Wave analysis - page 26
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
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...
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?
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.
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....
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.
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....
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.
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.