goes from:

March 10, 1937 to June 26, 1962 to October 20, 1987 to February 8, 2013 (approximately). This would be based on an ideal average of 9243 days. I have seen some variation in interpretation.

The 3 graphics are based on my own observations that I haven't seen anywhere else.

aedens wrote:I find the decay rate an interesting facet, or I mean the other side to view as in turning it 180 degrees to see the ROC noted.

The ROC from March 6, 2009 to May 2, 2011 is identical to the ROC from October 4, 2011 to February 8, 2013. Or, more specifically, the slopes of the trendlines between those 2 sets of points are identical. Also, the ROC from February 5, 2010 to April 26, 2010 is identical to the ROC from November 16, 2012 to February 8, 2013. Is there anything specific you are seeing beyond that?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-1 ... l-standing
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/ ... _EOD11.jpg

H - 75% short on open of ES. Althought I haven't look at the book lately, the numbers strike me as unusually high; I think we will see volitility tonight.