Dow Drops 317. Time For Crackheads to Ween Themselves from Stimulus

[EconChick]

Mac, for you to say this could go on for years and years reveals you are not a macroeconomist.

Not sure what you mean by "macroeconomist" - that could be a specific position as an economist in a specific industry, or it could just be someone who looks at economics in a macro way from an amateur perspective. What I am is an investment advisor and economic writer who, as part of my occupation, has to maintain a curious, non-political and dispassionate perspective on domestic and world markets of all kinds, as well as the various political environments across the world. So, from my own perspective, I do have to practice macroeconomics at all times.

Yes, there are many who feel as you do, that the skin of the balloon is growing thinner and is about to burst. There are also many who feel that the generally artificial nature of markets can continue almost indefinitely, due to the elasticity that is inherent in its artificiality. So, there are experienced and intelligent people on both ends of the argument. Since I'm under no obligation to issue predictions on such matters, and since I'm not bound by some partisan political ideology, I'm more than happy to admit that I can't predict the future with any clarity.

Nor can anyone else. That much I do know.

.

Roger, understand your background. And makes sense. My background is mid thesis of an econ doctorate. Amateur would be a silly description, no?

I agree with most of what you say until you get to the point where you say no one can predict the future.

What exactly do you mean by that? You could drive an aircraft carrier through the size of the hole........

Do you mean exact day a crash will occur? Totally agree. Do you mean predict which type of policies work and don't work....ummm, you couldn't be more wrong. That's something a really seasoned macroeconomist would know.

Where you are also incorrect is that the experts on both sides are not even.

If you're as knee deep as I've been in economic HISTORY for 20 years now, you'd know that is unequivocally, undeniably wrong.

The Keynsian approach does not work in the long run. Especially not the Keynes on Steroids approach these idiots have taken in the WH.

Also the fact you're noncommittal to which policy is better shows you're not really a macro thinker.

I take that back. I absolutely agree you are looking at macro factors; I can just tell by the few words you typed. But as shocking as it may seem, there are some that think much MUCH more macro than you do. That entails knowing a lot of econ history for the past number of decades.

 

[EconChick]

.

You sound as silly as Terry Bamonte and other Mises clones.

I'm the one part way through an econ doctorate. And your credential are what, shit for brains?????

I'll wait for your answer.



Which you'll deflect from with some other irrelevant comment.

You're too stupid to even be on this thread.

 

[EconChick]

Basically it seems that superspy, economist Econchick was wrong..

You're even dumber than Fakey Jakey and that's saying A LOT.

 

[Sallow]

Basically it seems that superspy, economist Econchick was wrong..

You're even dumber than Fakey Jakey and that's saying A LOT.

And your insults don't change anything.

You were wrong superspy.

 

[SteadyMercury]

The stock market is not the economy, Steady Eddie.

Never said it was, but nice straw man.

 

[EconChick]

That's the best you two idiots can come back with???


Lots and lots of substance in your posts there, Sallow. At least Eddie tries.


So, I'm going to ask this VERY RELEVENT question, unlike the idiot G5's, to my thread title:

You tell me what your definition of WEEN is?

I'll wait....

 

[EconChick]

Yo Sallow, isn't there a rule that says you can't just come on a thread and do nothing but attack? Moron.

I won't even report you, you're not worth it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

.

You sound as silly as Terry Bamonte and other Mises clones.

I'm the one part way through an econ doctorate. And your credential are what, shit for brains?????

I'll wait for your answer.



Which you'll deflect from with some other irrelevant comment.

You're too stupid to even be on this thread.

You are appeal to personal authority is as convincing as that of Edward Baiamonte.

You have shown no reason at all for anyone to believe what you post.

 

[SteadyMercury]

blah blah blah blah

Spin spin spin.

Here is what you posted after the stock market had a big drop a month ago:

Well, look at that.
Just like those of us who actually understand the market predicted.

All that artificial driving up of the stock market numbers we kept warning about? Well, we told ya, what goes up, must come down.

You are now desperately trying to detach yourself from that ridiculous post, and it is amusing to watch.

 

[justoffal]

Well, look at that.

Just like those of us who actually understand the market predicted.

All that artificial driving up of the stock market numbers we kept warning about? Well, we told ya, what goes up, must come down.

And we warned ya that once there were "signs" of an "improving" economy, the crack heads would have to start weening themselves from all that free money pushing up the stock market. Well not free, but with zero interest rates, almost free.

Ooops, in Obama's fucked up Bizzarro World, good economic news is bad news for the stock market.

This is the watershed event. Watch smart investors start to slowly pull out.

Yep every time an honest analyst gets anywhere near the financial and economic realities the numbers go down because they must.

The rain has washed the make-up off of the whore.

What some of the above commenters seem to be missing is that company stock prices have very little to do with the work force and Main street and everything to do with Cash flow/cost ratios. Ergo a company that has a sagging stock price can lay off 100 employees, cut two product lines and play footsie with their bank accounts to double their stock price.

Eventually however the negative impact of cannibalistic shrinkage catches up to the new phony numbers and with each successive cannibalism there is less room to play with the value of the company. Enron was a perfect example of how that works.

JO

 

[JakeStarkey]

You're even dumber than Fakey Jakey and that's saying A LOT.

This from EC, the equivalent of Edward Baiamonte.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's the best you two idiots can come back with???


Lots and lots of substance in your posts there, Sallow. At least Eddie tries.


So, I'm going to ask this VERY RELEVENT question, unlike the idiot G5's, to my thread title:

You tell me what your definition of WEEN is?

I'll wait....

You have shown you don't have cred to ask the questions, hon.

And you have no idea anyway.

 

[EconChick]

blah blah blah blah

Spin spin spin.

Here is what you posted after the stock market had a big drop a month ago:

Well, look at that.
Just like those of us who actually understand the market predicted.

All that artificial driving up of the stock market numbers we kept warning about? Well, we told ya, what goes up, must come down.

You are now desperately trying to detach yourself from that ridiculous post, and it is amusing to watch.

Yo IDIOT. You thought I was saying the market crashed that day dumb ass????????????????

Of course I didn't say that.

You keep locking onto ONE day instead of being able to stand back and think in a macroeconomic way.

Why do you think I said WEEEEEN, dumb ass?

I notice you won't answer that question because it will show how stupid you were to think tactically in the first place instead of macro.

Go back and re read from a macro standpoint, not your tactical day trader standpoint.

 

[SteadyMercury]

You are the idiots claiming the rising stock market is a sign of a booming economy and a sign of great policies.

Can you highlight the post I claimed this? I certainly don't hold this opinion so I suspect you are continuing to argue against a strawman, which of course is the sign of a weak argument.

I think the only time I've addressed this subject recently is arguing against Sallow in that other thread with his constant posting of daily market highs implying that is an indicator of the economy or successful economic policies. It ain't.

 

[EconChick]

That's the best you two idiots can come back with???


Lots and lots of substance in your posts there, Sallow. At least Eddie tries.


So, I'm going to ask this VERY RELEVENT question, unlike the idiot G5's, to my thread title:

You tell me what your definition of WEEN is?

I'll wait....

You have shown you don't have cred to ask the questions, hon.

And you have no idea anyway.

LOL, I don't know what my own use of word "WEEN" means???

Really, Fakey, you need to be institutionalized moron, LOL.

 

[Mac1958]

[Roger, understand your background. And makes sense. My background is mid thesis of an econ doctorate. Amateur would be a silly description, no?

I agree with most of what you say until you get to the point where you say no one can predict the future.

What exactly do you mean by that? You could drive an aircraft carrier through the size of the hole........

Do you mean exact day a crash will occur? Totally agree. Do you mean predict which type of policies work and don't work....ummm, you couldn't be more wrong. That's something a really seasoned macroeconomist would know.

Where you are also incorrect is that the experts on both sides are not even.

If you're as knee deep as I've been in economic HISTORY for 20 years now, you'd know that is unequivocally, undeniably wrong.

The Keynsian approach does not work in the long run. Especially not the Keynes on Steroids approach these idiots have taken in the WH.

Also the fact you're noncommittal to which policy is better shows you're not really a macro thinker.

I take that back. I absolutely agree you are looking at macro factors; I can just tell by the few words you typed. But as shocking as it may seem, there are some that think much MUCH more macro than you do. That entails knowing a lot of econ history for the past number of decades.

Well, again, it depends on definitions.

It's been my experience that most people in my profession think essentially like I do: That absolutes are dangerous and usually destructive. Ours is not a profession in which we have the luxury of making observations and positing theories based on our observations; we are investing people's money and have to take responsibilities for the results. So, economists and theories are fine, but we're operating in two different spheres. When I'm looking at the macro picture, I have to act on it.

When I say "no one can predict the future", I mean exactly that. There are "experts" in my profession who get it wrong 40% of the time and, with that batting average, are tremendously successful. The king of bonds, Bill Gross, completely misplayed the bond market about a year ago. And obviously, the world is growing more complex by the day and markets and economies are swayed by the unforeseen. So I simply don't believe that one person can predict what's going to happen, not for a minute.

Keynesian vs. free markets? This is an example of how absolutes are dangerous. Life is simply not the binary world that partisans want it to be. There will never be one or the other, it's all a matter of finding the proper and most effective equilibrium. Again, I'm under no obligation to take some politically-motivated stand. The world is changing every day.

.

 

[Sallow]

That's the best you two idiots can come back with???


Lots and lots of substance in your posts there, Sallow. At least Eddie tries.


So, I'm going to ask this VERY RELEVENT question, unlike the idiot G5's, to my thread title:

You tell me what your definition of WEEN is?

I'll wait....

Great band.

 

[Sallow]

[Roger, understand your background. And makes sense. My background is mid thesis of an econ doctorate. Amateur would be a silly description, no?

I agree with most of what you say until you get to the point where you say no one can predict the future.

What exactly do you mean by that? You could drive an aircraft carrier through the size of the hole........

Do you mean exact day a crash will occur? Totally agree. Do you mean predict which type of policies work and don't work....ummm, you couldn't be more wrong. That's something a really seasoned macroeconomist would know.

Where you are also incorrect is that the experts on both sides are not even.

If you're as knee deep as I've been in economic HISTORY for 20 years now, you'd know that is unequivocally, undeniably wrong.

The Keynsian approach does not work in the long run. Especially not the Keynes on Steroids approach these idiots have taken in the WH.

Also the fact you're noncommittal to which policy is better shows you're not really a macro thinker.

I take that back. I absolutely agree you are looking at macro factors; I can just tell by the few words you typed. But as shocking as it may seem, there are some that think much MUCH more macro than you do. That entails knowing a lot of econ history for the past number of decades.

Well, again, it depends on definitions.

It's been my experience that most people in my profession think essentially like I do: That absolutes are dangerous and usually destructive. Ours is not a profession in which we have the luxury of making observations and positing theories based on our observations; we are investing people's money and have to take responsibilities for the results. So, economists and theories are fine, but we're operating in two different spheres. When I'm looking at the macro picture, I have to act on it.

When I say "no one can predict the future", I mean exactly that. There are "experts" in my profession who get it wrong 40% of the time and, with that batting average, are tremendously successful. The king of bonds, Bill Gross, completely misplayed the bond market about a year ago. And obviously, the world is growing more complex by the day and markets and economies are swayed by the unforeseen. So I simply don't believe that one person can predict what's going to happen, not for a minute.

Keynesian vs. free markets? This is an example of how absolutes are dangerous. Life is simply not the binary world that partisans want it to be. There will never be one or the other, it's all a matter of finding the proper and most effective equilibrium. Again, I'm under no obligation to take some politically-motivated stand. The world is changing every day.

.

Every once in a while?

You make sense.

This is one of those times.

Have a great weekend.

 

[EconChick]

Well, look at that.

Just like those of us who actually understand the market predicted.

All that artificial driving up of the stock market numbers we kept warning about? Well, we told ya, what goes up, must come down.

And we warned ya that once there were "signs" of an "improving" economy, the crack heads would have to start weening themselves from all that free money pushing up the stock market. Well not free, but with zero interest rates, almost free.

Ooops, in Obama's fucked up Bizzarro World, good economic news is bad news for the stock market.

This is the watershed event. Watch smart investors start to slowly pull out.

Yep every time an honest analyst gets anywhere near the financial and economic realities the numbers go down because they must.

The rain has washed the make-up off of the whore.

JO

Awwwwwwww, love when I get so under someone's skin they start to throw out whore or ****.

Yep, that's a liberal for ya.

You're both stupid and classless.

Go back to jerking off, moron.

 

[Sallow]

That's the best you two idiots can come back with???


Lots and lots of substance in your posts there, Sallow. At least Eddie tries.


So, I'm going to ask this VERY RELEVENT question, unlike the idiot G5's, to my thread title:

You tell me what your definition of WEEN is?

I'll wait....

You have shown you don't have cred to ask the questions, hon.

And you have no idea anyway.

Well yeah Jake.

You win the Captain Obvious award..again.