The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing
|Subject: Re: The Anti-Motley Fool viewpoint||Date: 2/17/1998 8:25 PM|
|Author: orangeblood||Number: 1832 of 81339|
>>><< And BTW, in a post to Pixy you said the Dog theories rely on a strong economy and
cherry-picking the best stocks... but the periods I've given you above take into account both weak
and strong economies, and there is a long enough time horizon there to negate any "luck factor" in
picking good stocks. >>
Are you serious? The US economy hasn't been strong in the 20th century?<<<<<<
Huh? I said it has been through strong and weak cycles. Does the Great Depression mean anything to you?
The Dow theories have been backtested through all of that also.
>>>Let me assure you that if you followed a DOGS strategy in the Zambia your average returns would have been quite low.<<<
The Dow theories are unique to the U.S. market. Others have explained why on this board, I won't go into that. The theories *may* work in other markets, but too many factors are different.
>>>>Not to get on my philosophy of science soapbox… but this is exactly what has led so many people astray on environmental issues. The fact that there has been a temperature rise over the last so many years does not prove that the temperature rise is man made. Unfortunately, so many scientifically illiterate people have been duped into believing this claim, I have more or less given up hope. As long as they believe that correlation proves the case, regardless of establishing a causal relationship, they are impervious to reason.<<<<
First, many scientifically literate people also believe this. (There is valid reasoning on both sides of this argument.) Second, absolutely no one, to my knowledge, assumes the temp rise to be man-made *solely* because there has been a temp rise. They believe it because there are factors to support the theory. Same with the Dow theory. The reasons why it might work are outlined on this web site and in the Gardner's books. If you were able to outline why you don't think their reasoning is valid, I would respect that and agree to disagree. But thus far you have not refuted a single one of the reasons behind the Dow theory, you've only said they don't exist.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|