Wave analysis - page 30

New comment
 
HideYourRichess писал(а) >>

Your position is clear:

1. the article you are referring to does not exist.

2. you do not want to prove the existence of 8-9-10 and 16-18-20 year cycles, and most likely you simply cannot.

I argue that there are no cycles in 8-9-10 and 16-18-20 on the chart already cited, and there can't be.

Here are my facts.

  • Short ones - one to four to five years, the so-called stock cycles;
  • medium - five to ten years, cycles based on human factors and also related to the characteristics of production - the Smith cycle, the Drucker cycle, etc.;
  • long - 10-25 years, construction and overproduction cycles.

http://www.computerra.ru/compunity/openair/22642/

 
HideYourRichess писал(а) >>

Maybe you can do it this way and then you'll know how to look for loops...

 
HideYourRichess писал(а) >>

Compare pictures...

 
forte928 >> :

The issue is that you take only dry numbers from the Dow that cannot reflect this, maybe you also deny Kondratiev's cycles? If not, please find them in your figure...However you forget that you show a growing graph, not a cyclic one, so we can understand where they are... To observe cyclical moments you need to rotate the Dow horizontally using linear regression and cycles will be visible.

The Dow is dry numbers? - Holy shit! The Dow doesn't reflect twice. And the graph is increasing - I didn't draw anything on it myself. That's how the Dow has been rising for the last 30 years. I can't help it - you can't argue with the facts. It's not cyclical, it is what it is.


Kondratieff cycles - I can't believe in them because no one has ever been able to demonstrate them to me. And I've looked for them. But I haven't found them - they probably do not exist, all this is an invention of simple-minded wave lovers. Wanting to see waves where there aren't any.


You brought up linear regression, so there you go.




The blue line is the difference between fact and regression. And where are your cycles? There aren't any!

 
forte928 >> :
  • short - one to four to five years, the so-called stock cycles;
  • medium-long - five to ten years, cycles based on human factors and also related to the characteristics of production - Smith cycles, Drucker cycles, etc.;
  • long - 10-25 years, construction and overproduction cycles.

http://www.computerra.ru/compunity/openair/22642/

The article is not complete, the classification is not reliable. Forgotten the most important cycles, piss on the snow.

 
forte928 >> :

Compare the pictures...

It's nothing like that. Especially when stacked on top of each other.

 
forte928 >> :

Maybe you can do it this way and then you'll know how to look for cycles...

It's a made-up graph, we're trying to talk about reality.


Try to do the same with the Dow, at least. Try it and then post the results here - we'll see.

 
I forgot one more thing: what about the fact that the value of the same product at different times is completely different Inflation - do you take it into account when displaying the Dow?
 
HideYourRichess писал(а) >>

This is a made-up graph, we are trying to talk about reality.

Try to do the same with the Dow, at least. Try it and then post the results here - let's see.

It's like this...

I.e. two waves are reflected clearly on the Dow and the third wave is completely eaten because of the fact that the pacing of the big wave just absorbs the pacing of the smaller waves...

 

or will you deny that the same Kondratieff waves material does not correspond to the DOW...

As you see here the price is equated to a certain year to 1967 - which we observe the price has risen sharply ... hence its decline will also be large and consequently the spread is large that simply absorbs those small waves that you show on the DOW ... You may forget that larger waves always absorb small ones and the true process is not visible, in the same way in Forex if we observe large waves we can see small ones only by changing the scale ... Go for it ...

1...23242526272829303132333435363738
New comment
Reason: