Friday, October 9, 2009
I've Heard of Hedging Yourself With Gold, But This Is Ridiculous...
Robert Wenzel discussing the views of billionaire investor Carl Ichan:
(For those interested in civility and playing fair, here is the context of Wenzel's gold forecast.)
That's why he could say this morning on CNBC that there is a real risk of a double-dip recession and the market is acting in a "schizophrenic" way, which could cause a "bloodbath" for investors. How much more schizophrenic can you get than my forecast that depending on how things break, you could see gold at $500 per ounce or, on the other hand, $3,000 if they break the other way.I can't find the link right now, but Wenzel also forecast that depending on how things break, unemployment next year could be anywhere from 5% to 30%. You heard it there first.
(For those interested in civility and playing fair, here is the context of Wenzel's gold forecast.)
Comments:
Mr. Murphy, I've personally enjoyed the Return to castle Goldenstein of some Mencius Molbug. It directly addresses your.. (pardon me) confusion.
And if you do not have the time to read Mencius Moldbug posts (something which I can easily understand) let me put it that way. To say that a pendulum which currently is in (unstable) equilibrium in its top position will fall either to the left or the right it is not hedging your bets.
And if you do not have the time to read Mencius Moldbug posts (something which I can easily understand) let me put it that way. To say that a pendulum which currently is in (unstable) equilibrium in its top position will fall either to the left or the right it is not hedging your bets.
To say that a pendulum which currently is in (unstable) equilibrium in its top position will fall either to the left or the right it is not hedging your bets.
So if gold doesn't hit either $3,000 or $500 within the next [you insert time frame], you will say Wenzel was wrong? Because I'm pretty sure he won't.
That was my point with this post--which was mostly a joke. I object to calling something a forecast when it is almost a tautology. If RW had said, "It is impossible to make a forecast in an environment like this..." OK great. But he was referring to his range as a forecast.
It would also be a forecast if he meant it will be one or the other, within some specified time frame.
But that's not what he means. If it hits $2800 within two weeks, and then comes back down, and never breaks above that for the rest of our lives, for sure Wenzel would not have said, "I was wrong." No, he would have said "I told you gold was possibly going to explode upward!!"
So if I say, "The pendulum will go left, right, or stay in its current spot," that's not really a forecast.
(I'm sorry to belabor this. Like I said, this was mostly a joke. But since people are taking RW's side, I want to at least explain what the impetus for my post was in the first place. I wasn't expecting him to say "gold will be $1875.43 next Thursday," I was objecting to his use of the term forecast.)
So if gold doesn't hit either $3,000 or $500 within the next [you insert time frame], you will say Wenzel was wrong? Because I'm pretty sure he won't.
That was my point with this post--which was mostly a joke. I object to calling something a forecast when it is almost a tautology. If RW had said, "It is impossible to make a forecast in an environment like this..." OK great. But he was referring to his range as a forecast.
It would also be a forecast if he meant it will be one or the other, within some specified time frame.
But that's not what he means. If it hits $2800 within two weeks, and then comes back down, and never breaks above that for the rest of our lives, for sure Wenzel would not have said, "I was wrong." No, he would have said "I told you gold was possibly going to explode upward!!"
So if I say, "The pendulum will go left, right, or stay in its current spot," that's not really a forecast.
(I'm sorry to belabor this. Like I said, this was mostly a joke. But since people are taking RW's side, I want to at least explain what the impetus for my post was in the first place. I wasn't expecting him to say "gold will be $1875.43 next Thursday," I was objecting to his use of the term forecast.)
So if gold doesn't hit either $3,000 or $500 within the next [you insert time frame], you will say Wenzel was wrong? Because I'm pretty sure he won't.
Mr. Murphy, I will say that RW was wrong, Mencius Moldbug was wrong and (Oh, horror!) I was, if gold will stay at the $1000 level for the next three years. Or only slowly grow upward to $1500 in those three years.
If on the other side if Au will go down to $400 during next half of a year, or to $3000 in a year than I'd say that RW, most definitively, wasn't wrong.
Anything in between... It depends how much in between.
Who said, I cannot I hedge my bets too?
Post a Comment
Mr. Murphy, I will say that RW was wrong, Mencius Moldbug was wrong and (Oh, horror!) I was, if gold will stay at the $1000 level for the next three years. Or only slowly grow upward to $1500 in those three years.
If on the other side if Au will go down to $400 during next half of a year, or to $3000 in a year than I'd say that RW, most definitively, wasn't wrong.
Anything in between... It depends how much in between.
Who said, I cannot I hedge my bets too?
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]