Posts
Click to enlarge.
By popular request (AllanF in the comments), here's a closer look with an additional exponential decay trend line.
Click to enlarge.
See Also:
Does Jeremy Siegel Live in a Cave?
Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Vehicle Miles Traveled
St. Louis Fed: Population
The X-12-ARIMA Seasonal Adjustment Program
18 comments:
This is a note from the seasonal adjustment program results.
Visually significant residual trading day peaks have been
found in the spectral plots of the following series starting in 2004.Jul:
differenced, transformed seasonally adjusted series (Table E2) (1 Trading Day peak(s))
Modified irregular component (Table E3) (1 Trading Day peak(s))
For what it is worth, the fall of 2004 is when I became a permabear.
Too soon to put a decay on it?
AllanF,
I was certainly thinking about it. The last year is a bit flat. Even though I think the next recession will continue the trend, I'm just too cowardly to act now.
That said, if I was forced to bet then I'd gamble we hit 700 before we hit 900.
AllanF,
You talked me into it. I'll post another chart zoomed in with an exponential decay trend.
May be that can be your schtick for the new year. I reckon whatever recession we're going to have will be fully baked by then, so you can resolve to start adding decay lines to all your trend failure graphs.
Might drive MOM away though. She seems not to have a very strong stomach for such bitter medicine. :-)
BTW, I am only half-kidding. As in, you might drive us all away. :-)
AllanF,
I love charting all things exponential. Growth? Decay? Whatever it takes!
I'm not all that worried about driving people away. I'll just rename my blog.
Rubbernecking the Illusion of Prosperity
Rubbernecking
Rubbernecking describes the act of gawking at something of interest. It is often used to refer to drivers trying to view the carnage resulting from a traffic accident. The term refers to the craning of a person's neck in order to get a better view.
Hahaha!
Gallows humor. Sigh.
Wow, 2012 has been above trend? Mean reversion isn't looking good for 2013.
AllanF,
Perhaps this marks the start of a brand new era of American prosperity!
All we need are salt-powered cars! How hard can that be? I'm still waiting of course! ;)
Proof that it is not a hoax are the patents given to the process. Here is a list of John Kanzius Patents. As best as I know, not a single patent has ever been erroneously given to the maker of a perpetual motion device.
A patent is proof of nothing and *many* patents have been granted to makers of perpetual motion devices. I was very frustrated with Mish after he wrote that and actually stopped reading him for a time. I've since gotten over it, lol.
Perpetual motion
Even if a patent is granted, it doesn't mean that the invention actually works; it just means that the examiner thinks that it works, or that he couldn't figure out why it wouldn't work.
ENGLISH INVENTIONS, 1901-1905
I have a neat little book here. Authors Rodney Dale and Joan Gray show us a sample of 600 English patents out of 140,000 that were registered between 1901 and 1905. A few of the inventions changed history, but most of them didn't. In many cases it's pretty clear that the devices wouldn't even have worked.
Correction. I should say that I have mostly gotten over it. Well, maybe!
Mark,
I can't take Mish. He's a zealot. A complete blockhead - blinded by a one size fits all ideology. If we'd only stayed on the gold standard, we'd still be in the Great Depression!
Hussman now regularly quotes Mish. Good grief!
mab,
The world is filled with zealots. As a heretic, I'm finding it harder and harder to quote anyone without a sarcasm disclaimer. Sigh.
The truth lies somewhere between Peter Schiff and Jeremy Siegel.
Yeah, I know. It's a bit like saying room temperature lies between molten lava and liquid nitrogen.
“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.” - Friedrich Nietzsche
What about blind faith and bad faith? Too me anyway, they prove plenty!
Hi Mark, I recently found your site, and I enjoy it a lot. The "infinite growth" model of modern economics deserves all the heckling you give it.
One question: What exactly do you mean by calling yourself a "permabear"? Does that mean nothing can change your bearish outlook? I apologize if you've already answered this question in a past post or comment.
mab,
Old Faithful
The reliability of Old Faithful can be attributed to the fact that it is not connected to any other thermal features of the Upper Geyser Basin.
It is also not well-connected.
Ba-dum ching.
Craig M. Brandenburg,
Hi!
What exactly do you mean by calling yourself a "permabear"?
For me, it means that I have become permanently negative on our economy. By extension, it also means that I think the stock market will permanently underperform its long-term average growth.
Does that mean nothing can change your bearish outlook? I apologize if you've already answered this question in a past post or comment.
No need to apologize. I would say that barring free energy (Mr. Fusion?), there is nothing that could change my outlook. It is a question my tax preparer has been asking me since 2004.
This post represents my bearish case in a nutshell. Read at your own risk. If you like math, it's not going to cheer you up. Sigh.
March 21, 2012
The 5 Charts I Shared with My Tax Preparer
I had my taxes done today. Every year my tax preparer tries to talk me out of being a bear or at the very least diversify into some assets that can potentially grow. She's really nice about it. It has become somewhat of an ongoing joke. I try to always start with, "Still bearish!"
This year I decided to bring some actual evidence with me. It was my goal to present the bearish case in 5 minutes or less and in 5 charts or less. So here is what I did.
Thanks for clarifying.
Post a Comment