Yep, down from 4327 at the time of posting, but not down enough for my prediction to be correct.
As far as I can tell, the main issue with my prediction was the Fed moving soooooo slllllooooow to increase interest rates, past the point of utter delusion on their part. Not only does this mean delaying the market crash, it means the dollars in which they are valued were worth less (meaning higher stock prices than they would've been with less inflation).
If I'm charitable to myself, I'd say right in direction, wrong in magnitude. And potentially only wrong in time frame, if it does drop below 3029 over the next few years.
But there's other things I missed, like Russia invading Ukraine. And even if I knew that was likely, I wouldn't have predicted the West's massive financial sanction response. But though much of the inflation blame got put onto the war, inflation was high before the invasion. I also should have looked into the past performance of the Fed to see how late to the party they've previously been.
I've been doing some backtests to get more accurate investment decisions. Will do an update when I'm happy with my methodology.
Again, as I mentioned in my earlier response, ideals don't have anything to do with the claim. The claim is that countries that call themselves communist make large policy errors more frequently due to heavy-handed policies. The thing you label yourself with provides some information. That information might be contrary to what you want to portray (as in the case of countries with "democratic" in their name), but it's valid Bayesian information nevertheless.
Changing policy based on different circumstances is certainly part of granularity. It's granularity with respect to time and circumstance.
Ah well, hoped to bring you over, but I'll agree to disagree.
For the CCP to declare themselves as “Communist” means they are likely to disregard much granularity that good policy must have
I think this claim has aged pretty well. Do you still disagree with this statement?
In my experience, not enough people on here publically realise their errors and thank the corrector. Nice to see it happen here.
I think private messages are more appropriate for notifying someone about their typos. Cleaning up typos is helpful, but posting it publicly clutters up the comment section.
I don't think this experiment could prove anything other than "it doesn't work". It's too gameable. Even if it works in the short term, that's only true for the current population. You'd change the people who join the community in the long run towards people who are willing to game the system.
Sorry, I wrote this out in an hour, so it could have been a bit clearer. The data alone does not imply causality.
Data that supports hypothesis & causal hypothesis & no competing hypothesis => causality.
The causal hypothesis doesn’t need to be a detailed mechanistic hypothesis (it might just be “vinegar will remove the smell”). As long as nothing else could have caused it, then you know what the cause is, even if you’re unsure of the underlying mechanics.
So for an example where I have the same(ish) data but wouldn’t be highly confident of causality (because I have more than one hypothesis), let’s say I have a light headache, and someone gives me an unspecified pill for it. I take it, and five minutes later, my headache is gone. That is some evidence that the pill worked, but I’m not highly confident because of competing hypotheses: For example, the placebo effect, or maybe the headache would’ve gone away on its own.
Let me know if this makes sense, and I’ll update the post.
I wrote something up a few months ago, predicting with 65% confidence that the S&P 500 will drop below 3029 before July 16, 2022. I’m not a professional investor, so take it with a grain of salt.
I am up, compared to the market, yes.