From tbyfield at panix.com Mon Dec 13 09:34:28 1999
i will point out that your response to my first remark omit-
ted the core of what i was saying. i'll repeat it, for your
convenience: your propensity to invoke contingent events as
proof that your ideology is Right, and to do so with a very
specific kind of valedictory tone, is distinctly reaganite.
If only you could understand that I've done no such thing, then I wouldn't have to keep omitting it out of sheer "whatever" ...
I mean, what you're saying doesn't even make sense; my ideology is just that: mine. How on earth could I ever get away with claiming that it's Right? Further, what would be in it for me to do so?
# This is my theory; that is to say, it is mine. # -- Ann Elk
---
Let's back up; here's what I see:
* Doug tries hard to not make predictions of doom, though somewhere
in his gut he feels it's coming. This gut feeling is different
from a cohesive attempt to rationalize a prediction about the
future in that he can't even explain it himself. I've been
tracking this for a while, and it's distinctly un-Dougian, which
is probably why I'm So Interested. * Every once in a while, he lets one slip. He likes to use the term
"I never ... anymore" when talking about these predictions, so
I like to call him on it. Maybe I'm a jerk, but I'm no Reaganite. * The last time he did this, he compared the coming of the end of
the bull market to the inevitability of the end of the Brezhnev
era. This is particularly funny to me, because it falls into a
class of predictions known as "we've always done it this way"
... in the spirit of people betting cases of Scotch over
trivialities, I bought some OEX calls (what can I say, my
professional training includes several stints in trading and
market microstructure, and I'm afraid that I won't see a pension
or Social Security) to make my point that I disagree with Doug's
feeling that he can't quite shake. * It turns out that he picked a particularly bad day to make a
proclamation about the market, as it went straight up for two
months in a move that's among the biggest moves ever. So that's
extra funny, and worth an update. * You bluster in and ask if I have an opinion -- a valid question
to ask a critic! So then when I do, and I attempt to explain
it, you claim that I'm pushing it as Right?
You're a piece of work, Ted Byfield.
a lot of energy seems to go into painting doug as a crypto-
bear, which i find strange. i'm pretty certain he sees the
current situation as intensely distorted, but he definitely
goes out of his way to avoid 'chicken little' predictions.
It's not all that much energy, really. I spend way more energy deleting spam; and I barely spend anytime on that activity. Except, I suppose, when someone goes out of their way to respond to it by invoking the tone of The Elder Who Knows. Guess what, Ted: there's a LOT of things that are completely unrelated to Reaganism that didn't exist prior to Reagan. Overnight FedEx, cellular telephones, FAX as a substitute for a phone call, SUVs. If you think you're scoring points by saying that I'm a Reganite, you're even more twisted than I thought.
But you're right about something: it's precisely because of the fact that he goes out of his way to avoid bearish predictions that it's good sport to point out the times when he does. Because tracking Doug's outlook on the market is fun and interesting, opinions (especially strong ones, even moreso strong ones that are cohesive) spark interesting conversation and interaction here.
I think he's been burned enough by making a prediction and being wrong that he's gun shy. So I think he's more careful about expressing his opinion; that doesn't mean he doesn't have an opinion, it just means that he doesn't want to express them publically. I don't see anything wrong with getting the future wrong: it is, afterall, unknowable.
---
How about that subway strike?
/jordan