Subject: Don't look back! Reality is catching up with us!

So the Government revised last year's GDP numbers. For all of 2001 GDP growth was only 1/3 of a percent. Given the statistician's propensity for prevarication GDP was probably NEGATIVE last year, they are just afraid to tell us. And the vaunted 5.4 percent growth for 1stQ 2002 has melted down to 1.1%. How much do you want to bet it was REALLY negative? Things are far worse than anyone will admit.

By the way, don't smile with relief over the Stock Market rally of the past few days. It was a BLATANT jamjob by the Fed and the NYSE Members (also known as the Plunge Protection Team) to squeeze the Shorts, force them to cover and scare them out of the market. These kind of tactics are TYPICAL and EXPECTED in a bear market. The lows still haven't been reached yet. Within a few years the Dow will be at 360 not 36,000.

On 2002-07-31 19:54, Robert wrote:
Subject: Don't look back! Reality is catching up with us!

So the Government revised last year's GDP numbers. For all of 2001 GDP growth was only 1/3 of a percent. Given the statistician's propensity for prevarication GDP was probably NEGATIVE last year, they are just afraid to tell us. And the vaunted 5.4 percent growth for 1stQ 2002 has melted down to 1.1%. How much do you want to bet it was REALLY negative? Things are far worse than anyone will admit.

By the way, don't smile with relief over the Stock Market rally of the past few days. It was a BLATANT jamjob by the Fed and the NYSE Members (also known as the Plunge Protection Team) to squeeze the Shorts, force them to cover and scare them out of the market. These kind of tactics are TYPICAL and EXPECTED in a bear market. The lows still haven't been reached yet. Within a few years the Dow will be at 360 not 36,000.

360?! Are you nuts? I'll bet the bottom will not be below 4,000. It sure won't close up on the year, either. Remember that the stock market does not always reflect the economy and vice-versa (during a bear market). Remember that there were plenty of economic expansions in the 1970's when there was a bear market.

On 2002-07-31 19:59, AlexMnWi wrote:
360?! Are you nuts?

No Robert isn't nuts, he's just a Credit Crisis bear: http://www.markpoyser.com/beartypes.htm

AND PROUD OF IT!

I guess I'm a 21st century bear.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AlexMnWi on 2002-08-01 12:05 ]</font>

Mike,



What exactly makes a person a 'bear'? If the preponderance of evidence indicates a particular trend, does observation of that trend make one 'bullish' or 'bearish'? Or, do the labels only appropriately apply to those whose views are guided by a bias towards optimism or pessimism?

On 2002-08-01 12:40, Justin '77 wrote:
Mike,



What exactly makes a person a 'bear'? If the preponderance of evidence indicates a particular trend, does observation of that trend make one 'bullish' or 'bearish'? Or, do the labels only appropriately apply to those whose views are guided by a bias towards optimism or pessimism?

That depends on the type of bear (see the site). Some bears, such as the 21st century bear, only became bearish in 2000 once the market peaked. Other bears are always pessimistic. I believe in the cycle; I am bullish when it's time for a Bull Market, Bearish when it's time for a Bear Market.

On 2002-08-01 12:40, Justin '77 wrote:
Mike,



What exactly makes a person a 'bear'? If the preponderance of evidence indicates a particular trend, does observation of that trend make one 'bullish' or 'bearish'?

The terms refer to ones view of future returns. A bull thinks stocks are going to go up in the future and a bear thinks stocks are going to go down.

For example, last week a sizable rally began. Does this mean that we have reached a low, or will this rally, like all the ones before it in this bear market sputter out and eventually go lower. A bull thinks the bottom is in. A bear thinks no way we have more pain to go.

At this juncture there are few bulls left. There are those who are bullish and think that the bottom might be in, but few who are sure (true bulls). There are plenty of outright bears. Bob Bronson at the Longwaves board has been an outright bear since 1997. His recent view is still bearish, although he sees the end in sight:

http://attach3.groups.yahoo.com/v1/U...r%20Window.gif



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2002-08-02 13:07 ]</font>

Mike,

If the definition of a bull today is someone who believes that the bottom is near, then I think the market is still quite bullish. They may have lowered their expectations about future increases, but that was a big sigh of relief last week and not a "wall of worry.'

On 2002-08-02 06:56, monoghan wrote:
Mike,

If the definition of a bull today is someone who believes that the bottom is near, then I think the market is still quite bullish. They may have lowered their expectations about future increases, but that was a big sigh of relief last week and not a "wall of worry.'

Yes many think the bottom is near, but few are still calling the low last week at THE bottom. They have been burned too many times. Thus there are few true bulls out there, but plenty folks are bullish. On the other hand there are plenty who are saying point blank we are nowhere near the bottom. These are bears.

A year ago everyone and their sister was calling the March low as THE bottom. And then after 911 lots of folks were sure that was IT. Lots of bulls a year ago and still plenty after 911. Not too many left today.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2002-08-02 13:04 ]</font>

Double-Dip Recession, Anyone?

On 2002-08-03 10:19, cbailey wrote:
Double-Dip Recession, Anyone?

No, but I wouldn't be surprised if the market goes below 7,000 at all. Remember that during long-term bear markets, the economy can still be normal with the stocks acting bearish.

"Wall Street's Past Week May Show Double- Dip Recession"

........Associated Press and all the tv news programs were peddling this thought last night.

-GDP grew at 1.1 per cent in the second quarter
-Unemployment rate held at 5.9 in July.
-A paltry 6,000 new jobs were created in July.

On 2002-08-03 10:42, cbailey wrote:
"Wall Street's Past Week May Show Double- Dip Recession"

........Associated Press and all the tv news programs were peddling this thought last night.

-GDP grew at 1.1 per cent in the second quarter
-Unemployment rate held at 5.9 in July.
-A paltry 6,000 new jobs were created in July.

Looks like a job for the Civilian Conservation Camp boys, and er girls, too. Yup, they'll get in there and so them business folk how job creeayeshun really works; guveenment-style!

Hey, have ya heard the one about the pollocks? How many pollocks does it take to replace a light bulb? Betcha don't know the answer! :smile:

On 2002-08-03 13:00, Marc Lamb wrote:

On 2002-08-03 10:42, cbailey wrote:
"Wall Street's Past Week May Show Double- Dip Recession"

........Associated Press and all the tv news programs were peddling this thought last night.

-GDP grew at 1.1 per cent in the second quarter
-Unemployment rate held at 5.9 in July.
-A paltry 6,000 new jobs were created in July.

Looks like a job for the Civilian Conservation Camp boys, and er girls, too. Yup, they'll get in there and so them business folk how job creeayeshun really works; guveenment-style!

Hey, have ya heard the one about the pollocks? How many pollocks does it take to replace a light bulb? Betcha don't know the answer! :smile:

Marc:

Why....when a bit of bad news pops up that rightfully should be addressed by Bush Republicans....do you do that...do what you do? (See quote above)

What is that?

On 2002-08-03 13:00, Marc Lamb wrote:


Hey, have ya heard the one about the pollocks? How many pollocks does it take to replace a light bulb?

Do you mean the painters?

Or the Slavs?

Or the fish?


Pollocks, Polacks, Pollacks....?

On 2002-08-03 14:25, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

On 2002-08-03 13:00, Marc Lamb wrote:


Hey, have ya heard the one about the pollocks? How many pollocks does it take to replace a light bulb?

Do you mean the painters?

Or the Slavs?

Or the fish?


Pollocks, Polacks, Pollacks....?

Or maybe bollocks?

Guess it's a regional thing, these Pollock jokes, huh?

"Marc: Why....when a bit of bad news pops up that rightfully should be addressed by Bush Republicans.... do you do that..."

Well, what do you think Bush should do... that he hasn't done yet? Should he raise taxes, and pay folks more unemployment money? Should he raise taxes, because it is the federal government that really creates jobs and not the private sector? Should he raise taxes tp punish those business folks that are failing to employ people who want to work? Should he raise taxes because the Democrats want him to? Should he raise taxes because to will make everybody feel better? Should he raise taxes because there is too many rich folks out there? Should he raise taxes because business aren't investing in the people? Should he raise taxes because that is the way to encourage businesses to grow and employ more people? Should he raise taxes because it sounds good? Should he raise taxes? I mean, should he raise taxes because, like my paper said today, it's the patriotic thing to do and will make people think they are really doing something about America? Should he raise taxes on everybody, even the poor to make them feel more patriotic? Should he raise taxes? Should he raise taxes?

No. I didn't say Bush should raise taxes.

I just wonder about the attitude you take when things are looking a little iffy. A little scary......You start attacking the "philosophy" (the way you see it) of the "Left" in this hostile, hysterical way.

I mean, I'm a small independent business person like yourself....more taxes will kill me. And I'm sure I'm politically Left of your position. But gee whiz. Surely if the economy takes a dive, there are things to be done that won't bring on The Great Red Revolution.

Subject: How long before the bank runs start?

http://www.nationalreview.com/script...dlow072502.asp

From Kudlow,
"But sources also tell me that President Bush and senior advisors are catching their breath and realizing they need to get back on message..."

A "bank run"??? Sheesh, just the mere mention of such a thing! :lol: I mean, come on, Larry.

At anyrate, do not underestimate Bush's ability to "get back on message". This man has, in my opinion, made plenty of blunders in the past six months, plenty (emphasis mine) of silly, needless blunders. But just ask 'Ma' Richards how Bush can "stay on message", once he finds it.

Can he find it? Let's just say, I'm optimistic. :smile:

Ms. bailey sez,
"You start attacking the "philosophy" (the way you see it) of the "Left" in this hostile, hysterical way."

I thot my post was funny, it was meant to be so... but I do understand that "element of truth" required of a good joke. Perhaps I channel my hostility, of the left, in this way. There is much about them that find so distasteful and dishonest. Forgive me if I go to far, as I only seek to balance how far out they go... it is not really them I fear, it my side which will love the notion of "consensus", I think. It is my side that will, like Bush has so far, "capitulate" to the shrill emotions of the leftward cry.

"We are your children," claimed the man with a ponytail in Richmond, Viginia. He spoke to all generations at the time, in 1992; to an elder GI, George Bush Sr.; to a Silent Ross Perot; to an empathetic Boomer named Bill Clinton. It was the Boomer who stepped forward and accepted the servility of the ponytailed man from Richmond. "I feel your pain." Clinton entoned with the greatest of pure bull-sh*t.

Of course, that ponytailed man was wrong. He should have said, "We are your slaves, just tell us what to do." Ten years later nothing's changed really, except of course a different Boomer resides in a place to tell that ponytailed man to just get a grip and deal with life.

And meanwhile, maybe Bush can hold the bankers at bay for a while longer. :smile:




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-08-03 21:30 ]</font>

BTW...

On 2002-08-03 13:00, Marc Lamb wrote:
Hey, have ya heard the one about the pollocks? How many pollocks does it take to replace a light bulb? Betcha don't know the answer! :smile:

Answer: It's three! Two to turn the ladder and one to hold the bulb. :smile:

You didn't explain the link to the pollocks and the sheep.............oh, right,..sheep.

On 2002-08-03 13:00, Marc Lamb wrote:

On 2002-08-03 10:42, cbailey wrote:
"Wall Street's Past Week May Show Double- Dip Recession"

........Associated Press and all the tv news programs were peddling this thought last night.

-GDP grew at 1.1 per cent in the second quarter
-Unemployment rate held at 5.9 in July.
-A paltry 6,000 new jobs were created in July.

Looks like a job for the Civilian Conservation Camp boys, and er girls, too. Yup, they'll get in there and so them business folk how job creeayeshun really works; guveenment-style!

Hey, have ya heard the one about the pollocks? How many pollocks does it take to replace a light bulb? Betcha don't know the answer! :smile:

Hey, don't bash the CCC guys; a good number of 'em were born around the same location in history as I was... :smile: