The markets are rigged - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

d_eddie

legendary

Activity: 2520

Merit: 3038

Quote from: jjjfff on December 27, 2018, 03:37:59 PM

Quote from: The Sceptical Chymist on December 27, 2018, 03:32:49 PM

Yeah, and I'd also like to read a response from OP (or anyone) to the post I made in this thread pointing out that the chart is not inflation-adjusted

Adjusting the chart for inflation would only lower the slope of the linear trend. My point is not the % gain (the slope). It's about it being linear!

If you draw a linear X-Y relationship (normally, a straight line) on a log scale (which adjusting for inflation would entail), you don't get another straight line with a lower slope. You get a, well, logarithmic curve, which "bends down" while going to infinity. Therefore, your red line wouldn't be a line, unless you pick your anchors differently, continuously changing them to keep fitting as the data go along.

realr0ach

sr. member

Activity: 924

Merit: 311

#TheGoyimKnow

Quote from: cellard on December 29, 2018, 12:43:37 AM

Roach as always makes some valid points but also as always, misses the point of Bitcoin and goes all in on metals instead of allocating some of your portfolio in Bitcoin

I would buy shitcoins again if there was a single one where transaction validators aren't designed to centralize, but there's not. If transaction validators are designed to centralize, they have no fundamentals, and who the fuck buys something with no fundamentals?

The only current fundamentals of shitcoins are regulatory arbitrage, but since transaction validators centralize, the govt can completely control them with ease and there will be no regulatory arbitrage. Who the hell wants to willingly use a non-fungible token in a centralized system regulated and controlled by the govt? That is the cashless society slavery system people like Aaron Russo talked about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGcatieMvfk

Shitcoins have built-in middlemen, are designed to centralize, and don't remove counterparty risk. They have no fundamentals compared to physical metals.

cellard

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1252

Governments obviously print money, there is too much at stake, the entire empire is at stake actually. So it's on their incentive to do anything as possible to keep the empire running, and that means more QE rounds to keep the market from crashing.

Roach as always makes some valid points but also as always, misses the point of Bitcoin and goes all in on metals instead of allocating some of your portfolio in Bitcoin to benefit from its unique features. What can I say? at this point it looks like he will never buy back again. Not a good idea to not own Bitcoin for the long term as well as some gold but that's not my problem.

realr0ach

sr. member

Activity: 924

Merit: 311

#TheGoyimKnow

My reply from another thread below. The original poster of this thread sounds like some sort of govt shill trying to trick people into propping up the stock markets and prevent them from profiting from the commodity super cycle in things like silver and gold:

Quote from: realr0ach on December 29, 2018, 12:00:21 AM

^I just started looking at it and all I can say is that jjjfff red line on the chart is the most arbitrary, meaningless line I've ever seen. About the same or worse than most arbitrary, meaningless lines shitcoiners use in these threads. There's no type of trend or anything there. The real line would probably be more like the purple one I drew below, but his goal was to make stocks look better than they are.

It doesn't matter how much money the govt prints, there are other markets besides the stock market for the money to go into. Nobody buys overpriced assets no matter how much money you print. Right now commodities are cheaper compared to all other assets than they've been in like decades, so that's where the money will go.

jjjfff

copper member

Activity: 182

Merit: 18

Crypto.BI

Quote from: carodupuis on December 28, 2018, 05:36:03 AM

Sorry to say this, but your points are not proving anything.

Maybe you should provide some logical/factual/data-based arguments instead of just blanket dismissing everything I posted?

Quote from: carodupuis on December 28, 2018, 05:36:03 AM

And by the way how do you know that the US is printing money all the time to artificially pump the market or however you’re putting it?

It's not me "putting it", it's real and it is called Quantitative Easing.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/31/investing/stocks-market-federal-reserve-qe/index.html

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/021015/how-does-quantitative-easing-us-affect-stock-market.asp

Quote from: carodupuis on December 28, 2018, 05:36:03 AM

You don’t just print money, cause printing money makes inflation worse.

Yes the FED does "print money".

Quote from: carodupuis on December 28, 2018, 05:36:03 AM

You need to read about it, and I also disagree with you.

Hmm ok.

dentolas

member

Activity: 854

Merit: 12

arcs-chain.com

I agree that no one knows the "who" and the "how" and this can be debated almost endlessly. I am no economy or market expert but there is definitely one fact that arises ... the common people are the dogs that keep running after the bone without ever catching more than the smell...
Some people have the printers and the others have to use what they print...so ... seems to me fairly easy to conclude to whom the "economy" is working for ...

carodupuis

full member

Activity: 382

Merit: 100

Live cams shows pimped with cryptocurrency on Sexy

Sorry to say this, but your points are not proving anything. And by the way how do you know that the US is printing money all the time to artificially pump the market or however you’re putting it? You think any country can just print money like that? You really have a long way to go. You don’t just print money, cause printing money makes inflation worse. You need to read about it, and I also disagree with you.

jjjfff

copper member

Activity: 182

Merit: 18

Crypto.BI

Quote from: The Sceptical Chymist on December 27, 2018, 09:06:48 PM

How would making a huge profit be out of reach for me if I bought an index fund in 1989, which is where your "linear" graph begins?

Because your money source and theirs are different.

When the resources finally reach you so you can invest them, you've worked for it and so on. By that time they've already bought the markets cheaply.

You make a few hundred percent in a lifetime of disciplined investing. They make a few hundred percent in a year (or much less, in some cases even overnight).

Quote from: The Sceptical Chymist on December 27, 2018, 09:06:48 PM

I'm going to hold off on posting anything else until I lure someone smarter than me here to look at what we're both saying.

This is what I picture you doing right now: "Ahoy there Cotton Eye Joe come over here take a look at this foreigner, sayin our good ol FED's all rigged up. You gotta problem boy?"

The Sceptical Chymist

legendary

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6948

Top Crypto Casino

Quote from: jjjfff on December 27, 2018, 08:41:40 PM

That's the catch. It's out of reach for you.

If the cheap FED money were available for everyone to benefit from, you'd get price inflation. The secret to all this is to keep all that money out of our reach.

How would making a huge profit be out of reach for me if I bought an index fund in 1989, which is where your "linear" graph begins? You're saying that the Fed's money is benefiting the stock market, correct? If that's the case, then everyone with any money to invest (including 401(k) participants) can also benefit. And in your second sentence above, you seem to be implying that there's no inflation--and that's demonstrably false. The price of everything is higher now than when I was a kid, and so are the wages people are being paid.

I'm going to hold off on posting anything else until I lure someone smarter than me here to look at what we're both saying.

jjjfff

copper member

Activity: 182

Merit: 18

Crypto.BI

Quote from: The Sceptical Chymist on December 27, 2018, 08:17:08 PM

And again, if the market is "rigged", it seems that everyone should be able to take advantage of that by buying index funds.

That's the catch. It's out of reach for you.

You don't have access to this bonanza because you're not a beneficiary of the nearly free printed money.

The big banks receive the cheap loans from the FED, those are the only people who can benefit from this system.

These folks:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2014/12/03/five-biggest-banks-trillion-jpmorgan-citi-bankamerica/#7c11354bb539

Or these:

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/14/worlds-richest-wealth-credit-suisse

If the cheap FED money were available for everyone to benefit from, you'd get price inflation. The secret to all this is to keep all that money out of our reach.

The Sceptical Chymist

legendary

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6948

Top Crypto Casino

Quote from: jjjfff on December 27, 2018, 07:37:44 PM

You're overcomplicating things.

I don't think I am. This thread is interesting enough such that I'd like to hear what some math geeks think about it, and I've created a thread trying to get them here to scrutinize what you and I have written. No responses yet, but that's about what I expected for a self-moderated thread in a spam-heavy section like Economics, even if I'm tempting people with merits for intelligent responses.

I told you I agree with you about the inflation after the dollar was taken off the gold standard and I don't argue that the Fed is printing money like mad. My contention is that the Federal Reserve is not "rigging" the stock market exclusively by doing that. That's why I wanted to see the inflation-adjusted data. That's why I want to see if the linearity you're talking about is mathematically sound (and relevant) and I don't trust my own judgement on that. I want to hear from some people who know math and economics.

And again, if the market is "rigged", it seems that everyone should be able to take advantage of that by buying index funds.

jjjfff

copper member

Activity: 182

Merit: 18

Crypto.BI

Quote from: The Sceptical Chymist on December 27, 2018, 04:00:44 PM

]Did you look at the article I linked to and see the chart of the inflation-adjusted DJIA? From 1916-1994, the market was NOT linear.

I did look. Here is the chart from that article:

And here's the amount of money the FED printed :

Do these look similar to you?

Neither chart is linear, but the relation of debt to market valuation is linear.

The FED prints money, the markets move up.

Why isn't 1916 to 1970 like the period after it? Because during that first period the FED wasn't allowed to freely print money.

Note how things moved more smoothly before 1970!!!

Because before 1970 their ponzi scheme was not running yet.

Quote from: The Sceptical Chymist on December 27, 2018, 04:00:44 PM

In addition, I mentioned that the components of the Dow get changed and that also affects things. Poorly-performing companies get dumped from it, good ones get added. I'm not sure how a broader index, i.e., one with way more than 30 stocks, would look as far as your hypothesis goes, but I'd be curious and I think it'd be a better test.

That's not how the Dow works. They don't kick out poorly performing companies due to PRICE, they substitute LOW VOLUME companies.

If GE stocks move 200 billion a day and crash 90%, GE would still be listed.

The Dow represents the stocks that matter the most (in the opinion of the Dow Jones methodology), not the best performing ones. The intention of this index is precisely to show how the American industrial output is doing on the market.

Quote from: The Sceptical Chymist on December 27, 2018, 04:00:44 PM

Also, you're saying that the slope of the index (price vs. time) is the % gain. That doesn't seem right simply from a unit analysis [slope = d(price)/d(time)], whereas % gain is p₂/(p₂-p₁)*100 . You'd have to do linear regression to get a curve and then take the derivative of that--and the result isn't the percentage gain. Maybe someone with a stronger background in math could give some input here.

You're overcomplicating things.

My point about the slope is that you mentioned the inflation adjusted chart.

Note that the chart you posted goes back before the time when the FED could freely print money so you clearly have two periods there: from early 1900's when there was real capitalism and then after 1970 when the FED started controlling the markets by freely printing money for their banking pals.

The Sceptical Chymist

legendary

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6948

Top Crypto Casino

Quote from: jjjfff on December 27, 2018, 03:37:59 PM

Adjusting the chart for inflation would only lower the slope of the linear trend. My point is not the % gain (the slope). It's about it being linear!

Did you look at the article I linked to and see the chart of the inflation-adjusted DJIA? From 1916-1994, the market was NOT linear. After the internet boom, the DJIA shot up to the moon, but it still doesn't look linear to me. I am no mathematician, but I think you'd have to do a linear regression on the data and see what the r² value is with the best-fit straight line is (it's been a long time since I've done that) to see exactly how linear the market behaved.

In addition, I mentioned that the components of the Dow get changed and that also affects things. Poorly-performing companies get dumped from it, good ones get added. I'm not sure how a broader index, i.e., one with way more than 30 stocks, would look as far as your hypothesis goes, but I'd be curious and I think it'd be a better test.

Also, you're saying that the slope of the index (price vs. time) is the % gain. That doesn't seem right simply from a unit analysis [slope = d(price)/d(time)], whereas % gain is p₂/(p₂-p₁)*100 . You'd have to do linear regression to get a curve and then take the derivative of that--and the result isn't the percentage gain. Maybe someone with a stronger background in math could give some input here.

omonuyak

sr. member

Activity: 882

Merit: 269

Yes, the rigging market is a sign that a breakout should be expected. I could remember that in forex when we see rigging price we keep looking for the pin bar or morning star formations in other to be able to invest in a right to and good prices.

jjjfff

copper member

Activity: 182

Merit: 18

Crypto.BI

Quote from: The Sceptical Chymist on December 27, 2018, 03:32:49 PM

Quote from: Foxpup on December 27, 2018, 11:06:37 AM

Indeed, it does strike me as very odd that you drew a straight line on a linear chart instead of a logarithmic one, thus implying that the Dow was negative prior to 1984 (for reference, it was not).

Yeah, and I'd also like to read a response from OP (or anyone) to the post I made in this thread pointing out that the chart is not inflation-adjusted--but meanwhile, OP has begun a new thread ranting about how the Fed is rigging the markets. Makes me wonder if OP really wants a discussion on this or not.

But hey, this is Economics, right? The section that's almost as bad as Bitcoin Discussion, where very few people read posts.

Sorry if I didn't reply to your earlier question.

Adjusting the chart for inflation would only lower the slope of the linear trend. My point is not the % gain (the slope). It's about it being linear!

The whole point of this thread is to point out that the FED and the fractional reserve system simply manipulate the stock market at will to keep it a straight line.

What I mean by "the markets are rigged" is that it's not a random walk, it's not chaotic, it's none of these things. The markets are completely controlled by the FED as shown in the 30+ year trend. The FED's true mission is to keep that linear behavior on that chart. That's my point.

If you adjust every price on the composite index used for that chart (the Dow) for inflation, you'll get a lower slope, that's all. Will not change the point I tried to make.

EDITED: The reason I opened the other thread is because yesterday we saw the greatest pump EVER on US markets. And today we see a dump. So we have these two new facts.

This new information adds to the point I'm trying to make: the banks control the markets at will. There is 200+ trillion dollars out there printed by the FED (unpayable debt) that is used to do whatever they want to the markets. They can crash it, pump it, dump it, what ever.

The Sceptical Chymist

legendary

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6948

Top Crypto Casino

Quote from: Foxpup on December 27, 2018, 11:06:37 AM

Indeed, it does strike me as very odd that you drew a straight line on a linear chart instead of a logarithmic one, thus implying that the Dow was negative prior to 1984 (for reference, it was not).

Yeah, and I'd also like to read a response from OP (or anyone) to the post I made in this thread pointing out that the chart is not inflation-adjusted--but meanwhile, OP has begun a new thread ranting about how the Fed is rigging the markets. Makes me wonder if OP really wants a discussion on this or not.

But hey, this is Economics, right? The section that's almost as bad as Bitcoin Discussion, where very few people read posts.

jjjfff

copper member

Activity: 182

Merit: 18

Crypto.BI

Quote from: Indamuck on December 27, 2018, 10:05:26 AM

The government has to continually pump the stock market as most people have their savings in stocks. The country would be in chaos if it crashed drastically as most people would go broke over night. Something is going to give though, I don't think the USD will continue to be the world currency within the next 5-10 years.

Sadly you're probably correct. Although what you describe in the first sentence is all but capitalism (governments pumping the stock market).

Quote from: Foxpup on December 27, 2018, 11:06:37 AM

Quote from: jjjfff on December 26, 2018, 10:32:02 AM

Does anything strike you as odd in this image?

Note the red line I drew on the chart.

Indeed, it does strike me as very odd that you drew a straight line on a linear chart instead of a logarithmic one, thus implying that the Dow was negative prior to 1984 (for reference, it was not).

I didn't intend to imply that. The reason I don't show prior to 1984 is because the investing.com chart only went so far.

This present day system began in 1970 IIRC, not on 1984.

Foxpup

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 3090

Vile Vixen and Miss Bitcointalk 2021-2023

Quote from: jjjfff on December 26, 2018, 10:32:02 AM

Does anything strike you as odd in this image?

Note the red line I drew on the chart.

Indeed, it does strike me as very odd that you drew a straight line on a linear chart instead of a logarithmic one, thus implying that the Dow was negative prior to 1984 (for reference, it was not).

justdimin

hero member

Activity: 3122

Merit: 672

www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games

Markets are kinda rigged but not in the way you think. The difference of why the line is always going up is that companies in those dow jones type calculations are always the best companies, so if a company is losing a lot of money and going down than the next company that makes profit takes its place and makes the chart go up, there are times when everything falls of course but the reason why its not just a straight line or why it keeps going up is that the best companies are in these calculations and that means they always have the most profitable going higher type of deals going on in them.

There is no "rigged" calculation, its just the way it has been forever and that is why it goes up higher. Of course the rigged part is that these companies are forced to make profits each quarter or the investors will take their money out and put it on the next big thing and companies do every accounting trick in their power to show profits they can to look like they are alright until bankruptcy hits them.

Indamuck

hero member

Activity: 1120

Merit: 554

The government has to continually pump the stock market as most people have their savings in stocks. The country would be in chaos if it crashed drastically as most people would go broke over night. Something is going to give though, I don't think the USD will continue to be the world currency within the next 5-10 years.

Topic: The markets are rigged - page 2. (Read 800 times)