ivorm said:
I'd like to put forward another way of looking at this.
It's not the stars or planets (or other celestial objects) that affect the market. Rather, it's the view that the the stars, planets, etc are subject to the same cosmic forces and cycles that affect everything in the universe.
I'd like to ramble ineffectually for a while, for which I apologise in advance. Put me on ignore, please.
Ivorm, your argument seduced me for some time and is very difficult to refute with any authority - not that I would wish to, as point-scoring is the last of my priorities. I have wrestled with it for hours and not arrived at a satisfactory conclusion, which, rather than being depressing has, among other twists and turns, made me realise how wonderful it is to be a confused, somewhat ignorant human! Thanks for posting.
Bear with me on this cause I've turned the pomposity - and call centre cliché - filter to off.
First, a general, obvious point. Given our somewhat pathetic and subjective view of the machinations of an unfeasibly large universe, we simply cannot determine any concrete, objective truth about it, or ourselves, as we in the unfortunate postion of trying to look down dispassionately upon it, while still being very much part of the very area we try to cooly observe. We are rats in a covered trap trying to work out what the unseen scientist has in store for us, if you like, while of course not knowing if he exists at all, or why. Poor analogy I know, but I hope it conveys my point.
To put it another way, can we confidently discover and test convincingly any truth or universal principle, regarding the "real" way the universe works, or is every "law" we confidently assert simply a matter of interpretation, by us, according to our frame of reference? Despite our best efforts at asserting a logical framework that seems to work within its own boundaries, we simply cannot know the universal truths, if we're honest - and indeed if there are any to be had, at all. I suspect that there aren't - it is what is is etc.
But we have brains, so naturally we try - or incessantly watch Sky - and there is as much value in the trying as there is in the lack of truthful conclusion. I accept all that and do not require meaning, grand design or purpose.
Consistent empirical evidence is a good start, of course, but it can only be valid in as much as we apply it to our particular way of looking at things. That said, if one is in our position, I would prefer some empirical evidence instead of none: we don't quite understand why planes fly or how electromagnetic motors work, but, given that they do, time and time again under the same conditions, we have something to work with and can extrapolate accordingly. If a Wright plane flies, then so will a 747 and this helps us trot around the globe, to our collective advantage.
This is simply not true of any astrological theory of the market. The evidence amounts to nothing. One day our evidence may of course indicate to the contrary but until it does I am happy to ignore the field entirely and concentrate on studies, closer to home, that show a little more promise.
Anyway, I wander off topic into the realm of philosophy and there is little to be gained by progressing - or not - further. The centre of the earth could be filled with furiously perambulating kittens and thus it spins, for all we know.
However I will say this, for what it's worth: market participants have the dubious luxury of free will (determinism excepted!), as well as beliefs, goals and emotions, while planets, stars and the like do not. These cosmic forces and cycles you mention have a fairly predictable effect on their inorganic quarry: for instance, gravity holds a planet in orbit while kinetic energy, given the little resistance provided by space, keeps it on the move. Thus a cycle is observed and an explicable force, according to our frame of reference, at least, is the obvious cause.
Humans are of course subject to these forces too, in a physical sense. We all know that a hot skillet will singe an unwisely placed hand, that we cannot jump 40 metres in the air and that night alternates regularly with day, and so on. We are also all equally aware of these "laws" and act accordingly, accepting the limitations imposed and moulding our lives around them.
For instance, we have chosen to be awake, go about our business and trade during the day. There is no covert, mysterious force at work here: rather it is a matter of collective convenience. En masse, we have decided our working hours based on a constant pattern of the earth rotating around the sun. We could always choose to trade at night, or at any time, but we prefer not to, much as we choose to carry an umbrella when it rains. This is surely different to being subject to "unseen" forces that influence us without our knowing?
This includes human behaviour and, therefore, indirectly the markets.
To compare our freely chosen actions with those of unthinking objects such as Mars does not really get us anywhere, imho. I wonder why you say "indirectly" as surely the effect would be direct, since markets are solely composed of humans, or at least humans using programs of their own design? If human behaviour is affected, then the market's will be too, all too directly.
The question seems to be:
Do undetected cosmic 'forces, cycles and patterns' have an effect on our decisions without our being aware of it? Is that the basis of astrology?
If this is so, then by observing the movements of celestial objects, we may be able to discern the movements of the market NOT because the celestial objects are affecting the markets but because the markets will be following the same cycles.
We are in danger of clouding the argument with woolly definitions. Now I like wool as much as the next woman - I am fashioned from said material after all
- but what leads you to think that markets will follow the same cosmic cycles as inorganic matter floating on a fairly predictable trajectory around the galaxy? You are not comparing like with like, imho. As you know, markets are composed of humans, and there is a huge difference between a lump of rock subject to basic physical forces and a being with free will (and all the other luxuries/cumbersome emotional baggage that (s)he possesses).
What I want you to do - grr
- is define the 'cosmic forces and cycles' (beyond the basic physical ones which we have researched, tested and provided working theories for, such as gravity, kinetic energy, electricity etc.) that affect our decisions while we trade. The movement of the sun (actually the earth, lol) may well define
when we trade, as a matter of obvious convenience, but does it affect
how we trade, if you like?
Let us imagine *assumes role of devil's advocate * that it does. To be precise, Thompson, celestial forces and certain alignments have an effect on the market. Does it not then follow that all of us will be affected equally? After all, we talk of the market being affected by astrology, so do we not mean the market as a whole? Assuming we do, then what is the point of studying this effect, given that the market is composed of buyers and sellers all trying to achieve the same aim? In short ...
If the effect of these 'cosmic cycles/forces' is [market] universal, then it can be disregarded as it will affect all participants equally.
But, if you'd have it instead that a given
turning point is caused by a certain cycle, which also causes Mercury risin', for instance, then this cycle must have influenced more people to sell than buy, or vice versa, which implies that the influence is selective, not universal, and thus fickle and subjective. Either we're all affected in the same way, which would mean we all have an uncontrollable urge to buy/sell, or there is no consistent, testable effect, in other words.
Imagine that a univeral influence is true: what can be done? Zoom in a little - or a lot, if we're talking about Pluto
- and simply observe the trails left by market participants. There is no need to go "out" any further as all the evidence we need is sitting right in front of us. Market participants can only do one of three things - stay out, buy, or sell - and all of these actions leave irrefutable evidence in terms of price and volume movement. Why bother with the so-called causes of participants' actions when you can analyse the very actions themselves and come to a simple conclusion of what has happened and thus, with practice and observation, what is likely to happen next?
I apologise again for all this. Most unbefitting of a mod.
Funny how a thread that I so blithely rejected comes to make me try to think more than any other has done for some time. Humans and irony eh ... I'd rather be a cat.
