Wave analysis - page 26

 
HideYourRichess писал(а) >>

Opened the chart.

And? Where's the 17-year cycle?

Yeah, Fourier doesn't apply, but the explanation based on it is fine. Isn't there some kind of logical inconsistency here?

About the second way - it's not clear at all.

The top in July 1990 was 3024.3, the bottom in October 1990 was 2344.3. The decline was 2344.3/3024.3-1 ~22.5%. 17 years ago in 1975, it fell like this time by 50%.

The 17th growth cycle can be seen very clearly.

 

I'll pass, too. There are no criteria - and there don't seem to be any. You can see it all with your eyes...

 
sak120 >> :

The top in July 1990 was 3024.3, the bottom in October 1990 was 2344.3. The decline was 2344.3/3024.3-1 ~22.5%. 17 years ago in 1975 it was down as much as this time by 50%.

The 17th cycle of growth is very clearly visible.

There is no 22% drop in 1990 on the graph, look carefully.


But in 87-88 there was something going on, exactly 20%.


So, from 1999 to 2003 (approximately) - it was not a fall, but the further growth during 3-5 years - how does it fit into your 17-year theory?

 
HideYourRichess писал(а) >>

The graph doesn't show a 22% drop in 1990, look carefully.

But there was something going on in 88.

I gave you the exact numbers, they are from Alpari, I will show you the screenshot.

 
Well, I've been looking at some pictures on the rbc. So, who's going to go to doe jones himself for the data?
 
HideYourRichess писал(а) >>

And so, from 1999 to 2003 (roughly) - that wasn't a drop? And a further rise over 3-5 years - how does that fit into your slender 17 year theory?

It is not my theory.

Cycles are different, that's what the economics section deals with, there was a call to remember Kondratieff - it's a super cycle, it ends soon in the 40s and it's going to be a total W....

 
sak120 >> :

Cycles are different, that's what the economics section deals with, there was a call to remember Kondratieff - it's a super cycle, it's about to end in the 40s and it's going to be a total B....

I didn't call for anything. It's you fanatics who have exaltation, appeals and incantations. I, a dull and concrete practitioner of TA, cannot have such religious ecstasy. Alas.

 
HideYourRichess >> :
Well, I've been looking at some pictures on rbc. So, who's going to go to Dow Jones himself for the data?

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=09&b=1&c=1928&d=08&e=27&f=2009&g=m&z=66&y=198

here they are....

 
Choomazik >> :

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=09&b=1&c=1928&d=08&e=27&f=2009&g=m&z=66&y=198

here they are....


I know where they are. :)




I don't see any crisis here either, in 90. The graph, by the way, is based on days - no cheating.

 
sak120 >> :

This is not my theory.

Cycles are different, that's what the economics section deals with, there was a call to remember Kondratieff - it's a super cycle, it's about to end in the 40s and it's going to be a total B....

OK, you didn't come up with that theory yourself, some kind uncle gave it to you.


I have legitimate doubts again about these Kondratieff cycles. I want to see them in person, so to speak, but I can not.