7 ms·

2011: 100% Chance of Crisis, Worse Than 2008: Jim Rogers 2012: Jim Rogers: It’s Going To Get Really “Bad After The Next Election” 2013: Jim Rogers Warns

• grzm 9y ago
  He's nothing if not consistent.
• psychometry 9y ago
  So what's he shorting? Everything?
• dws 9y ago
  Eventually, in the stopped-clock sense, if he lives long enough he might be right.
  • melling 9y ago
    “Being Right but Being Early Simply Means That You Are Wrong”
• qxzw 9y ago
  Boy who cried 'wolf'...
• pizza 9y ago
  P(economy(t+1) > economy(t)) ~ 1 and ∫economy(t) dt | 0..t + E[economy(t+1)] < 0 are not at all mutually exclusive. The market is not a normal distribution of i.i.d. samples or anything similarly wrangleable absence of evidence (not proven correct yet) < evidence of absence (if/whenever the hypothesis is observed). This just shows that for 6 years he was not yet right, not that he's a 'broken clock', implying he isn't adapting to evidence (, which, I don't know and may be true -- but I can't say either way). He can't claim anything beyond what's been observed, but neither can we claim the prediction (or any) not being yet observed as suggesting it'll never happen, regardless of how clickbait-y it can be packaged and whatever the intentions are behind that decision..
  • petulla 9y ago
    Depends on your model of things. You could bake other assumptions into a distribution explaining why someone like him who has taken these past positions is in less likely than someone else to be right. You assume you we can't say anything informative about his prediction. Disagree.
    • pizza 9y ago
      > You assume you we can't say anything informative about his prediction. OK, can you show me a model that is better? What I'm saying is not dependent on the arbitrariness of subjective "baked-in assumptions", nor that each market observer has a subjective perspective and is not omniscient, nor is it about whether or not you may have the gut feeling that he's trying to scam you into unnecessary doomsday preparation. In stats terms: not about how each of us have different perspectives so KL-divergence > 0. What I am saying is: all of the people who say "because these past positions never definitely happened yet, we should be more skeptical of his predictions than everyone else saying things will be just fine" are getting it wrong. You should be extremely skeptical of everyone asking you to withhold skepticism as if past observations (samples) prove the distribution is a stationary ergodic process (truly observing the generator). When someone has predicted things successfully in the past, it means they answered a falsifiable question before it - so there is a burden of proof before you can call them a good predictor. But a prediction that has never been falsified does not demand a burden of proof, you can't say it's incorrect or correct at all - no matter the duration, the question "are his positions wrong?" is meaningless. I am not privileging his opinion that much, tbh - imo, someone saying "catastrophes in the future will be worse" is a nearly-zero surprisal/maximum entropy statement. What influence could I exert over the outcomes that I depend on of processes far beyond what I can control? None. "just the way she goes, boys." All I can do is say memento mori, insure myself against catastrophe (when the cost is negligible, so the waste is low if the catastrophe never came), and not dull my senses.. meaning that it is preferable to ignore salesmen reaffirming one another saying "but we've never sold this much before!" over to ignore someone without special insight who you suspect is only fomenting fear irrespective of if they stand to benefit, deceitfully or not, from that fear. "We can infer Jim Rogers is unlikely to be correct about the future of catastrophes because the last 6 years of recorded performance did not contain a catastrophic event" != "somebody who had said everything is fine 6 years in a row would have been more correct than Jim Rogers over the last 6 years THEREFORE his predictions are less likely to be right", which ignores the point that ).
• dlwdlw 9y ago
  It's actually quite useful I think, it keeps the idea alive in the background.