Disqus - Latest Comments for landonswan

Re: Landon Swan.com — Picked up some nice additions to bourbon...

landonswan — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 20:42:52 -0000

Deal, as long as I can pay anytime in the next 12 months ;)

Re: Landon Swan.com - Life goal: Break 80 in golf, check

landonswan — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:50:34 -0000

very interesting

Re: SWAT Team?

landonswan — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 23:39:16 -0000

Good to hear it. Best for last IMHO :)

Stay tuned...

Re: SWAT Team?

landonswan — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 23:39:16 -0000

Good to hear it. Best for last IMHO :)

Stay tuned...

Re: SWAT Team?

landonswan — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:39:16 -0000

Good to hear it. Best for last IMHO :)

Stay tuned...

Re: Stock Market Performance vs Congress Party Control

landonswan — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:59:26 -0000

You&#39ll have to ask google for that. I limited my chart to the stock market.

Re: Stock Market Performance vs Congress Party Control

landonswan — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:59:26 -0000

You&#39ll have to ask google for that. I limited my chart to the stock market.

Re: Stock Market Performance vs Congress Party Control

landonswan — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:56:39 -0000

1) Change is listed on the row that created the change. I am assuming that the government in power creates change going forward, not backwards. That is why the change is listed on that line. So looking at the first row, at the beginning of 1945 the DJIA was at 154. The market moved up 26 during that government&#39s reign to 180 in Jan of 1947. So during that government, the market went up 17%. Are you suggesting we attribute that 17% gain to the government of 1947-1949? That makes no sense to me.
2) As stated in the post, data is taken every two years. There is no missing data. I am only looking at the total change during that government&#39s tenure. Since the government only changes every 2 years, including the middle years of no change is pointless.
3) The new house and senate start on the 3rd of January on odd years and the president starts a little later in Jan (20th) on odd years. The elections are on even years, but the terms start in odd years. That is why I show odd years.
4) I aced stats in college. Literally 100%. So don&#39t make 3 horrible points then try to lecture me on stats. I know the difference between causation and correlation. I am not making any conclusions, only offering data. It is up to the reader, no matter how bad their understanding of percent gain, basic math or terms (or starting date of terms) of presidents and congress is. Thank you for showing that point so well.

Given your apparent lack of comprehension of my post, the market and our government, I appreciate your score of the "F". An "A" would have me very worried.

Re: Stock Market Performance vs Congress Party Control

landonswan — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:56:39 -0000

Given your apparent lack of comprehension of my post, the market and our government, I appreciate your score of the "F". An "A" would have me very worried.

Re: Stock Market Performance vs Congress Party Control

landonswan — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:57:00 -0000

I'm calling "support" having both house and senate. And "opposition" having neither house or senate. I do not give specific stats on split congress, but do include them in the "no matter who controls congress" lines.

Re: Stock Market Performance vs Congress Party Control

landonswan — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:57:00 -0000

Re: Stock Market Performance vs Congress Party Control

landonswan — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:59:26 -0000

You'll have to ask google for that. I limited my chart to the stock market.

Re: Stock Market Performance vs Congress Party Control

landonswan — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:57:56 -0000

Re: Stock Market Performance vs Congress Party Control

landonswan — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:56:39 -0000

1) Change is listed on the row that created the change. I am assuming that the government in power creates change going forward, not backwards. That is why the change is listed on that line. So looking at the first row, at the beginning of 1945 the DJIA was at 154. The market moved up 26 during that government's reign to 180 in Jan of 1947. So during that government, the market went up 17%. Are you suggesting we attribute that 17% gain to the government of 1947-1949? That makes no sense to me.
2) As stated in the post, data is taken every two years. There is no missing data. I am only looking at the total change during that government's tenure. Since the government only changes every 2 years, including the middle years of no change is pointless.
3) The new house and senate start on the 3rd of January on odd years and the president starts a little later in Jan (20th) on odd years. The elections are on even years, but the terms start in odd years. That is why I show odd years.
4) I aced stats in college. Literally 100%. So don't make 3 horrible points then try to lecture me on stats. I know the difference between causation and correlation. I am not making any conclusions, only offering data. It is up to the reader, no matter how bad their understanding of percent gain, basic math or terms (or starting date of terms) of presidents and congress is. Thank you for showing that point so well.

Given your apparent lack of comprehension of my post, the market and our government, I appreciate your score of the "F". An "A" would have me very worried.

Re: The Geography of Gun Deaths - Richard Florida - National - The Atlantic

landonswan — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 11:14:23 -0000

1) Including self defense seems silly.

2) Providing your data and sources would be helpful (or did I just miss it?)

3) If you don't cherry pick which 3 gun control laws you look at, you'll find no correlation.

Brady Score vs firearm murder rate, %, crime etc:
http://www.landonswan.com/p...

Re: Gun Control vs Murder/Crime rates: a statistical look

landonswan — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:32:38 -0000

Sure thing. Spread the word, but a quick note. I only did 20 mins of work adding violent crime. The real work was done by http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p...

Re: Gun Control vs Murder/Crime rates: a statistical look

landonswan — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:32:38 -0000

Sure thing. Spread the word, but a quick note. I only did 20 mins of work adding violent crime. The real work was done by http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p...

Re: Gun Control vs Murder/Crime rates: a statistical look

landonswan — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:32:38 -0000

Sure thing. Spread the word, but a quick note. I only did 20 mins of work adding violent crime. The real work was done by http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p...

Re: Gun Control vs Murder/Crime rates: a statistical look

landonswan — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:32:38 -0000

Sure thing. Spread the word, but a quick note. I only did 20 mins of work adding violent crime. The real work was done by http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p...

Re: Gun Control vs Murder/Crime rates: a statistical look

landonswan — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:32:38 -0000

Sure thing. Spread the word, but a quick note. I only did 20 mins of work adding violent crime. The real work was done by http://thisainthell.us/blog...

Re: Regret

landonswan — Sun, 13 May 2012 03:47:34 -0000

Lesson learned. I too am glad I stepped up and spoke about grandpa. Thanks Dr Biz :)

Re: Regret

landonswan — Sun, 13 May 2012 03:47:34 -0000

Lesson learned. I too am glad I stepped up and spoke about grandpa. Thanks Dr Biz :)

Re: Regret

landonswan — Sat, 12 May 2012 18:47:34 -0000

Lesson learned. I too am glad I stepped up and spoke about grandpa. Thanks Dr Biz :)

Re: http://spacetimerip.com/post/21852778753

landonswan — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:25:10 -0000

Thanks for sharing. Last 2 minutes blew my mind a bit. Very interesting.

Re: http://tickertank.tumblr.com/post/18985718677

landonswan — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:54:00 -0000

It's funny how stops tend to hit more often than mental stops. Good lesson for every trader to learn. Plus you're right, it is a good discipline exercise.