My Example Growth Page (2013)

Following on from 25 April

Watching CNBC from Honolulu USA, Thursday 25 April 2013: I have looked at the videos in which Gary Kaminsky interviewed John Gottermann (April 2012, and 4 February 2013) and Tom McClellan (27 February 2013) and in which Gary Kaminsky was a guest and discussed Apple at the end of the interview. It seems clear that the decline of Apple's share price from its peak was caused by factors other than the exponential divergence which is illustrated in the plots below. However, becaues of the high growth rate sustained over a number of years, the decline and the divergence were not so far apart. Furthermore it seems that if the growth is assumed to continue for nine more years, then the exponential divergence would dominate and almost certainly would force a decline.

Below, I look at the growth of the Apple share price from 1 June 2005 to 1 September 2012 as ...

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_1.gif]
[Graphics:Images/index_gr_2.gif]

... one day compounding periods followed by  1  to  9  years during which time it is assumed that the growth is sustained during the added years.

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_3.gif]
[Graphics:Images/index_gr_4.gif]

The growth rate is calculated immediately below where the growth was from  40.76  to  705 and the compoundings = 2650.

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_5.gif]
[Graphics:Images/index_gr_6.gif]
[Graphics:Images/index_gr_7.gif]

What is plotted on the vertical axes in the plots below is, as a multiple of the initial amount, the excess by which the sum of all the columns beyond the second exceeds the sum of the first two columns (see the page here and "back button" to here when finished). It seems to me that subtracting the first two columns of growth enables us to see the onset of the exponential divergence.

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_8.gif]

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_9.gif]

.
.
.

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_10.gif]

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_11.gif]

.
.
.

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_12.gif]

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_13.gif]

.
.
.

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_14.gif]

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_15.gif]

.
.
.

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_16.gif]

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_17.gif]

.
.
.

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_18.gif]

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_19.gif]

.
.
.

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_20.gif]

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_21.gif]

.
.
.

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_22.gif]

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_23.gif]

.
.
.

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_24.gif]

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_25.gif]

.
.
.

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_26.gif]

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_27.gif]

Concluding Hypothesis: From this and all my previous work, I suspect that we can have perpetual prosperity, but it must be decoupled from the mythical perpetual growth that is so much at odds with reality that ... no stock of any significant duration has ever gone only up? I imagine that a typical factory in our perpetually prosperous economy would have two work forces - one for the expansion phase and one for the contraction phase. When, to use just a few words to stand for many things, each force is at "work" the other is in "relaxation" where work is product production on the one hand and maintenance on the other. Relaxation is professional development and vacation. The expansion & contraction cycles continue ad infinitum - with recessional job losses a thing of the past.

Now please:
An overview presentation is here.
The full economic hypothesis page is here.
And the exponential function for befuddled experts is here.

Initializations

[Graphics:Images/index_gr_28.gif]
[Graphics:Images/index_gr_29.gif]
[Graphics:Images/index_gr_30.gif]
[Graphics:Images/index_gr_31.gif]
[Graphics:Images/index_gr_32.gif]
[Graphics:Images/index_gr_33.gif]


Converted by Mathematica      April 29, 2013