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

[SteadyMercury]

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.

Irony.

You were the one who started this thread based on a one day event.

Of course you're denying it now because you ended up looking foolish, but you aren't convincing anyone.

not your tactical day trader standpoint.

More straw man, I've never day traded in my life and certainly don't make financial moves based on day-to-day moves. I rebalance to my desired asset allocation about once a year.

Again the sign of someone with no argument, is she has to manufacture things to argue against.

 

[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.

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

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

Says the queen writing from an instituttion.

 

[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.

Well yeah Jake.

You win the Captain Obvious award..again.

I know, but some people just have to keep being brought back to reality, like EC.

 

[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.

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.

Greetings.... I suggest you read more carefully.
I am making fun of the liberal idiots who think that fluctuations in the stock market equal financial health.

I have made some additions to the original post.
Enjoy!

Additionally " Whore " is the perfect word for CEO's who chop jobs to create the false impression of stock market health.

JO

 

[SteadyMercury]

Yep, that's a liberal for ya.

And this is exactly why you are easy to spot as a phony.

Just mac alluded to, anyone who perceives the world with a heavy political bias is the last person to listen to. Especially someone who thinks a life of academia puts them in a position to lecture the posters like g5000 and mac who actually do things in the world related to economics.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Irony.

You were the one who started this thread based on a one day event.

Of course you're denying it now because you ended up looking foolish, but you aren't convincing anyone.

not your tactical day trader standpoint.

More straw man, I've never day traded in my life and certainly don't make financial moves based on day-to-day moves. I rebalance to my desired asset allocation about once a year.

Again the sign of someone with no argument, is she has to manufacture things to argue against.

Really just goes to show that people that spout off on stuff without looking at the broader implications are just juvenile and naïve.

Like...um..superspy EconChick.

 

[EconChick]

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.

Nope, I probably threw you in with the usual suspects. Looks like you don't agree with them on this point, however, that doesn't make it a straw man when the rest of them do argue it.

 

[EconChick]

Yep, that's a liberal for ya.

And this is exactly why you are easy to spot as a phony.

Just mac alluded to, anyone who perceives the world with a heavy political bias is the last person to listen to. Especially someone who thinks a life of academia puts them in a position to lecture the posters like g5000 and mac who actually do things in the world related to economics.

Well Mac's post was pretty good except the problem with Mac's post is I put this in the POLITICS forum because it was commentary on economic policies which involve political dynamics.

And if I wanted to get into the ins and outs of complex econ policies I'd suggest you go to the many threads where I've addressed specific economic policies.

If I wanted to talk just about day trading I would've put it in ANYTHING but the politics forum. .

Once again, you boys fail to see the big picture. wink wink

 

[EconChick]

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.

Irony.

You were the one who started this thread based on a one day event.

Of course you're denying it now because you ended up looking foolish, but you aren't convincing anyone.

not your tactical day trader standpoint.

More straw man, I've never day traded in my life and certainly don't make financial moves based on day-to-day moves. I rebalance to my desired asset allocation about once a year.

Again the sign of someone with no argument, is she has to manufacture things to argue against.

I'll certainly acknowledge I alluded to one day in PART of my title, but I thought anyone paying attention could see we were in the middle of a minor correction that occurred over about 10 days or so. (We had already had some bad days before the 317 drop and the bad days continued for another week.)

But I made it clear in the remainder of the thread TITLE I wasn't talking about one day. That's why I said WEEN. My first post also made it clear I wasn't talking about one day.

Again, you're incapable of understanding the complex part of my statements, you can only lock onto the parts that resonate at 10th grade comprehension level like "drops 317."

 

[EconChick]

Yep, that's a liberal for ya.

And this is exactly why you are easy to spot as a phony.

Just mac alluded to, anyone who perceives the world with a heavy political bias is the last person to listen to. Especially someone who thinks a life of academia puts them in a position to lecture the posters like g5000 and mac who actually do things in the world related to economics.

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.

Irony.

You were the one who started this thread based on a one day event.

Of course you're denying it now because you ended up looking foolish, but you aren't convincing anyone.

not your tactical day trader standpoint.

More straw man, I've never day traded in my life and certainly don't make financial moves based on day-to-day moves. I rebalance to my desired asset allocation about once a year.

Again the sign of someone with no argument, is she has to manufacture things to argue against.

LOL, day trader is a polite word for whatever the hell it is you are, but you sure can't see the macro picture.

 

[EconChick]

So while all you micro thinkers argue micro issues that bore me, I'll repeat what I basically said in the OP.

THIS IDIOT'S ECONOMIC POLICIES ARE A FAIL.

Was that easier to understand? I'll wait for 6-10 months for you to finally catch up with me.

 

[EconChick]

Yep, that's a liberal for ya.

And this is exactly why you are easy to spot as a phony.

Just mac alluded to, anyone who perceives the world with a heavy political bias is the last person to listen to. Especially someone who thinks a life of academia puts them in a position to lecture the posters like g5000 and mac who actually do things in the world related to economics.

Yo, dumb fuck. This is the Political Forum.

Are you and your retarded friends going to deny that too?

Let me ask about the 20th different question none of you libtards have answered yet.

IS THIS THE FUCKING POLITICAL FORUM OR NOT?

 

[EconChick]

[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.

.

I agree with most of the words in your post. The problem is my thread was put in the political section to talk about Obama's messed up economic policies using data points from the stock market.

You thought I was doing a thread to talk about what to do with people's investments. My apologies for that confusion. But as you said in your post, we're operating in two different spheres. But if I started the thread, wouldn't you assume it was MY sphere I was talking about and not yours. Of course they overlap, which is at the heart of the confusion.

As for implying I think in absolutes...really? You really think I, or you for that matter, can squeeze the complexities of the macro economy into one post??? If I want to talk those complexities, I will take the time it takes to do that and sell it in a form of a book.

To do it well on this website would take weeks.

And yes, in your world of dealing with real investments, you take exactly the right approach as I would expect you to.

But in my world of figuring out which policies work and don't work for 350 million Americans, I can't be wishy washy on the topic of which way to go toward....either more supply side or more big govt spending side...in the wishy washy way you've been.

Anyone who leans toward Keynesian big spending solutions is incompetent on the question of what to do about the economy.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Yo, dumb fuck. This is the Political Forum.

Yo, phony pretend economist who spends so much effort boasting her credentials might as well tattoo "insecurity and self-esteem issues" on forehead, yes this is the political forum.

A good place to note the dumbfucks who perceive the world with strong political bias, and pity they have to go thru life that way.

 

[EconChick]

Yo, dumb fuck. This is the Political Forum.

Yo, phony pretend economist who spends so much effort boasting her credentials might as well tattoo "insecurity and self-esteem issues" on forehead, yes this is the political forum.

A good place to note the dumbfucks who perceive the world with strong political bias, and pity they have to go thru life that way.

LOL, I KNEW YOU WOULD DEFLECT FROM ANSWERING A VERY BASIC QUESTION, LOL.

 

[SteadyMercury]

But I made it clear in the remainder of the thread TITLE I wasn't talking about one day.

lmfao

 

[EconChick]

Yo SteadyMerc, you're crashing and burning. LMAO.

You've been busted. To be honest, it's an honest mistake as I explained to mac but instead of acknowledging it, you are going to go down the personal attack road to try to hide what a massive dumb fuck you were.

Go for it. Even a 3rd grader knows this is the POLITICAL FORUM. IDIOT.

 

[EconChick]

But I made it clear in the remainder of the thread TITLE I wasn't talking about one day.

lmfao

Don't feel badly. There are lots of people with your low IQ who still do well in the markets and in life.

They just simply can't talk about the macro economy. LIKE YOU.

 

[eagle1462010]

Eagle and Mac, I agree with most of your analysis....which is that we're pumping blood into a dead corpse.

So first of all thanks for confirming what all the intelligent people know....which is this artificial market is no reflection of the real economy.

So the dumbass libs on this thread have been shot down right there. The stock market is not the economy, Steady Eddie.

Now the small part I disagree with you both on is that the balloon that's been filling up with more and more air has become more and more fragile. And it's only a matter of time. Mac, for you to say this could go on for years and years reveals you are not a macroeconomist. It means you don't understand the thousands of variables and global interdependencies that make it obvious to someone like me who does ....that the skin of the balloon is getting thinner and thinner. Which means all it will take is the right event to make it go POP. If you also understand foreign policy like I do, you'd know those events are on the rise. As they are domestically.

I along with many people saw every single bubble bust in the past 20+ years coming...which is why I AM anti-lib. I'm not talking about the exact date, I'm talking about the higher and higher likelihood of when it would go POP. It means I absolutely, positively know that Keynesian policies always catch up with you.

Keynsians/big spenders will always tell you we can bring down their artificial stimulus with a soft landing. Please show me one time we ever came down with a soft landing.

Ain't gonna happen. Never has, never will.

And like I said, I'm not telling you what day. I'm telling you that probabilities are steadily INCREASING, not DECREASING. And external events that will be the catalyst are increasing, not decreasing.

I understand the same thing, but I don't see our disagreement.............Except if you are refering to the Discount window where loans are being made for Margin to keep it afloat. As long as these loans are given out they prop up the dead corpse for another round.

The Fed will decide when it fails determining the time to pull the plug either through QE's or the back door.

 

[EconChick]

Eagle and Mac, I agree with most of your analysis....which is that we're pumping blood into a dead corpse.

So first of all thanks for confirming what all the intelligent people know....which is this artificial market is no reflection of the real economy.

So the dumbass libs on this thread have been shot down right there. The stock market is not the economy, Steady Eddie.

Now the small part I disagree with you both on is that the balloon that's been filling up with more and more air has become more and more fragile. And it's only a matter of time. Mac, for you to say this could go on for years and years reveals you are not a macroeconomist. It means you don't understand the thousands of variables and global interdependencies that make it obvious to someone like me who does ....that the skin of the balloon is getting thinner and thinner. Which means all it will take is the right event to make it go POP. If you also understand foreign policy like I do, you'd know those events are on the rise. As they are domestically.

I along with many people saw every single bubble bust in the past 20+ years coming...which is why I AM anti-lib. I'm not talking about the exact date, I'm talking about the higher and higher likelihood of when it would go POP. It means I absolutely, positively know that Keynesian policies always catch up with you.

Keynsians/big spenders will always tell you we can bring down their artificial stimulus with a soft landing. Please show me one time we ever came down with a soft landing.

Ain't gonna happen. Never has, never will.

And like I said, I'm not telling you what day. I'm telling you that probabilities are steadily INCREASING, not DECREASING. And external events that will be the catalyst are increasing, not decreasing.

I understand the same thing, but I don't see our disagreement.............Except if you are refering to the Discount window where loans are being made for Margin to keep it afloat. As long as these loans are given out they prop up the dead corpse for another round.

The Fed will decide when it fails determining the time to pull the plug either through QE's or the back door.

Roger, we're in complete agreement. Like great minds always are.