The Living Force
obyvatel said:EmeraldHope said:I agree that it was not a normal swing down, but the swing up was not normal either. So I still see it as regression for now.
\It is possible. However, something to keep in mind is that in general, the regression to the mean concept assumes randomness. Over a large enough field of observation, random factors tend to balance out. If there are identifiable causal factors that come into the picture, then application of the regression to the mean concept may not be valid. In this instance, if there are causal factors (like an orchestrated controlled burn by the PTB) which have started the economy on an overall downward spiral, then the old accepted "mean" would not be a valid point of reference anymore to apply the regression concept.
I am going to go out on a limb here and respond to this. As it is said here, one cannot change the way one thinks with the way one thinks. I am very weak in logic and reason on an academic level as I never studied it, except what I have been exposed to here. So , any help to getting on the right track if I am off would be appreciated, as I am really trying to learn.
On the one hand, I agree with you. In poker, if the game is "rigged" the statistics will not hold up and it will become obvious something is wrong. But, if we view the machinations of the powers that be over a larger sample size, there are also identifiable causal factors,, and we have to see an overall picture in which changed the "old accepted mean". For instance, Bretton Woods in 1913 and the coming off of the gold standard in the early 70's. Both were game changers. Both affected the "real " economy.
The larger the sample size, the better. So if we look at the mean as larger than just the last 10 years, shoot, let's call it 200 years, I think we do see a reversal to the mean. Or we can take it back 100's of years. We can call the mean for the majority feudalism or debt slavery, it does not matter. From a larger sample size, we are truly reverting back to a mean.
I would say in a very large sample size, there has always been short term rigging events and the mean over a larger sample size is as described in the last paragraph.
edit- removed odd size text from last paragraph.