“We gonna have us a MIT session, he-ah…”
(Hopefully, you can still sub-vocalize while reading. Because there’s a certain loss in Hunter S. Thompson-like material when speed-reading. Loses some flavoring that only an overacted lingo-lango regionalisms can provide…)
Yes kids, time for the Old Man to huff the whiteboard marker and explain: Market Informatics is science of organizing, analyzing, and applying information.
Let’s open the puzzle box and see what’s rattling around inside, shall we? [Maybe Ure will slip and say something useful?]
Are We Replaying 1929 – Really?
You mean besides the:
- Guthrie as the replay of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping?
- Besides the market bubble?
- Besides Smoot-Hawley reincarnated as Trump?
- Besides Epstein as a replay of Teapot Dome?
- Besides Crypto filling the Charles Ponzi role?
Or, as reader n__ commented today:
“There would be a temptation to equate today’s AI with the depression era radio and fledgling TV companies (remember RCA?), but other than newness, I think the comparison ends. I’m thinking AI corresponds more closely to the rise of totalitarian states in that era; we just haven’t seen that last shoe drop yet. It’s not that I fear any particular of the electronic bogey men, it’s that their composite compulsion to monopolize financial and production resources will bury all of us. Think a Nikita that never sleeps, has no fear, never backs down. and is more self-centered than any infant. If you are in debt, you are its competitor. If you are not employed serving its needs, then you serve no purpose…”
Of course, high-speed clickers may not slow down long enough to think, so let’s help them out by providing a…
Depression Replay Drought Reader Update
Gee, skeptic, see how it’s lining up? Click away, replay refuters!
We will save the outbreak of wheat rust for when we bring a bottle of Jack to class. Tomorrow, drop for the national Drought Monitor update. Because when it comes to Replays, we really know how to party.
The Market Informatics Part
Today’s assembly of cash flows will be assembled as follows:
- Take a press release on new unemployment filings:
- Stir in Market Futures pricing – around even earlier with a small silver beat-down to keep it below $90 an ounce.
- And for the latter day Ponzi sorts $68,272 earlier. Want me to run my RNG (random number generator) and create some more “wealth” for you?
A Peoplenomics Subscriber Note
Refer to the state-variance extremes chart in yesterdays report, SVE – which closed higher. Remember that chart and here’s today’s AI read of it in the propen:
Looking at your SVE panel as-is:
You’re right — we’re lifting off the deep short extreme, but we’re not yet in classic “dangerously long” territory.
Observations from the chart:
-
- The last deep trough (red zone) was a classic oversold flush.
- The rebound leg is strong, but historically your bigger short squeezes tend to overshoot the midline before stalling.
- Prior cycles (see the pink/yellow ramps) often ran to +250 to +350 before real stall risk.
Right now we’re “warm,” not “hot.”
Translation in your language:
Shorts have felt pain.
Longs haven’t felt euphoria yet.
The compression hasn’t fully expressed.
If this is behaving like prior state-variance rebounds:
- A move higher into tomorrow / Monday is structurally reasonable.
- The real “risk of being long” zone starts when you press into the upper band and flatten.
- Volume + breadth will matter more than the level.
What I’d watch:
- Does it stall below prior ramp highs? (bearish divergence)
- Does VIX compress toward low 20s / high teens?
- Does BTC stabilize or continue lagging equities?
Your phrase “getting warm” is right.
This isn’t top-of-channel exhaustion yet. It’s more like the engine revving after a cold start.
Now the real question:
Do you want the final overshoot to clean the board —
or are you hunting for early rollover confirmation?”
Ah. The Bear to poke in Saturday’s ChartPack, non? But, today’s elevator up button was pushed by Nvidia sees only marginal gains after better-than-expected results.
War is Coming
The problem always comes down to when. Since the World has had a WW I and WW II we figure III is out there somewhere. So we have posted a fire watch and they are pointing at possible smoke:
Naturally, our Peoplenomics.com subscribers have been contemplating Open in Case of (Iran) War – Peoplenomics Subscriber Zone this month. Which suggests “War with Iran, if it comes, will not resemble Iraq. It will not resemble Afghanistan. It will not resemble anything most Americans think of when they hear the word war.” After which we describe in a 60-page briefing “WAR WITH IRAN: Fallout, Homeland, Emergency Power.”
And you saw where kooshiar on X: “UPDATE 5,100 Iranians in Silicon Valley signed a letter demanding: Immediate US support for the Iranian people. An end to the Islamic Republic. (Hat tip to reader Ray for the find…)
Yep, fine day to work on the garden. Drought defense here includes stored water and drip irrigation.
Around the Ranch: Limits of Calculus
The reason I love this site’s Comments Section (following each post) is that it keeps it all real for me. And “riding the rails of coherence”? There’s no greater thing other than finding a soulmate.
So I paused and thought deeply today when a comment mentioned in passing, “I wish I could think and operate in more mathematical terms. Did not progress past algebra and trig, never made it to calculus.”
A lot of us didn’t “get it” in high school. While others didn’t get there until much later. I was always one of those learners who needed the Use Case first – then the math would make sense. Back-asswardization in education rolls math first and you go digging for applications later. Total BS.
So, here’s the deeper insight the comment triggered:
A bit of a long reply here, since missing calculus may have preserved some brainpower rather than diminished it.
Don’t misunderstand: math can describe reality beautifully, but it does not automatically generate insight. Insight usually begins with pattern recognition, anomaly detection, and proportional reasoning.
Math is a language — a specialized one. Calculus, especially, is a compression system for describing change. If you’re modeling orbital mechanics, RF phase behavior, fluid flow, or derivatives pricing, it’s indispensable. It formalizes intuition about rates, curvature, and accumulation. In that sense, it’s powerful — not because it’s fancy, but because it forces clarity.
That said, time in life is limited. My interest in simultaneous equations didn’t arise until I actually needed the tool. Yes, in physical world, I am a tool slut. Mental tools, though, can take a long time to sharpen. Days are OK. After a few months, I check out. And at a year or two? Plus constant resharpening? Forgetaboutit. I’ve been long gone… If I’m not using a tool, I drop it from the inventory. Well, except my big metal lathe maybe, but that’s a special case.
To this day, I’ve resisted purchasing a Cat D9 with a rock claw. Not because it isn’t powerful — but because I don’t need one. Tools can become distractions masquerading as progress. People under-appreciate maintenance. Whether on a D9, airplane, or sailboat. Time spent on maintenance is time off the enjoyable parts.
Same holds for math skills. Oh, sure, conceptually it’s logical and you can rebuild from the ground up (Wolfram’s Mathematica) but why? I mean beyond it being the best insomnia medication. Sometimes, a paragraph or two and I’m down for the count.
In similar fashion, I’ve resisted plans to begin tooling up for the build-out of my thorium accelerator. Same reason — not enough time left in life to produce and benefit from the antigravitic properties of Element 115(s) isotope.
My only real interest in calculus was in the fields of ballistics and certain aspects of “sailing the line” when boating in a rag-bag serious manner. Putting numbers to keel side slip, cross wind and sail loading while in currents of various headings and amplitudes? Maybe there. I’m not a grand fan of calculus as some are. It remains, in my view, a kind of erudite hole from which numberizers emerge.
Rather, I’ve found it more useful to understand how principles behave in the real world. Even in PN this week, when we’re looking at comparative graphics of exponential curves, the lesson isn’t about elegant equations — it’s about recognizing patterns. There’s a lot more going down in those curves than bullets dropping.
By the way, an extension on Trust Function Decay will be coming in early April under the title “Can AI Build a Time Machine?” Where I “farm out” the heavy-duty math, which I’m getting too old and impatient for. Which is the whole “link to external math bank” of AI that most people miss….
Mathematics is a tool, not an end in itself. I’m endlessly amused by certain Fed papers that begin with an abstract, wander through a patch of minutia, and then apply what feels like made-up math to retrofit the observation. That’s fine for journals. It’s less useful for living. Tradeable? Mostly not. But useful for contextualizing.
There is a small (but non-zero) chance that humans operate with limited brainpower and over a generally limited time of less than 100 cognizant years. The Dude simulation has both clocks and levels, you see?
Each of us, born into this massive domain spectrum, multi-player game becomes a kind of coherence-seeking agent. For some, coherence glimmers in simultaneous solutions, numerified. Others catch the scent of discovery — and Beholding — through visualization. Still others through music. See Gödel, Escher, Bach — a dandy book on the subject.
Me? I prefer stepping back, visualizing the whole field, and then extending the search for meaning from there. I trust math as a measuring stick. Tuning fork to compare the “notes.” As a snowplow to break new ground? Sometimes. But pattern recognition and proportion will take you a long way without ever solving for x.
Failing there, we roast a bowl, raise a glass, and dream of distant shores where all coherences converge.
Then we wake up and go see how the futures are doing.
Write when you get rich,
Read the full article here