LET'S SAY THAT ... - page 9

New comment
 
H. Timbo - the price is the level or rate of exchange of one thing for another - dung for roubles, roubles for quid, quid for euros. So you're wrong.
 
Timbo, please don't react to this.
 
Atic >>:

Парадокс - но мне кажется, что програмер единственный кто тут по-факту разбирался в вопросе форы. Вот что ты например такого умеешь или знаешь чтобы тебя стоило слушать? И дело не в личности его, что он за человек другой вопрос.

I'm not arguing. You shouldn't listen to me. But you should listen to him. The paradox is that you're still here, and when they suggest you go listen to your idol's soulful whistle instead of the useless me, you get offended. Don't come into this thread, don't torture yourself. You've already "got it" - go chop some cabbage, why are you wasting your time here.

 
Atic >>:
Ув. Тимбо - цена это уровень или курс обмен одного на другое - навоз на рубли, рубли на баксы, баксы на еврики . То есть ты не прав.

Money is, of course, a commodity. But it is a specific commodity. That is why you cannot compare manure for rubles and rubles for euras, they are different concepts.

 
Mischek >>:


Конечно они связаны,завязаны и повязаны
Предположим аварию аналогичную Чернобыльской, но во Франции и на современном энергоблоке, а это выброс раз в 20 больше
С/Х Европы пипец на много лет, половине крупной промышленности пипец, рынку жилья, рабочей силы .....
Начнется великое перераспредиление и в Китай и в Америку и в др
В странах куда придут, начнется рост "компенсации"
О курсе евробакса можно только догадываться
Тьфутьфутьфу

Of course, if the Cenobyl in France goes down, there will probably be a scare, but the watchdogs will stop trading and we won't get any money out of it.

The market will reopen with a new situation and there will be no return to the old average.

But this is a discrete issue,

I am more interested in a continuous problem, for example the industry has moved to China and the EUR/USD exchange rate has not changed. The reason is that Europe and America are like a husband and wife playing "fools for money" - someone wins and someone loses, but they put all their money in the same pockets. So no one can win definitively.

I noted your postto timbo, but I have nothing to say.

 
Atic писал(а) >>

What do you mean by inertia? Discovery? Are you being sarcastic with a knowledgeable person? It's not very clear. I need to get the point across. Please.


By inertia? - The convergence of the most rising dislocation with the most falling dislocation. This pair will be the most inertial and stable in the here and now. Pips option. The TS is currently rejected.
 
Urain >>:

Конечно если бахнет Ченобыль во Франции то писец видимо будет но смотрящие прекратят торги и одыметь денег нам с вами на этом не доведёться.

Сново же рынок откроеться с новым положением вещей и соответственно возврата к старому среднему не будет.

Но это вопрос дискретный,

мне же интересен больше непрерывный вопрос вот к примеру по факту промышленность уже переехала в Китай а вот на отношении евра к доллару это практически не отразилось, да всё потому что европа и америка как жена с мужем играющие в дурака на деньги ктото выирывает ктото проигрывает но деньги всёравно ложат в один кошелёк. Поэтому окончательно никто выиграть не может.

to timbo ваш пост отметил но возразить пока нечего.


You divided the time into "before the bah" and after the "bah"
Implying that with "before" there was the possibility of going back to the average.
after the bang, there's also the possibility of going back to the average.
It's just as if it's a different average.
But that's not true, the bang described is very big, but where's the line between big and not big "bangs"
Every day there are bangs and the old situation can flow smoothly, without one big bang, into a new one.
 
Tantrik писал(а) >>


By inertia? - The convergence of the most rising dislocation with the most falling dislocation. This pair will be the most inertial and stable in the here and now movement. Pips option. The TS is currently rejected.


Anchors. Т101

 
I don't think anyone would argue that the market is an effective tool for determining the value of an asset. Effective valuation is the ability of the market to set a fair price for an asset, in as short a time as possible. The price of the asset is formed based on the current state of many factors. From this we can conclude that the market must be efficient because only an efficient market can ensure the functioning of open economic systems. However, the market is a subset of the general economic model of society and therefore is a priori governed by economic laws. However, and most interestingly, the fundamental laws of economics impose restrictions on the efficiency of markets. If we assume that there are no such restrictions in reality, and hence the market is extremely efficient (as some mathematicians do), then the market model begins to contradict the fundamental laws of economics, in particular this market model contradicts the most important law of supply and demand. In reality, however, the model of market behaviour can never contradict these laws because it is derived from them. However, within the limits defined by the laws of economics, the market is highly (but not extremely) efficient and successfully accomplishes the tasks assigned to it. Moreover, the more efficient the market is, the closer it is to the current price, because the fundamental laws have only a negligible effect on the nature of instantaneous price increases. The effect of economic laws can be compared to the gravitational interaction of matter. The gravitational interaction between two atoms is negligible, but between two macro-objects such as the Sun and the Earth, it is strong enough. It follows that the market is most prone to random intraday wandering (closer to the current price), and in general there is no reliable data that the intraday market is not random (there are even several papers by mathematicians that can be read in this regard (one of them is attached below)).

Based on the above, comparing the market to a random walk model is justified if some kind of simplified market model is needed, but this approach is not acceptable for predicting market values.
Files:
random-walk-rus.zip  177 kb
 
Mischek >>:


Вы поделили время на "до баха" и после "баха"
Подразумевая что при "до" была возможность возврата к среднему
после "баха", тоже есть возможность возврата к среднему
просто как бы это разные средние
Но это не так, описаный бах очень большой, но где граница между большим и не большим "бахами"
каждый день происходят бахи и старая ситуация может плавно, без одного большого баха,перетечь в новую

That's where I pick mushrooms :o)

to C-4 interestingly, you have made a very accurate comparison with gravity.

12345678910111213141516...44
New comment