Quote from jack hershey:
My collective view of CW performance is characterized as BS. Even the Behavioral Dinance webb site coyly titles a seminal description of believing or not believing BF as" "BF or BS?"
When I see NSF cofinancing "studies" on markets in several ways, I lean forward to examine whether the CW of the Financial Industry is making forward progress. I am not sceptical BUT I am immediately intregued by the possibility of forward progress.
These kinds of papers cannot be discussed in any forum at present.
I have an intense interest in how any trader can overcome the Behavioral Finance determinations of how and why traders behave as they do. A given corollary is why do some knids of trader not fall into this description?
One milestone path worth examining regarding the pitfals, is Mark Douglas. A parallel one regarding unsuccessful TA applied to Trends is Covel. My gifting the pattern to Covel a while back got an assessment using his standard. His judgment was "gibberish". How could it be otherwise.
Darvas's discovery and his follow through to it is a very interesting model for the present CW world. It was never possible for the media nor the government to render a judgment of Darvas.
I skim many publications. One interest is seeing how close those in the news are to an understanding of what is going on.
My operating space is described by Larry Harris (page 199) as a speculator who is parasitic and frontrunning from a technical vantage point. Thus, I see Futures Magazine articles from a humorous viewpoint. The stuff printed, from my viewpoint, is flawed and probably not a good idea for readers to include in their learning or maintenance process.
Here is a good basic crude example.
If a person writes a book and sells it to people through a marketing effort, why can't those persons meet a minimum plublic standard?
My book standard is finding one particular word in the index of any book. Covel and Douglas dropped the ball from my viewpoint.
I also feel any scientific government paper on markets must include the variables of the market in proportion to their relative importance for making money considering the stated scope and bounds of the paper. NSF papers do not pass this test.
Some very important legislative and executive processes are underway with respect to this Depression. Not everyone has immunity to the Depression. I feel very strongly that innocent victims should be well protected from those who are demonstating conflicts of interest in the solutions.
A recent documantary-comedy is now showing. "Inside Job" is an order of magnitude more entertaining than the "Wall Street" dramas of recent years. Naming a shirt after a guy is cool and very 'telling about the guys who wear them.
Thanks for engaging with those participating in this thread.
