iNow Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 (edited) Source for graphic? RightWingNews.com That's awesome. What does the graph look like before Obama overtook McCain? Was it still sinking quickly then, or were times just awesome and everyone was riding the wave of profits and golden paved streets? Should we just ignore what happened before the arbitrary start date of the chart because it contradicts the story we're trying to tell? Here's the S&P over the past 2 years: Yep... That Obama overtaking McCain is CLEARLY what caused the issues of market decline... No arguing wth that. I want you to go look up the distinction between correlation and causation, then report back. Sound good? Edited March 11, 2009 by iNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 Yep... That Obama overtaking McCain is CLEARLY what caused the issues of market decline... No arguing wth that. I want you to go look up the distinction between correlation and causation, then report back. Sound good? Good question correlation is when markets move in tandem; http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?D4=1&ViewType=0&D5=0&CP=0&PT=5&CE=0&&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart&DateRangeForm=1&3=0&PeriodType=5&Symbol=%24INX&C9=0&DisplayForm=1&ComparisonsForm=1 Causation, other wise known a reason, is when something that has no historical precedent happens. The NASDAQ dropped OUT of correlation in 1999/2000 but had a defined causation. When markets drop IN correlation, not only our three US majors, but around the world the causation cannot be market internals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Jackson - You've heartily missed my point, but thanks for playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I can read this. Reading the market past is rather simple. If I could read its future my life would be much improved. You have much reading to do on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. And as iNow pointed out, that graph makes some rather creative use of cropping. Source for graphic? RightWingNews.com And that's an ad hominem (although you certainly addressed it later) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I disagree - the market reacts to how a small, highly biased, poorly representative portion of this and other countries *think* the stimulus plan will do. Right, it's a risk assessment. We depend on them to be bias in assessing risk. In fact, the whole notion of NOT being biased about what you invest in is how you get malinvestment and is precisely why we are having a recession - purging bad investment. It's mechanics involve bankruptcies, opportunist acquisitions, job losses - the side effects you get when you make an inefficient process efficient. Malinvestment is ineffecieny with capital. The inability of that self-same group to effectively judge good vs bad investments is precisely what got us into this mess to begin with, so forgive me if I don't trust their judgement. You're accusing an abritrary slice of a minority group for our recession? Interesting, I haven't heard that theory. I have heard tons of nonsense about "oversight", the democrat equivalent of the republican "tax cut" mantra. Or did you have a different mess in mind? If you can't 'trust their judgement' then why have a centrally planned economic structure? You must be able to predict behavior to people-manage an economy, but by your own admission they have no ability to do navigate their investment choices between good and bad, so how are you to predict their behavior? No need to answer because that's ridiculous. The market is made up of people that suck at assessing risk. The poor = suck at managing risk and money. That's why they're poor. Middle class = suck a little less at managing risk and money. That's why they're middle class. Rich = good at managing risk and money. That's why they're rich. So, if this arbitrary slice actually represents the "elite rich", which it doesn't, then we could depend on their risk assessment more than anyone else. They have the results to back them up. Unless of course, you're of the opinion that every dollar a rich man makes came from a poor man's pocket, and through unfair advantage. To the OP though...I don't think it's a referendum on Obama policy alone, it's just indicative of investor confidence. They just don't have a lot of faith, and Obama's policies play into that, but Obama can't make the economy come back. Even if he followed every republican idea and outright abandoned his party, he still wouldn't achieve any more confidence. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 No need to answer because that's ridiculous. The market is made up of people that suck at assessing risk. The poor = suck at managing risk and money. That's why they're poor. Middle class = suck a little less at managing risk and money. That's why they're middle class. Rich = good at managing risk and money. That's why they're rich. This is true to point. But even the rich can't predict 'black swans'. Not even with their sophisticated statistical models. I would say that the fancy statistical models makes them over confident on risk, which further blinds them to the possibility of there being black swans. Governments tend to (and did) make the same mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 And as long as we're playing this "DOW knows all game" it's about to close up an additional 240 points (3.46%) at 7170. It's over 7000 again! By all this DOW knows all specious reasoning, the stimulus is working like a charm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 To the OP though...I don't think it's a referendum on Obama policy alone, it's just indicative of investor confidence. They just don't have a lot of faith, and Obama's policies play into that, but Obama can't make the economy come back. Even if he followed every republican idea and outright abandoned his party, he still wouldn't achieve any more confidence. Just my opinion. The idea behind the 2-to whatever percentage of people involved in actual market transaction, was the trending down in the markets was partially in reaction to future, then Administration policy (Yes, confidence). It's that small percentage and of course there are many other factors involved, but the largest factor in any recession is public 'confidence' or the purchasing consumer. Both have to return, along with foreign investment, reasons to expand or buy up troubled business or assets. Most of which involves that same elite group which are currently setting out. Frankly, blame should go to Bush if for no other reason than taking 'lame duck' to new meanings and the Republican Congress for their actions up to and including the last two Democratic Congress's. Without getting complicated or giving a title to any party philosophy, the best solution to any recovery will come from the private sector IMO. That is 100% at risk capital, not borrowed or printed by government and has the highest potential efficiency levels for activity. When government, Republicans Bush/Paulson or Democrats Polosi/Reid Congress spend 350B of 700B, followed by the the next 350B and each of the other programs, that money is at risk only to the Country itself (Goes under) and efficiency levels are notoriously poor for any US Government... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnd as long as we're playing this "DOW knows all game" it's about to close up an additional 240 points (3.46%) at 7170. It's over 7000 again! By all this DOW knows all specious reasoning, the stimulus is working like a charm! No the stimulus isn't doing anything, new unemployment filings would be going down... It's good news however and based on increasing volumes NYSE 1.8B Shares, Nasdaq 2.5B (both above recent averages) and we didn't have a large Hong Kong gain overnight, must mean something. Would think the real bottom was finally accepted at 7,000 and which I played. Did notice a great deal of 500k to a millions share transactions, which usually means Mutual Funds are transferring in or out of some sector, today seemed to be into GE (on outlook), don't know what out of...Hope for some G-20 action is building and frankly the usual spring weather always helps...We will know more in the morning and it goes to 7500 Friday, Unep claims drops (report in AM) or oil continues to rise, we could get over 8k next week. Lot of 'if's' though... Cramer thinks it's China, most DOW Stocks do have a built in China Play, but I don't agree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 No the stimulus isn't doing anything, new unemployment filings would be going down... The tax cuts and stimulus job creation benefits have not been implemented yet. I believe the tax cuts are due to begin hitting paychecks in June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 So I'm going to ask you to show us what drew you to that conclusion, please. You're going to need to answer this question, too, or I'm going to keep hounding you about it until you do. Good luck with that. I tried it about 3 pages back, and all it got me was jackson's silly mastrubtations about how socialism will kill us all in our sleep and rape our puppies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 And as long as we're playing this "DOW knows all game" it's about to close up an additional 240 points (3.46%) at 7170. It's over 7000 again! By all this DOW knows all specious reasoning, the stimulus is working like a charm! jackson33's musings about the DOW aside, I must admit I am surprised to see such high volatility still in the markets. I remember a few months ago, they would be up and down wild swings every week. I thought the point of government intervention at this point would be to bring stability (which I actually thought was happening until recently) even if its at some low point, rather than continuing to see such volatility - gains and loses. AKAIA, volatility and impredictibility is what demonstrates a vote of no-confidence in the economy, in general. At least if the market is consistently down, you know what you're dealing with. When the market swings, it means traders are getting jumpy. I would much rather see the market trading stably at low volumes than see lots of investment that goes no where, so prices drop and people pull out. What's the deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 What's the deal? Looks like higher-than-expected earnings reports from a number of different companies are boosting the Dow: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/US-Stocks-Remain-Higher-DJIA/story.aspx It's up another 53 points today. :D THE STIMULUS IS WORKING LIKE A CHARM :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 :D THE STIMULUS IS WORKING LIKE A CHARM :D I sure hope you're joking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 By the logic of everyone in this thread who's been using the DOW as a metric of Obama's success, bascule is 100% correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Precisely. It appears that people only want to use the DOW as a measure of Obamas policies when markets are going down. When markets go up, suddenly there are other variables to consider. The double-standard is so plain it practically slaps you in the face with its audacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Well I for one hope the market has bottomed and that this recovery is real and lasting. I take no pleasure in losing money. Last week however could be nothing more than short sellers taking profits. Only time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Precisely. It appears that people only want to use the DOW as a measure of Obamas policies when markets are going down. When markets go up, suddenly there are other variables to consider. The double-standard is so plain it practically slaps you in the face with its audacity. Who is practicing this double-standard you speak of? This looks like a Rush Limbaugh argument - making believe that this contention exists. I don't see anyone not giving him credit, except for me, implicit in my question to bascule - hell it wasn't part of the thread until post # 87, and this is # 92. And I never said the DOW was an accurate measure of Obama's policies either. So, who's doing this? I was poking on bascule just to be sure he was trying to make that point, I wasn't entirely clear. If he wasn't, then I was going to use all of his arguments against him. But he's smarter than that, I'm pretty sure he was trying to make a point about the DOW being tied 100% to Obama's policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 And I never said the DOW was an accurate measure of Obama's policies either. So, who's doing this? It's the very first post in this thread, and the basis for this entire discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 It's the very first post in this thread, and the basis for this entire discussion. No, not the double-standard that Obama doesn't get any credit by those same folks for the DOW's increase in response to his policies. That has not happened....yet. Although it's not as if I'd bet any money that it won't happen eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 ParanioA - When people say that the "DOWs increase is in response to Obamas policies," they are not asserting that as some fact or argument. They are caricaturing the opposing side and showing how silly such a claim is. You may have missed it, but nobody believes that. They are just mocking the underlying premise of the thread. I hope that clears things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 By the logic of everyone in this thread who's been using the DOW as a metric of Obama's success, bascule is 100% correct. Not correct; I am not sure who "everyone" is, but my point has always been the Markets (all of them) are not happy with POLICY Obama has been suggesting and now implementing. That the drop is IN PART a precursor to what those few involved will take the economy at some future point in time... As for other indicators outside the markets, opinion polls reflect CURRENT satisfaction or disapproval with the same policy. It's my understanding these polls are now trending down at historic speeds... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html waitforufo; Bull market rallies are common, especially when their are no discernible means to explain. It could be shorts selling into profits, but their are plenty of day traders out there and play those shorts, not trading in shorts. Another current factor maybe China's apparent activity, along with other growing economies like Brazil. Our DOW components have a very high presence in China and virtually every major component of any market has foreign interest. That is the DOW could easily top 8500 or 9000, never reflecting our American economy. So long as increased Taxes, small business earning 200-500k filing regular returns and Corporate Taxes which are simply passed on (inflation) are planned, Business will not expand or will the consumer return. Remember also 'capital gains' (market activity) is based on the loss/gains over the year and no one is holding back for probably gains, with current loses (average investors). iNow; I'll accept your argument as opposition to my opinions, not ParinoiA and argue, the markets do reflect a perceived future results of those policy. It would be my pleasure to admit error, apologize to everyone, possibly even contributing to Obama 2012 Campaign if the markets rebound under a Capitalist Government (opposed to government owned anything), unemployment rebounds to 2006 levels, inflation is somehow held in check under 5%, total US tax burdens drop back under 50% (combined) and less people are on some form government assistance. Even a combination of some...but I don't see this coming from my limited knowledge of historical government intrusions into the Corporate World...I have not even entered the SS, Medicare/Medicaid or health care pending problems which are still there and will dwarf any current 'so called' crissis... ParinioA; Yes it is the Limbaugh argument and I do agree with him on this...I don't give a hoot about Obama the person, whether he is perceived successful or a failure, but do care about the future of the US and what I have described as my life, my ancestors and the individualism which has made the US a very unique Nation for a couple centuries. Then it's my belief, apparently Limbaugh and maybe a couple others, the policy of Obama with the added current Congress those policies do NOT allow my hopes for my descendent's the same privileges I enjoyed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 ParanioA - When people say that the "DOWs increase is in response to Obamas policies," they are not asserting that as some fact or argument. They are caricaturing the opposing side and showing how silly such a claim is. You may have missed it, but nobody believes that. They are just mocking the underlying premise of the thread. I hope that clears things up. Well my last post just stated as much. I thought I made it clear that I suspected caricature, I just wanted to be sure. And I'm a little trigger happy anyway since I fully expect this to eventually happen. As soon as the economy shows a rebound, folks will praise the stimulus, whether it had a damn thing to do with it, whether it happened in spite of it, or not. But that's not what I took you to task for. I took you to task for this: Precisely. It appears that people only want to use the DOW as a measure of Obamas policies when markets are going down. When markets go up, suddenly there are other variables to consider. The double-standard is so plain it practically slaps you in the face with its audacity.[/b'] Again...who's guilty of this double-standard you speak of? And I'm only doing this because I regularly see folks on here ridicule the O'rielly's, the Hannity's, the conservative pundits, of the same tactics; making strong, obvious arguments out of contentions that don't exist. I'm trying to save you man! Friends don't let friends resemble talk radio. <runs and hides from the flying poo....> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Interesting thought. TBH, I DO think the stimulus will help the economy, but my approach is more that it helped prevent it from bottoming out and start getting the wheels moving again. The thing is, I don't attribute this to "Obamas policy," nor do I think surges in the market are directly related to said policy. The reason I WOULD argue that the stimulus helped the markets go up (if, in fact, they do go up) is becase... it's stimulating. It's money, and projects, and all kinds of stuff. So yes, I would make that argument. The difference between me saying the stimulus helped and Jackson33 saying the policies harm is that he's speaking about the response to peoples perceptions of policy, and I'm talking about operational impact of actual transactions, flow of money, and movement of people. For that reason, I don't think it's very fair of you to suggest that my (our) focus on operational impact is the same thing as Jacksons focus on perception about what a policy MIGHT do. I don't have to sound like a talk radio ideologue to get my point across. ... We're talking about different things. I think you'll also notice that Jackson has since amended and clarified his position, suggesting instead that Obama and the policies of his administration have "some" impact due to perception of them in the public (not that they are causal to overall market performance), and I'm glad to have read this clarification from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Did you catch Stossell's "Bailout or Bull" last night on 20/20? It's the libertarian mantra, so nothing revolutionarily new, but it was nice to see that opinion presented to the prime time public...(even though it was Friday and many of them were probably out getting trashed). He makes the case there is plenty of opposition from plenty of economists and there is no "everybody knows we need to do this" plurality like they make believe. They made the point that the bailout situation has instigated the "wait-and-see" lethargy by investors. No one wants to make a move on the bear market ( the opportunist's market, which is useful for "priming" trade ) since they're not sure who's getting bailed out, who's taking the money and who isn't. All of this behind the foreground of tentative Obama policies, in terms of which victim group is next to receive exception status from market forces. So, it could be that the DOW is responding to Obama policy, but not so much as a voice of disproval, but perhaps just hesitant with all the shuffling around, making it difficult to predict future events with any sense of confidence. That would make more sense to me. I'd love to believe they're rejecting his socialistic principles, but I'd be kidding myself. Big business loves big government, that's how they create monopolies together. And they sell it using altruistic morality propaganda and fear of falling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Not correct; I am not sure who "everyone" is, but my point has always been the Markets (all of them) are not happy with POLICY Obama has been suggesting and now implementing What's your evidence drops in the market are related to Obama policy? I can keep pointing this out, but here's your argument: Premise 1: The markets are going down Premise 2: ??? Conclusion: Obama's policies are responsible This is the same specious reasoning by which I can claim THE STIMULUS IS WORKING LIKE A CHARM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now