On the unequal probability of a price move up or down - page 32
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
It's a funny misconception. Even the examples of the Fed and ECB "printing" trillions of dollars and euros (and now the Fed has agreed that another QE of almost a hundred billion dollars a month out of thin air is not QE at all) and the exchange rate is stable - does not suggest anything to Dunminchik... and that is a pity. For how they do this trick is extremely important.
I: if you print a lot of money, its value will go down.
Mikhael1983: a funny delusion.
awesome!
ps: it's hard to explain the basics of economics to industry workers))
Even examples of the Fed and the ECB "printing" trillions of dollars and euros (and now the Fed has gone so far as to say that another QE of nearly a hundred billion dollars a month out of thin air is not QE at all), and the exchange rate is stable - does not make Danminchik think anything ... and that's too bad. For how they do this trick is extremely important.
They do it in a controlled way. they look at the size of inflation and change the interest rate.
And you can think of a truly diabolical thing: the economy (stocks of companies) falls - the exchange rate rises (the dollar), the dollar falls - stocks grow by leaps and bounds (because their price is calculated in cheapening dollars), that is, the stock market / economy ) But Danminchik does not need these considerations, he is as simple as a ruble twenty.
don't make this up. this is your fantasy.
A falling economy does not = a falling company stock.
stock price is speculative and depends on investor sentiment.
P/E SP500 fluctuates constantly.
Look at the u.s. gdp growth chart, how smooth it is, and the sp500 chart, how much it fluctuates.
the economy is gdp, not stock prices. you numbskull))))
"The economy goes down,the currency goes up.
Why would that be?
If companies' stocks go down, the dollar's value against other currencies is unaffected.
"The dollar falls - stocks rise (because their price is calculated in cheapening dollars), i.e. the stock market / economy"
yes. the dollar falls - stocks rise, because their price is calculated in cheapening dollars.
Not "that is". stocks go up - it doesn't mean the economy goes up.)))
you wrote bullshit, man, and yet you write that no one understands.
well bullshit really no one can understand))))
The voice of reason in the darkness of obscurantism ... Only when you say A you should also say B: it may become 5 times cheaper, or 1000 times cheaper, or even more expensive.
of course))) if you print 10 times as much money and throw it to the masses (with all other economic parameters unchanged), of course money will become more expensive))) of course factory workers think so))
Well, yes, of course))) if you print 10 times more money and throw it to the masses (with all other economic parameters unchanged), of course that money will go up in price))) of course factory workers think so))
I have no time or inclination to answer you point by point and I have no interest in convincing you that you are wrong on all points (which is true).
I will note only on the last point, concerning the workers' thoughts. If the workers really think that it is possible, they are right (i.e. they are much smarter than you).
Example (classic): Japan. For many years now. The first one that came up in a search engine from a relatively recent one:
https://www.vedomosti.ru/economics/articles/2017/02/28/679373-radikalnii-eksperiment-denezhnoi-ne-srabotal
"Japan's central bank has been trying to stimulate the economy for almost four years now by printing trillions of yen and lowering rates to negative levels. This programme, launched in April 2013 by Central Bank Chairman Haruhiko Kuroda, initially led to a short-term acceleration of the economy and rising prices, but then lost effectiveness. Japan recorded deflation again in 2016. In November, Kuroda postponed the target of a 2% inflation target, effectively admitting to a lack of ideas. Inflation has turned positive again in recent months, but economists attribute this to Donald Trump's election victory in the US, the strengthening dollar and rising oil prices, rather than the economic situation in Japan. Few predict strong GDP and price growth in the country."
=================
Let me try (on a level you can understand, in a thesis, briefly):
1. The Japanese central bank began flooding the country's financial system with money in 2001 in an attempt to stimulate GDP growth and inflation. This practice, called "monetary stimulus" (orquantitative easing), was later adopted by the West. In 2013. Kuroda began pouring so much money into the financial system (eventually about $700 billion a year) that some investors began to fear bubbles and hyperinflation.
2. Deflation largely determines the behaviour of 20 million Japanese between the ages of 20 and 34. Higher wages, a rising stock market or high deposit rates are something out of the realm of fantasy for them. They are used to prices being lower tomorrow than they are today.
P.S. As I noted above, Denminchik is as simple as a ruble twenty, so there is no point in paying any attention to it, even if it is the most insignificant one.
... Only, having said A, you should have said B: it can become 5 times cheaper, or 1,000 times cheaper, or even more expensive.
Maxim Kuznetsov said what he wanted to say."They'll just get cheaper."
Argue with him that he is wrong.
I will only note on the last one, regarding the workers' thoughts. If the workers really think this is possible, then they are right (i.e. they are much smarter than you).
maybe, maybe... anything is possible. but we're talking about the rule, not the exceptions.
And I think I wrote there:"with all other economic parameters held constant".
I do not have the time or inclination to answer you point by point, I have no interest in convincing you that you are wrong on all points (which is true).
of course i'm wrong. because mikhail said so))) a nordstal employee))
Example (classic): Japan. For many years now. The first one I came across in a search engine from a relatively recent one:
https://www.vedomosti.ru/economics/articles/2017/02/28/679373-radikalnii-eksperiment-denezhnoi-ne-srabotal
"Japan's central bank has been trying to stimulate the economy for almost four years now by printing trillions of yen and lowering rates to negative levels. This programme, launched in April 2013 by Central Bank Chairman Haruhiko Kuroda, initially led to a short-term acceleration of the economy and rising prices, but then lost effectiveness. Japan recorded deflation again in 2016. In November, Kuroda postponed the target of a 2% inflation target, effectively admitting to a lack of ideas. Inflation has turned positive again in recent months, but economists attribute this to Donald Trump's election victory in the US, the strengthening dollar and rising oil prices, rather than the economic situation in Japan. Few predict strong GDP and price growth in the country."
=================
Let me try (on a level you can understand, thesis-wise, briefly):
1. The Japanese central bank began flooding the country's financial system with money in 2001 in an attempt to stimulate GDP growth and inflation. This practice, called "monetary stimulus" (or quantitative easing), was later adopted by the West. In 2013. Kuroda began pouring so much money into the financial system (eventually about $700 billion a year) that some investors began to fear bubbles and hyperinflation.
2. Deflation largely determines the behaviour of 20 million Japanese between the ages of 20 and 34. Higher wages, a rising stock market or high deposit rates are something out of the realm of fantasy for them. They are used to prices being lower tomorrow than they are today.
they print money and give it out at an interest rate.
Inflation (reduction in the value of money) occurs when new money enters the economy.
If inflation is too high, then it is necessary to reduce the flow of new money into the economy - so they increase the interest rate, people borrow less, and inflation goes down.
If they want to increase inflation, they lower the interest rate so that people take out more loans and increase the amount of money in the economy.
The inflation target is set at e.g. 2%. If it is not achieved, then QE is used. Additional injection of money into the economy to raise the rate of inflation (which will cause the price of money to fall).
You gave me the example of Japan where that didn't work because people started to save money.
But what does this have to do with it? I was urging you to look at the phenomenon as it affects the economy in the absence of other factors.
Your way of discussing things: "Oh, you're wrong! Because there are exceptions!"
But we're talking about rules, not exceptions to rules!
Just to argue...
....................
Tell me, what is the purpose of you going on about economics and the like in this thread? Don't you think these spatial rants of yours are irrelevant to the topic?
It's already pure flubbery. Enough is enough.
From the appearance of new money in the economy - there is inflation (reduction in the value of money)
I have shown (and you have swallowed without objection) an example to the contrary: the yen has been printed in trillions for years, inflation is negative (i.e. deflation). Moreover, even "with all other economic parameters held constant" worked against you, because Japan's parameters deteriorated, it was no longer the world's second largest economy, becoming the third, but the yen became more expensive.
Your method of discussion: "Ah! You're wrong! Because there are exceptions!"
But we're talking about rules, not exceptions to rules!
That is the scientific approach. All it takes is one fact that doesn't fit into your theory to admit that the theory is either wrong or its scope should be narrowed. I didn't come up with that, it's classic - from Popper.
P.S. However, danminchik just wants to argue, he is hardly familiar with Popper's writings. Danminchik's simplicity (like a ruble twenty: "from the appearance of new money in the economy - there is inflation (reduction in the value of money)") suggests that he is a military man (say, he could hardly work in science or industry - for the obvious reason: the Dunning-Krueger effect).
Tell me, what is the purpose of you going on about the economy and so on in this thread? Don't you think these spatial rants of yours are irrelevant to the topic?
It's already pure flubbery. That's enough.
Mikhael has started an argument on this topic.
I have shown (and you have swallowed without objection) an example to the contrary: the yen has been printed in trillions for years, inflation is negative (i.e. deflation). Moreover, even " with all other economic parameters held constant" worked against you, because Japan's parameters deteriorated, it was no longer the world's second economy, becoming the third, but the yen became more expensive.
That's the scientific approach. All it takes is one fact that doesn't fit into your theory to admit that the theory is either wrong or its scope should be narrowed. I didn't come up with that, it's classic - from Popper.
P.S. However, Dunminchik just wants to argue, he is hardly familiar with Popper's works. Danminchik's simplicity (like a ruble twenty) suggests that he is a military man.
I was saying that one should consider the effect of the phenomenon itself. what does this have to do with the effect of another factor that can override the effect of the first factor? like the "the Japanese started saving money" factor.
what's a popper to me? is it universally accepted? is it the truth in the last instance? treat everything critically, michael.
you're tired of clinging to every phrase and shouting "it's not true because there are exceptions!" so in any case there are exceptions! so you can argue with anything.
Don't you think it's time to stop arguing with economics textbooks because people are bored? )))
what's a popper for me?
I couldn't have said it better. There's nothing more to say.
Michael got into an argument about it.
I was saying that we should consider the effect of the phenomenon itself. what does this have to do with the effect of another factor that can override the effect of the first factor? like the "Japanese started saving money" factor.
what is popper to me? is it universally accepted? is it the truth in the last instance? be critical of everything, michael.
you're tired of clinging to every phrase and shouting "it's not true because there are exceptions!" so in any case there are exceptions! that's how you can argue with anything.
Don't you think it's time to stop arguing with economics textbooks because people are bored? )))
Oh I did not want to interfere in your "mega-interesting" discussion, but I pity your time and nerves, and hurt your feelings for science.
Maybe you are talking about different things. Oddly enough Mickhael is even more right here than you are.
Just to remind you:
1. Besides Keynesianism, which you read in textbooks, there are other approaches to economic theory, and no one has scientifically proven that Keynes is more right than the others.
Hence the statement "The more money the cheaper it is" is not the truth, it is just one of the hypotheses and models.
3) There are no national economies, there is a world economy and its individual players.
4. Study Nash and Game Theory in general. It will become clearer and why the Keynesian textbook economy is doomed to perpetual crises and so on.
I couldn't have said it better. There's not much more to say.
popper is a philosopher. his opinion is just his opinion. do you agree with all philosophers?
don't make an authority, don't make idols of yourself, be critical of everything, mikhail. popper)))
Oh, I didn't mean to interfere in your "mega-interesting" discussion, but it was a pity for your time and nerves, and a shame about the science.
Maybe you're talking about different things. Oddly enough Mickhael is even more right here than you are.
Just to remind you:
1. Besides Keynesianism, which you read in textbooks, there are other approaches to economic theory, and no one has scientifically proven that Keynes is more right than the others.
Hence the statement "The more money the cheaper it is" is not the truth, it is just one of the hypotheses and models.
3) There are no national economies, there is a world economy and its individual players.
4. Study Nash and Game Theory in general. It will become clearer what is what and why the Keynesian textbook economy is doomed to perpetual crises and so on.
I agree, I don't like the Keynesian system, but that's not what we talked about.