Thank-you, Piece of Cake, for your most generous gift of 25 Milpoints and support of the freedoms of thought and speech, both gifts to Site members by Mr Bobbitt and protected by our cherished Constitution.
This is also a nice addition to my growing Milpoint portfolio, which will be of great value during my eventual retirement, especially if a market crash wipes out my RRSP.
You claim to have "presented facts", whereas I merely "replied with opinion", and that doing so "is incorrect".
"Facts" are often based upon interpretation as CIA assessments (never known to be 100% correct, by the way, or free of political or other bias either) are, and are open to challenge. "Facts" often change when new information becomes available.
I tend to stand by my opinions. There are many areas in which I hold none, as I have too little experience in or knowledge of those areas, or do not care enough. Most form over considerable time, based upon personal experience, observed experience of others, and material that I read or watch. I consult a variety of sources of many viewpoints, which began at a fairly early age and further developed during my time as Squadron Intelligence Officer (a secondary duty that I took quite seriously) at three Tac Hel Squadrons, one of which was in Germany with a real potential threat not far away.
I question almost everything, regardless of origin, especially if something deviates from learned pattern. My opinion may or may not change as a result; I have considerable confidence in my opinions, but maintain an open mind, even though I have to force myself to do so on occasion. I am well aware of the hazard of mental rigidity.
I learned to question aviation weather forecasts early on, and saved myself a lot of grief over many years. Canadian aviation forecasts in Lahr were frequently out-to-lunch, so, when in doubt, I consulted German forecasters, especially in Bremgarten to the south of us. They understood local effects due to terrain influences, whereas our guys had no such comprehension; local effects play a key role when one is flying over long stretches of varying terrain at 250 feet above ground in a country that had long stretches of marginal weather.
I learned to question intelligence assessments, which often made little sense for various reasons, so did my own research via whatever source materials I could find.
I continue this today, a few decades later. I read and watch material from conservative, liberal, socialist, "progressive" (a horribly inaccurate misnomer), civilian, military, transgender, historical, environut, and other points of view, including ones for which I have varying degrees of contempt - it's a "know thy enemy" thing. I piece bits together from multiple novel sources.
I remember things that have happened before, and their signs.
I certainly do not trust "experts" blindly. I can always find an "expert" who completely disagrees. Which makes the most sense? What agenda does each have? Which has the best track record for accuracy? What does a third, fourth, or fifth say? I often come across a non-expert who has an interesting interpretation of something, who often turns out right (like the guy who was tracking relative sales of anti-Clinton and anti-Trump merchandise during the last US election; anti-Clinton stuff was outselling anti-Trump stuff eight to one - not a solid indicator by itself, but one of many indicators that received no general publicity).
I have no immediate fear of impending serious or total economic collapse, even though I've seen many "experts" predict one or more just around the corner over many, many years. For everyone who trumpets "See? I was right", there is another staying quiet while hoping that nobody remembers his prediction tomorrow, next week, or almost ninety years later.
"Yale economist Irving Fisher was jubilant. “Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau,” he rejoiced in the pages of the New York Times. That dry pronunciation would go on to be one of his most frequently quoted predictions - but only because history would record his declaration as one of the wrongest market readings of all time.
"At the time he said it, in early October, he had good reason to believe he was right. On Sept. 3, 1929, the Dow Jones Industrial Average swelled to a record high of 381.17, reaching the end of an eight-year growth period during which its value ballooned by a factor of six. That was before the bubble began to burst in a series of “black days”: Black Thursday, October 24, when the market dropped by 11 percent, followed four days later by Black Monday, when it fell another 13 percent; and the next day, Black Tuesday, when it lost 12 percent more.
"Fisher, consistently bullish, pronounced the slide only temporary.
"In his defense, he was not the only optimist on Wall Street. After witnessing nearly a decade of growth, most economists, investors, and captains of industry believed that the market’s natural direction was up. The beginning of the crash struck them not as a sign of financial doom, but as an opportunity for bargains. Following the first of the black days, the New York Times was full of positive predictions: “I have no fear of another comparable decline,” said the president of the Equitable Trust Company.
"Many of those optimists, including Fisher, went broke by mid-November, when the Dow had lost nearly half its pre-crash value. Fisher’s reputation likewise plummeted."
Poor Irving eventually redeemed himself, though.
"He went on to develop a new theory about what had triggered the crash: overly liberal credit policies that encouraged Americans to take on too much debt, as he himself had done in order to invest more heavily in stocks. By then, however, no one was listening. His theory didn’t gain traction until the 1950s, when, years after his death, Harvard economist Milton Friedman pronounced him "the greatest economist the United States has ever produced." Fisher’s debt-deflation theory found its way into the spotlight again when overgenerous credit lines and huge debts prompted another U.S. market crash - this time in 2008.
"Economic (and other) indicators" are often disputed.
Finally, I am intrigued that you state that expression of opinion - or perhaps just expression of opinion with which you disagree - here in this fine Site is somehow "incorrect". Is that not also an opinion, and therefore also "incorrect"? Perhaps you misworded your true thought, or I misinterpreted what you wrote.
I remember the 1960s and 1970s (and later periods, obviously) fairly well. I remember many of the concerns of the time - inflation, no more oil, severe global cooling - and many of the things that we enjoyed and took for granted. Today is better than yesterday in some ways, but not so much in others. Mostly, it is just different.
