bw, what do you mean by a "monstrous deleveraging"? You know I don't accept your predictions based on your macro theories, but if you'll bear with me and try to sort this out, maybe we can come to a meeting of our minds.
"ombow: I'll never convince you of my position nor will I be convinced to adopt your position." I wouldn't accept that as unequivocal.
"We are hopelessly at odds." No.
"Suffice it to say that the S&P will will retreat to at least 500 and probably below 450 by 2012 because just about every risk asset in the entire universe will drop in price as a monstrous deleveraging takes place, just as it did during the 1875 Great Recession, the 1929-1949 Great Depression, and the 1966-1982 Stagflation Recession. It won't be different this time." Tell me more about this monstrous deleveraging. You know I don't accept your theories based on historical precedent or because you say so.
"I don't have to focus on the few "trees' that will remain standing after the 'forest fire' levels over 90% of them." Really, 90%? Because you say so or is there another reason? Oh yeah, that monstrous deleveraging. Maybe we've found the beast.
"You will learn the hard way. That is always the best way to learn because the lesson is indelibly written in your mind as you count the money you lost." No, not necessarily. I'm open to other opinions backed up by at least an attempt at proof. You just don't say things that are unarguably true.
"Perhaps you will be able to pass the upcoming lesson on to your kids..." You keep bringing this up. I don't have kids and, at age 60, probably won't in this lifetime. Also, I'm of the opinion that the world will be a far different place in 25 years so your thoughts are not applicable in my mind. But that's another matter.
"When this correction runs its course and we bottom at the levels that I have repeatedly predicted I hope you will then come to understand that I do know what I am talking about." Maybe the problem is, as Michael Jackson sang, "No one wants to be defeated."
Would I be correct if I said you have a big ego? Yes, you have repeatedly predicted certain things without bothering to offer convincing proof. You need to be more rigorous, more attentive to scrupulous detail, and not cling to hypotheticals in your arguments.
Your posts are just not convincing. Maybe you want to give up. You state your opinions without substantial proof, just the nebulous evidence of history repeating itself. You've concocted a scenario which you keep repeating but want people to believe basically because you say so. A guy said on TV today that he sees a sustainable, but moderate, recovery. If this happens, are your prognostications out the window? You give me no more reason to believe you than this guy (and Ben Bernanke).
How can I believe you when I can pick apart your position so easily? Do you want me to accept your theories because you "know what I (you) am talking about"?
My sarcasm is coming out, but it's meant to be good-natured, not mean-spirited. If you're right, I want to be on your side and not lose my money. You probably don't want to see me destitute or maybe you don't care.
Anyway, let's talk about this monstrous deleveraging if you want to carry on.
AI
