You can say that, but then that would make sound like you're affiliated with the GOP. Some of them will get some type of job, no doubt, probably not great ones as they have been unemployed for so long, but I suspect the vast majority won't. But the "unemployment rate" will likely improve either way.
agip wrote:Sagarin wrote: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.agip wrote: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.
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/art...4085721176
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.
Today's the day! The Dow has been down in recent dates, but still way ahead of where it was in June. I'm looking forward to seeing agip's report.
Can't hardly wait wrote:agip wrote:Two more days! The suspense is killing me!
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: https://www.letsrun.com/forum/f...z2m57Q7lF3
Earth to Greta.
Greta wrote:
Thanks for making my point. I'm out.
Hey coach D, I'm not going to disagree with you about corporate profits, and I'm glad you changed your former market "peak" from 15,000 to 20,000, as I said the Fed could drive us to stratospheric highs, though I'm not sure we get there. The thing is, if hiring really is happening the way it purportedly is, companies will need to maintain top line growth as margins will be squeezed. Personally, I think we are very overvalued, but I don't doubt a classic parabolic melt-up, and it's very difficult to bet against that scenario.
coach d wrote:K5 wrote: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:
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.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?graph_id=147069&category_id=0
This 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.
Sagarin wrote:
Hey coach D, I'm not going to disagree with you about corporate profits, and I'm glad you changed your former market "peak" from 15,000 to 20,000, as I said the Fed could drive us to stratospheric highs, though I'm not sure we get there. The thing is, if hiring really is happening the way it purportedly is, companies will need to maintain top line growth as margins will be squeezed. Personally, I think we are very overvalued, but I don't doubt a classic parabolic melt-up, and it's very difficult to bet against that scenario.
I think Hussman will be proven right, even as he has and. likely, will continue to be EARLY:
"The stock market is presently at valuations where not only cyclical but secular bear markets have started. A secular bear period comprises a series of cyclical bull-bear periods where valuations gradually work their way lower at each successive cyclical trough. The past 13 years of paltry overall total returns for the S&P 500 have unfortunately corrected very little of the excess in 2000, largely thanks to yet another round of Fed-enabled speculation. We should have learned how these episodes end. At least in 2000 investors had not seen that ending, and even in 2007, the point had not been driven home. There is no excuse today, at least not if one distinguishes between measures that have provided reliable guidance about actual subsequent market returns over the past century, and those that - despite their popular appeal - have not. Though valuations for the S&P 500 are not as rich as 2000 on most measures, valuations for the median stock actually exceed the 2000 peak. From the standpoint of a century of market history, equity valuations are obscene."
http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc131209.htm
http://www.gurufocus.com/news/...ce-numbers
K5 wrote:hmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:Why the eff would I feel I need to provide links just because a lowbrow like you demands one?K5 wrote:That's real funny coming from you. At least Apip pastes a link where he got his information.K5 wrote:Nonsense fake K5.
Agip, for once we agree.
Agip just copied and pasted some gibberish
Its a rare moment in letsrun history when you actual post a link to your information. Its like you have something to hide..
If it is so easy to find then it should be easy to paste the link.
K5 wrote:Greta wrote: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
That's the point. It would be nice to get something verifiable from you.
Didn't in that same post he say something to the effect of "...at the end of the year...".
agip wrote:
ookay...
on 9/12 klondike5 suggested we wait 3 months to see if his bet was correct.
Now it is 12/12 so we can look at his returns.
he and I are enemies. So yes, I am aggressively posting against him.
Pete & Repeat were on a boat wrote:agip wrote:Didn't in that same post he say something to the effect of "...at the end of the year...".
ookay...
on 9/12 klondike5 suggested we wait 3 months to see if his bet was correct.
Now it is 12/12 so we can look at his returns.
I'm not defending the guy. But it is comical how you selectively read posts. And how you've been falling all over yourself to post updates to declare him incorrect....less than a month into this thread starting... even daily at times.
Almost like you are uncomfortable with the likelihood of him ending up correct if you give him too much time, or just sit back and wait. So, you are on the attack like a pitbull. Nah, I'm sure you'll come up with some other rationalization for your actions.
If you know "where the links come from", who do you ask for them?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
But me and you both know where the links come from and that is why you want paste them in your message. hahaha
A missed potential gain that is not overly significant.
Can't hardly wait wrote:
So since K5 claims to have pulled out several hundred thousand, we can safely assume he missed out on an opportunity to increase his holdings by $35K or more. Ouch!
No. You are just an ineffective a$$hole, not my enemy
agip wrote:
he and I are enemies. So yes, I am aggressively posting against him.
I look forward to the day when you post something worthwhile. I'm not holding my breath.
Sagarin wrote:coach d wrote:Hey coach D, I'm not going to disagree with you about corporate profits, and I'm glad you changed your former market "peak" from 15,000 to 20,000, as I said the Fed could drive us to stratospheric highs, though I'm not sure we get there. The thing is, if hiring really is happening the way it purportedly is, companies will need to maintain top line growth as margins will be squeezed. Personally, I think we are very overvalued, but I don't doubt a classic parabolic melt-up, and it's very difficult to bet against that scenario.K5 wrote: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:
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.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?graph_id=147069&category_id=0
This 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.
I think Hussman will be proven right, even as he has and. likely, will continue to be:
"The stock market is presently at valuations where not only cyclical but secular bear markets have started. A secular bear period comprises a series of cyclical bull-bear periods where valuations gradually work their way lower at each successive cyclical trough. The past 13 years of paltry overall total returns for the S&P 500 have unfortunately corrected very little of the excess in 2000, largely thanks to yet another round of Fed-enabled speculation. We should have learned how these episodes end. At least in 2000 investors had not seen that ending, and even in 2007, the point had not been driven home. There is no excuse today, at least not if one distinguishes between measures that have provided reliable guidance about actual subsequent market returns over the past century, and those that - despite their popular appeal - have not. Though valuations for the S&P 500 are not as rich as 2000 on most measures, valuations for the median stock actually exceed the 2000 peak. From the standpoint of a century of market history, equity valuations are obscene."
http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc131209.htm
http://www.gurufocus.com/news/...ce-numbers
Because I'm trying to get you to admit that most of your information comes from crazy hack job sites like prison planet, conspiracy watch, and stormfront.
K5 wrote:hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:If you know "where the links come from", who do you ask for them?
But me and you both know where the links come from and that is why you want paste them in your message. hahaha