Tuesday, January 28, 2014

More news

Some more reading:

BI - Richmond Fed was good. This after some other backward-looking manufacturing data was bad. Ignore it all, therefore.

Ritholtz - Friday was a 90/90 day. Certainly felt like it. Ritholtz's thesis is that 90/90 intensity means major capital pools were moving to new positionings.

All Star Charts - time for gold stocks to outperform gold. His angle is that the long gold short miners pair trade is done, and it's time to flip the trade in the other direction. I know nothing about pair trading, but one problem I see is that everyone already is short gold. Anyway, saying the pair is a good trade means nothing for the price of gold itself - or for the price of the miners. Just that the miners won't suck as bad as gold.

Mineweb - First Quantum unveils its changes to Cobre. Unfortunately for FQ, it looks like they weren't able to make any capex reductions after all.

IKN - the Bloomberg News gold headline generator. BTW, they actually do use computers to auto-generate headlines. In fact, computers generate a lot of the news content on the wires in general. So this isn't even humour, it's just true.

Kid Dynamite - avoid the confirmation bias of the retail mouthbreather. Quote:
Listen up: EVERY market participant is biased. Longs think they’re right, shorts think they’re right. Instead of shooting the messenger, what you *should* do when you’re presented with a (long or) short thesis you don’t agree with is to consider if the conflicting view strengthens your own thesis or weakens it. Is the conflicting thesis sound? Is it based in reality? What is the conflicting thesis missing? What are you missing?
I've personally found that maybe only 5% of people out there have any clue at all how to debate: it's as if wilful mental retardation has become an epidemic.

Nobody knows how to analyze an argument, identify underlying assumptions, identify situations in which the argument becomes invalid, question frames of reference, propose alternate explanations, or show how data is misinterpreted. Give them a nuanced and well-thought-out position, with caveats and all, and the morons respond with shouting monosyllabic talking points from ZeroHedge.

If I say "the set of conditions A+B+C suggest consequence N", you don't respond with "wharrgarbl inflation wharrgarbl money printing": you either disprove A B or C, or you explain how the three conditions might not support the consequent - either because some other condition D stands in the way of N, or because the relation "A+B+C=>N" doesn't exactly hold in this situation, or because any of those four isn't what we think it is, or maybe A+B+C equally supports N' which isn't equal to N. Or whatever. Lots of ways to properly debate.

That's if you're not a fucking retard.

You learn this in highschool debating club, people.

No comments:

Post a Comment