in some detail using techniques and labels from "The Fine Art of Propaganda" circa 1937.The periods could not be more different. In 1982 we were breaking the backof a major stop-go economic inflation cycle that had brought stock valuesvery low over a prolonged period. how low? no quantification. this is a glittering generality.We were viewed as weak in internationalaffairs as evidenced by the Iran hostage crisis. by whom? this is the name calling technique of propagandistsWe had suffered from increasing government intervention into the economy and expensive socialprograms introduced by both Republican and Democratic presidents. who suffered, in what way? this is a use of transfer, and card stacking.Carter's appointment of Volcker to head the Fed and then Pres. Reagan's election changed all that. clear use of transfer, reagan-volcker implied "good" but now gone from scene so things must be "bad" now.We were entering a period of much lower inflation and faster economic growth prospects once the adjustment was out of the way hindsight is always 20-20, isn't it.and doing so from a very depressed level of stock prices. how depressed? no quantification. another glittering generality.Relative to that the introduction of index futures was a small factor. again no quantification. all of the above is a use of card stacking leading up to this interim statementIn contrast, we have nowhad a long period of economic growth that was about as good as it gets. quantify "long". "as good as it gets" is a "plain folks technique" also known as cliche technique. That had the effect of creating some excess and very optimistic valuation of stock prices to reflect that envirnoment. no quantification. glittering generality, "excess" can be considered name callingWe have had a short period ofadjustment as we worked off some of that excess and confronted some newproblems in the environment. no quantification for "short" or "excess", glittering generality.Stock prices have given up a substantialportion of that excess valuation. no quantification for "substantial" "excess" "valuation", glittering generality.By many standards they are not viewed ascheap, whereas in 1982 they were clearly cheap with any sort of decenteconomic growth prospects. bandwagon type statement "by many standards" implies "everyone agrees" with propagandistIn short, the basic dynamics are quite different.no quantification, glittering generality, "in short" implies that the reader need not bother with facts or not capable of understanding them. who needs facts? not the propagandist!This may turn out to be a good time to buy, or it might not, making a prediction but not making a prediction so original question - "good time to buy?" not answered. redirect like the hustler on the street with the 3 cups.but the introduction of new futures instruments will at most play a small part in determining the magnitude of stock price changes in the overall market.concluding with a testimonial/prediction but no method proposed to assess the effect or how to verify the result of prediction at t+?.<..>the previous example is not meant to embarass anyone, but is intended simply as a teaching exercise. just ask my kids, i say dumb things all of the time. the point is that the reply posted to a question regarding ind'l stock futures and their effects on the market was pure propaganda from someone who is very bearish on the equity market. when you first read it did you find yourself nodding your head and subconsciously agreeing that the future is likely to be bearish? NOTA BENE: the writer actually did not make a prediction of market direction, but you are left with one anyway. that is a key method of propaganda. when you read it at first it seems logical enough, but then when you take it apart you realize it has no substance. that's the way propaganda works. these days we are surrounded by propaganda. caveat emptor.tr
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M