The unemployment rate has fallen a full percentage point over the last 4 mo

[gwb72tii]

Shouldn't you have learned that in high school?



What does that have to do with the fact you solely rely on biased crazies?

actually i'm curious what your business school taught you last year
the "classic" def on wall street is 2 consecutive quarters of declining GDP

[gwb72tii]

Shilling also predicted 20% drop in housing prices: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/618c3e84-7...#axzz1sV1E1tdH

And said consumer speding would fall

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9177102/US-consumer-spending-rises-as-unemployment-falls.html

The majority of economists predict continued slow recovery, but most aren't selling their wares based on economic collapse. (Like the writer who writes at economiccollapse.com that z31 posted, what do you think they are ALWAYS going to say?)

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-gary-shilling-still-filled-with-unrelenting-gloom-2009-7

It ended at 1145, up 19.5%

And yet you want to believe him that the S&P 500 will be down 43% at the end of the year to 800?

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/373215/What-It-Would-Take-to-Get-Bearish-Gary-Shilling-to-Say-%22I%27m-Dead-Wrong%22

He also said that consumer's spending would plunge as they have a savings spree:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/12/us-savings-rate-falls-again-as-consumer-spending-rises.html

At what point do you stop letting them change their reasoning and no longer buy "oh, that didn't happen, but let me tell you why you should invest in my fund again because I'm gonna TOTALLY be right this year..." - do you not think for yourself?

well, gee whiz, apparently you said it was stupid to buy silver 4 yrs ago also, according to sleeve

ands it up 138%

[BraveUlysses]

Heeter, why are you even continuing to respond to him?

Good question but this thread took a turn for awesome though.

[rwh11385]

well, gee whiz, apparently you said it was stupid to buy silver 4 yrs ago also, according to sleeve

ands it up 138%

You can't read or remember worth anything. I said buying silver was stupid a year ago. It is down a good amount since then.

Remember when you called it 'perfect hindsight'? (To try to say I did not call it correctly at the time but clearly did) If you can't remember a few pages ago I can provide a link...

[rwh11385]

Heeter, why are you even continuing to respond to him?

To show how he only seeks out biased sources that confirm his desired message, regardless of the fact they can't be objective and have been wrong multiple times.

It's absolutely insane to rely on such sources alone and put your fingers in your ears to ignore any data that demonstrates reality is contrary to the bull biased sources are feeding you. This is how much of the county is willingfully ignorant. The voting public would be better able to make good decisions if they are capable of judging opinion vs fact, and capable of independtly assessing information credibility.

[gwb72tii]

Heeter you called me a fool for buying silver 4 years ago @ 13.xx bucks an oz. I have been laughing all the way too the bank with that advice

[rwh11385]

Yeah, that's what he claimed... But I was talking about buying silver a year ago with the discussion with Farbin and Kruzen. He should have sold then and would have been better off. His rise in value was before I ever talked about it and has only seen it drop since then.

In 2008, the only silver I was talking about buying was the color of 15x8 wheels.

Everyone knows you prefer untrue rhetoric rather than caring for the facts...

[gwb72tii]

To show how he only seeks out biased sources that confirm his desired message, regardless of the fact they can't be objective and have been wrong multiple times.

It's absolutely insane to rely on such sources alone and put your fingers in your ears to ignore any data that demonstrates reality is contrary to the bull biased sources are feeding you. This is how much of the county is willingfully ignorant. The voting public would be better able to make good decisions if they are capable of judging opinion vs fact, and capable of independtly assessing information credibility.

here, i'll digress to your level so you can understand what i have to say

you really don't know fuckall about the markets do you? you've had your head buried in books for so long you're ignorant about how the markets react to the various bits of economic data. you're not going to find what's happening today in a chart you can try to baffle r3v with.

your quote
"So by your "logic", investors need higher yields if their confidence is higher???? You might want to pick up a book or two"

maybe you should pull your head out of a book and follow the facts. try tracking the yield on the 10yr and the S&P, what do you see? here, i'll help. the are almost perfectly correlated. here, i'll explain that too. yields go down as stocks go down, and yes, yields go up when stocks go up.

in today' lingo, its called the risk trade, risk on, risk off. today was what??? here, i'll help again, it was risk off, stocks went down. and guess what?? the ten year went from 1.982 yield to 1.952. money left stocks and went into bonds. rememer econ 101? demand affects market price? the price of the ten yr went up (more demand) and yield went down.

and let's see what happened the day of our bet shall we?
i gave you, to make the bet even, a free 180pts up on the dow and 11 pts on the S&P, what did the ten yr do? fuck me it went up in yield. can it be? nope, not according to your vast understanding of economics.

this relationship really became correlated as it is today with QE1, uncle ben's fist quantatative easing. and its become more so thru QE2 and the europe debacle. traders are nervous as hell. shit, 75% of the public still believes we're in recession.

i have to run to a meeting or this could go forever
get a clue

[mrsleeve]

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showpost.php?p=1369700&postcount=44

Heeter making fun of me in early 09. For buying some silver bulion when it was about 13 bucks an oz.

[rwh11385]

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...0&postcount=44


Heeter making fun of me in early 09. For buying some silver bulion when it was about 13 bucks an oz.

Since when is 09 four years ago?

And I was making fun of your assumption that the dollar was going to be worth pennies on the dollar and that stock market was not going to recover. Your assumptions were poor. And outcome could have been better in some stocks, like AZO I picked up.

[rwh11385]

here, i'll digress to your level so you can understand what i have to say

you really don't know fuckall about the markets do you? you've had your head buried in books for so long you're ignorant about how the markets react to the various bits of economic data. you're not going to find what's happening today in a chart you can try to baffle r3v with.

I'm sorry that my charts baffle you and you can't understand them, but that doesn't mean I don't understand that the markets react to data, especially if they are not at their expected values.

What I don't get is why you keep listening to people who don't change their assessment of the market AT ALL with changing economic data... They have pre-assumed conclusions and no amount of new information would seemingly change their recommendations (even if they were wrong multiple times), and you treating their advice as gospel would leave you misaligned with market realities. Aren't you better off if you can understand economics and think for yourself, instead of being a simple parrot and ignoring economic data that all the rest of the market reacts to but you don't because you assume it's all lie and can't possibly be true??

your quote
"So by your "logic", investors need higher yields if their confidence is higher???? You might want to pick up a book or two"

maybe you should pull your head out of a book and follow the facts. try tracking the yield on the 10yr and the S&P, what do you see? here, i'll help. the are almost perfectly correlated. here, i'll explain that too. yields go down as stocks go down, and yes, yields go up when stocks go up.

in today' lingo, its called the risk trade, risk on, risk off. today was what??? here, i'll help again, it was risk off, stocks went down. and guess what?? the ten year went from 1.982 yield to 1.952. money left stocks and went into bonds. rememer econ 101? demand affects market price? the price of the ten yr went up (more demand) and yield went down.

Try looking again at the 90s. The lowering yield rates on bonds TOTALLY explains the awful performance of stocks in that decade. [JUST TO BE CLEAR THAT IS SARCASM AGAIN, I MEAN THE OPPOSITE!]



Only at the very tail end (post-2000) do lower stock values correlate with lower yields.

Can I ask you a basic Econ 101 quiz question? What do you assume in this simple tradeoff?

[Answer: That the only influence on stock/bond prices is the substitution between stocks and bonds, and you don't allow for money to enter / exit the combination, or go to other investments. If there is a big influx of money into T-bills (that isn't being removed from the stock market), then the bond yields can drop without necessarily meaning that the stock market has to be dropping.



Look here. After being correlated strongly, bond yields plummet while stocks grow slowly. (Your assumption predicts that higher stocks = higher bond yields) And consider when this separation came into being... about when the Euro crisis concerns first started becoming news and later when round II of concerns came about - May 2010 and June/July 2011: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/b...-timeline.html There are definite divides in bond yields vs. change in stock price at those moment and afterwards. The new demand for T Bills drop the yield rates without necessarily imposing a decline in stock value.]

and let's see what happened the day of our bet shall we?
i gave you, to make the bet even, a free 180pts up on the dow and 11 pts on the S&P, what did the ten yr do? fuck me it went up in yield. can it be? nope, not according to your vast understanding of economics.

this relationship really became correlated as it is today with QE1, uncle ben's fist quantatative easing. and its become more so thru QE2 and the europe debacle. traders are nervous as hell. shit, 75% of the public still believes we're in recession.

i have to run to a meeting or this could go forever
get a clue

I never said they couldn't be correlated, especially if you only look at daily by daily changes... but look at the extended relationship and consider the potential of a non-constant amount of investment in stock + bonds. (Complete exit of money, or influx of new money, not just a shift from one to the other)

Your lack of economics competence doesn't allow you to understand the possibility, because the only thing you get is way watered down and simplified... or just repeat what you read somewhere.

You can't fix stupid. Most of the public should allow someone else to manage their investments because they don't have a good understanding - like when they think 95% loss of value in the dollar is a lot... or don't get if everyone does the same thing based on fear mongering or on the other end mass excitement that there might be a bubble. 30% of Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth! So don't expect them to be people to rely on for good information or analysis... Basically you are using the public's ignorance to justify your own.

[mrsleeve]

Since when is 09 four years ago?

And I was making fun of your assumption that the dollar was going to be worth pennies on the dollar and that stock market was not going to recover. Your assumptions were poor. And outcome could have been better in some stocks, like AZO I picked up.

Was orginally thinking that thread was early 08.

[Vedubin01]

And I was making fun of your assumption that the dollar was going to be worth pennies on the dollar and that stock market was not going to recover. Your assumptions were poor. And outcome could have been better in some stocks, like AZO I picked up.

Didn't we also just pick up an extra $5 trillion in that time frame as well? Of course the markets were going to respond with all that extra money floating and propping up the economy.

[Morrison]

^ Yes. I fact checked it.

[rwh11385]

Didn't we also just pick up an extra $5 trillion in that time frame as well? Of course the markets were going to respond with all that extra money floating and propping up the economy.

I'm confused. You're the LAST person I'd expect to read saying that the bailouts helped the economy recover at all.

Are you saying that all that spending helped the economy, and not crowding out private enterprise instead? Or simply being a hypocrite when it is convenient to your argument?

The recovery would have been quicker and filled with more private jobs than government ones if they didn't happen. And bankruptcies would have better managed companies turnaround or close than their failures being rewarded. And housing would have landed hard without the FTHBTC, but at least it would have not been propped up temporarily with a government-created bubble to deal with the prior one, and recovery would have quicker and more efficient.