Will the DOW hit 5000?

fatherofcaitlyn

fatherofcaitlyn

CAGiversary!
Feedback
82 (100%)
Just a thread reboot.

We're way past 10,000.

What dire consequences are out there for the world if the market loses just another 1,700 points after already losing 7,000?

Are we finally hitting the bedrock or have people realized companies that generate no earnings aren't cheap?
 
I think its fairly likely. Not many people in the know in politics or business are ready to say we've hit the bottom. In fact the only surefire low that can be predicted as the lowest it can go is 0.
 
The problem seems to be that the whole thing was built on bullshit. Everyone's earnings in the past years are bullshit. Everyone's valuations are bullshit. Real estate prices, commodity prices, everything.

I've been looking for cheap places to jump in and I just can't find anything cheap. I think 4500 is possible. Shit, I think lower is possible. There's not a stock in the financial or manufacturing sectors worth owning.

None.
 
3,000 has been my predicted floor since around last November. Shame we didn't let Bush invest our Social Security futures in the market. I mean that sincerely; that shit would have been a death knell for idiotic free market ideology, and the Republicans would have ceased to exist. They would split into two parties: the Libertarians and the Jebustarians.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']how low it goes depends. will obama have a statement of some sort every day for a few weeks? if the answer is yes, then yes, it will drop.[/quote]

Oddly enough, I noticed how ...

Obama releases secret Bush anti-terror memos
Mar 2, 09:52 PM EST
By DEVLIN BARRETT and MATT APUZZO - Associated Press Writers

I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
 
lol, its just kinda funny regardless of if you support him or not. it just seems like every time something has been coming out of the white house the market has dropped significantly lol.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']3,000 has been my predicted floor since around last November. Shame we didn't let Bush invest our Social Security futures in the market. I mean that sincerely; that shit would have been a death knell for idiotic free market ideology, and the Republicans would have ceased to exist. They would split into two parties: the Libertarians and the Jebustarians.[/quote]

Your more cynical and pessimistic than me... I thought the floor would be ~5K-6K... but more and more, I'm afraid you may be right... In either case, I've pulled out 90% of my money out of the market...
 
[quote name='Koggit']5,000's not really that bad at all[/quote]

Okay then, what is bad in your book? And I think you can avoid saying the obvious answer of 0.

If the DOW drops below 5,000, it'll mean every person in Congress will be looking for a new job...hopefully.
 
I'd say 3k is bad, and I agree with Myke, we'll likely see it

you thought it was sustainable?

so quick to blame..

we've got a lot of really smart people dealing with this problem and people who know a hell of a lot more than us (world-leading economists) are in near universal agreement when they approve of federal stimulus. our congressmen aren't the best they could be, but chances are if they were (read: making governing decisions rather than political ones) they wouldn't even be in office because voters are much too short-sighted and quick to blame (see: mirror)

if you hate what they're doing, broly, what would you be doing? the same thing they're doing, or going against the advice of world-leading economists? just curious
 
[quote name='speedracer']The problem seems to be that the whole thing was built on bullshit. Everyone's earnings in the past years are bullshit. Everyone's valuations are bullshit. Real estate prices, commodity prices, everything.

[/quote]


This is the truth.

I'm still remembering when people were telling me not to panic in July and December of 2007 when I had a huge drop in my 401K.

http://cheapgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146496

http://www.cheapassgamers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168528&page=4

I just wish I moved to cash then like I was tempted to. Now, its really too late.
 
First of all, how the markets look or are valued is very dependant on your timeframe. For example, I'm finding very profitable trades on a daily basis both long and short but I'm not getting married to any of these positions. I'm taking the easy money and heading to the door. At this point there isn't really anything out there that is telling me to buy and hold for anything more than a few days let alone weeks, months or years. None of the long term indicators are pointing to anything close to a long term bottom.

When looking at the markets strictly from an old-school "buy and hold" standpoint, everything has to change. The fundamental valuations used to price the market have to be re-adjusted on every level.

It is highly likely that in 20 years we will look back and see not just the late 90's as the "bubble" but the mid 80's through 2007 as a bubble in virtually every asset class. So if you naturally wash away this bubble and see the market re-valued taking all of the various excesses we have created the past 25-30 years, then seeing the S&P at 400-450 is certainly not out of the question. Look at a long term chart of the S&P and you see a truely massive double top. We recently broke through the 01 support levels which puts the next big long term support levels down in the 620 area and below that down to the 450 area, which is really where the big long term breakout started. Prior to that big breakout, we had been in a slow and steady long term increase basically since the markets opened. Then when we broke above that 450 area, the rate of increase just went through the roof. If you are of the belief that basically everything since that breakout has been due to a bubble building in credit and leverage and then moving into pretty much everything else, then a retest of this original breakout area is a resonable long term target. However, we aren't going straight to 450 or 500. There will be bear market rallies within the continued downtrend that will be extremely fast and extremely profitable if you can catch them. It all depends on what timeframe you are looking at.

This is a traders market. The days of buy and hold for decades on end are dead but this market is a dream come true for active traders.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd say so, although it would be interesting to see if the Dow gets desperate enough to drop some of the big losers and bring in a couple new stocks to help stabilize itself.
 
[quote name='Koggit']I'd say 3k is bad, and I agree with Myke, we'll likely see it

you thought it was sustainable?

so quick to blame..

we've got a lot of really smart people dealing with this problem and people who know a hell of a lot more than us (world-leading economists) are in near universal agreement when they approve of federal stimulus. our congressmen aren't the best they could be, but chances are if they were (read: making governing decisions rather than political ones) they wouldn't even be in office because voters are much too short-sighted and quick to blame (see: mirror)

if you hate what they're doing, broly, what would you be doing? the same thing they're doing, or going against the advice of world-leading economists? just curious[/quote]

world-leading economists? The economists are split on what Government action should be. I'd probably do nothing, but IF I have to spend taxpayer dollars (not giving me an option), I'd give that money directly to the people and tell them they can spend it however the fuck they want.

They either waste it in the retail sector, payback their debts (btw, this money would go to banks anyway), invest it in the stock market, or sit on it. But most people when they get money can't keep it in their pockets.
 
[quote name='Koggit']

we've got a lot of really smart people dealing with this problem and people who know a hell of a lot more than us (world-leading economists) are in near universal agreement when they approve of federal stimulus.
[/QUOTE]


That's not very true. Otherwise it wouldn't be so easy for every news program to get dissenting economists on to argue with the pro-stimulus ones.

It seems to me that it's more politicians and political economists that are so for the stimulus. There aren't that many real-world neutral economists for it.
 
Don't forget that "world leading economists" got us into this mess..

The Austrian economists are the only ones who saw it coming..and unfortunately their views are ignored by the mainstream big government-worshipping Keynesians..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

Examples of people who follow the Austrian school are Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, Jim Rogers, etc
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ron Paul's an economist?

Remind me to call y'all Ron Paul worshippers out next time any of you dare criticize the adulation Obama receives as near-Messianic.

EDIT: Oh yeah, someone give me a Cliffs Notes summary of philosophical/policy differences between this Austrian school and Supply-Siders. Because, if they're not all that different, you'd have to be a blithering idiot to support the former, denying the quarter-century foundation of damn-near permanent damage it's done.

EDIT2: Schadenfreude, sure, but in better news, it looks like the gap between the rich and the poor is narrowing for a change. :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Capitalizt']The Austrian economists are the only ones who saw it coming.[/QUOTE]

Not at all.

Krugman and others called it years ago, also the "Austrians" are not a school of economic thought as much as they are a relative handful of pathetic cranks.

One of the few actual economists who actually dabbled in it was Alan Greenspan, the person who actually ignored the problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']3,000 has been my predicted floor since around last November. Shame we didn't let Bush invest our Social Security futures in the market. I mean that sincerely; that shit would have been a death knell for idiotic free market ideology, and the Republicans would have ceased to exist. They would split into two parties: the Libertarians and the Jebustarians.[/QUOTE]
We were talking about that last night with some friends. If SS had been invested the way they were pushing for it, it would have ended market capitalism for a generation. I don't know if I'm sad or not that it didn't happen.

Their own stupid luck saved them from themselves and in 2 years, we get to listen to their renewed bullshit all over again.
 
[quote name='speedracer']We were talking about that last night with some friends. If SS had been invested the way they were pushing for it, it would have ended market capitalism for a generation. I don't know if I'm sad or not that it didn't happen.

Their own stupid luck saved them from themselves and in 2 years, we get to listen to their renewed bullshit all over again.[/QUOTE]

I'm upset it didn't happen. But, then again, even though we'd have even larger deficits and elderly/retiree riots in the streets, and somehow, the empirical reality we live in would still cease to matter; Republicans would continue to push the as-disproven-as-the-world-is-flat-theory idea that pure free markets would solve this problem, and the lapdog masses would believe them. After all, they are the same folks that continue to blame the CRA, which was responsible for fewer 17% of all ARMs, for the collapse of the housing market.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But, then again, even though we'd have even larger deficits and elderly/retiree riots in the streets, and somehow, the empirical reality we live in would still cease to matter; Republicans would continue to push the as-disproven-as-the-world-is-flat-theory idea that pure free markets would solve this problem, and the lapdog masses would believe them. After all, they are the same folks that continue to blame the CRA, which was responsible for fewer 17% of all ARMs, for the collapse of the housing market.[/quote]

My god, that was a long sentence.

Don't worry. We're still going to have elderly/retiree riots in the streets.

There will be almost as many baby boomers wanting Social Security as are their descendants working in the next 5-30 years.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']3,000 has been my predicted floor since around last November. Shame we didn't let Bush invest our Social Security futures in the market. I mean that sincerely; that shit would have been a death knell for idiotic free market ideology, and the Republicans would have ceased to exist. They would split into two parties: the Libertarians and the Jebustarians.[/quote]

Regarding your wish about Republicans, you may still get your wish. Have you seen the Steele vs Limbaugh rhetoric lately?
 
Republicans need to split, or just go away entirely. They haven't been what they supposedly stand for, for a decade. At least with Democrats, you know what you are getting, and they never really try and claim any type of ethic or moral code, so they can't ever really be accused of hypocrisy, like Republicans.
 
after the election i predicted wed have 3 parties in the next decade. the democrats, the republicrats, and the republicans. i stand by that prediction.
 
I dunno. I think our nation is too addicted to having two extremes gridlocking, and hoping for middle ground policies as a result.

It's sad, but true.

Of course, the way things are going, half the Republicans should just go ahead and switch to Democrats.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I'm ready for a money-free society ala Star Trek.[/quote]

Get your fucking replicator working man, then we won't have any problems.
 
A bit off topic, but at some point humans are going to end up at zero growth/equilibrium like the rest of nature. Having a system (economic or otherwise) that needs growth and success is destined to fail.

We're adding 6-7 million people a month, and driving further and further down the standard of living. Eventually it will be so low that no matter how fast we are reproducing, that many are also dying and we will be at zero growth.

Scenario 2 for zero growth is we get a reduction in birthrate and realize equilibrium while not having a shitty standard of living (Europe).

Scenario 3 for zero growth is extinction.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']A bit off topic, but at some point humans are going to end up at zero growth/equilibrium like the rest of nature. Having a system (economic or otherwise) that needs growth and success is destined to fail.

We're adding 6-7 million people a month, and driving further and further down the standard of living. Eventually it will be so low that no matter how fast we are reproducing, that many are also dying and we will be at zero growth.

Scenario 2 for zero growth is we get a reduction in birthrate and realize equilibrium while not having a shitty standard of living (Europe).

Scenario 3 for zero growth is extinction.[/QUOTE]
Well, everything worked out fine for humanity in Star Trek. Well, not if you ask Q anyway.
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']Well, everything worked out fine for humanity in Star Trek. Well, not if you ask Q anyway.[/QUOTE]

And not according to the Ferengi or Klingon.

I bet if we had Voyager's deflector dish, we could use it to fix our economy.
 
[quote name='camoor']Regarding your wish about Republicans, you may still get your wish. Have you seen the Steele vs Limbaugh rhetoric lately?[/quote]

I passed by CNN on the way to the can at work. Wolf Blitzer was on.

What was the caption I saw?

"Steele to Limbaugh: I'm sorry."

I think that fight is over.

...

I actually listened to Limbaugh on CNN's coverage of the conservative circle jerk or whatever it was. He was great. I just wished he would have said some of those things 5 or 6 years ago
 
I do think that if Billions of dollars are going to be handed out to help the economy, they should be handed out to the poor, with the stipulation that they would have to pay off debt with it first. This would bubble up to the banks, and get the economy flowing.

All this trickle down shit ain't ever going to happen. Those rich bastards ain't letting anything trickle.
 
[quote name='thadwhit']I do think that if Billions of dollars are going to be handed out to help the economy, they should be handed out to the poor, with the stipulation that they would have to pay off debt with it first. This would bubble up to the banks, and get the economy flowing.

All this trickle down shit ain't ever going to happen. Those rich bastards ain't letting anything trickle.[/quote]

Handouts aren't the answer to help the economy. That's the answer to help individuals. The only thing that will really be good is to reduce the taxes of people that actually work, and pay taxes to fund the daily operation of the USA. The government doesn't deserve what they squander.

Until you reign in corporate greed AND a sense of entitlement a lot of citizens have, nothing will change. Neither is bad in moderation, but you see how greed affected the market, real estate, an so forth and we see how entitlement is taking us even further into debt. I see so much waste at the college I work at. We have several students that work the financial aid system and have it as a second income which it wasn't intended for. A lot of them don't pass classes, don't return books when their aid is reduced due to dropping a class, yet they still are receiving PELL grants each semester. It's disgusting.
 
This is an interesting aricle my fiance linked to. It's by the author of Liar's Poker, which I read last year for Human Resources.
http://www.portfolio.com/news-marke...folio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom

Basically he talks about how he found out that Wall Street was just MAKING SHIT UP.

From page 7:
That’s when Eisman finally got it. Here he’d been making these side bets with Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank on the fate of the BBB tranche without fully understanding why those firms were so eager to make the bets. Now he saw. There weren’t enough Americans with shitty credit taking out loans to satisfy investors’ appetite for the end product. The firms used Eisman’s bet to synthesize more of them. Here, then, was the difference between fantasy finance and fantasy football: When a fantasy player drafts Peyton Manning, he doesn’t create a second Peyton Manning to inflate the league’s stats. But when Eisman bought a credit-default swap, he enabled Deutsche Bank to create another bond identical in every respect but one to the original. The only difference was that there was no actual homebuyer or borrower. The only assets backing the bonds were the side bets Eisman and others made with firms like Goldman Sachs. Eisman, in effect, was paying to Goldman the interest on a subprime mortgage. In fact, there was no mortgage at all. “They weren’t satisfied getting lots of unqualified borrowers to borrow money to buy a house they couldn’t afford,” Eisman says. “They were creating them out of whole cloth. One hundred times over! That’s why the losses are so much greater than the loans. But that’s when I realized they needed us to keep the machine running. I was like, This is allowed?”
Click to expand...
 
1) I didn't know you were engaged; good on ya!

2) I wonder if that's the same Michael Lewis who penned "Moneyball" about 4 years back. Best (and only) baseball book I ever read.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']1) I didn't know you were engaged; good on ya!

2) I wonder if that's the same Michael Lewis who penned "Moneyball" about 4 years back. Best (and only) baseball book I ever read.[/QUOTE]

1) Thanks.

2) Indeed it is!
 
[quote name='Kayden']So I take it that now is a bad time to start a 401k... :oops:[/quote]

No, 2007 would have been. Fortunately, I restarted contributions in 2006. So, I ... aw, dammit!
 
Today is actually a great time to do it in my opinion. Despite the socialism and inflation that is coming over the next few years, stocks do have value and have been absolutely crushed. We are closer to a bottom than a top..so I say start buying slowly. Don't go all in at once though.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Today is actually a great time to do it in my opinion. Despite the socialism and inflation that is coming over the next few years, stocks do have value and have been absolutely crushed. We are closer to a bottom than a top..so I say start buying slowly. Don't go all in at once though.[/quote]

Unless you're as good of a trader as BillyBob29, there are better places to put your money today and, possibly, for the next several years than the stock market.
 
Limited Edition Atlus Titles?

Shin Sangoku Unagi Arishikage Monogatari 7: Hot Panties Love Special Edition with Art Book, CD Soundtrack, and, well...Hot Panties, of course...here I come!

Oh, my lil' nest egg...
 
This is going to sound stupid, so I'm going to put that out there to hopefully avoid any posts that start out with, "That sounds stupid!"

I've been using the economy as an excuse to up my video game and DVD buying (blew 300 dollars on Anime at Best Buy this week) See, I still save money and all, but not as much anymore. I'm betting that the economy crashes and all of our monies become worthless. Paranoid, sure, but it makes me smile at night at the thought of holding myself up in my game room with a shotgun, protecting my massive collection. The bigger it is, the more invaders that come into my home that I can blast away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top