More Predictable: A Financial Disaster or an Earthquake?

I would argue that trading as a trend follower actually does “predict” the very disasters that this article says can’t be predicted. The “price” tells all. Listen carefully to it (or pay fees for nothing). One excerpt from the article:

“Meaningful predictability of financial disasters, on the other hand, is nil. While there are always astute individuals who foresee that trouble is brewing, their knowledge is not translated into government actions to mitigate the damage. A major reason is that counter-opinions may be as widespread and influential. The counter opinions, furthermore, are supported by many who are profiting from the activities that are leading to disaster, and who are likely to belong to organized trade groups.”

Who the [expletive] cares if the state can mitigate “damage” (whatever that means exactly)? And why should they? Are we to the point in human existence that unless there are armies of desk jockeys deployed in cubes around Washington, DC staring at the clock and perusing their guaranteed future pension benefits…that we just raise our arms up and surrender? Seriously, how did we get rid of all common sense and somehow buy into the Wizard of Oz notion that the suits in DC behind the curtain can prevent and or solve the volatility that comes with trying to assemble a net worth? They can’t! We are not bailout nation, we are quickly becoming p**** nation.

---
You might like my 2017 epic release: Trend Following: How to Make a Fortune in Bull, Bear and Black Swan Markets (Fifth Edition). Revised and extended with twice as much content.

One thought on “More Predictable: A Financial Disaster or an Earthquake?

  1. Michael says: “I would argue that trading as a trend follower actually does “predict” the very disasters that this article says can’t be predicted. The “price” tells all. Listen carefully to it.”

    Nice post. I couldn’t agree more. ‘Listening to it’ is psychology difficult. Like Zen, what I’ve always liked about Trend Following is it’s emphasis on experiential(or experimental) understanding. I strongly feel the real problem is the over emphasis on theoretical knowledge v. experiencing the realities of price.

Comments are closed.