Your third paragraph was enlightening and explained your position reasonably well. I'm not sure I'm convinced, but it seems like an interesting discussion.
I feel obliged to downvote you because of the first two paragraphs, why did you add them? You were trying to refute what you considered an "accusation of arrogance" with the most arrogant opening paragraph possible?
Re:Say Hello to Full Employment
by throwawaymath on Friday July 06, 2018 @05:48PM
(#17475402)
I don't think this response should be getting downvoted; I'll upvote it for the third paragraph, which I largely agree with.
We can agree to disagree on the exact definition of "virtually impossible", but in the broad strokes I think we're both saying some factor analysis can be sometimes productive. In particular, I definitely agree that 1) an "actual understanding of underlying causal factors" is imperative, and 2) an approach based on trends (and trend following) is naive.
Less is more. Your third paragraph makes a strong argument and cuts right to the heart of the disagreement. The rest is a distraction.
Other commenters already pointed out the main thing, but I need to let you know that we ban accounts that include personal attacks in their comments, so could you please make sure not to do that?
You fail to grasp a fundamental reality: data about the past can only tell us about the past. Data about the present can be useful for making predictions. Some of it is so useful that using it is criminally prosecuted by the SEC.
By "naive" I mean any approach that relies solely on trends rather than an actual understanding of underlying causal factors. Sadly there are so many of those factors that a correct analysis is virtually impossible, but that's no excuse not to try since some factors tend to dominate others and those can sometimes be found.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/gurufocus_userupload/508204100.jpg