Interesting article - page 6
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
if only we could clearly identify who influences this curve... then we can predict (or at least try to predict) the strategy of this "influencer" and, as a consequence, the curve itself...
to keep the clever critics down, I'd like to add:
it's certainly a collective face... and it is certainly not about the strategy of any one person or foundation, but about some most likely behaviour of the crowd...
One way of doing things (predicting) is to think about who you're playing against... according to game theory, in order to win in an antagonistic game you need to know (predict) your opponent's strategy...
Not at all, all you need to do to win is calculate a winning strategy, if one exists of course, and stick strictly to it.
In order to use it, you must have a clear idea (as clearly as possible) of what the market is and how it works... which is what we are now trying to clarify...
In order to use the television, you don't need to know what television is and what principles it is based on. All you have to do is learn how to use the remote control - F9.
In fact, there is no market at the moment, i.e. market economy. Because there is no economy either, because what is called an economy is not really economically viable, but only for the creation and bursting of bubbles. An elementary cheating of the taxpayers, who in the end will have to pay for themselves and the guy who created the bubble.
Not at all, all you need to do to win is figure out a winning strategy, if it exists of course, and stick to it strictly.
I can't find where I saw that phrase, but believe me, I didn't come up with it... i'm not big on game theory myself, but the person who said it knows more about it than i do...
although I can agree with you that you don't have to know or predict your opponent's strategy... but still... if it's an antagonistic game, you'll have to predict the opposing side's actions...
about the TV, I think the metaphor's a bit off...
...
An elementary cheating of the taxpayers, who in the end will have to pay for themselves and the guy who created the bubble.
But it's not just the taxpayers who are suffering, it's the finance clerks themselves...
how many of them are out on the street now,
but when the bubble gets fixed, will so many clerks come back to blow new bubbles?
But it's not just the taxpayers who are suffering, it's the finance clerks themselves...
how many of them are out on the street now,
but when the bubble dies down, will so many clerks come back to blow new bubbles?
Well, the clerks are the support staff for the bubble, i.e. the same taxpayers. They do not create or inflate bubbles, they just accept investments from the public and exchange them for "valuable" paper. They get paid a salary and pay taxes on it.
As soon as the bubble bursts, the clerks are thrown out on the street because there is nothing left to serve.
And it all started when the housing market in the states fell...just like the depression :)
No, it all started before that, when the quid was decoupled from treasuries, i.e. backed by gold. And that happened in the 1970s. The bubble has been inflating and inflating ever since, and started bursting in this century.
Actually, the bubble is the emblem of the capitalist economy (Marx agrees),
однако страдальцами оказались не только налогоплательщики,но и сами финансовые клерки...
how many of them are out on the street right now,
but ?, when this crYZis settles down, will the financial clerks come back in such numbers - to inflate new bubbles?
so the clerks will come back, perhaps in greater numbers.
... not necessarily knowing or predicting your opponent's strategy... but still... if it's an antagonistic game, you have to predict the opponent's actions...
No, it all started before when the quid was unbundled from treasuries, i.e. backed by gold. And that happened in the 1970s. The bubble has been inflating and inflating ever since, and in this century it started to burst.
So it was bursting in the 70s and 80s too... there was a crisis too.
I just mean this: In the great depression it all started with a drop in investment in housing, if you look at the graphs (I can't post them... I have them on paper in my book) there was a sharp drop in investment and then the rest of the revenue in other sectors fell. The same thing happened about 2 years ago when the US housing infrastructure collapsed. The 'crisis' was just a matter of time...
The quid in the domestic market was pegged to gold even earlier :)
Before that, they had the whole thing, the states money... greenbacks... etc.
A typical example of a bubble is the NASDAQ . It companies require a lot of research money and they are less asset-backed ... than other firms.
A speculator always profits from something lost or someone else's shortfall in profits. Unlike an investor, for example. The latter invests in fundamentally undervalued assets whose price is expected to rise due to the economic development of a particular country/industry/enterprise. In fact, it uses exogenous (external) factors relative to the price.
The difference between a speculator and an investor also lies in the decision-making methods, analysis tools, and the horizon for holding a position.
You can say that I don't care who creates the movement, I just join in. You do not consider who you are playing against, it is an abstract crowd, but united by similar methods of making money in the market. That's why their synchronous actions create movement and your system recognizes this situation and you try to enter earlier to sell then to someone from this crowd. In fact, he will open at a worse price and you take some of his profit or even his loss. You don't take all this into account, your system does.)) Your systematic profit is someone else's systematic loss. Again someone else's is not referring to a specific individual.
If market participants acted completely independently, then the market would be efficient and there would be no money to be made in it (at least based on TA alone). Participants are united by their earning methods, which cause them to enter and/or exit at the same moments. They are your game and you are probably someone else's(((