▲ | kbrkbr 6 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
But I think I should be giving a reply also to the content of what you say. That's only fair after you took so much time explaining. I think you conflate two questions in your statement: the question of what can be said about a function that is up to a point exponential and growing, and after that point decaying in an unspecified manner, but so that this point is a local maximum. And secondly the question if this is a good/the only/the best model for valuations in what is called an investment bubble that then bursts. This conflation of model and modeled makes it hard for me to assess the argument, because I need to take these layers apart, and that involves guess work. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | d4rkn0d3z 6 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
There are no layers and I am trying to help you in your difficulty. It is not sound to look around and observe increasing valuations, or increases in the rate of growth of valuations and thereby conclude you are not observing a bubble. It is actually more sound to say that what you are observing is consistent with our model of bubble dynamics. | |||||||||||||||||
|