folks can even customize their time frames, and add their own comparison securities, whether the ones they invested in, or the ones they woulda coulda shoulda, or wish they had not
Of greater interest would be that in 2000 the NAZ was only above 5000 for a few hours. Virtually no one owns it there. A more realistic "high" would be the few weeks of trading around the 4600 level. One should also use this approach in determining the high of silver in 2011 which really is closer to the 44-45 area.
Yep.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
It will be a double top...get ready for a huge Gold and Silver buying opportunity like last time.....sell...get into cash...take it out of the Banks...and keep the powder dry!
Remember seeing those bumper stickers "Please Lord, just one more Bubble" ?
This is the Bumper Sticker wish...better make it while you can...I wouldn't want to be a Bankster on the next crash ;>
<< <i> >>
I was ‘COINB0Y' with 4812 posts and ‘Expert Collector’ ranking (Joined in 2006).
<< <i>How about revising your title to: NASDAQ back to 6000 or Gold $2,000? My answer would still be the same...NASDAQ >>
How about...NASDAQ back to 2,000 or Gold $6,000? >>
Now that would only be in a SHTF scenario or your worst nightmare. And other peoples nightmares do not concern me. In a SHTF scenario, all the gold in the world would not help.
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
<<How about...NASDAQ back to 2,000 or Gold $6,000? >>
Now that would only be in a SHTF scenario or your worst nightmare.
That's what has always been accepted as fait accompi (sp?), but I'm not so sure it would be a SHTF EOTWAWKI scenario. The Fed has distorted the stock market significantly beyond the reality of the fundamentals, but the hoped-for utopia hasn't happened either.
In the final analysis, it's all about what people define as having value. When I watch those Mark Dice videos in which he tries to sell or give away a 1 ozer of gold without success, it makes me wonder whether value will be perceived as some type of i-chip or just a bag of Cheetos - it's really hard to predict, these days. I know what my own preconceptions are, but I'm not so sure that some other medium of value retention won't prevail.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Gold at 2,000? It look like it's about to drop below $1,000.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I will just emphatically state that you are wrong.
A cursory look at the past 6 years shows a lackluster economy coupled with a rising stock market propelled by Fed liquidity and corporate stock buybacks, and a rising bond market motivated by frontrunning of the Fed's "Bernanke put".
It has mostly to do with a transfer of wealth from the earnings of middle class taxpayers and the savings of fixed income retirees - to the drug companies, insurance companies, political insiders, the banking system, and the wealthy top 0.1%.
Not much of this has anything to do with a balance between market supply & demand of manufactured goods, improving worker incomes, better satisfying consumer needs or improving the efficiency of operations.
It's mostly been about finance, and finance doesn't produce anything but it does direct the allocation of resources. I would contend that the allocations have been geared towards getting investors to "pile in" rather than to generate profits through actual work or actual production. It's become a shell game, in many cases. My perspective.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
some think its headed below 1000....looking at the chart, it looks like it forming a base at 1100 where it would have to break through 1050, roughly and I'm def not a chartist...
what indications makes it look like its headed down thru 1000? I'm genuinely asking. And was going to continue buying PMs,of course.....theres the full proof indicator...when I'm buying america should be selling... interesting..
Interested in higher grade vintage cards. Aren't we all.
<< <i> I will just emphatically state that you are wrong.
A cursory look at the past 6 years shows a lackluster economy coupled with a rising stock market propelled by Fed liquidity and corporate stock buybacks, and a rising bond market motivated by frontrunning of the Fed's "Bernanke put".
It has mostly to do with a transfer of wealth from the earnings of middle class taxpayers and the savings of fixed income retirees - to the drug companies, insurance companies, political insiders, the banking system, and the wealthy top 0.1%.
Not much of this has anything to do with a balance between market supply & demand of manufactured goods, improving worker incomes, better satisfying consumer needs or improving the efficiency of operations.
It's mostly been about finance, and finance doesn't produce anything but it does direct the allocation of resources. I would contend that the allocations have been geared towards getting investors to "pile in" rather than to generate profits through actual work or actual production. It's become a shell game, in many cases. My perspective. >>
comrade jmski, nuttink make cents when comrades live under alice in his Wunderland, no, hahahaha.
<< <i> I will just emphatically state that you are wrong.
A cursory look at the past 6 years shows a lackluster economy coupled with a rising stock market propelled by Fed liquidity and corporate stock buybacks, and a rising bond market motivated by frontrunning of the Fed's "Bernanke put".
It has mostly to do with a transfer of wealth from the earnings of middle class taxpayers and the savings of fixed income retirees - to the drug companies, insurance companies, political insiders, the banking system, and the wealthy top 0.1%.
Not much of this has anything to do with a balance between market supply & demand of manufactured goods, improving worker incomes, better satisfying consumer needs or improving the efficiency of operations.
It's mostly been about finance, and finance doesn't produce anything but it does direct the allocation of resources. I would contend that the allocations have been geared towards getting investors to "pile in" rather than to generate profits through actual work or actual production. It's become a shell game, in many cases. My perspective. >>
Evidence to refute each and every claim is easily available though just a little research. However, your mind is made and nothing I would post would alter your position.
Information on intermarket relationships, economic and monetary policy effects on consumer and currency markets, and relative valuation and pricing models have been discussed on this board for a decade. Sorry if you missed it.
Information on intermarket relationships, economic and monetary policy effects on consumer and currency markets, and relative valuation and pricing models have been discussed on this board for a decade. Sorry if you missed it.
Graham Leach Bliley was done just for the banks. The bank bailouts and TARP were done just for the banks. Forcing FASB to change their position on asset valuation was done only for the banks. QE didn't work for anyone except the banks. In past administrations, these guys would've been prosecuted but starting in 1999 the banking industry became a protected species regardless of how much they jimmied the system for their own enrichment.
If you don't understand this much and recognize the problem(s), it's only your own willful participation that colors your opinion. I can't accept your premise that corrupt banks should be protected at the expense of honest taxpayers.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i> I will just emphatically state that you are wrong.
A cursory look at the past 6 years shows a lackluster economy coupled with a rising stock market propelled by Fed liquidity and corporate stock buybacks, and a rising bond market motivated by frontrunning of the Fed's "Bernanke put".
It has mostly to do with a transfer of wealth from the earnings of middle class taxpayers and the savings of fixed income retirees - to the drug companies, insurance companies, political insiders, the banking system, and the wealthy top 0.1%.
Not much of this has anything to do with a balance between market supply & demand of manufactured goods, improving worker incomes, better satisfying consumer needs or improving the efficiency of operations.
It's mostly been about finance, and finance doesn't produce anything but it does direct the allocation of resources. I would contend that the allocations have been geared towards getting investors to "pile in" rather than to generate profits through actual work or actual production. It's become a shell game, in many cases. My perspective. >>
There is definitely some of that going on, although I'd contend that the distribution of the benefits of "success" in the economy is a little more widespread than just going to the top 0.1%.
By definition, exactly half of Americans are doing "better" than the other half. If one gets out there and travels around, they see a lot of economic activity and success among "ordinary" people, outside of evil banksters, corporate titans, and other financial moguls and string pullers. Once again, there are large percentages of people doing "worse than average" and way worse than the top earners.
When has it been otherwise? If you ask me what the problem with the lower 50% is, it's not what "they" are doing to the poor victims, it's a victim mentality that blames others for personal choices and outcomes.
For example, if someone understands full well "what's going on" and "how things work" , then why would they refuse to at least put a little capital to work in the same systems, to get a bit of benefit?
if someone understands full well "what's going on" and "how things work" , then why would they refuse to at least put a little capital to work in the same systems, to get a bit of benefit?
Because it appears to be too much like a Ponzi scheme and the people who should be held accountable will never be held accountable. That being the case, it seems to me that it will get worse before it gets better, and I see no reason to throw my own money into that system, especially if I think there's going to be a shakeout - which I do.
And yeah, it sure does look like precious metals investors have taken some hits while stock investors are flush. I also know what it's like to ride a precious metals boom or a high tech stock boom right up to the top. Any investor with a few decades of experience has seen these things before. Any investor who reads history also knows what can happen - both bad and good.
I'm picking my battles, Baley. I don't need the stock market, especially the one we have right now with the bankers who are running it. If they ever decide to clean it up, I'll be back. It could be awhile.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>Addressing faults in an economic system is productive, no? >>
Yes, they did that in the 1930's by instituting regulations on banking and stocks. Then undid a lot of it in 1999-2001. Not productive.
They instituted new banking controls in Dodd-Frank following the financial crisis. Lobbyists for the big banks have essentially gutted 80% of those over the past few years. The 20% that's left are still being "worked on" to make them go away as well. Not productive. DF suggested making the big banks smaller. They were made even bigger than before.
Rather than addressing faults, the regulators and government seem to be addressing ways to keep the TBTF banks profitable (ie the only "flaw" they see are banks not being profitable enough). Addressing real flaws is a healthy goal. I don't see any of that happening.
What we need is another thread to wander and wonder in over the next five years.
>>
Try this thread title on for size and if you like it I'll start the thread.
Gold back to $600 or NASDAQ 6,000? >>
A realistic question at this time might be, which will occur first, Gold back to $1380 (+20%), or Nasdaq to 6260 (+20%) ?
edit: or up ( or down) ~ 10%, as OPA has suggested. Either way, gotta start from today, like the original question, which was clearly answered by participants, and the outcome determined, as time passed.
Original thread title: NASDAQ back to 5,000 or Gold $2,000?
Which will occur first? And why?
(It's been over 13 years since the NASDAQ reached 5,048 and 2 years since Gold hit $1,900.)
/////
Version 2.0 It's been 6 years since the Great Recession. Gold touched $810 in 2009. Gold has trended lower since 2011. So will will the trend continue and reach its 2009 low, a haircut of approximately 25% from here or will the NAZ, which has trended upwardly since, reach 6,360...a 25% increase?
<< <i>A realistic question at this time might be, which will occur first, Gold back to $1380 (+20%), or Nasdaq to 6260 (+20%) ? >>
As a contrarian by nature, I'll go with gold. I'm not a gold bug, but consider it just another "asset" class. Unlike gold, NASDAQ has not had a major correction since 2009 and is overdue for one, which will take it below 4,000. At that point it would require a 50% + gain to achieve $6200.
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
Hard to say, but it'll be a few years for either one. The Nasdaq is due for a serious downturn and if gold does increase, it'll be slow going. I'll go with Nasdaq first, but not until 2017 or 2018 or later.
edit: I tried to plot "GLD" for comparison, do not know if the link works, you might have to enter your comparison security in the little box and hit enter to see the percentage changes. Can also choose different times, 1 year, 2 year, 10 year, etc.
Originally posted by: renman95 NAZ @ 4,526...going the wrong way. How low will it go?
lower, until the FED reverses course and offers up a new and improved QE.
Love your sig comrade db. Dear Leader's timing couldn't have been any better.
///
So the question is, will the Fed be pig-headed and raise three more times as hinted or admit defeat and lower? Even if the markets replay half of the turmoil of 2008 in kind, I can't see the Fed standing pat.
Originally posted by: renman95 NAZ @ 4,526...going the wrong way. How low will it go?
lower, until the FED reverses course and offers up a new and improved QE.
Love your sig comrade db. Dear Leader's timing couldn't have been any better.
///
So the question is, will the Fed be pig-headed and raise three more times as hinted or admit defeat and lower? Even if the markets replay half of the turmoil of 2008 in kind, I can't see the Fed standing pat.
FED's gotta squeeze oranges before they can refill the punch bowl.
The government is incapable of ever managing the economy. That is why communism collapsed. It is now socialism’s turn - Martin Armstrong
Well, that was a bold and decisive prediction. How did he do?
The Naz did indeed break 5000 on 3/2/15, hitting a high of 5232 that year. That move proved short-lived as it dropped nearly 20% over the next several weeks. A subsequent rally over a few months took it back over 5000 for a few weeks before another nearly 20% drop over the next month. Another rally attempt failed before 5000 and sideways action for 4 months ensued. It was not until the middle of 2016 before a sustainable rally would begin and it never broke below 5000 again.
So in summary, yes it did break 5000 before mid 2016, however it really never moved and stayed above 5000 until mid 2016 and actually spent more time below 5000 than above it from Mar 2015 to July 2016. So for a prediction made 3 years earlier, I think that dude did pretty well. I'd give him a C+......Nah, thats probably a A-.
Comments
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>link >>
Nice one.
<< <i>
<< <i>link >>
Nice one.
This chart represents quite accurately what has happened in America over the last 40 years. Just change the titles.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Yep.
I knew it would happen.
Remember seeing those bumper stickers "Please Lord, just one more Bubble" ?
This is the Bumper Sticker wish...better make it while you can...I wouldn't want to be a Bankster on the next crash ;>
<< <i>
Going back to 2000, you
made money in stocks, gold, bonds, and real estate.
My answer would still be the same...NASDAQ
<< <i>How about revising your title to: NASDAQ back to 6000 or Gold $2,000?
My answer would still be the same...NASDAQ
How about...NASDAQ back to 2,000 or Gold $6,000?
If that happens, I'll never let you all hear the end of it.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>How about revising your title to: NASDAQ back to 6000 or Gold $2,000?
My answer would still be the same...NASDAQ
How about...NASDAQ back to 2,000 or Gold $6,000?
Now that would only be in a SHTF scenario or your worst nightmare. And other peoples nightmares do not concern me. In a SHTF scenario, all the gold in the world would not help.
Now that would only be in a SHTF scenario or your worst nightmare.
That's what has always been accepted as fait accompi (sp?), but I'm not so sure it would be a SHTF EOTWAWKI scenario. The Fed has distorted the stock market significantly beyond the reality of the fundamentals, but the hoped-for utopia hasn't happened either.
In the final analysis, it's all about what people define as having value. When I watch those Mark Dice videos in which he tries to sell or give away a 1 ozer of gold without success, it makes me wonder whether value will be perceived as some type of i-chip or just a bag of Cheetos - it's really hard to predict, these days. I know what my own preconceptions are, but I'm not so sure that some other medium of value retention won't prevail.
I knew it would happen.
Nothing I can say would change your opinion so I will just emphatically state that you are wrong.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
A cursory look at the past 6 years shows a lackluster economy coupled with a rising stock market propelled by Fed liquidity and corporate stock buybacks, and a rising bond market motivated by frontrunning of the Fed's "Bernanke put".
It has mostly to do with a transfer of wealth from the earnings of middle class taxpayers and the savings of fixed income retirees - to the drug companies, insurance companies, political insiders, the banking system, and the wealthy top 0.1%.
Not much of this has anything to do with a balance between market supply & demand of manufactured goods, improving worker incomes, better satisfying consumer needs or improving the efficiency of operations.
It's mostly been about finance, and finance doesn't produce anything but it does direct the allocation of resources. I would contend that the allocations have been geared towards getting investors to "pile in" rather than to generate profits through actual work or actual production. It's become a shell game, in many cases. My perspective.
I knew it would happen.
what indications makes it look like its headed down thru 1000? I'm genuinely asking. And was going to continue buying PMs,of course.....theres the full proof indicator...when I'm buying america should be selling...
interesting..
<< <i> I will just emphatically state that you are wrong.
A cursory look at the past 6 years shows a lackluster economy coupled with a rising stock market propelled by Fed liquidity and corporate stock buybacks, and a rising bond market motivated by frontrunning of the Fed's "Bernanke put".
It has mostly to do with a transfer of wealth from the earnings of middle class taxpayers and the savings of fixed income retirees - to the drug companies, insurance companies, political insiders, the banking system, and the wealthy top 0.1%.
Not much of this has anything to do with a balance between market supply & demand of manufactured goods, improving worker incomes, better satisfying consumer needs or improving the efficiency of operations.
It's mostly been about finance, and finance doesn't produce anything but it does direct the allocation of resources. I would contend that the allocations have been geared towards getting investors to "pile in" rather than to generate profits through actual work or actual production. It's become a shell game, in many cases. My perspective. >>
comrade jmski, nuttink make cents when comrades live under alice in his Wunderland, no, hahahaha.
<< <i> I will just emphatically state that you are wrong.
A cursory look at the past 6 years shows a lackluster economy coupled with a rising stock market propelled by Fed liquidity and corporate stock buybacks, and a rising bond market motivated by frontrunning of the Fed's "Bernanke put".
It has mostly to do with a transfer of wealth from the earnings of middle class taxpayers and the savings of fixed income retirees - to the drug companies, insurance companies, political insiders, the banking system, and the wealthy top 0.1%.
Not much of this has anything to do with a balance between market supply & demand of manufactured goods, improving worker incomes, better satisfying consumer needs or improving the efficiency of operations.
It's mostly been about finance, and finance doesn't produce anything but it does direct the allocation of resources. I would contend that the allocations have been geared towards getting investors to "pile in" rather than to generate profits through actual work or actual production. It's become a shell game, in many cases. My perspective. >>
Evidence to refute each and every claim is easily available though just a little research. However, your mind is made and nothing I would post would alter your position.
Information on intermarket relationships, economic and monetary policy effects on consumer and currency markets, and relative valuation and pricing models have been discussed on this board for a decade. Sorry if you missed it.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Graham Leach Bliley was done just for the banks. The bank bailouts and TARP were done just for the banks. Forcing FASB to change their position on asset valuation was done only for the banks. QE didn't work for anyone except the banks. In past administrations, these guys would've been prosecuted but starting in 1999 the banking industry became a protected species regardless of how much they jimmied the system for their own enrichment.
If you don't understand this much and recognize the problem(s), it's only your own willful participation that colors your opinion. I can't accept your premise that corrupt banks should be protected at the expense of honest taxpayers.
I knew it would happen.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Addressing faults in an economic system is productive, no? >>
Not unless they are fixed.
The government is incapable of ever managing the economy. That is why communism collapsed. It is now socialism’s turn - Martin Armstrong
<< <i> I will just emphatically state that you are wrong.
A cursory look at the past 6 years shows a lackluster economy coupled with a rising stock market propelled by Fed liquidity and corporate stock buybacks, and a rising bond market motivated by frontrunning of the Fed's "Bernanke put".
It has mostly to do with a transfer of wealth from the earnings of middle class taxpayers and the savings of fixed income retirees - to the drug companies, insurance companies, political insiders, the banking system, and the wealthy top 0.1%.
Not much of this has anything to do with a balance between market supply & demand of manufactured goods, improving worker incomes, better satisfying consumer needs or improving the efficiency of operations.
It's mostly been about finance, and finance doesn't produce anything but it does direct the allocation of resources. I would contend that the allocations have been geared towards getting investors to "pile in" rather than to generate profits through actual work or actual production. It's become a shell game, in many cases. My perspective. >>
There is definitely some of that going on, although I'd contend that the distribution of the benefits of "success" in the economy is a little more widespread than just going to the top 0.1%.
By definition, exactly half of Americans are doing "better" than the other half. If one gets out there and travels around, they see a lot of economic activity and success among "ordinary" people, outside of evil banksters, corporate titans, and other financial moguls and string pullers. Once again, there are large percentages of people doing "worse than average" and way worse than the top earners.
When has it been otherwise? If you ask me what the problem with the lower 50% is, it's not what "they" are doing to the poor victims, it's a victim mentality that blames others for personal choices and outcomes.
For example, if someone understands full well "what's going on" and "how things work" , then why would they refuse to at least put a little capital to work in the same systems, to get a bit of benefit?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Because it appears to be too much like a Ponzi scheme and the people who should be held accountable will never be held accountable. That being the case, it seems to me that it will get worse before it gets better, and I see no reason to throw my own money into that system, especially if I think there's going to be a shakeout - which I do.
And yeah, it sure does look like precious metals investors have taken some hits while stock investors are flush. I also know what it's like to ride a precious metals boom or a high tech stock boom right up to the top. Any investor with a few decades of experience has seen these things before. Any investor who reads history also knows what can happen - both bad and good.
I'm picking my battles, Baley. I don't need the stock market, especially the one we have right now with the bankers who are running it. If they ever decide to clean it up, I'll be back. It could be awhile.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Addressing faults in an economic system is productive, no? >>
Yes, they did that in the 1930's by instituting regulations on banking and stocks. Then undid a lot of it in 1999-2001. Not productive.
They instituted new banking controls in Dodd-Frank following the financial crisis. Lobbyists for the big banks have essentially gutted 80% of those over the past few years. The 20% that's left are still being "worked on" to make them go away as well. Not productive. DF suggested making the big banks smaller. They were made even bigger than before.
Rather than addressing faults, the regulators and government seem to be addressing ways to keep the TBTF banks profitable (ie the only "flaw" they see are banks not being profitable enough). Addressing real flaws is a healthy goal. I don't see any of that happening.
What we need is another thread to wander and wonder in over the next five years.
<< <i>5,218
What we need is another thread to wander and wonder in over the next five years.
Make it a challenge....what first...NASDAQ 5,700 or gold at $1,250
The Nasdaq Composite more than quadrupled from its low (1266) and you could have
made money.
<< <i>5,218
What we need is another thread to wander and wonder in over the next five years.
Try this thread title on for size and if you like it I'll start the thread.
Gold back to $600 or NASDAQ 6,000?
<< <i>
<< <i>5,218
What we need is another thread to wander and wonder in over the next five years.
Try this thread title on for size and if you like it I'll start the thread.
Gold back to $600 or NASDAQ 6,000? >>
A realistic question at this time might be, which will occur first, Gold back to $1380 (+20%), or Nasdaq to 6260 (+20%) ?
edit: or up ( or down) ~ 10%, as OPA has suggested. Either way, gotta start from today, like the original question, which was clearly answered by participants, and the outcome determined, as time passed.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Which will occur first? And why?
(It's been over 13 years since the NASDAQ reached 5,048 and 2 years since Gold hit $1,900.)
/////
Version 2.0
It's been 6 years since the Great Recession. Gold touched $810 in 2009. Gold has trended lower since 2011. So will will the trend continue and reach its 2009 low, a haircut of approximately 25% from here or will the NAZ, which has trended upwardly since, reach 6,360...a 25% increase?
July 26, 2015
Gold - 1085
NAZ - 5088
<< <i>A realistic question at this time might be, which will occur first, Gold back to $1380 (+20%), or Nasdaq to 6260 (+20%) ? >>
As a contrarian by nature, I'll go with gold. I'm not a gold bug, but consider it just another "asset" class. Unlike gold, NASDAQ has not had a major correction since 2009 and is overdue for one, which will take it below 4,000. At that point it would require a 50% + gain to achieve $6200.
Positive BST Transactions (buyers and sellers): wondercoin, blu62vette, BAJJERFAN, privatecoin, blu62vette, AlanLastufka, privatecoin
#1 1951 Bowman Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#2 1980 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#8 (and climbing) 1972 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
Gold up almost 2% to 1147.
edit: I tried to plot "GLD" for comparison, do not know if the link works, you might have to enter your comparison security in the little box and hit enter to see the percentage changes.
Can also choose different times, 1 year, 2 year, 10 year, etc.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
NAZ @ 4,526...going the wrong way. How low will it go?
lower, until the FED reverses course and offers up a new and improved QE.
The government is incapable of ever managing the economy. That is why communism collapsed. It is now socialism’s turn - Martin Armstrong
NAZ @ 4,526...going the wrong way. How low will it go?
lower, until the FED reverses course and offers up a new and improved QE.
Love your sig comrade db. Dear Leader's timing couldn't have been any better.
///
So the question is, will the Fed be pig-headed and raise three more times as hinted or admit defeat and lower? Even if the markets replay half of the turmoil of 2008 in kind, I can't see the Fed standing pat.
NAZ @ 4,526...going the wrong way. How low will it go?
lower, until the FED reverses course and offers up a new and improved QE.
Love your sig comrade db. Dear Leader's timing couldn't have been any better.
///
So the question is, will the Fed be pig-headed and raise three more times as hinted or admit defeat and lower? Even if the markets replay half of the turmoil of 2008 in kind, I can't see the Fed standing pat.
FED's gotta squeeze oranges before they can refill the punch bowl.
The government is incapable of ever managing the economy. That is why communism collapsed. It is now socialism’s turn - Martin Armstrong
Prime the presses.
The government is incapable of ever managing the economy. That is why communism collapsed. It is now socialism’s turn - Martin Armstrong
Well, that was a bold and decisive prediction. How did he do?
The Naz did indeed break 5000 on 3/2/15, hitting a high of 5232 that year. That move proved short-lived as it dropped nearly 20% over the next several weeks. A subsequent rally over a few months took it back over 5000 for a few weeks before another nearly 20% drop over the next month. Another rally attempt failed before 5000 and sideways action for 4 months ensued. It was not until the middle of 2016 before a sustainable rally would begin and it never broke below 5000 again.
So in summary, yes it did break 5000 before mid 2016, however it really never moved and stayed above 5000 until mid 2016 and actually spent more time below 5000 than above it from Mar 2015 to July 2016. So for a prediction made 3 years earlier, I think that dude did pretty well. I'd give him a C+......Nah, thats probably a A-.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
17%+ per year average annual growth over the last 5 years running. US economy grew at ~2.4% per year during that same time period.
Says something about where all the stimulus money went after the 2008 bust.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
I re read this thread. And it appears, that the same posters who've been wrong so many times before, once again "struck out."