For Whatever it is worth to you, here is my chart evaluation of the stock market for this coming week

[citygator]

Big thing is the pension /SS payments for older folk …that will sustain retired folks, regardless of their net worth…. SS payments for retirees might be in trouble for the future because of the low birth rate in this country. It has fallen below the replacement rate so something needs to be done there. Democrats need to celebrate life, be pro life celebrate Christian values and family values.

Yea. If you max out SS for 30 years you will get about $5,200 per month for the top percent in todays dollars. The average is closer to $2,400. So getting $2,400 per month for the last 20 years of your life using a discount rate of 5% suggests that is worth $350,000 today. So you can add that amount to the average family savings.

Immigration increases the population too. Not just birth rates. If Republicans would celebrate growth instead of xenophobia we could avoid stagflation and bankruptcy of SS.

 

[SweetTea]

I’m not a day trader, so I don’t claim to be an expert in their methods, but I am a statistician. From that lens, I’m skeptical of how much predictive value charting really has. Given the nearly infinite cross-sections of time and price you can slice, it’s always possible to find a chart that seems to ‘show’ whatever pattern you’re looking for. Since the overall market tends to drift upward over time, short-term deviations tend to revert, which can make many patterns look predictive in hindsight even when they’re just statistical noise.

Now if you guys could only apply that same logic to climate change.

 

[citygator]

Now if you guys could only apply that same logic to climate change.

Climate change is a certainty. The amount of human impact is all people debate.

 

[SweetTea]

Climate change is a certainty. The amount of human impact is all people debate.

Well that is kind of the crux of the matter isn't it? If we are not causing it or can't do anything to stop it, why waste so much effort in attempting to do so?

 

[citygator]

Well that is kind of the crux of the matter isn't it? If we are not causing it or can't do anything to stop it, why waste so much effort in attempting to do so?

This isnt that kind of thread. You brought up the statistical analysis methods. I was just clarifying that the statistics of temperature are not in debate. Just like the rising trend of stocks over time isnt in debate. I just don’t think you can use a chart to explain what the stock market will be next year any more than you can the temperature. In both instances you are better off guessing an average year trend over some magic line of “resistance”. Lol

 

[Luckyone]

This week, the bulls attempted to make a statement. They have so far failed.

Here is a comment I gave to my subscribers yesterday (Wednesday 10/15) afternoon.

"There is a daily close resistance level in all 3 indexes that the bulls have not been able to crack, suggesting that the outlook for the market having found a top is not only still likely but even probable.

Those levels of daily close resistance are in the DOW at 46381, in the SPX it is at 6693 and in the NAZ100 it is at 24761. All three indexes got above those levels today but in the end (and on the daily close), the bulls fail to break them. The DOW has a high at 46693, the SPX had a high at 6724 and that NAZ had a high at 24933.

In this particular situation, the NAZ is the important index given that it has been the leader to the upside due to the AI Tech Industry rally/strength. That index has now closed 3 days in a row close to that level of resistance without being able to break it. It closed on Monday at 24750, it closed yesterday at 24579, and it closed today at 24745.

I believe that tomorrow, this market will once again begin to head lower. and that this rally will become the "needed/required" retest of the all-time highs!"

Lo and behold, the bulls tried once more today to get the indexes to go higher (they opened higher) but now they are trading lower and looking to close red. If they do, and the then again that is confirmed with another close below those levels stated above, tomorrow, the indexes should begin to move back down next week to test the recent lows.

If on the 28th (Fed Rate decision day), the Fed does not surprise by lowering rates more than 25 points, it is possible and maybe even probable that new correction lows are made, and further downside occur.

 

[SweetTea]

Immigration increases the population too. Not just birth rates. If Republicans would celebrate growth instead of xenophobia we could avoid stagflation and bankruptcy of SS.

Illegals are the problem. They aren't paying into SS.

 

[citygator]

Illegals are the problem. They aren't paying into SS.

Asylum applicants arent "illegals" and they do pay taxes including SS. They do not get those befits. Only US citizens do.

 

[SweetTea]

Asylum applicants arent "illegals" and they do pay taxes including SS. They do not get those befits. Only US citizens do.

Sure, and that is fine. They should be stopping at the first safe country along their way and applying for asylum. We can’t accept every asylum seeker from around the world.

 

[citygator]

Sure, and that is fine. They should be stopping at the first safe country along their way and applying for asylum. We can’t accept every asylum seeker from around the world.

U.S. and international law (specifically the Refugee Act of 1980 and the 1951 Refugee Convention) protect the right to seek asylum regardless of how someone entered the country.

You cant change law unless you change the law. I find it funny that people like you are so fired up about following the law and then suggest brazenly NOT following the law.

 

[SweetTea]

U.S. and international law (specifically the Refugee Act of 1980 and the 1951 Refugee Convention) protect the right to seek asylum regardless of how someone entered the country.

You cant change law unless you change the law. I find it funny that people like you are so fired up about following the law and then suggest brazenly NOT following the law.

Some countries actually do have agreements for this, including the EU(Dublin Regulation). The US has A Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada. There have been attempts to do the same with Mexico, but surprise, the Democrats oppose it because they want still believe they will get more votes from the downtrodden and don’t have the foresight to recognize how it could be a major burden on our country. Why would you oppose such a law? How is it a tenable position to have all of Venezuela, for example, just apply for asylum in the US? Why should that even be an option?

 

[citygator]

Some countries actually do have agreements for this, including the EU(Dublin Regulation). The US has A Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada. There have been attempts to do the same with Mexico, but surprise, the Democrats oppose it because they want still believe they will get more votes from the downtrodden and don’t have the foresight to recognize how it could be a major burden on our country. Why would you oppose such a law? How is it a tenable position to have all of Venezuela, for example, just apply for asylum in the US? Why should that even be an option?

Nope. This is about international law and human rights. “Safe Third Country” agreements require that the partner country actually have a functioning asylum system and meet human rights standards. The U.N. and U.S. courts say Mexico doesn’t reliably qualify — migrants there face kidnapping, extortion, and abuse.

Democrats didn’t oppose the concept of processing in other countries, but they opposed Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” because of safety and legal violations, not because of voting demographics (non-citizens cannot vote).

I think you asked an a good question but made a terrible " The Great Replacement Conspiracy" leap. Maybe you have some hope of educating yourself away from the nonsense and process information reliably.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Over the last twenty years the market has better than quadrupled in value...

Can you imagine if the Social Security Trust Fund were invested in US equities?

 

[citygator]

Can you imagine if the Social Security Trust Fund were invested in US equities?

Sorry. You spent that money on $30T in debt... what investment capital do you think you have?

 

[fncceo]

I wish I'd paid attention in school..I might be able to understand all that.

It's not difficult to understand if you've ever been to a swap meet, a yard sale, or a swap meet.

Someone has something to sell at a price they think is more than it's worth --- you want to buy something at a price you think is a less than what it's worth.

99% of the time, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Every time someone buys stock, some one else sells it ... and they both think the other was wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sorry. You spent that money on $30T in debt... what investment capital do you think you have?

I’m not in Congress

There is a Trust Fund

 

[citygator]

I’m not in Congress

There is a Trust Fund

If you personally save $100,000 in a savings account but you owe $700,000 in credit cards you dont really have $100,000 saved do you? That is the US. In a democracy you elected leaders to spend that credit card so....

 

[Rambunctious]

Can you imagine if the Social Security Trust Fund were invested in US equities?

My accountant told me everyone would be retiring mini millionaires today if the dems would have not stopped that... but we all know dems don't want a prosperous population....

 

[SweetTea]

Democrats didn’t oppose the concept of processing in other countries, but they opposed Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” because of safety and legal violations, not because of voting demographics (non-citizens cannot vote).

Non-citizens can vote in some local elections due to Democratic policies. Don't think they would love for that to matriculate to federal elections. Also, every body counts in the census, which can give sanctuary cities or states which provide more incentives for asylum seekers and illegal immigrants to come to those states. You are kidding yourself if you don't think immigration or asylum, isn't largely political.

I think you asked an a good question but made a terrible " The Great Replacement Conspiracy" leap. Maybe you have some hope of educating yourself away from the nonsense and process information reliably.

I never made any mention of race, but as usual, that is where lefties minds always turn. I am talking about the practicality of excepting too many asylum seekers from anywhere in the world. I guess I should have realized that you would jump to the racial angle by me choosing Venezuela. It just made the most sense geographically.

 

[citygator]

Non-citizens can vote in some local elections due to Democratic policies. Don't think they would love for that to matriculate to federal elections. Also, every body counts in the census, which can give sanctuary cities or states which provide more incentives for asylum seekers and illegal immigrants to come to those states. You are kidding yourself if you don't think immigration or asylum, isn't largely political.

Your made up scenario is impossible. Non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections or even state elections. Only very local elections have that option and there are few that do it. Total definition of red herring.

I never made any mention of race, but as usual, that is where lefties minds always turn. I am talking about the practicality of excepting too many asylum seekers from anywhere in the world. I guess I should have realized that you would jump to the racial angle by me choosing Venezuela. It just made the most sense geographically.

I didnt mention race. You are parroting the great replacement theory that dems want to bring in non-white voters to get an election advantage. It is a theory pushed by white nationalists but I dont know your motivation only that you are pushing the theory.