Another straw man! You have learned your messing well, my student.
Another straw man! You have learned your messing well, my student.
Keep it going
agip wrote:
Klondike: by god, you're right. You said December 12. I'll get back to you then, believe me. here's his three month window post - on page 17 if you want to look it up yourself.
____
Klondike5
RE: Down goes the Dow 9/12/2013 9:26AM - in reply to agip Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
[quote]agip wrote:
I think this thread should stop talking about politics and keep to the stock market.
Yes. Because politics has no impact on the market and should not play into our decisions.
Talk to me in three months. I am relatively confident that the "correction" will hit by then. Perhaps as soon as next week when the Fed makes its next announcement on 9/18 (I know, I know, we cannot talk about the ethnic/religious make-up of the Board of that august body).
If at year's end I have been proven mistaken, I will consider my next move.
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5369837&page=16#ixzz2m57Q7lF3
Two more days! The suspense is killing me!
I am definitely staying out of the market for the time being.
I suspect a bubble will be popping sometime in the not too distant future that will allow me to re-enter the market with the Dow well below the 15,000 I exited at.
Looks as if Israel is still going to get the USA to attack Iran -- AIPAC is having the US Congress put more sanctions on Iran that will run counter to the recent agreement.
And that ain;t gonna be good for us
We will see.
Don't you see these paranoid delusional thoughts of yours have cost you money? There will be no war with Iran. Get back in the market and cut your losses.
K5 wrote:
I am definitely staying out of the market for the time being.
I suspect a bubble will be popping sometime in the not too distant future that will allow me to re-enter the market with the Dow well below the 15,000 I exited at.
We will see.
You've got it totally wrong. Yes, you will be able to enter below 15000--eventually--but you will likely miss the move to 20000 first. And because you miss a good part of the move up, you also miss a good part of the move down (short or puts). I've displayed this chart a number of times, and it's still true that after-tax corporate profits top before the market, and that hasn't happened yet, and people who stay out before profits do top will likely miss the best part of the whole bull market--the last part:
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?graph_id=147069&category_id=0This is the lesson I learned from the 2000 top: Don't sell until that Tiger turns around and bites you. There were people back in the 1990's who decided the NASDAQ was overvalued at 1000-1500, and they missed most of the whole bull market. There seem to be a bunch of economic/technical things that always happen when you get a bubble type top:
(1) Corporate profits top and go down.
(2) Valuation gets much worse as people keep chasing stocks because prices are going up with profits going down.
(3) Weekly RSI is in a declining trend channel for a year or more
(4) Long term moving averages cross over--and that's when trend followers like be go into sell/short mode.
here's some more info on the ongoing debate on why the labor force has been declining.
This piece argues that the decline is due to baby boomers retiring and women working less. And that the trend will continue for 30 years, so get used to it unless immigration or the birthrate picks up.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303560204579248714085721176
Since then, women of all ages have slowly retreated from the workforce. By 2020, the Labor Department projects, women's labor-force participation will be lower than in 1990.
The picture for boomers is even more dramatic. In 2000, that entire huge cohort was in the prime working age (25 to 54 years) when workforce-participation rates are at their peak. Every year since, more boomers have moved into the 55-and-over cohort in which participation declines significantly. By 2020, every boomer will be older than 54, and the baby-bust generation that follows won't come close to filling the gap.
The bottom line is this: The U.S. labor force is in the process of shifting from an era of rapid expansion to much slower growth. After 1970, the labor force grew at an annual rate of 1.6%, slowing to 1.3% by 2000 as women's labor-force participation neared its peak. From 2000 to 2010, growth slowed to 0.8%, and the Labor Department projects a further decline to 0.7% during the current decade.
Coach,
So you think we will it 20k before we go down to 15k.
So I have it wrong.
You guys confuse opinions with facts
Agip, for once we agree.
K5 wrote:
Agip, for once we agree.
Nonsense fake K5.
Agip just copied and pasted some gibberish
K5 wrote:
K5 wrote:Agip, for once we agree.
Nonsense fake K5.
Agip just copied and pasted some gibberish
That's real funny coming from you. At least Apip pastes a link where he got his information.
Its a rare moment in letsrun history when you actual post a link to your information. Its like you have something to hide..
hmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
K5 wrote:Nonsense fake K5.
Agip just copied and pasted some gibberish
That's real funny coming from you. At least Apip pastes a link where he got his information.
Its a rare moment in letsrun history when you actual post a link to your information. Its like you have something to hide..
Why the eff would I feel I need to provide links just because a lowbrow like you demands one?
Maybe so people will take you seriously?
agip wrote:
here's some more info on the ongoing debate on why the labor force has been declining.
This piece argues that the decline is due to baby boomers retiring and women working less. And that the trend will continue for 30 years, so get used to it unless immigration or the birthrate picks up.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303560204579248714085721176Since then, women of all ages have slowly retreated from the workforce. By 2020, the Labor Department projects, women's labor-force participation will be lower than in 1990.
The picture for boomers is even more dramatic. In 2000, that entire huge cohort was in the prime working age (25 to 54 years) when workforce-participation rates are at their peak. Every year since, more boomers have moved into the 55-and-over cohort in which participation declines significantly. By 2020, every boomer will be older than 54, and the baby-bust generation that follows won't come close to filling the gap.
The bottom line is this: The U.S. labor force is in the process of shifting from an era of rapid expansion to much slower growth. After 1970, the labor force grew at an annual rate of 1.6%, slowing to 1.3% by 2000 as women's labor-force participation neared its peak. From 2000 to 2010, growth slowed to 0.8%, and the Labor Department projects a further decline to 0.7% during the current decade.
As part of the budget negotiations, four million Americans will not see their extended unemployment benefits renewed, so you should expect even more downward pressure on the unemployment rate as most of these people will no longer "count" as part of the labor force.
Sagarin wrote:
agip wrote:here's some more info on the ongoing debate on why the labor force has been declining.
This piece argues that the decline is due to baby boomers retiring and women working less. And that the trend will continue for 30 years, so get used to it unless immigration or the birthrate picks up.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303560204579248714085721176Since then, women of all ages have slowly retreated from the workforce. By 2020, the Labor Department projects, women's labor-force participation will be lower than in 1990.
The picture for boomers is even more dramatic. In 2000, that entire huge cohort was in the prime working age (25 to 54 years) when workforce-participation rates are at their peak. Every year since, more boomers have moved into the 55-and-over cohort in which participation declines significantly. By 2020, every boomer will be older than 54, and the baby-bust generation that follows won't come close to filling the gap.
The bottom line is this: The U.S. labor force is in the process of shifting from an era of rapid expansion to much slower growth. After 1970, the labor force grew at an annual rate of 1.6%, slowing to 1.3% by 2000 as women's labor-force participation neared its peak. From 2000 to 2010, growth slowed to 0.8%, and the Labor Department projects a further decline to 0.7% during the current decade.
As part of the budget negotiations, four million Americans will not see their extended unemployment benefits renewed, so you should expect even more downward pressure on the unemployment rate as most of these people will no longer "count" as part of the labor force.
or I daresay that people will be forced to get jobs when their unemployment benefits run out...which would also help lower the unemployment rate.
[quote]Greta wrote:
Maybe so people will take you seriously?[/quote
People seem to be taking me quite seriously if judged by the vitriol of their comments.
Nothing so angers people as a truth that exposes the propaganda they cling to for the lie that it is
That's the point. It would be nice to get something verifiable from you.
Greta wrote:
That's the point. It would be nice to get something verifiable from you.
The constant demands for links is just a tactic to avoid talking about the content. I usually tell people where stuff came from and they could look it up if they were interested in the facts. They only make this demand when the material contradicts the beliefs that have been implanted in them by the system
You must realize that your beliefs have been implanted in you, right?
Greta wrote:
You must realize that your beliefs have been implanted in you, right?
Actually no.
I woke up during my adulthood and saw the BS for what it really is.
You are still asleep. I fear you will never awaken