Well, using the analytics that money flow is a vital part of growth processes, then one can answer no. The problem is knowing whether what one is seeing is a money flow event or part of a growth cycle.
The point of this for trading is that if USD is simply correcting upwards then it can just as easily continue its merry way downwards. The removal of support structures has made the economy impossible to predict even in short terms.
However it might be added that money flow is not predictability in a process, it is imposition of functionality on a structure which eventually rejects it (i.e. the crisis).
But if it is starting a growth cycle, then look at the advantages of getting in on the beginning of this. The fundamental question is whether the US economy entering a growth cycle. That is a powerful source of chaos structuring.
This blog feels it is, but is concerned about the effects of leaving interest rates as they are (both their numerical figure and their state relative to ECB) on this development. The question really is how robust is a growth cycle.
Fractal structures are really strong, this is a consequences of the way they are built. The fractal elements of economic growth, perhaps even particular the the United States are companies.
It seems to me companies are growing, and they they have technical support for this (technical in the information engineering sense). The technical support is structural support, that is they express the phenomenon of growth cycles to have a pointer left for them in a Dow surge and then for that pointer to be filled and then exceeded at a later stage.
That pointer is the tech boom of the late 1990s. The signs of this are what is happening with Internet tech companies. The movement of the Dow post 2001 was probably not a fulfillment of this, it was about an asset inflation using controls imposed by interest rate differentials.
I deal with this company revolution through my website and it is highly impressive (Google, the ad companies and so on). It is as well the potential fulfillment of the promise underlying .com, that it puts business in the reach of the people, it is democratic.
The .com was not about this, it was about potential for start-ups. The real .com is about making a start up essentially within a few clicks, it changes the definition of what a start-up is.
Innovative US companies are actually explicitly helping this. The recent changes in Facebook profiles for example have suddenly created a sea of new tech entrepreneurs, if they want this to be the case. This kind of growth is fractally sound and it may be the basis for a new Elliott Wave upwards.
A new Elliott Wave would need a revolution, simply pumping up assets has stopped working as this blog has outlined, and this seems to me like it could be it.
The EU can be part of this as well, but using the fact it is a new economy, but with immensely powerful developed fractal elements. The problem really is that as an economy interest rates are kind of an addendum for the EU, but they are not to the US which has relaxed into interest rate control.
It is effective and distributed in the US, with a powerful central bank and effective regional centers but not at all in the EU, how could it. Thus interest rate differentials impact the US economy but do not impact the EU, yet. But they do most certainly affect money flow. Think of the conduit as a pressure to the EU, by necessity of its structure.
The basis of fractal growth is something being built by itself from a point. The argument for importing methods in different regions to other seems like part of this as well. It is like elements being brought to logical points where something new can be built, like collecting construction materials, if you like.
Growth processes will take care of the building process itself, but the materials are required. It is like an optimization on growth, like what forex itself does all the time.
© 2010 Guy Barry - All Rights Reserved.
