The law of conservation of the money supply is not a law. - page 9
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
Yes! I am!
My posts give me hope. There is a solution! Look it up.
It took me three years. Why should I post it here?
Come on, I just wanted to know how much you vary the filter parameters.
>> just giving you a reason to mock your unclear terminology.)
I was just saying don't post your work.
>> like simons.
The algorithm is a very important part of the equally important ToR. There is a programmer for you too. My recommendations.
The indicator lives here Don't forget to thank the author, he has some more interesting works.
>> Very interesting stuff, I have a thought, what if we attach AO to it and see where it comes from and where it goes during the trend?
In one-dimensional space, it looks like width or length. Although, width is from two-dimensional.
When you look at a three-dimensional picture, you see it as depth.
Are you a fan of clear terminology?
What do you call the fourth, fifth and sixth dimensions?
You are right, there is probably no established universal terminology for six-dimensional space with designation of each "axis". Usually we do not go further than four-dimensional space in everyday life. But if we introduce dimensions, the range of variation (the range of definition of the function we investigate in a given space) should certainly be clear to us. For example, in a regular three-dimensional space we can add temperature, mass density and time as an orthogonal basis. The velocity of vertical displacement can be the function under study. Then it would be habitual to name the coordinate ranges in the chosen basis (six-dimensional volume), for example: length, width, height (depth - if the sign is negative), epoch (time interval), heating (cooling) and, respectively, compaction (rarefaction). Rooty, but understandable.
You haven't specified the chosen measurements, so it's impossible to articulate anything about them, even in a snarky way. I can only presume with great certainty two "your" measurements - price and time. You have spent three years on the rest of your design and are now riddling us with riddles. What is the point? It seems more logical to reveal the basis of your chosen space and talk to us in one language; then the time scale will be transformed from years to weeks.
You are right, there is probably no established universal terminology for six-dimensional space with a designation for each "axis". In everyday life we do not usually go beyond four-dimensional space. But if we introduce dimensions, the range of variation (the range of definition of the function we investigate in a given space) should certainly be clear to us. For example, in a regular three-dimensional space we can add temperature, mass density and time as an orthogonal basis. The velocity of vertical displacement can be the function under study. Then it would be habitual to name the coordinate ranges in the chosen basis (six-dimensional volume), for example: length, width, height (depth - if the sign is negative), epoch (time interval), heating (cooling) and, respectively, compaction (rarefaction). Rooty, but understandable.
You haven't specified the chosen measurements, so it's impossible to articulate anything about them, even in a snarky way. I can only presume with great certainty two "your" measurements - price and time. You have spent three years on the rest of your design and are now riddling us with riddles. What is the point? It seems more logical to me to reveal the basis of your chosen space and to talk to us in one language; and then the time scale of research will be transformed from years to weeks.
I do not spend much time on research. I do all my research in my head. Everything I come up with works.
Time is spent on programming, on repetition in tangible form.
My NS, which is based on a very neutered concept, gives me a decent result. 85% of positive deals. It is impossible to actually use these results. It takes too long to calculate. You need computing power or another approach.
It will take another two years to implement a different approach.
Good luck! It's up to us to suggest...
I rather like the toolkit (not just - "in my head":-)) and the presentation of the results by the topicstarter. And I think the conclusion about the evaluation of the money supply is outstanding! I just can't see how to put it into practice :-).
Good luck! It's up to us to suggest...
I rather like the toolkit (not only - "in my head" :-)) and the presentation of the results by the topicstarter. And I think the conclusion about the evaluation of the money supply is outstanding! I only can't see how to apply it in practice :-).
I don't think it's the volume of money supply that matters. It is the change that matters.
I think the conclusion about the money supply valuation is outstanding! I just can't see how to put it into practice :-).
For a real money supply estimation we have no data.
Forex is an over-the-counter market, and real volumes are not available to us.
And even if they were available, it would be not a complete and accurate estimation of money supply, because only its converted part could be estimated with Forex. And what to do with the part, which is lying on the deposit or invested in the production for years?
.
But despite the inadequacy of the approach to its name, it certainly deserves attention.
That's the thing, by indirect data (not knowing anything about trade volumes at all) the relative change in the "active" money supply is estimated! That's just beautiful! I hope the esteemed Neutron continues to work with this finding. It could be a good bridge between FA and TA. Now it is interesting to follow the reverse flow - the return of money to the active area, and what observable parameters can be applied in TA.
Vadim, kudos and respect to you, but let's not measure the merits. I still don't think this is your position.
P.S. It's a pity we've strayed from the subject again. Does anyone have any substantiated thoughts on the preservation of the money supply?
And where has the author of this thread gone?
Where-where-where - I think (slowly, as a rule)!
So, Xadviser, you are right - let's construct the dollar index in any way we know (thank goodness the result does not depend on it), knowing it, we can easily reconstruct the indices of all available currencies and pay our attention to the increase or inflation of the money supply, expressed in units of index values.
The figure on the left shows the index values of the major currencies for 2008 H1, normalised to their absolute value on 2 January 2008.
The solid line shows the average value calculated without weighting factors for each currency (assuming that the contribution of all these currencies to the world economy is the same).
You can see that with the start of the crisis (approximately 3500 bars), there is a 10% depreciation in almost all currencies but one. Guess which one? - That's right the USD. It is the only one that is gaining weight. Apparently at the expense of the others.
On the right, the same indices are shown, but all increments in which have been replaced by single ones. The picture looks more chaotic. The impression is that the indexes' sign increments are random (or more random), while the absolute price increments are directed and lend themselves to ulterior motives. For example, the behaviour of the CHF at the 1000 bar has a clear trend reversal, whereas in the sign chart (right), the dynamics at that point do not have a clear reversal.
It is interesting to compare these results with those obtained for relative currency prices (regular quotes) from the second page of the thread:
The indices seem to behave in a more complex way. Don't you think?
You can see that since the start of the crisis (around 3500 bar), there has been a 10% depreciation of almost all currencies except one. Guess which one? - That's right the USD. It is the only one that is gaining weight. Probably at the expense of the others.
Depreciation of all currencies against USD, this could be a sign of global currency devaluation. Everyone is printing money even faster than the US is printing USD. This is because it is profitable for exports to have cheaper national currencies. i.e. another bubble is being inflated, this time a currency bubble. Like any bubble, it will burst at some point.