Wall Street: Dumb as It Ever Was 77 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
I had to take a few moments away from shouting at the circus-of-the-inane on CNBC to vent. All the focus on this jobs number this morning should confirm to any rational person that the great majority of what goes on in Wall Street is a complete waste of time at best and a criminal destruction of value at worst.
Being trained as a scientist in a former life just makes it harder to watch this garbage. Yesterday afternoon some random NYSE floor monkey, CNBC's "expert of the moment", expounded that if the unemployment rate came in at 9.9%, the market was going to the moon, Alice. But (God forbid) if the rate was 10%, we're all doomed. At which point my left eyeball began twitching followed by my Bond-trader office mate and I embarking on a 30 minute session of throwing things (literally and figuratively) at the TV. Only a session of cranking some classic reggae could calm us.
10% vs 9.9% - this my friends is far less than a rounding error. It means less than nothing, It is simply a round number vs. a non-round number - NOTHING MORE. And based on this alone, truckloads of money is wagered on Wall Street. Consider that today's jobs lost were 190k vs a consensus of 175k. Good God, the unemployment rate is 10.2%!!! Head for the fallout shelters! We missed consensus by 15 THOUSAND jobs. Never mind that September was revised better by 44k jobs, and August better by 46k. And never mind that the consensus is a compilation of predictions made by economists that have no better way (or past record since the beginning of recorded history) to predict the economy than the seagull circling my building. The one advantage they have is that people ASK them to predict the future, and PAY them to do so. As far as I know, no one does the same for the seagull. That is, unless he "calls" (caws?) a market bottom or top. Then he'll be guest host on CNBC for sure. The only question then will be whether a gull can out-bellow Kudlow.
Please try to remember in the face of this noise that the only good INVESTMENTS (as opposed to speculations) are those that do not require you to predict the future. And these are getting tough to find.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 77 comments:
I am more puzzled, shocked and dismayed by BerkeleyBob's assertion that roots reggae will "get you through the hard days." The correct answer is: Beethoven, Tavener, Gorecki ...
P.S. The fact that market is up so far on poor numbers may be interpreted as a sign that their are other forces that will keep stock go up no matter how bad the numbers are. I personally don't necessarily care what these forces. I look at them as actions of stock Gods. Do you want to bet against Gods?
Shadow Statistics is just one notch above the Conspiracy Theorists. Just one short step ....
On Nov 06 09:47 AM BerkeleyBob wrote:
> Thanks for a small but healthy dose of realism. More is at stake
> here than trivial rounding errors being seized upon by "experts";
> the unpleasant fact remains that basic economic measures are massaged
> and manipulated until they have little meaning. Do you believe the
> employment or cpi numbers promulgated by the government? The folks
> at Shadow Statistics sure don't. Nothing like some good roots reggae
> to get you through the hard days--how about "Times Tough" by Toots?
They should all be recluded in a circus, with their pointed hats and crystall balls. We need these analysts just for entertainment.
Next week it will be about the "Sunshine" syndrome, who was on vacation when... GET THE POINT. MINDLESS JABBER FOR IDIOTS with money to spend. Oh, where are the snake oil salesmen?
predicting the future to SOME DEGREE.
What would be an example of such investment ?
>Please try to remember in the face of this noise that the only good >INVESTMENTS (as opposed to speculations) are those that do not >require you to predict the future.
Finance is neither science nor mathematics. I believe a much better model may be the "theory of reflexivity" as suggested by Soros.
THATS 800,000 JOBS PEOPLE. An overstatement that big reeks of government deception. I wouldn't trust a lot of the numbers they throw out.
However, to those who are trying to see if the economy is turning around the slowing of job cuts over the past three months is significant. Why? Because job cuts must slow before we see growth.
> Shadow Statistics is a bunch of rubbish. I have a background in statistics
> and am intimately acquainted with how the government samples populations
> to to form estimates. It's quite solid.
>
> Shadow Statistics is just one notch above the Conspiracy Theorists.
> Just one short step ....
---------
So how exactly does Shadow Stats get things wrong? From their page explaining some of the issues they have with the official government figures, they don't mention sampling errors, or math errors etc. Their contention is that the government, over a number of different administrations has deliberately revamped the formulas themselves to make the numbers look better. Do you dispute this? If so, on what basis? Do you have any hard evidence to back up your contention? ie. where ShadowStats has the formulas completely wrong, or that they have misquoted some of the folks they have quoted, etc.?
Maybe you could address some of the points in the following excerpts from part 1 of the Shadow Stats intro page:
"GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS: THINGS YOU'VE
SUSPECTED BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK!"
www.shadowstats.com/ar...
..."For several years, I conducted surveys among business economists as to how they viewed the quality of government economic data. The following were actual comments:
· The senior economist of a major retail company told me, "Quality varies. The retail sales numbers are terrible, but money supply data are great."
· The senior economist at a major bank offered, "There's a problem with money supply, but I think retail sales are pretty good."
The point is that when an economist knows a sector well, he also recognizes the limitations and distortions of related economic reporting. Gathering and reporting accurate information on a timely (one-month) basis for components of the U.S. economy is nearly impossible. Nonetheless, most career government statisticians in Washington work diligently to provide the best information possible within the limits of the existing reporting system. A number of reporting distortions, however, are not accidental.
...
* During the Kennedy administration, unemployment was redefined with the concept of "discouraged workers" so as to reduce the popularly followed unemployment rate.
* If Lyndon Johnson didn't like the growth that was going to be reported in the GNP, he sent it back to the Commerce Department, and he kept doing so until Commerce got it right. The Johnson administration also was responsible for gimmicking the accounting that hides most of the federal deficit.
* Richard Nixon had a highly publicized war with the Bureau of Labor Statistics on the unemployment data. Nixon wanted to report the unemployment rate as the lower of the seasonally adjusted or unadjusted number, at any given time, but not specify same to the public. While that approach was unconscionable at the time and never used, basically the same methodology was introduced in 2004 as "state-of-the-art" by the current Bush administration.
* The Carter administration was caught deliberately understating inflation.
* Systemic changes were introduced during the Reagan administration to boost reported GNP/GDP growth on a regular basis. The wildest manipulations, however, happened at the time of the 1987 liquidity panic. In addition to intervention in the futures markets by the New York Fed to help prop the stock market after the October 19th crash, direct and heavy manipulation of the trade deficit data, under the direction of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury, was used in conjunction with massive currency intervention to help bottom the dollar and to contain the currency panic at year-end 1987.
* The first Bush Administration began efforts at the systematic reduction of the reported rate of CPI inflation, and worked an outside-the-system GDP manipulation aimed at helping with the failed 1992 reelection bid.
* As former Labor Secretary Bob Reich explained in his memoirs, the Clinton administration had found in its public polling that if the government inflated economic reporting, enough people would believe it to swing a close election. Accordingly, whatever integrity had survived in the economic reporting system disappeared during the Clinton years. Unemployment was redefined to eliminate five million discouraged workers and to lower the unemployment rate; methodologies were changed to reduce poverty reporting, to reduce reported CPI inflation, to inflate reported GDP growth, among others.
* The current Bush administration has expanded upon the Clinton era initiatives, particularly in setting the stage for the adoption of a new and lower-inflation CPI and in further redefining the GDP and the concept of seasonal adjustment. ...
Nearly all, if not all, of us have a belief about the direction of a market or security, and even if we think we trade unemotionally on numbers or other criteria, our selection process is derived through human thoughts and feelings. Trading blindly on a system can lose money through overtrading or undertrading as well as getting it right or wrong, and backing hunches is not much different.
In other words, there is no golden panacea or holy grail of investment. The most we can do is to beat the average, and by definition, many of us will have average performance. This is an art, not a science, and you've got to love doing it yourself to keep doing it. I do, and I know that if I had left it to others over the years I may have done better: but I would not have had nearly as much enjoyment and pleasure as I have had and continue to have from handling my own investments. Whatever happens and whatever the outcome, I am the master of my own destiny. And that is worth a lot.
I think in actuality it's not the psychological factor of crossing 10%, it's the analysts and traders looking for another intangible catalyst on which to swing the market, with help of course from CNBC. After all, not volatility, no profits, no fun.
On Nov 06 02:55 PM AndrewBaker wrote:
> Investment is nearly all about predicting the future: only psychological
> aspects have as much an effect as unbiased numbers, which is one
> good reason why it's so hard to get it right even as much as half
> the time.
>
> Nearly all, if not all, of us have a belief about the direction of
> a market or security, and even if we think we trade unemotionally
> on numbers or other criteria, our selection process is derived through
> human thoughts and feelings. Trading blindly on a system can lose
> money through overtrading or undertrading as well as getting it right
> or wrong, and backing hunches is not much different.
>
> In other words, there is no golden panacea or holy grail of investment.
> The most we can do is to beat the average, and by definition, many
> of us will have average performance. This is an art, not a science,
> and you've got to love doing it yourself to keep doing it. I do,
> and I know that if I had left it to others over the years I may have
> done better: but I would not have had nearly as much enjoyment and
> pleasure as I have had and continue to have from handling my own
> investments. Whatever happens and whatever the outcome, I am the
> master of my own destiny. And that is worth a lot.
Wow I didn't know you could advertise on these comment blogs.
As for the unemployment rate's effect on the stock market. The reason that the market was expected to go up if the number was below ten, but up it it was above ten has nothing to do with one being much better or worse than the other. This was due to pure betting. Traders need ways to make money. The place bets on the number. They will postion themselves accordingly and place trades to reflect their opinions (and usually hedge their bets). Traders are not investors. They live for the moment. If they were investors, the should wouldn't be a buyer with any kind of job loss.
FYI: It takes about 220,000 jobs per month just to keep up with the addition of new people into the work force. Even if we ADDED 100,000 jobs, the number of people eligible to work who are not working would have risen.
On Nov 06 09:58 AM Cuthbert wrote:
> Well, "dumb" is one word. I would suggest this change in your title
> "Wall Street: As Human as It Ever Was". This isn't science. It's
> human nature. That's why FDR was right to identify "fear" as the
> enemy.
> 10% is up. It's a new level, and it "sounds" like a lot more. If
> you don't think this makes a difference, try explaining why all the
> stores price items with prices like $9.99 instead of $10.00.
Monkey throw dart. Dart lands on target. Monkey, Super Star!!! Thats Wall Street for you!
On Nov 06 10:22 AM JCz wrote:
> It suddenly occured to me that I am not "investing" when deciding
> where to put funds currently in 401k, IRA, Rollover IRA, Roth IRA,
> SEP IRA, etc...I thought an "Investor" used some knowledge based
> decision process to make decisions. Regarding equities or even funds,
> I naively thought this knowledge should focus on company performance,
> or even trends. Not today, not when the market swings 450 pts in
> 2 days. So I made it this far, gotta a sizeable nest egg, side-stepped
> the correction, now what? Sitting in cash since Jan '07 certainly
> isn't investing...
The thing to understand about CNBC is, regardless of what they say they are in business for they are not a non-profit. They are media content designed to garner an audience from which they can bring in advertising dollars.
They are in the business of selling advertising, plain and simple. Whatever they can do to make more people watch, or more people watch more consistently, they will do. Providing you with "what you REALLY need to know to prevent a TOTAL LOSS OF ALL YOUR MONEY... TODAY! after this commercial break".
I'm not being cynical. It's just a fact. Their business is not financial reporting, it's selling advertising. The veneer is simply targeting a demographic. And while it's easy for intelligent people to get angry about the sensational, stupid and fluff aspects of the channel, intelligent people also need to remind themselves that they are trying to sift through the rubbish presented by a seller of advertising in order to glean information that might be valuable.
Before the drastic changes in the mid 90s, or now?
I'm sorry, but any statistic that turns discouraged into employed (or magically un-unemployed) isn't "solid."
I won't even mention the fact that the "fully employed" includes previous full time, good wage, workers that are now pulling in 20 hours a week for minimum wage.
On Nov 06 10:20 AM American in Paris wrote:
> Shadow Statistics is a bunch of rubbish. I have a background in statistics
> and am intimately acquainted with how the government samples populations
> to to form estimates. It's quite solid.
>
> Shadow Statistics is just one notch above the Conspiracy Theorists.
> Just one short step ....
On Nov 06 10:20 AM American in Paris wrote:
> Shadow Statistics is a bunch of rubbish. I have a background in statistics
> and am intimately acquainted with how the government samples populations
> to to form estimates. It's quite solid.
>
> Shadow Statistics is just one notch above the Conspiracy Theorists.
> Just one short step ....
And that the head of GE is one of Obama's "financial advisers."
Or maybe the fact that Mr. Immelt now has a place at the Federal Reserve Board?
Nah, that isn't a problem. After all it isn't like the "news" is supposed to be independent and objective in reporting.
On Nov 07 09:33 AM strovej1 wrote:
> I, too, like to rant about CNBC. I watch it, or Bloomberg (which
> used to be a lot better, but has been glitzing-up lately), because
> there are gems of value amidst the sensation. The gems are usually
> data-related, though, and not recommendation or prognostication-related.
>
>
> The thing to understand about CNBC is, regardless of what they say
> they are in business for they are not a non-profit. They are media
> content designed to garner an audience from which they can bring
> in advertising dollars.
>
> They are in the business of selling advertising, plain and simple.
> Whatever they can do to make more people watch, or more people watch
> more consistently, they will do. Providing you with "what you REALLY
> need to know to prevent a TOTAL LOSS OF ALL YOUR MONEY... TODAY!
> after this commercial break".
>
> I'm not being cynical. It's just a fact. Their business is not
> financial reporting, it's selling advertising. The veneer is simply
> targeting a demographic. And while it's easy for intelligent people
> to get angry about the sensational, stupid and fluff aspects of the
> channel, intelligent people also need to remind themselves that they
> are trying to sift through the rubbish presented by a seller of advertising
> in order to glean information that might be valuable.
thanks for a good article.
I respectfully beg to differ, when you say "sitting in cash" isn't investing. Having the discipline to "do nothing" until the proper opportunity presents itself is an underrated attribute.
On Nov 06 10:22 AM JCz wrote:
> It suddenly occured to me that I am not "investing" when deciding
> where to put funds currently in 401k, IRA, Rollover IRA, Roth IRA,
> SEP IRA, etc...I thought an "Investor" used some knowledge based
> decision process to make decisions. Regarding equities or even funds,
> I naively thought this knowledge should focus on company performance,
> or even trends. Not today, not when the market swings 450 pts in
> 2 days. So I made it this far, gotta a sizeable nest egg, side-stepped
> the correction, now what? Sitting in cash since Jan '07 certainly
> isn't investing...
And they walked out without ordering? I really need to find out why the human mind is now so strongly conditioned to only expect a fractional price. There is something very deep at play here, somethng the manipulators have now embedded in our stimulus - response conditioning.
And this is just one of the mind control triggers among countless unknown ones..
On Nov 07 09:03 AM americanincanada wrote:
> From my experience the reason why consumers like a price of $9.95
> rather than $10.00 is the impression that the former price is carefully
> calculated, the best possible deal that gives the store a minimal
> profit to survive, while the latter round number looks like it was
> picked out of the air and probably has a built in too generous profit.
> Announcing a 10.2% or 9.9% unemployment rate seems to reflect careful
> gathering of statistics, while 10 % sounds like a number pulled out
> of a hat and probably not valid. Foolish yes, but I saw the disaster
> that happened when a menu at a restaurant I owned was replaced by
> the exact same menu with the prices changed up or down by slight
> amounts to become round numbers. The new manager made the change
> because he thought the previous prices were silly. There were lots
> of complaints, some people got up and walked out before ordering,
> and revenue plummeted.
On Nov 06 02:40 PM JeffDB wrote:
> On Nov 06 10:20 AM American in Paris wrote:
It was put best in the tome, The behavior of crowds. Crowds respond to emotion, not what is rational.
I get crazy with it too because I'm so logical. But, your advice was great. Invest. Don't speculate.
Unfortunately, this is not an investment market. It's not clear that there will be a market in 2 or 3 years.
I'm out with the exception of gold related vehicles...and AAPL of course.
You do not like the current plan, neither do I. Do you have a plan?
On Nov 06 10:25 AM socrateaz wrote:
> Could it be the government is actually manipulating numbers around
> to keep the stock market up so that the current administration looks
> better! I see worse than consensus numbers when the previous day
> was up and better than consensus when the previous day was down.
> I wonder Have we been being fed some propaganda along with real numbers.
> And if so. Why? Maybe I think the current leadership believes more
> in their policies than in being truthful. I expect they expect some
> magic happening which will justify all their actions. The best I
> hope for is that Obama's Foley will be revealed and removed, and
> another forty years of avoiding socialist policy will ensue. Have
> no fear another Socialist will gain power because the appearance
> of something for nothing grows to be expected. People in society
> often fail to understand why things happen within society because
> they have not experienced it. I can foresee many worse scenarios.
> A violent revolution like the French, Russian, or Chinese being the
> worst within my possibilities. I think Obama will change as he realizes
> his policies are actually based on ignorance of reality.
Now the lesson in the original article is: the media are reporting news and opinions as provided by "experts". The experts' opinions are based on their own particular agendas. Wall Street has an agenda. It wants to make as much money as possible. So what better way to do that than to have people sell a stock to Wall St. at a cheap price and to have people buy it from Wall St. at a higher price. I have met more people who have lost more money following the "experts" on the telly (as the Brits would say), than if they had done their own research. I have met more people who have lost more money listening to the Wall St. recommendations than those who did research on Valueline.
And as for 9.9% vs. 10.2%, I love listening to these guys. It provides for great entertainment. Living in the San Francisco bay area, I suggest to readers that they tune into San Francisco politics. For example, it was decided that because a man did not intend to stay permanently in a bear lair at the SF zoo, he was not trespassing. So, I ask, if someone where to walk into your house without your permission, but did not intend to stay permanently, does that mean he is not trespassing? See how funny SF politics is.
All I can say is, the world can be a funny place. Laugh a little. And yes, CNBC or MSNBC are like reality shows. They're pretending to be reality shows but in fact they are comedies.
On Nov 06 02:55 PM AndrewBaker wrote:
> Investment is nearly all about predicting the future: only psychological
> aspects have as much an effect as unbiased numbers, which is one
> good reason why it's so hard to get it right even as much as half
> the time.
>
> Nearly all, if not all, of us have a belief about the direction of
> a market or security, and even if we think we trade unemotionally
> on numbers or other criteria, our selection process is derived through
> human thoughts and feelings. Trading blindly on a system can lose
> money through overtrading or undertrading as well as getting it right
> or wrong, and backing hunches is not much different.
>
> In other words, there is no golden panacea or holy grail of investment.
> The most we can do is to beat the average, and by definition, many
> of us will have average performance. This is an art, not a science,
> and you've got to love doing it yourself to keep doing it. I do,
> and I know that if I had left it to others over the years I may have
> done better: but I would not have had nearly as much enjoyment and
> pleasure as I have had and continue to have from handling my own
> investments. Whatever happens and whatever the outcome, I am the
> master of my own destiny. And that is worth a lot.
On Nov 06 09:58 AM Cuthbert wrote:
> Well, "dumb" is one word. I would suggest this change in your title
> "Wall Street: As Human as It Ever Was". This isn't science. It's
> human nature. That's why FDR was right to identify "fear" as the
> enemy.
> 10% is up. It's a new level, and it "sounds" like a lot more. If
> you don't think this makes a difference, try explaining why all the
> stores price items with prices like $9.99 instead of $10.00.
The reporters don't have enough real economic movers going on, so they are looking for the latest "technical" trend. There's always statistics, bulls, bears, and commercials. By the time they report on anything, it's already happened.
At least some of the CNBC cast is easy on the eyes. Just turn down the sound.
> Don't you think the REAL thing about CNBC is that it is owned by GE.<
Now there's a lady after my own heart. I've been trying to inform everyone I know for years now, that all the media (except for the few remaining independents) including radio, television, magazines, newspapers and marathon runners are owned by only 6 fascist corporations. And the leader among them is indeed GE. Some of my friends have initially reacted with disbelief. But when they consider my view of what all this really means, they rightfully have become much more aware and even disgusted if not horrified at the true implications.
The sole reason for CNBC's very existence, its only role on this planet, is to act as the media branch of the FED. And it's very effective. Once the populace finally sees the light, in big enough numbers, once they truly understand this traitorous facade for what it really is, they'll have a much better chance at survival in this dangerous world created and run by the demonic masters who ruler over the owners of the FED.
They are ALL using contract laber and day labor, many of whom are also drawing unemployment. Unless the was a substanitial amount of this type of labor being employed, how could productivity increase 6% last month and 9% this month?
The official unemployment rate is overstated by about 2%.
At this stage in an economic recovery many of the unemployed are "lest unemployed" than they were early in the year.
The productivity numbers are the tip off.
On Nov 06 10:20 AM American in Paris wrote:
> Shadow Statistics is a bunch of rubbish. I have a background in statistics and am intimately acquainted with how the government samples populations to to form estimates. It's quite solid.
> Shadow Statistics is just one notch above the Conspiracy Theorists.
> Just one short step ....
The old formulas were based on linear approximations of non-linear phenomena. We simply don't consume the same basket of goods over time and measures of inflation, etc. have to reflect that.
On Nov 06 02:40 PM JeffDB wrote:
> So how exactly does Shadow Stats get things wrong? From their page explaining some of the issues they have with the official government figures, they don't mention sampling errors, or math errors etc. Their contention is that the government, over a number of different administrations has deliberately revamped the formulas themselves to make the numbers look better. Do you dispute this? If so, on what basis? Do you have any hard evidence to back up your contention?
I know of at least 10 companies, all in business for decades, that are in this boat.
Obviously, the "productivity" is through the roof!
Shame on your contractor friends for allowing - no make that enabling - tax cheats and dodgers. Just screw the rest of us even harder - great plan for their future success.
On Nov 07 03:20 PM cameraguy wrote:
> Then there is the productivity numbers. Anecdotal comments: I've
> been talking to a number of consruction type and service companies
> lately.
>
> They are ALL using contract laber and day labor, many of whom are
> also drawing unemployment. Unless the was a substanitial amount of
> this type of labor being employed, how could productivity increase
> 6% last month and 9% this month?
>
> The official unemployment rate is overstated by about 2%.
> At this stage in an economic recovery many of the unemployed are
> "lest unemployed" than they were early in the year.
> The productivity numbers are the tip off.
Watching people watch the market even as the Fed creates more money and unemployment continues to rise has certainly been an interesting experience.
My plan? Savings goes to metal I can hold in my hand, investing goes to companies I hope can survive this freakish bastard president and his cohorts. My hopes for prosperity are pinned on a future where Americans have finally been awakened to their being responsible for their own welfare and sick of playing games with socialism. There is no prosperity to be had now simply because the value of our currency and our investments are controlled by men and women hellbent on buying votes from the poor with promises they cannot and never had any intention of keeping while railing against the middle class by calling them rich.
We are in a war against the middle class, paid for by the likes of Soros, and aided by the poor who know no better.
On Nov 06 10:20 AM American in Paris wrote:
> Shadow Statistics is a bunch of rubbish. I have a background in statistics
> and am intimately acquainted with how the government samples populations
> to to form estimates. It's quite solid.
>
> Shadow Statistics is just one notch above the Conspiracy Theorists.
> Just one short step ....
How did that work out for you? The market made it up to 60%+, is still at +58% and may go higher. (By the way, I have a statistical and scientific background too.) Maybe you should lighten up on the prognosticators--if you want peace from CNBC, turn off the damn TV.
On Nov 07 11:40 PM David Van Knapp wrote:
> You dump all over prognosticators, yet you are one yourself. Just
> looking at your last article (from late July), you had this to say:
> "Now that the market has run up some 46% since the last Running (away)
> of the Sheep, the wooly stampede has reversed direction. Will the
> carnage be just as bad this time? History says yes..."
>
> How did that work out for you? The market made it up to 60%+, is
> still at +58% and may go higher. (By the way, I have a statistical
> and scientific background too.) Maybe you should lighten up on the
> prognosticators--if you want peace from CNBC, turn off the damn TV.
On Nov 06 09:58 AM Cuthbert wrote:
> Well, "dumb" is one word. I would suggest this change in your title
> "Wall Street: As Human as It Ever Was". This isn't science. It's
> human nature. That's why FDR was right to identify "fear" as the
> enemy.
> 10% is up. It's a new level, and it "sounds" like a lot more. If
> you don't think this makes a difference, try explaining why all the
> stores price items with prices like $9.99 instead of $10.00.
I do miss Rick Santelli though.
I now trust myself more than ever to make good decisions and not let the hysteria on this channel wreak havoc in my mind.
However, if you are a trader, you'll likely suffer because you miss the opportunity to take the other side of the trade some guy is jawboning.
Give it a try
Now CNBC is using the weak dollar for the reason. Who to say it isn't the same people manipulating oil prices, that might be manipulating the price of the dollar.
Demand for Distillates down 18.8% but their still bidding up the price.
seekingalpha.com/artic...
www.reuters.com/articl...
On Nov 07 11:43 AM Billy Ford wrote:
> I believe the market is being completely manipulated. This administration
> knows that sentiment is mostly driven by the stock market. Notice
> how last year when the market was tanking sentiment was at all time
> lows, but today because the market has unjustifiably been rising
> for 7-8 months, that sentiment is better. People, are our economy
> is worse today than it was last year. The administration and they
> guys pulling the strings are hoping and praying each night that this
> consumer sentiment will eventually catch up and people will feel
> comfortable going out and spending money. What will happen when we
> face reality and know that the fundamentals associated with +10%
> unemployment will trump sentiment. The people with money, who can
> influence economies the most see through these charades, and truly
> realize that we are not recovering fundamentally. The only thing
> recovering is a manipulated stock market, which in itself is a bubble
> waiting to burst. Just a few questions that I ask myself. If we are
> recovering as the market suggests, then why is fed not even considering
> raising rates? It's simple, because fundamentally nothing is happening.
> Where is this stimulus going? It certainly isn't being used to fuel
> any kind of recovery, unless recovery is banks hoarding cash to cover
> losses from last year and expected losses of the future. People wake
> up, banks are hoarding cash for a reason, they are expecting MAJOR
> losses in the future. Other companies are hitting targets because
> of one thing, cost cutting. What happens when there are no more costs
> to cut, and we continue to see top line revenues flat? Yes, I am
> a bear and I believe our country has seen its best years. Manipulation
> can only work for short periods of time, and it will be only a matter
> of time before the rest of you wake up and see that we are way worse
> off than the media and the government play it out to be.
Bottom line is that we're in a terrible employment situation. The numbers are horrible. Without some sort of renaissance, the employment numbers will become a structural issue.
www.planbeconomics.com.../
Why choose between individual sectors of the market to invest in? With a quality index ETF (QQQQ, SPY, etc.), you can invest in the ENTIRE market.
Want a little volatility in your portfolio? Invest in bull and bear ETFs at the same time.
Guessing games are for amateurs.
Michelle Caruso-Cabrera ... RAWR! :-)
On Nov 07 02:41 PM PizzaMan wrote:
>
> At least some of the CNBC cast is easy on the eyes. Just turn down
> the sound.
Appearantly you have NEVER been to Germany, or Europe probably
see recent "2009 Country Brand Index Ranking Highlights "
Best Country Brand for Standard of Living, in order:
Germany, Canada, Japan, Finland, Singapore
Where's the USA?
On Nov 06 01:25 PM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:
> Ouch! Another 190,000 jobs went down the crapper in October, taking
> unemployment rate to a new 27 year high of 10.2%. Add in discouraged
> job seekers, and that puts the jobless rate at gut churning 17.5%,
> and over 20% in California. Along with yesterday’s stunning, gob
> smacking 9.5% increase in Q3 productivity, the figures point a giant
> arc spotlight on what is really happening in the economy. Companies
> are still firing workers en mass to boost profits. After getting
> blood from a stone they are returning to the same rock for one more
> drop. I guess if I fire myself, the profitability of my business
> would go through the roof too, and maybe even my stock would rise.
> At least then I would then be rid of my oldest, most expensive but
> least productive employee, who is the worst to get along with, max’s
> out his sick and vacation days, and wears the same clothes to work
> every day, even when there lipstick on the collar. But then who would
> write this daily letter? Maybe Cecelia, my cleaning lady, would do
> it. She’s cheap. This explains why when you go into Office Depot
> these days, there is only one minimum waged employee standing at
> the cash register, the hours on the phone I have to wait to get technical
> support from Dell, and the endless unmovable lines at Citibank. America’s
> service economy has become all about denying service to customers.
> The scary thing is, with companies firing their way to prosperity,
> what happens when we get another dip? My theory is that the US has
> entered an era of chronically high employment that is never going
> away, no matter what the government does. Goodbye USA, hello Germany!
"I'm with stupid" is something all the Bank of England MPC members can say during meetings.
probabilities", just in layman terms.
In both cases you have to think what MAY happen
and how LIKELY it is.
Of course nobody (?) will "predict" future in a sense of "100% probability".
> Investment is about managing probabilities & risk and has nothing
> to do with predicting anything!
The ongoing Industrial/Cybernetic Revolution is going to keep replacing (world-wide) human labor with automation, increasingly faster than human labor-required tasks can be produced. Thus we need either a revolution in "economic resource distribution" or else there will need to be a lot less people. If you don't help me with the former, the latter will be the result.
Let me know asap: time grows short.
On Nov 06 03:40 PM cayman wrote:
> what songs were in on that reggae session ?