Maybe not.


I'd certainly disagree with him contradicting himself. The posts of his that I've read make the same points consistently.


1. Price is relative to the conditions of the transaction. That is, the first seller did not lose money to the middleman simply because the middleman sold it at a higher price. Rather, each took the best opportunity each could of their respective situation.


2. He advocates trend following


3. Trend followers could do better if they were not reacting to each other's signals which simultaneously creates a more unfavorable market for the lot of them.


If you can find a contradiction here, or perhaps in some other message, clue me in.


I have a question for eLROY. Isn't the exploitability of the market to trend-following a trend itself? What is meant is that the market, be it commodity or stock, is sometimes trending and sometimes it's jumping back and forth. What do you do when there is no clear trend? Is that the whole point of "collusion", to delay or perhaps suppress the markets adaptation to trend-followers and their signals?