Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 12-01-2007, 10:12 PM
PLOlover PLOlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,465
Default Re: The differences between 1929 and Today

[ QUOTE ]
and what does this have to do w/ the japanese funding the govt deficits?

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

you were the one who said he was crazy and making the whole thing up.

if you had bet that he was making it up and none of it was true (cause he's crazy), you would have lost.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-01-2007, 10:32 PM
DcifrThs DcifrThs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Spewin them chips
Posts: 10,115
Default Re: The differences between 1929 and Today

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and what does this have to do w/ the japanese funding the govt deficits?

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

you were the one who said he was crazy and making the whole thing up.

if you had bet that he was making it up and none of it was true (cause he's crazy), you would have lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

unfortunately, it was conditional. my big issue with that was that the US govt was trading subsidies for investment in US securities.

i know that US securities were purchased NOT as a result of any oil exchange so thats why i thought it was time to break out the tin foil hat.

if 1/2 of the parlay is true thats fine. all i know is the main part of it (US traded oil for security purchases/deficit financing) is false.

Barron
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-01-2007, 10:42 PM
DcifrThs DcifrThs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Spewin them chips
Posts: 10,115
Default Re: The differences between 1929 and Today

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm

One thing I need to understand that I dont is how the above post answers my question in any way.

The question is quite clear.

How negative must be the contextual reason given for a rate cut be to overcome the upside derived from a rate cut?

Looking at recent price action in relation to announcements from the fed, the negative context would have to be total catastrophe to overcome the upside.

Bottom line is that I think the disconnect between the negative context and the consequent (often extreme) upward price action e.g bad=good demonstrates that the markets are irrational.

As for Bias, well I have no investment intellectually and emotionally either way. I dont care what is right, I do care at reaching conclusions that are right whatever they may be.



[/ QUOTE ]

if you're saying mkts are irrational, i think you know i agree.

the bad news would indeed have to be catastrophic. mainly b/c corporate profits are still at near all time highs and so far have weathered the tighter money conditions.

given that the dislocations in the economy now will take maybe a two quarters to a year or so to work through to consumer spending and thus to growth, the current news would have to be very very bad to move markets down substantially.

markets are definitely irrational, but still not easy to beat.

in terms of betting, i'd rather take recessionary bets against specific aspects. i.e. for a $100 fall in financial wealth, consumer spending falls between $3-5. these losses are quick and work through relatively fast.

for a $100 fall in housing wealth, consumer spending fals between $4-$9. this reaction is slow and would likely prove a longer term damper on grwoth rates.

what i'd want to do is take credit spread bets on the places from which i think this spending would recede.

fundamentals really only make up (or should imo and in the opinion of my last employer) 1/3 of a trading signal. the remainder goes to 1/3 flows and 1/3 momentum. so outright shorting the S&P500, while easy, may not be the best way to execute yoru view in the markets.

so i agree markets are irrational for sure, but still not easy to beat and you can lose a ton trying to predict the equity market top rather than taking specialized bets.

but back to the conversation we're having, the positive price action makes sense given corporate profits, consumer demand, interest rates etc. for the most part. the large ratio of "up moves" to "down moves" in terms of size also makes sense to me but not in the degree shown by the market. in that sense, i do agree that the market seems to be heeding good news more than bad.

i also think it is looking far more short term since long term equities will ikely fall .

Barron
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-01-2007, 11:19 PM
PLOlover PLOlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,465
Default Re: The differences between 1929 and Today

[ QUOTE ]
if 1/2 of the parlay is true thats fine. all i know is the main part of it (US traded oil for security purchases/deficit financing) is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't know that it's false. you think it is not true.

yesterday you would have said the part that you now know is true was false.

you not smart if u think u know it all.

btw, it took legislation for the US to be able to sell to japan. where u think that legislation came from? you think national legislation can't have political motivations? just look to current china financning our debt and the dance going on.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-01-2007, 11:23 PM
DcifrThs DcifrThs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Spewin them chips
Posts: 10,115
Default Re: The differences between 1929 and Today

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if 1/2 of the parlay is true thats fine. all i know is the main part of it (US traded oil for security purchases/deficit financing) is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't know that it's false. you think it is not true.

yesterday you would have said the part that you now know is true was false.

you not smart if u think u know it all.

btw, it took legislation for the US to be able to sell to japan. where u think that legislation came from? you think national legislation can't have political motivations?

[/ QUOTE ]

sell what? oil or treasuries to japan?

anyways, legislation obviously has political motives, pretty much by definition.

[ QUOTE ]
just look to current china financning our debt and the dance going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

what is your claim here? china financing our deficit was an ancillary effect of china's political decision to grow via exports. it has since obviously grown to a political discussion in the US since it has repurcussions here.

Barron
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-02-2007, 01:32 AM
Moseley Moseley is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 394
Default Re: The differences between 1929 and Today

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard the alaska japan oil thing before too. 3 minute google search. also if you remember the alaska pipeline was built according to the premise that oil would stay in US. that was in the funding and the law. but that restriction in the law was repealed in 1995 or so.


http://www.counterpunch.org/anwr.html
[ QUOTE ]
An FTC economist had concluded that BP-Amoco was selling oil to Asian refineries at prices lower than it could sell to US refineries on the West Coast, in order to manufacture a US shortage. As evidence the FTC had e-mail traffic passing between BP managers who talked about "shorting the WC [West Coast] market" in order to "leverage up" the prices there. Another BP manager called this scheme a "no brainer". The FTC reckoned that this ploy allowed BP to hike prices at West Coast pumps by as much as 3 cents a gallon.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I don't know about your area, but the Monday after Thanksgiving, gas was up 10 cents a gallon and down 10 cents a gallon the next day. Bumped it up a day just for those returning on Monday. And, from what I saw on the news, I95 was bumper to bumper.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.