The stock market is not the economy

[Clocker]

Many people here, and in the media, point to the booming stock market as a sign that the government's economic policies are working and that the economy is returning to normal. Here is an article (http://www.moneynews.com/newswidget/economy-stocks-productivity-corporate/2013/11/20/id/537607?promo_code=12390-1&utm_source=12390PJ_Media&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm _campaign=widgetphase1), short and to the point, showing why the market and the real economy are not necessarily connected.

The article looks at 3 reasons that the market is doing much better than the economy:

1. The recession forced companies to become more efficient. They are therefore now more profitable with a smaller work force.

2. In the current uncertain environment, many companies find that it makes more sense to use those profits to pay dividends or buy back their own stock than to spend it to expand.

3. Low interest rates make stock more attractive than bonds. This drives up stock prices, and makes borrowing for those companies that do need money to expand harder to get.

[badcompany]

The stock market is a game of accumulation and distribution. As long as the right institutions are long stocks, the market will keep going up, no matter what the economy is doing or who is in the White House.

How many times have you heard that the retail investor is on the sidelines? Yet, I haven't heard a single "expert" on CNBC, Bloomberg or FBN point out that this is a tacit admission that insiders can run up stock prices without the public's participation.

[thaskalos]

When you have companies buying back their own stock, while the Fed is, at the same time, pumping billions of dollars a day into the bond and stock markets...then you have an environment where more money is chasing fewer stocks. Stock prices don't go down in a scenario such as this.

It's nothing but smoke and mirrors...IMO.

[lamboguy]

The stock market is a game of accumulation and distribution. As long as the right institutions are long stocks, the market will keep going up, no matter what the economy is doing or who is in the White House.

How many times have you heard that the retail investor is on the sidelines? Yet, I haven't heard a single "expert" on CNBC, Bloomberg or FBN point out that this is a tacit admission that insiders can run up stock prices without the public's participation.i have been watching the filing's of the gold miner's recently and have seen that there have been a ton of hedge funds and mutual funds buying them, but suspiciously absent from this has been Fidelity and Wellington. i am waiting to see some serious volume in those stocks before i jump in. today they took apart the gold market and might get it some more one of these nights. that might be the time to jump back in.

[Clocker]

Stock prices don't go down in a scenario such as this.

It's nothing but smoke and mirrors...IMO.

Exactly. The stock market is not a sign that the economy is growing. It is a sign that the economy is stagnant, and the stock market is the only game in town.

And the Fed has to keep the smoke machine going or the whole thing falls apart.

[badcompany]

i have been watching the filing's of the gold miner's recently and have seen that there have been a ton of hedge funds and mutual funds buying them, but suspiciously absent from this has been Fidelity and Wellington. i am waiting to see some serious volume in those stocks before i jump in. today they took apart the gold market and might get it some more one of these nights. that might be the time to jump back in.

I took a short position in SLV @21.5 using the 12 day SMA. SLV is now @ 19.14, and over 15% below the 200 SMA.

The only trend I see in the Precious Metals is downward. IMO, a lot of the Hedgefunds are averaging down and throwing good money after bad.

[reckless]

I've never tried timing the market but knowing the way Obama politicizes every single move he makes ... I expect the market to continue to rise until the November 2014.

This rise will 'show' the financially ignorant on the left that Obama is 'good' for the country. These are the same stupid liberals that mostly doesn't have a penny invested in the market and always wails about inequality when a Republican is in the WH and the market rises.

What will happen then, either leading up to the election, or just after... the Federal Reserve will announce no more stimulus monies and no propping of the markets.

This Fed announcement will indeed cause the market to drop.

If this happens days before the election then Obama will say the drop was cause by the possible takeover of both Houses of Congress by Republicans (polling up to the election will have the GOP winning big). The fear factor works well for those parasites on the public dole.

Obama will use this to rally his freeloading base in hopes of salvaging any chance of reversing a potential disaster for the Democrats.

That's my prediction.

If my timing is wrong on Scenario #1, then after the GOP takes over Congress, my Scenario #2 has the Fed stopping the tapering with a huge drop in the market happening.

This now 'forces' the GOP -- against their will -- to bail out all of Obama's friends, cronies and money launderers on Wall Street, such as Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, Warren Buffett's insurance companies, Pimco and the rest of those Democrat Party bundlers and assorted ilk.

[thaskalos]

I've never tried timing the market but knowing the way Obama politicizes every single move he makes ... I expect the market to continue to rise until the November 2014.

This rise will 'show' the financially ignorant on the left that Obama is 'good' for the country. These are the same stupid liberals that mostly doesn't have a penny invested in the market and always wails about inequality when a Republican is in the WH and the market rises.

What will happen then, either leading up to the election, or just after... the Federal Reserve will announce no more stimulus monies and no propping of the markets.

This Fed announcement will indeed cause the market to drop.

If this happens days before the election then Obama will say the drop was cause by the possible takeover of both Houses of Congress by Republicans (polling up to the election will have the GOP winning big). The fear factor works well for those parasites on the public dole.

Obama will use this to rally his freeloading base in hopes of salvaging any chance of reversing a potential disaster for the Democrats.

That's my prediction.

If my timing is wrong on Scenario #1, then after the GOP takes over Congress, my Scenario #2 has the Fed stopping the tapering with a huge drop in the market happening.

This now 'forces' the GOP -- against their will -- to bail out all of Obama's friends, cronies and money launderers on Wall Street, such as Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, Warren Buffett's insurance companies, Pimco and the rest of those Democrat Party bundlers and assorted ilk.

I pray that I never craft a sentence such as this...while calling someone else "stupid".

[reckless]

I took a short position in SLV @21.5 using the 12 day SMA. SLV is now @ 19.14, and over 15% below the 200 SMA.

The only trend I see in the Precious Metals is downward. IMO, a lot of the Hedgefunds are averaging down and throwing good money after bad.

I laugh when those experts on Bloomberg, Fox and CNBC talk about a 'bubble' in the stock market as I heard at least 3-4 times this past week alone.

It is true that the Dow Jones and S&P 500 are way, way up off their 2009 lows, but all the other investment vehicles -- gold, silver, oil, housing -- are down, and retail sales are actually cratering.

In a 'bubble' environment this scenario usually doesn't happen.

Good luck on your SLV position, badcompany.

[reckless]

I pray that I never craft a sentence such as this...while calling someone else "stupid".

What was ill-crafted??

Since you quoted the entire post of mine, I guess you confuse whole paragraphs as sentences... if so, you should be careful on calling people stupid.

[davew]

The Dow Jones is a joke - they keep changing their stocks in the industrial average getting rid of poor performers and adding good ones. Does anyone know where I can find a list of the stocks they have changed in the last 50 years?

[thaskalos]

What was ill-crafted??

Since you quoted the entire post of mine, I guess you confuse whole paragraphs as sentences... if so, you should be careful on calling people stupid.

You can't see the sentence in the bold letters?

Is this how you plied your craft when you were a newspaperman?

[Clocker]

I laugh when those experts on Bloomberg, Fox and CNBC talk about a 'bubble' in the stock market as I heard at least 3-4 times this past week alone.

It is true that the Dow Jones and S&P 500 are way, way up off their 2009 lows, but all the other investment vehicles -- gold, silver, oil, housing -- are down, and retail sales are actually cratering.

In a 'bubble' environment this scenario usually doesn't happen.



A bubble is a run-up in prices in a sector or commodity not supported by real values or general business growth. The housing bubble was supported by easy mortgages and low interest rates. A lot of people consider the current stock market to be a bubble, supported by the factors described in the link, without regard to the long term worth and profitability of the companies. The fact that other investments are not going up in step with stocks is a strong indication that it is a bubble.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Where are the following metrics today versus 4 yrs ago?

1) Weekly jobless claims
2) The number of private sector jobs
3) The median house price
4) S&P 500 earnings
5) Auto sales
6) The deficit as % of GDP

Are we experiencing a roaring economy? Absolutely not, but to deny the improvement over the past four years is nonsense.

[lamboguy]

I took a short position in SLV @21.5 using the 12 day SMA. SLV is now @ 19.14, and over 15% below the 200 SMA.

The only trend I see in the Precious Metals is downward. IMO, a lot of the Hedgefunds are averaging down and throwing good money after bad.it looks like gold is going to $1050 now.

[Saratoga_Mike]

it looks like gold is going to $1050 now.

And it will still be overvalued (by comparing its price to an index of the CPI over the past 100 yrs). Ahhhh, maybe there was/is a bubble in gold?

[lamboguy]

And it will still be overvalued (by comparing its price to an index of the CPI over the past 100 yrs). Ahhhh, maybe there was/is a bubble in gold?
i really don't think so because i am not using the same standards to compute the value as you could have in 1980. there are 2 different key dynamic's involved this time that makes the price of gold seriously under priced. those 2 would be a population of over 1 billion a piece in both country's, China and India. those people are not going to stop buying gold. currently there are 1000 tons of gold going to China each and every month. their population is making more and more money and they are not interested in owning apple stock, they love gold and the government their try's to make it easier for them to own it. they are building secure warehouses that will hold 200 tons of gold each with more in the plans.

i can certainly see if China changes their mind, you would be 100% right on gold being in a bubble.

[redshift1]

Newsmax making a pretty penny off conspiracy theorists and seriously ill people seeking miracle cures now offering investment advice.

[Saratoga_Mike]

i really don't think so because i am not using the same standards to compute the value as you could have in 1980. there are 2 different key dynamic's involved this time that makes the price of gold seriously under priced. those 2 would be a population of over 1 billion a piece in both country's, China and India. those people are not going to stop buying gold. currently there are 1000 tons of gold going to China each and every month. their population is making more and more money and they are not interested in owning apple stock, they love gold and the government their try's to make it easier for them to own it. they are building secure warehouses that will hold 200 tons of gold each with more in the plans.

i can certainly see if China changes their mind, you would be 100% right on gold being in a bubble.

This same logic (Chinese effect) was used when people where buying coal* stocks in 2007/8, many of which are still 60% to 80% lower today.

Most people haven't a clue how to anchor the price of gold to anything. Over the long term, the CPI index is the best option.

*the Chinese were going to open a new coal-fired power plant every other day some claimed

[reckless]

You can't see the sentence in the bold letters?

Is this how you plied your craft when you were a newspaperman?

I do now. Thanks. Miss it in the first run through. Should have done a few more.

[lamboguy]

This same logic (Chinese effect) was used when people where buying coal* stocks in 2007/8, many of which are still 60% to 80% lower today.

Most people haven't a clue how to anchor the price of gold to anything. Over the long term, the CPI index is the best option.

*the Chinese were going to open a new coal-fired power plant every other day some claimed

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-10/gold-vault-for-2-000-tons-opens-in-shanghai-as-bullion-goes-east.html

[Robert Goren]

If Romney had been elected and the stock market performed the way it is now, the conservatives here would be hailing him as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[JustRalph]

Great thread.......Happy BDay T

[JustRalph]

The stock market is a game of accumulation and distribution. As long as the right institutions are long stocks, the market will keep going up, no matter what the economy is doing or who is in the White House.

How many times have you heard that the retail investor is on the sidelines? Yet, I haven't heard a single "expert" on CNBC, Bloomberg or FBN point out that this is a tacit admission that insiders can run up stock prices without the public's participation.

This fascinates me in some ways. By doing this and recognizing it, what are they doing about spreading the risk? Aren't they not only taking a larger share of the "risk load" for lack of a better term? But they are also using other peoples money. I guess that doesn't matter. I know almost nothing about the market.



This now 'forces' the GOP -- against their will -- to bail out all of Obama's friends, cronies and money launderers on Wall Street, such as Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, Warren Buffett's insurance companies, Pimco and the rest of those Democrat Party bundlers and assorted ilk.

I don't see how the base would let that happen, but then again......the base was against it last time

[badcompany]

This fascinates me in some ways. By doing this and recognizing it, what are they doing about spreading the risk? Aren't they not only taking a larger share of the "risk load" for lack of a better term? But they are also using other peoples money. I guess that doesn't matter. I know almost nothing about the market.


There are many levels to it, but the Stock Market is essentially a giant Used Car dealership, but with stocks, and the most powerful dealers are the big banks: Goldman, Morgan et al. They pretty much know the value of the stocks they deal, much in the same way a used car dealer knows how much the lemon he is trying to sell you is worth. The profit motivation for both is to buy low and sell high.

So, after a sharp downturn, or crash, the dealers accumulate stocks, trade among each other, collect dividends, drive up prices and patiently wait for the suckers to show up. When they do, the stocks are unloaded, and the dealers sit on their hands. This causes demand to dry up, sending stock prices down. After a while, the suckers get sick and tired of watching their equity evaporate, and sell...back to the dealers who rinse and repeat.

The process I just described could be considered the "Hidden" takeout of the stock market.

Those of us who consider ourselves "Smart" outsiders, try to pick up the crumbs that get away from the dealers. What makes it possible to do so is the size and scope of the game, and the amount of dumb money.

[mostpost]

I pray that I never craft a sentence such as this...while calling someone else "stupid".
These are the same stupid liberals that mostly doesn't have a penny invested in the market and always wails about inequality when a Republican is in the WH and the market rises.
I see reckless figured out what was obvious to the rest of us. I wonder if he has figured out what is wrong with his sentence. (in bold above)

The subject "Liberals" is plural. In requires a plural predicate. Doesn't is the singular form. Don't is the plural. The same applies to wails and wail-wails singular-wail plural. There is also the matter of missing commas and semi-colons and the fact that it should probably by two sentences rather than one run on sentence.

More important is the assertion that stupid liberals don't have money invested in the stock market. How does reckless know this? Does this also apply to liberals of average intelligence and liberals who are candidates for MENSA?

I googled "Do more Republicans than Democrats invest in the stock market"
I'm afraid I don't have answer because I got sidetracked when I saw the following websites.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-22/stocks-return-more-with-dem-in-white-house-bgov-barometer.html
From that site, which is Bloomberg, we learn:
The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.
Chart: Stock Investors Fare Better Under Democrats
That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office

I also found this site
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/
with this graph
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/adamhartung/files/2012/10/15a00d15151515c151515151515ef01515d15c15f151515a15 150c-1500wi15

[Clocker]

I also found this site
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/
with this graph

This would be the same Forbes Magazine that you automatically reject as a credible source when cited by anyone else?

It is impossible to discuss those results without knowing the methodology, but I have serious trouble with any study that finds the FDR era to be the 3rd most prosperous in the modern era.

I also have big problems with any such study that ignores the impact of which party has control of Congress during an administration, as that one appears to do. And at least the first two years of any administration are the legacy of the previous administration, which that study also appears to ignore.

All that said, one would expect the short term impact on the economy to be better under a Democratic administration. When tax and spend Democrats take control, the positive impact of spending takes effect immediately. The negative effect of taxing takes longer to hit home.

[JustRalph]

This would be the same Forbes Magazine that you automatically reject as a credible source when cited by anyone else?

Now cut that out!!!

[reckless]

These are the same stupid liberals that mostly doesn't have a penny invested in the market and always wails about inequality when a Republican is in the WH and the market rises.
I see reckless figured out what was obvious to the rest of us. I wonder if he has figured out what is wrong with his sentence. (in bold above)

The subject "Liberals" is plural. In requires a plural predicate. Doesn't is the singular form. Don't is the plural. The same applies to wails and wail-wails singular-wail plural. There is also the matter of missing commas and semi-colons and the fact that it should probably by two sentences rather than one run on sentence.

More important is the assertion that stupid liberals don't have money invested in the stock market. How does reckless know this? Does this also apply to liberals of average intelligence and liberals who are candidates for MENSA?

I googled "Do more Republicans than Democrats invest in the stock market"
I'm afraid I don't have answer because I got sidetracked when I saw the following websites.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-22/stocks-return-more-with-dem-in-white-house-bgov-barometer.html
From that site, which is Bloomberg, we learn:
The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.
Chart: Stock Investors Fare Better Under Democrats
That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office

I also found this site
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/
with this graph
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/adamhartung/files/2012/10/15a00d15151515c151515151515ef01515d15c15f151515a15 150c-1500wi15

You know Mostpost, from Day One, I always tried to let you know that you were okay in my book, despite your liberal idiocy. We all share one thing in common, the great sport of horse racing, and I tried to always keep that in mind, again despite your liberal idiocy.

So... OK, OK, OK... I effed up a sentence. Big effing deal. Go have your fun at my expense and please enjoy yourself. I am sure, as a liberal post office employe, you don't get too many chances to crack a smile.

But remember this: I can still turn a phrase, make a point, and even on my worst day, still be 1000 times more coherent than you'll ever be.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I was gonna let it slide yesterday, but he did forget a period at the end of one of his sentences.

[Mike at A+]

If Romney had been elected and the stock market performed the way it is now, the conservatives here would be hailing him as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Not me. Unless the employment numbers were better. And with Romney at the helm I'm sure they would be. Romney wouldn't be badmouthing job creators and calling them fat cats. He'd be letting them know that government and private sector get along much better as partners than as rivals. 0bama hates the private sector. Which is why unemployment will stay around 7% for the next 3 years. Companies will start hiring when they are praised, not demonized. Yes, it's "personal" now.

[reckless]

A bubble is a run-up in prices in a sector or commodity not supported by real values or general business growth. The housing bubble was supported by easy mortgages and low interest rates. A lot of people consider the current stock market to be a bubble, supported by the factors described in the link, without regard to the long term worth and profitability of the companies. The fact that other investments are not going up in step with stocks is a strong indication that it is a bubble.


Yes, maybe cult stocks like Facebook (120 PE), Amazon (138 PE), Netflix (290 PE), and before the fire, Tesla Motors (80 PE) are way ahead of themselves. Yet very profitable companies like Cisco Systems, Apple, Microsoft, and Intel are all selling at PE ratios of around 11-14 times and historically low price per free cash flow ratios. Not to mention the billions of cash on the books overseas of many multinationals.

Remember during the Internet days when Cisco was selling for 100 times earnings, Netscape was way, way up there too, as was AOL? Microsoft also sold at around 50 times then.

Pfizer today sells at about a 9 PE and about 10 times free cash flow and is very profitable despite the Lipitor patent loss a few years ago.

I don't dispute what you say Clocker, but I just can't agree we are in a 'bubble' pertaining to common stocks. That all said, I will admit that I am not rushing to invest new money at this moment but I haven't sold any stock based on my reasoning either.

[reckless]

I was gonna let it slide yesterday, but he did forget a period at the end of one of his sentences.

I was hoping no one noticed that one too :)

[mostpost]

This would be the same Forbes Magazine that you automatically reject as a credible source when cited by anyone else?

It is impossible to discuss those results without knowing the methodology, but I have serious trouble with any study that finds the FDR era to be the 3rd most prosperous in the modern era.

I also have big problems with any such study that ignores the impact of which party has control of Congress during an administration, as that one appears to do. And at least the first two years of any administration are the legacy of the previous administration, which that study also appears to ignore.

All that said, one would expect the short term impact on the economy to be better under a Democratic administration. When tax and spend Democrats take control, the positive impact of spending takes effect immediately. The negative effect of taxing takes longer to hit home.
I don't know that I automatically reject Forbes. I have used Forbes as a source before. Forbes has columnists from many places on the political spectrum.

The chart which I included does not come from Forbes, nor from the columnist himself. It comes from a book called "Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box." If you had read the article, you would now which factors the authors used in making their ratings. Unfortunately, the site won't let me copy and paste, but here they are.
Inflation, Unemployment, corporate profit growth, stock market performance, household income growth, economy (GDP) growth, months in recession and others.

[Clocker]

If you had read the article, you would now which factors the authors used in making their ratings. Unfortunately, the site won't let me copy and paste, but here they are.
Inflation, Unemployment, corporate profit growth, stock market performance, household income growth, economy (GDP) growth, months in recession and others.

I read the article, thank you. That is how I was able to come to the conclusion that the article says nothing about the methodology used in the book.

Listing the factors observed says nothing about the methodology. It is as informative as saying that I use speed, pace, class and form in handicapping. There, now you understand my methodology, right?

Let me be more definitive. There is no way that anyone can credibly establish any meaningful correlation between the economic conditions under an administration and the policies of that administration. There are too many variables and too many lags. Policy changes enacted today may take years to play out. Policy at the end of one administration interacts in unknown and unintended ways with policy at the beginning of the next administration. Precise analysis of cause and effect is impossible.

[Robert Goren]

Not me. Unless the employment numbers were better. And with Romney at the helm I'm sure they would be. Romney wouldn't be badmouthing job creators and calling them fat cats. He'd be letting them know that government and private sector get along much better as partners than as rivals. 0bama hates the private sector. Which is why unemployment will stay around 7% for the next 3 years. Companies will start hiring when they are praised, not demonized. Yes, it's "personal" now.I sure hate see how much money a person who loved the private sector could give the rich if Obama hates them. Name one president since Hoover who has done more for the rich and the private sector. Remember banks are private sector and rich too. How many trillions has he given the rich? My calculator doesn't go that high. And What have the rich done with all the money Obama gave them? Can anybody spell Swiss banks accounts? or Factories in China? What happen in Mass. when Romney was governor? How many jobs did the private sector create there while he was praising them? Must have not been too many or he would have not got crushed when left the governor's office to run for senate. What did 8 years of Bush praising the rich get him for his trouble? They laid off 600,000 people in his last full month in office. Praising the rich really creates jobs.:rolleyes:

[Robert Goren]

I read the article, thank you. That is how I was able to come to the conclusion that the article says nothing about the methodology used in the book.

Listing the factors observed says nothing about the methodology. It is as informative as saying that I use speed, pace, class and form in handicapping. There, now you understand my methodology, right?

Let me be more definitive. There is no way that anyone can credibly establish any meaningful correlation between the economic conditions under an administration and the policies of that administration. There are too many variables and too many lags. Policy changes enacted today may take years to play out. Policy at the end of one administration interacts in unknown and unintended ways with policy at the beginning of the next administration. Precise analysis of cause and effect is impossible.The standard cop-out when the short term trends are not going your way. You wouldn't accept that excuse from a democrat, so why should we accept it from republicans?

[pandy]

The U.S. economy used to be closely tied to the stock market but because of the World Is Flat Economy we have now, where U.S. corporations are making a lot of money from business they do overseas, the stock market doesn't model the economy. What's interesting is that the past few years Europe has also been in a recession but the market went up, but so many companies are making profits from China, India, and South America that is balances out the lesser profits from sales in U.S. and Europe.

As to whether or not the market is over bought, I wish I knew. I do think that once the Fed stops pumping money into the economy and interests rates go up the market will have a sharp negative reaction. Since the market is usually ahead, then as soon as the Fed even hints that easing is going to stop the market could have a sharp sell off.

[Robert Goren]

The U.S. economy used to be closely tied to the stock market but because of the World Is Flat Economy we have now, where U.S. corporations are making a lot of money from business they do overseas, the stock market doesn't model the economy. What's interesting is that the past few years Europe has also been in a recession but the market went up, but so many companies are making profits from China, India, and South America that is balances out the lesser profits from sales in U.S. and Europe.

As to whether or not the market is over bought, I wish I knew. I do think that once the Fed stops pumping money into the economy and interests rates go up the market will have a sharp negative reaction. Since the market is usually ahead, then as soon as the Fed even hints that easing is going to stop the market could have a sharp sell off. A very good argument for not stopping it. Whether stock market reflects the economy is open to debate. One thing is not open to debate. The stock market effects the economy. Every time the market tanks, so does the economy.

[Clocker]

The standard cop-out when the short term trends are not going your way. You wouldn't accept that excuse from a democrat, so why should we accept it from republicans?

I am not an member of either party and I made no excuses. I said that the short term impact of policy cannot be measured. Period. How anyone can find anything partisan in that statement is beyond logic.

[Robert Goren]

I am not an member of either party and I made no excuses. I said that the short term impact of policy cannot be measured. Period. How anyone can find anything partisan in that statement is beyond logic.Sorry, but you sound just like every republican here.
Just so I get this clear, nothing happening now is Obama's fault or even Bush's, it is Clinton's, Bush 41's and Reagan's fault. I like that. Especially the part about it being Reagan's fault.

[Clocker]

Sorry, but you sound just like every republican here.
Just so I get this clear, nothing happening now is Obama's fault or even Bush's, it is Clinton's, Bush 41's and Reagan's fault. I like that. Especially the part about it being Reagan's fault.

Where did I say that policies did not have consequences? I said that they cannot be measured in the short run. And the impact of policy is not limited to the term in which it is enacted. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp? Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[badcompany]

More pain for the Goldbugs.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/null_zps41f2c766.png

[Tom]

Sorry, but you sound just like every republican here.

You mean sounding right, as in correct?