Down goes the Dow

agip wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

So much for Friday's rally.

so much for Monday's slide

so much for Tuesday's rally

Some additional things to consider:

-The Federal Reserve is a non-political body

-Plenty of blame for the Great Recession can be passed around and includes bad actors in both the Republican and Democratic Parties

-2015 Wall Street Average Analyst S&P Price Target 2,225 on $126 average operating earnings

-2016 Wall Street Average Analyst S&P Price Target 2,220 on $123.50 average operating earnings

-Wall Street was too optimistic in 2000 and 2008

Igy

[quote]Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Maserati,

Agreed, but I think Yellin has less power that what people think she does.

The Fed can print money out of thin air and give it to whomever they want, all done in complete secrecy.

That seems like quite a bit of power for Yellen and Fischer and the rest of the con artists to have over America.

coach d,

I believe those that oppose Federal Reserve policy of QE are on all sides of the political spectrum. I for one voted for Barrack Obama in his first term, and Mitt Romney in his second term. I agree with the actions of the Federal Reserve initially, but believe they kept the foot on the gas a little too long.

John Hussman is liberal on social issues. David Stockman has been very critical of Republican Party generally and especially of George W. Bush. I no little of Peter Schiff's political leanings.

I think it detracts from your argument when you try to put a political spin on what should be an academic discussion.

Igy

Biggest criticism of the Fed Governors make-up might be too many academics.

Where,

I didn't know Paul Volker was Jewish.

Igy

Disagree that "business is stuck responding". From what I can see its generally business that wants the Fed to solve their problems. That is what is really sad.

Maserati wrote:

Rail transport has increasingly been occupied with oil transport. It could be argued that rail shipment of crude to a refinery, then to other modalities, is a decent indicator of economic activity.

It is IMO a sad state of affairs that we now collectively look to regulators, policymakers, and banks to provide basic popular economic leadership, e.g. Yellen.

Today, those people are "out front", and business is stuck responding. It is the tail wagging the dog, and should be (and used to be) the other way around.

I'm sure everybody is on the edge of their seat waiting for Yellen.

Ryan, it's the same thing: initiative and leadership ceded to public authorities/government/regulators.

Maserati wrote:

It is IMO a sad state of affairs that we now collectively look to regulators, policymakers, and banks to provide basic popular economic leadership, e.g. Yellen.

Nope. I agree with Igy that Yellen has less power than you think she has. Wall Street is still in charge.

It goes much, much, much deeper than Yellen and the Fed. Try to develop something locally and you will see what I mean.

I think we are in agreement.

Some facts from Facebook's 8-k reflecting current GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) earnings :

Earnings Per Share

2014 EPS $1.10

2015 EPS $1.19

Change +17.3%

Cost and Expenses

2014 $12.4 Billion

2015 $17.9 Billion

Change +43.5%

Liabilities

2014. $3.9 Billion

2015. $5.2 Billion

Change +33.3%

These are the numbers, not regurgeted into a narrative that Facebook and the financial media wants you to believe.

I can borrow money and pay anyone to buy my widgets.

The bottom line is Facebook is a company trading at 77 times next year's earnings. That alone should cause investors to dig a little deeper. You can Google "Facebook 8-k" and look for yourself.

Mark Zuckerberg may save the market, but it's fools gold.

Igy

Of course, their revenues are going through the roof.

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-facebook-earnings-20160127-story.html

Here's the evidence:

(1)

So it's quite clear to me that Paul Ryan WANTED Obama and America to fail, and didn't want Ben snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.

(2)

This is where the Presidential Candidates stand (or, in 2015), and as you can see, the only people with negative views of the FED on interest rates are republicans:

(3)

This 20/20 hindsight from 5 years ago. Bill Gross definitely gets the horse laugh. Now can somebody show me that 20% decline of the dollar and all that damage that was done by all that inflation?

(4)

Bernie Sanders pushing to FED to go FURTHER:

POTO,

The point is, the Increased revenue comes at a cost that is not considered a cost in non-GAAP accounting.

I guess Mark Zuckerberg saved the market.

Igy

coach d,

One can make just about anything a Red/Blue issue. I view it in economic terms, which should be: What are the long term benefits or negatives of QE? I agree there were benefits, I believe it went too long and has led to asset bubbles. None of that belief is grounded in a political philosophy.

Igy

Increased revenue just doesn't happen. There has to be a stimulus. But it is a very important number and one that should be at, or near, the top of any group of figures used to discuss the health of a company.

Zuckerberg is not interested in saving the market per se. His focus is FB.

Big Dog Investments wrote:

Increased revenue just doesn't happen. There has to be a stimulus.

People aren't busy at work, so they're spending more time on facebook. Not sure how that is a good thing, except, well, for facebook.

Nutella1 wrote:

Big Dog Investments wrote:

Increased revenue just doesn't happen. There has to be a stimulus.

People aren't busy at work, so they're spending more time on facebook. Not sure how that is a good thing, except, well, for facebook.

+1

I am 100% sure that social networking has materially lowered the productivity rate in America

and in fact productivity has been slumping for several years

thanks zuckerberg