coolhand's Account Talk

[coolhand]

Looks like the market is letting the administration know what it thinks about bailouts and "spreading the wealth around".

 

[350zCommTech]

Looks like the market is letting the administration know what it thinks about bailouts and "spreading the wealth around".

Yup, they need to get a clue quick, or pretty soon, it won't matter what they do.

Btw, I just noticed quite a few TSP folks diving in today. Looking for turn-around Tuesday? I guess this might be why we don't have capitulation yet. I wish them all good luck tomorrow.

 

[malyla]

Looks like the market is letting the administration know what it thinks about bailouts and "spreading the wealth around".

Hey Coolhand.

I would like to think of it as the market letting the investment firms and investment banks know what it thinks about the risks and greed in the financial market (toxic debt and CDOs are killing these firms/banks). Just what can the administration do?

Wishing us all good luck.
Malyla

 

[JTH]

Btw, I just noticed quite a few TSP folks diving in today. Looking for turn-around Tuesday? I guess this might be why we don't have capitulation yet. I wish them all good luck tomorrow.

Is that sarcasm I sense or just pity?

I dived in today, but it's not because I'm picking a bottom or trying for a swing on Tuesday. It's because I'm changing my TSP strategy. I'm moving more towards a dollar cost averaging approach. Half my money is tied up in a loan anyways, so I don't have as much to lose.

 

[350zCommTech]

Is that sarcasm I sense or just pity?

I dived in today, but it's not because I'm picking a bottom or trying for a swing on Tuesday. It's because I'm changing my TSP strategy. I'm moving more towards a dollar cost averaging approach. Half my money is tied up in a loan anyways, so I don't have as much to lose.

Not sarcasm or pity JTH. Just trying to understand why the market is in a slow grind.

 

[JTH]

Not sarcasm or pity JTH. Just trying to understand why the market is in a slow grind.

Well heck I've given up trying to understand any of this (there's your capitulation.) I'm at the point where I think the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. The news has highlighted all this gloom and doom, but where I live, it's not nearly as bad. My micro economy is doing rather well. Just the other day I called around getting estimates for a plumber. All of them were booked up to a week in advance.

I've done my part for the economy, I've already spent my Tax refund at Wal-Mart and Home Depot. My glass is half full...

 

[tsptalk]

Looks like the market is letting the administration know what it thinks about bailouts and "spreading the wealth around".

I suspect the administration doesn't care in theory, as it is "the rich" being hurt by the market slide. Besides, the more people who need help / a bailout, the more likely the democrats will get re-elected.

The market is a scoreboard of sorts, so I suspect as a person with an ego and pride like any president, Obama is probably watching closely, however, and getting a little nervous.

 

[coolhand]

I suspect the administration doesn't care in theory, as it is "the rich" being hurt by the market slide. Besides, the more people who need help / a bailout, the more likely the democrats will get re-elected.

The market is a scoreboard of sorts, so I suspect as a person with an ego and pride like any president, Obama is probably watching closely, however, and getting a little nervous.

I think you need to carry your thoughts a little further out Tom. The rich are the ones with the power. It has never been Washington that's controlled this country. It's the wealth behind it. Remember, only half the country voted for this administration. If we weren't a divided nation before, we will be at some point down the road. If the rich are getting hurt, where will that leave us Middle Class folk?

On another topic...

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/02...7-billion-bond-man-declares-the-death-of-equ/

 

[350zCommTech]

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/02...7-billion-bond-man-declares-the-death-of-equ/

Scumbag is talking his book. He's about as evil as they come. Between him, GS, the Fed, and the treasury, it's a big blowjob fest paid for by the US taxpayers.

 

[coolhand]

Scumbag is talking his book. He's about as evil as they come.

I don't like him at all either and I agree, he's in the same category as the others you mentioned.

 

[Boghie]

I think you need to carry your thoughts a little further out Tom. The rich are the ones with the power. It has never been Washington that's controlled this country. It's the wealth behind it. Remember, only half the country voted for this administration. If we weren't a divided nation before, we will be at some point down the road. If the rich are getting hurt, where will that leave us Middle Class folk?

Coolhand,

Of course. With the rich falling that leaves us Middle Class folk rich:nuts:

It makes perfect sense.

Then it will be our turn.

All we have to do is look toward Venezuela or California to see our future:embarrest: It isn't so hard to figure out.

Anybody want to help us Californians with our $42 Billion Dollar (peso) debt??? Thanks in advance... Oh, that's right, our fearless political leadership have approved a budget that allows us to borrow and tax our way out of this.

 

[Scribbler]

Very interesting observation here regarding the velocity of money. Scribbler, would you care to give us your take on it?

http://www.traders-talk.com/mb2/index.php?showtopic=102053&st=0

Well, the assumption of the poster is that because M1 velocity has fallen, it will soon turn up to what is "normal."

Of course, the argument then is that the position of the person pointing it out will come to pass. This a classic case of someone looking for a factor that will lead to an outcome that is desirable to that person. This is classic gold bug stuff: The old wisdom that gold will rise once the Fed starts printing money -- but the Fed has now started printing money, and the great gold explosion has not come to pass (talking more of the rhetoric of $2K-$5K/oz).

But because this contraction is predicated on a credit contraction, now they are looking of velocity of money -- not the amount of money -- to be the catalyst that will give them the outcome that makes them right. The fabled catalyst that will produce the great move upward has changed.

But what if money velocity doesn't return to prior levels? What if there is a generational repudiation of debt? But I am not solid in this opinion -- I am Gumby -- I will change based on information as it becomes available. But I reject the premise that things will revert to historic levels "eventually" -- there is no difference between this line of thinking and a 'buy-and-hold for the long term' philosophy.

Disclosure: I am short GLD (the gold ETF) in my trading account as of this posting.

 

[mojo]

Apparently your making some money today

http://www.kitco.com/charts/livegold.htmlhttp://www.kitco.com/charts/livegold.ht

Well, the assumption of the poster is that because M1 velocity has fallen, it will soon turn up to what is "normal."

Of course, the argument then is that the position of the person pointing it out will come to pass. This a classic case of someone looking for a factor that will lead to an outcome that is desirable to that person. This is classic gold bug stuff: The old wisdom that gold will rise once the Fed starts printing money -- but the Fed has now started printing money, and the great gold explosion has not come to pass (talking more of the rhetoric of $2K-$5K/oz).

But because this contraction is predicated on a credit contraction, now they are looking of velocity of money -- not the amount of money -- to be the catalyst that will give them the outcome that makes them right. The fabled catalyst that will produce the great move upward has changed.

But what if money velocity doesn't return to prior levels? What if there is a generational repudiation of debt? But I am not solid in this opinion -- I am Gumby -- I will change based on information as it becomes available. But I reject the premise that things will revert to historic levels "eventually" -- there is no difference between this line of thinking and a 'buy-and-hold for the long term' philosophy.

Disclosure: I am short GLD (the gold ETF) in my trading account as of this posting.

 

[350zCommTech]

-- I am Gumby --

What? Scribbler is Gumby?

What happened to Gumby?

 

[Gumby]

What? Scribbler is Gumby?

What happened to Gumby?

I have a twin?? View attachment 5930

 

[350zCommTech]

I have a twin?? View attachment 5930

I thought we weren't allowed to have an alias. So, the person that's been blogging, scribbler, is you?

I'd just like to know who I'm talking to.

 

[Scribbler]

That's funny... I should check for things like that before posting. Of course, I mean I want to be pliable -- able to adapt myself as conditions warrant. The poster known as "Gumby" and me are two separate people.

 

[350zCommTech]

That's funny... I should check for things like that before posting. Of course, I mean I want to be pliable -- able to adapt myself as conditions warrant. The poster known as "Gumby" and me are two separate people.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[coolhand]

Well, the assumption of the poster is that because M1 velocity has fallen, it will soon turn up to what is "normal."

Of course, the argument then is that the position of the person pointing it out will come to pass. This a classic case of someone looking for a factor that will lead to an outcome that is desirable to that person. This is classic gold bug stuff: The old wisdom that gold will rise once the Fed starts printing money -- but the Fed has now started printing money, and the great gold explosion has not come to pass (talking more of the rhetoric of $2K-$5K/oz).

But because this contraction is predicated on a credit contraction, now they are looking of velocity of money -- not the amount of money -- to be the catalyst that will give them the outcome that makes them right. The fabled catalyst that will produce the great move upward has changed.

But what if money velocity doesn't return to prior levels? What if there is a generational repudiation of debt? But I am not solid in this opinion -- I am Gumby -- I will change based on information as it becomes available. But I reject the premise that things will revert to historic levels "eventually" -- there is no difference between this line of thinking and a 'buy-and-hold for the long term' philosophy.

Disclosure: I am short GLD (the gold ETF) in my trading account as of this posting.

Thanks for the response Gumby...uh, I mean Scribbler. :nuts:

Seriously, it's pretty obvious printing more money is having an undesirable effect. There's no shortage of posters that have been predicting this for quite a while.

It seems to me that the market will not easily be put back together any time soon.

 

[Guest2]

It seems to me that the market will not easily be put back together any time soon.

And the Big Bucks watching the game from the sidelines are likely to go home
and watch the game on TV before wanting to come back to the stadium. :worried:

By the way, I'm a big fan of your avitar ! I've been meaning to tell you.