| Author |
Message |
    
Bodega_bill
Registered Member
Username: Bodega_bill
Post Number: 830
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 09:50 pm: | 
|
I tried to upload some old Union songs but they are to big. They are real fun to listen to and brings back memories when I was a shop steward in the CWA and AFSME (when it was new). The songs are older than me but we still used them back in the 60's. I ended up being in management but my heart was always in the Labor movement and still is.
http://www.labor-studies.org/laborsongs.php |
Treesloth
Registered Member
Username: Treesloth
Post Number: 2806
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 09:20 pm: |
|
Unions are a cyclic thing. Right now people think they will make out better if they throw their lot in with the company. The minute they think they are being used and abused the unions will rise again. One thing the unions have done is to make companies stay on their best behavior, lest the unions will come back. |
Killernut
Registered Member
Username: Killernut
Post Number: 6328
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 07:19 pm: |
|
Tycho.
I agree. Labor unions were absolutely instrumental in helping create a larger middle class for the baby boom generation. There was definite need for them. I also give them credit for pushing for much of the regulation that exists in the business world today, OSHA, EPA, Worker's Comp, etc.
I feel that for the most part though that today's unions are fairly ineffective and for the most part unnecessary but that is opinion. I interact frequently with the union where I work and truthfully I think the union is more of a hindrance to a majority of its members than it is a help.
Just recently the Professional Office Employees Union went on strike against the Ohio Teacher's Union for their workers in the Ohio Teachers headquarters. An interesting situation to say the least. |
Tychobrahe
Registered Member
Username: Tychobrahe
Post Number: 7672
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 04:56 pm: |
|
In honor of Labor Day, I'll go ahead and suggest something that might generate a bit of controversy here.
I think organized labor---unions---were instrumental in spreading wealth more widely.
Not so much today, of course, with only 7% of workers in the private sector in a union. But between '50s and the '70s, I don't think there's any question that organized labor brought millions of American workers into the middle class. This wasn't bad for the economy either. These people bought and maintained homes. They bought lawn mowers and furniture. They bought new cars and took the family on vacation to Disneyland. They sent the kids to college. They were consumers, exactly the people we don't have enough of today.
Happy Labor Day!
(Message edited by tychobrahe on September 05, 2010) |
Tychobrahe
Registered Member
Username: Tychobrahe
Post Number: 7671
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 04:29 pm: |
|
The problem at the moment seems to be that there aren't enough consumers to buy all these goods and services that this "capitalism" provides to consumers.
It doesn't seem to be expanding the middle class much either.
That "capitalism" isn't doing much of a job on the 'wealth spread widely' thing either. According to Reich in the opinion piece I posted, in the late '70s, the richest 1% of American families took in about 9% of the nation's income; but by 2007, the top 1% took in 23.5% of total income. I don't have to read this twice to think that wealth ain't bein' spread widely. |
Miloandbono
Registered Member
Username: Miloandbono
Post Number: 1136
Registered: 08-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 04:19 pm: |
|
ph - so the effect is the same as if they had colluded. <---- Absolutly!! And maybe we can turn your capitalism idea into a pyramid scheme!
Tycho - We are 100% on the same page with this market manipulation topic.
Stow - You may be right, but I hope not. |
Public_heel
Moderator
Username: Public_heel
Post Number: 12376
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 04:01 pm: |
|
"Capitalism is the economic policy of wealth spread widely, expanding middle classes and is defined as providing more goods and services for less money to consumers,"
Gee, while we're defining our own terms, here's my definition of Capitalism: "anything that makes the Heel richer".
You may or may not be surprised to learn that I'm in favor of Capitalism, as least as so defined. |
Popeye
Registered Member
Username: Popeye
Post Number: 1314
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 02:38 pm: |
|
Ivan
It is another person's viewpoint. Thought it was an interesting article on what might or could happen in the future and no one knows what the future holds. |
Tychobrahe
Registered Member
Username: Tychobrahe
Post Number: 7670
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 02:27 pm: |
|
Milo,
I agree. I think there are tendencies toward herdiness even among these Boyz. This is really what I love about the market! It has everything . . . . herdiness, options, fear, commodities, short-sellers, programmed trading, big players, little guys, greed, day traders, contrarians, gamblers, hedging techniques, chartists, investment clubs, fundamentalists, iconoclasts, long-term investors, arbitrageurs, people looking for income, others looking for capital gains, talking heads, advisers, websites dedicated to talking about the market, etc. It is like the Universe; with black holes, quasars, galaxies, asteroids, neutron stars, nebulae, photons, fusion, red dwarfs, gravity, orbital mechanics, high temperatures, low temperatures, etc.
What the market does not have, or need, is a Fed that attempts to tinker around with the laws of physics. |
Ivan
Registered Member
Username: Ivan
Post Number: 2936
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 02:03 pm: |
|
Popeye - bullshit
(my apologies if you posted that article for it's humor; I took you as serious)
Those "socialist" countries are doing the best of all through this crash, as they did through GDI.
The writer clutches his poison like his money, and dares to call that virtue.
Greed is *not* good. Yes, the greedy can do just fine looting off the generous and well intentioned. But when greed is institutionalized then it's every man for himself, and every man loses, even the greedy. |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 480
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 01:09 pm: |
|
Heel
"The Fed doesn't routinely buy or sell stock. I don't know if they ever do"
I think they do and are part of your Da Boyz working in tandem. If not the Fed then under another secret agency's direction. |
Popeye
Registered Member
Username: Popeye
Post Number: 1312
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 01:08 pm: |
|
http://www.traderview.com/tedbits/tedbits-Sep05-10.pdf
Please read, twice if necessary |
Public_heel
Moderator
Username: Public_heel
Post Number: 12375
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Tycho - The Fed doesn't routinely buy or sell stock. I don't know if they ever do.
Milo - I don't mean to even imply that Da Boyz collude on anything. However, I am sure they watch each other like hawks and piggyback on each other's moves, so the effect is the same as if they had colluded. |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 479
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Let's say the market was down 450 pts on a Friday and the Fed decided to prop it up. They committed the colossal amount of capital necessary to reverse the decline---despite enormous selling pressure---and the market closed down only 200. Then let's say there was some totally unforeseen event over the weekend and the market dropped 500 pts on Monday. The Fed would lose billions of dollars. As we all know, this money would simply be gone. Does the Fed have a budget for this kind of loss?
Let's say the market was down 450 pts on a Friday and the Fed decided to prop it up. They committed the colossal amount of capital necessary to reverse the decline---despite enormous selling pressure---and the market closed down only 200. Then let's say there was some totally unforeseen event over the weekend and the market dropped 500 pts on Monday. The Fed would lose billions of dollars. As we all know, this money would simply be gone. Does the Fed have a budget for this kind of loss?
Who ever said they have to hold a position long. Most day traders don't. They are out by the end of the day. Who said they can only go long and not short the market. Play both ends long and short. Take a look at how window dressing works for hedge funds. A riot can start with just one person. But end up with thousands involved. Its called momentum. Put enough thrust behind a brick and it will fly. You keep referring to one bad day. How about taking the average over a years time. Why do you even think they are implementing a flash crash program. 
Does the Fed have a budget for this kind of loss?
What budget lol..... Who keeps there books? Who do they answer to? Who keeps the books on area 51? What's there budget? |
Tychobrahe
Registered Member
Username: Tychobrahe
Post Number: 7669
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 11:36 am: |
|
We have no way of knowing what my neighbor is doing in his basement. That does not mean that he has invented a perpetual motion machine.
Having "no way to know what they are up to" does not mean that the Fed is routinely committing the colossal amount of capital to the stock market that would be necessary to affect its movement.
Sure, there are countless links that will tell us all about this, just as there are links that will tell us how we didn't really go to the moon or that a farmer's wife in Wyoming was abducted by aliens and came back four days later speaking a new and unknown language.
No one has answered my questions:
Let's say the market was down 450 pts on a Friday and the Fed decided to prop it up. They committed the colossal amount of capital necessary to reverse the decline---despite enormous selling pressure---and the market closed down only 200. Then let's say there was some totally unforeseen event over the weekend and the market dropped 500 pts on Monday. The Fed would lose billions of dollars. As we all know, this money would simply be gone. Does the Fed have a budget for this kind of loss?
Also, Mauldin's question: If the Fed did this, they would then own an almost unbelievable amount of stock. Could they ever sell without causing a crash?
Again, I am not disputing that, recognizing the vast complexity of the financial system, some Fed money might circuitously find its way into the stock market. What I am disputing is this idea that the Fed routinely buys or sells massive amounts of stock solely for the purpose of manipulating stock prices. |
Miloandbono
Registered Member
Username: Miloandbono
Post Number: 1135
Registered: 08-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 10:46 am: |
|
Da boyz - IMO Da boyz don't plan a ramp job with each other. I think these moves are a combination of several things.
For example - JPM start buying 100 lots of S&P futures in the pits to initiate or cover a hedge. These 100 lots are about $25mil each time. The floor traders see a pattern of repeat buying and they start bidding. All the home gamers like me smell the chance of opportunity and start buying, program traders kick in, 2x and 3x ETF have to buy, short covering kicks in (all in no particular order). It's herd mentality. |
Miloandbono
Registered Member
Username: Miloandbono
Post Number: 1134
Registered: 08-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 10:24 am: |
|
I really don't believe the Govt or the Fed buys equities to support the stock market. I do think TARP was an indirect way for the Govt to temporarily prop up the markets via bank prop desks. Sounds like Financial Regulation reform is going to make that hard to do in the future. |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 478
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 - 09:53 am: |
|
How Smart Money Manipulate Stock Market and How you can track them
http://hubpages.com/hub/How_Smart_Money_Manipulate_Stock_Market
The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank that has not had a proper public audit virtually since its inception. As a privately owned bank, there is nothing to stop them from buying stocks, bonds, and securities of any kind they wish. And, without a proper audit, there is no way to know what they are up to. |
Tychobrahe
Registered Member
Username: Tychobrahe
Post Number: 7668
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2010 - 09:24 pm: |
|
By the way, Heel, I think I understand about The Boyz. I can see the instances where the market has been down all day, then suddenly moves to the upside in the last ten minutes. I suspect this is indeed the big Wall Street guys all buying at the same time. I'm not smart enough to know exactly why this occurs, but the evidence seems to suggest that it does. I don't believe it's any sort of conspiracy though. I think it's just routine market activity by professionals. And I think they're doing this, not to prevent a precipitous drop in the market, but to make a profit, which, as I said earlier, is fine with me. That is what they're supposed to do.
It's buying for the sake of moving the market that I'm having a hard time with. I cannot imagine that The Boyz would do this, even if they thought that was what the PPT would want them to do.
Perhaps this is all just too esoteric for me to understand. I've come to believe, though, that most things are not beyond my ability to understand if they make sense. I'm not getting this PPT thing though.
(Message edited by tychobrahe on September 04, 2010) |
Tychobrahe
Registered Member
Username: Tychobrahe
Post Number: 7667
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2010 - 09:00 pm: |
|
Da Boyz, including those unofficial members, often do what the PPT would want them to do, but they act for their own profit.
I am growing ever more curious about these Boyz. You say that they act for their own profit. Good. That's what they're supposed to do. But are you saying that they also risk their own capital to do what the PPT would want them to do? Or is what the PPT would want them to do always profitable?
Someone, it seems to a simple fella like me--- whether it's The Boyz, or the Fed, or someone in the Vice-President's office---has to put some very serious capital at risk to have an effect on the movement of the US stock market.
It's troubling me a bit, trying to figure out exactly who that is.
(Message edited by tychobrahe on September 04, 2010) |
Tychobrahe
Registered Member
Username: Tychobrahe
Post Number: 7666
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2010 - 08:34 pm: |
|
Quoting the Mauldin article:
"The thrust of the article is official's efforts to avert a liquidity crisis, which is exactly what the Fed did when it flooded the banking system with reserves following the 508-point plunge in the Dow Jones Industrial Average on Oct. 19, 1987. How an effort to ensure adequate access to credit to prevent a domino effect in the event of market meltdown morphed into a cabal to prop up the stock market is anybody's guess. For a window into the depths of the conspiracy theory, type "plunge protection team" into Google and see what comes up."
OK, I can see where some amount of "government" money might find itself temporarily in the stock market. Isn't that different, though, than believing that government routinely commits the massive amount of capital necessary to actually effect the movement of the US stock market or even a single industry?
And, as Mauldin asks, if they did that, could they ever get out without causing a crash? Are these guys at Treasury or wherever they are really that shrewd? And to keep it entirely secret as well? |
Public_heel
Moderator
Username: Public_heel
Post Number: 12373
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2010 - 08:27 pm: |
|
Oil market - Oil is cheap enough to ship so that it lends itself to arbitrage whenever WTI and Brent get too far out of whack. I imagine that there's a maximum feasible difference, but I don't know what it is. Six dollars? Four?
So don't we have to take into account what everyone else's inventories are doing, not just ours? |
Public_heel
Moderator
Username: Public_heel
Post Number: 12372
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2010 - 08:23 pm: |
|
Reich's analysis is correct. His proposed remedies are more questionable, and unlikely to be sufficient even if effective.
Pretty much true every time he speaks. Of course, our situation lends itself much better to diagnosis than to cure. |
Public_heel
Moderator
Username: Public_heel
Post Number: 12371
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2010 - 08:17 pm: |
|
Sure, there's a PPT. It's not a secret. The official members are not in Da Boyz, but it's assumed (by many, anyway) that several of Da Boyz are unofficial associates. Goldman, MS, and JPM, to name three. Several others, who might have been members, are no longer with us.
So it's not a question of whether the PPT exists or not, rather how often does it act. I really doubt that it has done anything. Da Boyz, including those unofficial members, often do what the PPT would want them to do, but they act for their own profit.
(Message edited by public_heel on September 04, 2010) |
Public_heel
Moderator
Username: Public_heel
Post Number: 12370
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2010 - 08:12 pm: |
|
Does the government support the Market? I don't know about the government, but the Fed (which isn't, technically, part of the government) sure as hell does.
The Fed pours trillions into banks, through a variety of means. That money is not lent out, because we are in the middle of a deflationary credit contraction. Trying to increase lending in a credit contraction is like trying to swim ashore against a riptide. So some of the money has to go into speculative assets. Real estate is somewhat, shall we say, out of fashion, so it has to go into stocks. |
Tychobrahe
Registered Member
Username: Tychobrahe
Post Number: 7665
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2010 - 08:07 pm: |
|
So are you saying there is a government PPT then, that they have common members with Da Boyz?
By the way, I saw an article that likened the PPT to another thing you don't believe exists . . . dark energy. It said that people believe in the PPT even though, like dark energy, you can't see it.
(Message edited by tychobrahe on September 04, 2010) |
Public_heel
Moderator
Username: Public_heel
Post Number: 12367
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2010 - 07:32 pm: |
|
Milo - not the PPT. It's Da Boyz. They do have some members in common, though.... |
Tychobrahe
Registered Member
Username: Tychobrahe
Post Number: 7664
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2010 - 06:55 pm: |
|
Here's an interesting article written by John Mauldin way back in 2003 on the Plunge Protection Team(PPT). He asks the same question I asked, "OK, let's say the government does this. Now they own a whole bunch of stocks. Can they ever get out without causing a crash?"
http://www.safehaven.com/article/721/the-plunge-protection-team
It seems odd to me that some of the same people who believe that government is inept, inefficient, and incapable of doing anything right believe that that same government is capable of manipulating the US stock market without losing billions of dollars, all the while keeping it secret from the entire country. That is one remarkable achievement! Three cheers for a government that can do that! |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 477
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2010 - 11:19 am: |
|
5 Doomsday Scenarios for the U.S. Economy
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/110576/5-doomsday-scenarios-for-the -us-economy |
Tychobrahe
Registered Member
Username: Tychobrahe
Post Number: 7662
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2010 - 10:42 am: |
|
Ivan,
I agree with his analysis and the goal of his proposed remedies, "a more widely shared prosperity." Whether the remedies he proposes would accomplish that, I don't know.
I often think of old Henry Ford and his "I will build a motorcar for the great multitude." This was an extraordinary, almost revolutionary, idea at the time. He was right though. The way to make money producing automobiles was to make one that the workers who make them can afford to buy. Two things need to happen for this to occur: Production needs to be efficient and cheap, and American workers need to earn enough to be able to buy the things they make.
That's what we need, of course. Workers who can afford to buy stuff. I don't know how we accomplish that. I do know this: Whatever this is that we are in won't end until we have a more shared prosperity. |
Ivan
Registered Member
Username: Ivan
Post Number: 2934
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2010 - 11:07 pm: |
|
Reich's analysis is correct. His proposed remedies are more questionable, and unlikely to be sufficient even if effective. |
Tychobrahe
Registered Member
Username: Tychobrahe
Post Number: 7661
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2010 - 10:34 pm: |
|
An interesting, and I think insightful, view of the economy from Robert Reich:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03reich.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=robert%20re ich&st=cse |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 476
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2010 - 09:28 pm: |
|
Report: U.S. Government Intervenes in Stock Market
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10163.htm
Is the government propping up stocks?
http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/scratchpad/2010/01/is_the_governm ent_propping_up.html
The Stock Market's Da Vinci Code
http://registeredrep.com/mag/finance_stock_markets_da/
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/01/is-us-government-buying-stocks.htm l
Latest Government Intervention: The Stock Market?
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/debunking-plunge-protection-con spiracy/
The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank that has not had a proper public audit virtually since its inception. As a privately owned bank, there is nothing to stop them from buying stocks, bonds, and securities of any kind they wish. And, without a proper audit, there is now way to know what they are up to. |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 475
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2010 - 08:38 pm: |
|
Milo
"Stow, could you imagine if it were common knowledge that the US govt supported the market"
Our government handles things in there own special way. They have the means to do this very well. They would never ever admit to this in a million years. But take a look at all the past cover ups in history done for the so called good of the people. |
Miloandbono
Registered Member
Username: Miloandbono
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 08-2009
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2010 - 06:56 pm: |
|
Killer - I don't disagree with you but I'm not sure how fundamentally driven the oil market is over short periods of time. Crude futures practicality trades it's entire open interest daily. I don't think the related markets like Brent are quite as speculative but I don't know.
Edit - I just looked it up and Crude open interest is about 300k contracts. It traded about 375k today and I know one day this week was over 400k. It's completely dominated by dayrading idiots like myself.
(Message edited by miloandbono on September 03, 2010) |
Miloandbono
Registered Member
Username: Miloandbono
Post Number: 1132
Registered: 08-2009
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2010 - 06:52 pm: |
|
Stow, could you imagine if it were common knowledge that the US govt supported the market? |
Tychobrahe
Registered Member
Username: Tychobrahe
Post Number: 7660
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2010 - 05:15 pm: |
|
Sivley,
Yes, absolutely. The government supports public confidence in the market.
I'm not sure how much confidence I'd have in the market if I thought some guy in Washington was busy trying to manipulate it. |
Sivleyd
Moderator
Username: Sivleyd
Post Number: 1294
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2010 - 05:11 pm: |
|
Indirectly, yes. The gov't supports the public confidence of our financial system. The market is surely affected by that same confidence level. When there are sudden and severe drops in the market, panic sets in. Fears and concerns lead to changes in employment, inventory, construction, investment, the availability of credit and even price stability. Likewise, when these factors are moving positively, the market responds. |
Tychobrahe
Registered Member
Username: Tychobrahe
Post Number: 7659
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2010 - 05:00 pm: |
|
Does the government support the market?
That's a very interesting question, Milo, one that might be worthy of discussion from some of the others here.
Never one to ask for the opinion of others without being willing to give my own---if I have one---I'm gonna say 'no'.
First of all, it would take a huge infusion of capital to affect the stocks of any individual industry, much less the entire market. Where would this money come from? Is there a budget for this?
What if the government did this on, say, a Friday, and some unexpected event over the weekend caused the market to tank on Monday. The government could lose billions. Those billions would just be gone. Again, is there a budget for that?
I won't be able to articulate this as well as some others here might, but it seems to me that if the government did get into the market in a really serious way, enough to actually prop it up when it wanted to go down, then they could never get out. If they did, that would surely cause the market to tank, despite whatever good economic news there might be at the time.
I also sort of wonder what department would be doing this . . . Treasury? the SEC? Commerce? the Bureau of Weights and Measures? FEMA?
In addition, I really don't see how anyone could be comfortable trading in the stock market, either long or short, when there's absolutely no way to know when the government is going to buy a company that you're short or sell one that you're long. No matter how much research you might do, there would simply be no way at all for you to ever know this.
Here's something else I won't be able to articulate as well as others might, but I think something like this would have very serious implications for our free-market capitalist system.
Finally, if this was happening, is it something that just started with the Obama administration, or was the sainted Ronald Reagan doing it too?
So, that's the question: Does the government support the market?
Anyone?
(Message edited by tychobrahe on September 03, 2010) |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 474
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2010 - 03:24 pm: |
|
Watch those gas pumps; prices expected to fall
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Watch-those-gas-pumps-prices-apf-2233137701.html?x =0&sec=topStories&pos=3&asset=&ccode=
"The government said Friday the jobless rate rose in August to 9.6 percent from 9.5 percent in July. High unemployment means fewer commuters on the road. Combined with a glut of supply and the end of the summer driving season, it also means retail gas prices likely will continue to slip." |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 473
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2010 - 03:21 pm: |
|
Milo
Stow, so you believe PPT/Washington is supporting the market occasionally?
IMO way more then occasionally. It doesn't take much as I am sure a lot of traders even know there market makers by now. The small fish follow the direction of the big Wales. They see who is on the support side holding or even pushing at times the bid up just enough to gain some momentum brining buyers in. This is the same government that buys back it owns bonds now. I have a theory that they even rotate the sectors depending on world news events. IMO they could not prevent the flash crash situation because it was to broad in size and the sell off was way to fast. |
Killernut
Registered Member
Username: Killernut
Post Number: 6327
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2010 - 03:11 pm: |
|
Milo,
I am very negative short term on oil. The whole US refinery complex has gotten ahead of themselves this year, particulary wrt gasoline production and there seems only two outcomes.
Gasoline use increases dramatically to soak up the extra inventory or there is going to be a price spike down in Gasoline and then prolly in WTI. WTI is a significant discount to Brent right now. How low can it go?
http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/13230/files/PetroleumStorageCharts1-Septe mber-10.pdf |
Super
Moderator
Username: Super
Post Number: 1699
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2010 - 02:29 pm: |
|
The NASDAQ is above the 8-day and 16-day EMA lines and those lines will cross by Monday unless there's a sell off.
Who knows, maybe the index will make a run up to the 200-day moving average. |
Miloandbono
Registered Member
Username: Miloandbono
Post Number: 1131
Registered: 08-2009
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2010 - 10:34 am: |
|
not a boring Friday. There's some action. Oil is down 2%.
I have to think it will be completely dead by lunch. |
Miloandbono
Registered Member
Username: Miloandbono
Post Number: 1129
Registered: 08-2009
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2010 - 10:25 am: |
|
Stow, so you believe PPT/Washington is supporting the market occasionally? |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 472
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2010 - 09:47 am: |
|
Milo
"I know the Trimtabs guy wrote he thought the govt was trying to support the market at the beginning of 2009. Logic and the pitfalls tell me not to believe it.... but.."
Never mind Logic. lol... They are in the S&P doing there thing. |
Miloandbono
Registered Member
Username: Miloandbono
Post Number: 1128
Registered: 08-2009
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2010 - 07:04 am: |
|
I have a day trader friend who is convinced it's the PPT defending DOW 10,000. I know the Trimtabs guy wrote he thought the govt was trying to support the market at the beginning of 2009. Logic and the pitfalls tell me not to believe it.... but...
I think a lot of this action is day traders exaggerating moves within a range bound market during this low volume time.
I hope we start to see some volume by mid September. |
Super
Moderator
Username: Super
Post Number: 1697
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2010 - 10:25 pm: |
|
The NASDAQ has worked it's way up just about to the 50-day average but all the averages are still in a southbound configuration. Who knows what that means, though. I continue to watch compulsively. |
Public_heel
Moderator
Username: Public_heel
Post Number: 12366
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2010 - 07:08 pm: |
|
Milo - Take a look at today's SPX chart. I don't know when I've seen something so relentlessly bullish. Looks like someone big was buying, then stepping back, then buying, then stepping back, etc... Except that, since it's the SPX, the buyer wasn't just big, he was BIG.... |
Miloandbono
Registered Member
Username: Miloandbono
Post Number: 1127
Registered: 08-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2010 - 04:38 pm: |
|
when I scroll through the charts I follow it's a real mixed bag. For example BRK B, CMI, and LVS look strong. I have many that look really negative. This has me wondering about my Sept/Oct sell off prediction. We need a really bad number tomorrow to wash this market out IMO. I think if we go much higher the market might get real quiet and range bound for a while. |
Public_heel
Moderator
Username: Public_heel
Post Number: 12364
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2010 - 03:41 pm: |
|
Da Boyz have been steadily pushing the Market higher today. The employment report tomorrow will have to be awful to derail this rally... |
Public_heel
Moderator
Username: Public_heel
Post Number: 12363
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2010 - 01:01 pm: |
|
If the helicopters are still an hour away, it must be a deepwater rig.
I guess I can kiss my ATPG goodbye.... |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 471
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2010 - 12:32 pm: |
|
Coast Guard responding to possible rig blast in Gulf
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Coast-Guard-responding-to-rb-3493011232.html?x=0&s ec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode= |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 470
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2010 - 11:30 am: |
|
MAC
This has been a very good trading stock for me long and short. I think in the long run it will go down with the rest of the housing market as well. |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 469
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2010 - 11:24 am: |
|
Heel
I've gotta hand it to Da Boyz.... they know just when to spring a short squeeze.
They are just celebrating the fact that the private sector cut only 10,000 jobs in August compared to a gain of 37,000 jobs in July.  |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 468
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2010 - 11:21 am: |
|
Manufacturing grows but private jobs tumble
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Private-sector-cuts-10000-rb-1841593174.html?x=0&s ec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode= |
Miloandbono
Registered Member
Username: Miloandbono
Post Number: 1120
Registered: 08-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2010 - 11:18 am: |
|
Paper trade - oil is trading 74 even now so I've got to move my fake stop to breakeven |
Miloandbono
Registered Member
Username: Miloandbono
Post Number: 1119
Registered: 08-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2010 - 11:02 am: |
|
caught me off guard. Missed the whole thing this morning. I want to short oil but I don't want to step in front of a train.
Edit - I'll short it on paper... short 74.30 for the rest of the day. MAybe that will keep from doing for real.
(Message edited by miloandbono on September 01, 2010) |
Public_heel
Moderator
Username: Public_heel
Post Number: 12351
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2010 - 10:43 am: |
|
I've gotta hand it to Da Boyz.... they know just when to spring a short squeeze. |
Ivan
Registered Member
Username: Ivan
Post Number: 2932
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 07:38 pm: |
|
Heel - I doubt that OPEC can keep a price floor together if the oil ceases to be a refuge for money.
On the other hand, I don't see oil ceasing to be a refuge for money for quite a while. |
Public_heel
Moderator
Username: Public_heel
Post Number: 12349
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 07:15 pm: |
|
I don't see higher oil prices helping any consumer or economy in any way.
Stowaway... the Russians, Nigerians, Angolans, Iranians, a whole lot of Arabs, even the Norwegians would find that amusing. In most of those countries, it wouldn't even help a few drivers if the price of oil collapsed, because they are already buying gasoline, etc at very heavily subsidized prices. |
Public_heel
Moderator
Username: Public_heel
Post Number: 12348
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 07:11 pm: |
|
Ivan - You are leaving out OPEC (and its unofficial collaborators). They can't stand for oil to go to $10, and they are not complete idiots, so they know that pumping more will just get them there faster.
Even inveterate liars like the Iranians and Kuwaitis understand that they are better off pumping 10 barrels at $65 then they are pumping 12 barrels at $30.
I think 2008 caught them by surprise. They believed the current dogma that oil couldn't drop below $70, so they just didn't have their act together in time to keep it from collapsing much lower.
I think (hope) that the next time (this Fall) they will be quicker to act. |
Ivan
Registered Member
Username: Ivan
Post Number: 2931
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 05:33 pm: |
|
Heel - dry up
[If oil sells down below its average replacement cost (I'd say about $40-$45 now, K/N may have another idea), then the supply will dry up in a hurry.]
It depends on the time frame. If oil drops to $10 then investment in new production will disappear, just like it did last time. However, the producers will try to make up their lost income by pumping *more* out of the existing capacity, so the oil supply will not drop much if any. Just like last time :-)
Sure, eventually the existing holes run dry and then we will see a drop in supply due to the lack of prior investment. However that takes decades, not years.
Even the producers at the price margin, like the Canadian oil sands producers, will still keep producing right down to the fixed-cost price. That is (I judge) around $12/bbl, way below the break-even price (around $30).
For those that are unfamiliar with the idea, the fixed-cost price (sometimes called the overhead price) is the price at which you lose just as much if you produce or don't produce at all. If you don't produce at all, you still have to pay your fixed overheads (interest, taxes, maintenance, opportunity costs). If you keep producing, you have to pay both that and your variable costs as well. So any price that pays your variable costs is as good as or better than no production at all.
Actually, it's a little more complicated than that, because it costs money to mothball and unmothball the facility, so you are ahead producing rather than shutting down whenever the price covers your variable costs less the amortized cost of a shutdown. For an operation that is hugely capital-intensive (oil sands for example) variable costs may be quite small, and it is worth while to continue producing long into the red. |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 467
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 03:32 pm: |
|
Krugman is Wrong! Stimulus Spending Is "Hurting the Economy," Says Brian Wesbury
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/krugman-is-wrong!-stimulus-spending-is-%22hurting-the-economy%22-says-brian-wesbury-535383.html? tickers=%5Edij,%5Egspc,%5Eixic,tlt,edv,tbt,spy |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 466
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 03:26 pm: |
|
Hedge Fund Manager Dan Loeb: "The Whole System Is Rigged"
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/hedge-fund-manager-dan-loeb-the-whole-syste m-is-rigged-yftt_535382.html |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 465
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 03:14 pm: |
|
Heel Ivan
"Ivan - I think you are seeing Oil as just another commodity, albeit one that is heavily speculated. It isn't. It is the economic lifeblood of a number of countries. Those countries have the ability to unbalance supply/demand overnight.
IMO the consumer still has the final say in how much they can and will pay. And how much they can and will cut back. Even in "those countries that have the ability to unbalance supply/demand overnight." Will have to deal with the economic effect it will have on there own economy. I don't see higher oil prices helping any consumer or economy in any way. And I sure don't see it helping in the US as well. |
Public_heel
Moderator
Username: Public_heel
Post Number: 12346
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 02:48 pm: |
|
Oil way down and Gold way up? What is going on? |
Public_heel
Moderator
Username: Public_heel
Post Number: 12344
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 02:28 pm: |
|
Ivan - I think you are seeing Oil as just another commodity, albeit one that is heavily speculated. It isn't. It is the economic lifeblood of a number of countries. Those countries have the ability to unbalance supply/demand overnight.
If oil sells down below its average replacement cost (I'd say about $40-$45 now, K/N may have another idea), then the supply will dry up in a hurry.
As for the rest of your post, about the productive/nonproductive dichotomy these days, that's just the way I see it, but you said it better than I would have.
I'm sure you've noticed that the non-productive folks (like me, for one.... hoarders, or whatever you'd call us) are making a lot of noise, and managing to make it sound like they are doing it on behalf of the productive folks. |
Ivan
Registered Member
Username: Ivan
Post Number: 2930
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 02:08 pm: |
|
Heel, Stow - oil price
The oil price does not reflect the replacement cost, no more than the price of a 50-year-old house reflects its replacement cost in the current market. Nor does it reflect the price desire of the producers; they lack market control.
Instead Stow's cite is correct: the price is determined by the willingness of buyers to use oil as refuge for hoarded money. It is a misnomer to call this an "investment", no more than banknotes in the mattress are an investment.
The economy has bifurcated. One part makes things, provides services, and opens cans; this is the home of real investment, in new plants, advertising, and green refrigerators. This part is a non-zero-sum game, and on the average investments produce real returns.
The other comprises asset bubbles. Houses, oil, stocks, art - money sloshes to one after the other as desperate hoarders seek the next thing - all together and all at once. This will continue until transaction costs consume the excess money in this part. It is a zero-sum game. And on the average there are no returns, even before transaction costs.
The central banks have dumped a ton of money into the system. Unfortunately, through ignorance or political reasons nearly all of it has gone to the second (hoarding) part of the economy and almost none to real economic activity (the first part).
I find myself ruefully laughing when I hear the mantra "cut taxes so that investment can restart the economy". There's no shortage of money in the economy: corporations have more cash than ever before; the banks are awash in the stuff. Cutting taxes just moves money out of the productive economy and into the hoarding economy. It just drives asset prices higher - notice all the M&S activity happening; HP is putting $10G into a stock buyback.
When a Picasso that last went for $10M now goes for $40M to someone who puts it in a vault and never looks at it, that's not an "investment". Nor is it inflation, when wages are stagnant and consumer prices are if anything down.
It's too much money in the wrong hands. |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 464
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 01:18 pm: |
|
Some states suing feds also claim health subsidies
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_playing_both_sides
"The seven are Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska and Nevada.
They are part of a group of 20 states that have challenged the law's requirement for most Americans to carry health insurance or face fines from the IRS. They argue that the government cannot order individuals to buy a particular product. The administration counters that the mandate falls within broad powers conferred on Congress to regulate interstate commerce." |
Public_heel
Moderator
Username: Public_heel
Post Number: 12338
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Stowaway
Its going to take at least 10 years to put all the people back to work in the USA. Right now I see way more deflation ahead then inflation. The bottom line stands with the consumer.
Not necessarily. Plenty of countries have had high unemployment and raging inflation. It's all a matter of how desperate/irresponsible the central bank is. How responsible do you think our Fed will be when the official unemployment numbers go sailing back over 10%?
I certainly agree with the at least ten years to put people back to work, although the retirement of the baby boomers might help... |
Yawawots
Registered Member
Username: Yawawots
Post Number: 463
Registered: 02-2010
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Killer Heel
IMO it has a lot to do with supply and demand. Right now there is a big supply and less demand. Vehicles are also becoming way more efficient. More MPG with more HP as well. Witch means hopefully less demand for imported oil. So the foreign country's suffer more I hope.
I can't believe oil is so cheap. See me again in 10 years and it might be different.
It very well could be. Then again It might not. It may just take the whole world joining OPEC or a cartel limiting production. But then that lowers there volume as well. Perhaps even more claims of no more Dinosaurs to be found. lol...... Its going to take at least 10 years to put all the people back to work in the USA. Right now I see way more deflation ahead then inflation. The bottom line stands with the consumer. |
