|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
It always amazes me when those who did not
participate
IN the 1930's problem cannot see the unbelievable
facility
that the current administration has had for averting a
similar
fiasco.
I'm a Texan and I know Bush is not a genius at
economic
policy BUT HE HAS HAD THE SENSE TO LISTEN TO
THOSE
HE HIRES AS ADVISORS WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO
KNOW WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES/REWARDS ARE
FOR A GIVEN SET OF POLICIES.
In my mind, Norman's evaluation of the situation is
something
to be applauded and used as a basis for further
investment
considerations.
Clyde
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Clyde
Lee
Chairman/CEO (Home of
SwingMachine)SYTECH
Corporation email: <A
href="">clydelee@xxxxxxxxxxxx 7910
Westglen, Suite 105
Office: (713) 783-9540Houston, TX
77063
Fax: (713) 783-1092Details
at:
www.theswingmachine.com- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Norman
Winski
To: <A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 8:54
PM
Subject: Re: [RT] Fwd: Bond and S&P
update - $18 crude oil
DG,
I am talking about the closest thing to
the 2000 Stock Market Bubble top was 1929. Had Greenspan
and the Bush administration not engaged in a
campaign of aggressive spending and massive fiscal
expansion, it is very likely we would have had a
1930s style depression. In contrast to Bush and Greenspan, at the 1929
top, the Fed and the Hoover administration pursued a balanced budget policy
and relatively tight fiscal policy. Of course, there are no free
rides. The stimulative policy of Bush and Greenspan traded a sharp
economic downtown in exchange for time. It will take many years to pay
off
the debt incurred, which will no doubt somewhat
hamper future economic growth. However, given the probable outcomes,
that was the lesser of the two evils when we consider the possibility for a
1930s style depression or a 1990s stuck in a rut Japanese style economy.
Regards,
Norman
Regards,
Norman
----- Original Message -----
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
>
<DIV
>From:
Dan
Goncharoff
To: <A
title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 9:24
PM
Subject: Re: [RT] Fwd: Bond and S&P
update - $18 crude oil
I am quite sure I don't understand your question.The
depression of the 1930s was caused by raised tariffs that choked off world
trade -- a form of anti-globalization in extremis. There was no threat
of that recently, and therefore no lurking depression to avert.I
also do not understand the phrase "major generational bubble collapse". I
know tech stocks collapsed, but I don;t see where that is "generational".
Housing, which is certainly generational, hasn't collapsed. What are you
really talking about?RegardsDanGNorman Winski wrote:
Mark,
Since you brought it up,
perhaps you could elaborate on why you think Bush averting a 1930s style
depression coming off a major generational bubble collapse represents a
disastrous track record?
Thanks,
Norman
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
<DIV
>-----
Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Mark
Simms
<DIV
>To:
<A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV
>Sent:
Saturday, August 07, 2004 7:29 PM
<DIV
>Subject:
RE: [RT] Fwd: Bond and S&P update - $18 crude oil
IMHO only
in conjunction with a severe worldwide recession or depression will we
see that $18 price.
But given
Japan's and Bush's disasterous economic track record, it's a
possibility.
Wild card
is China...will they make dumb policy decisions ?
Russia
has already proven it's stupidity.
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
>
<FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----From: mr.ira [<A
class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="">mailto:mr.ira@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent:
Saturday, August 07, 2004 2:52 PMTo: <A
class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject:
Re: [RT] Fwd: Bond and S&P update
We saw it several years back and we could
see it again. It is $3 oil that we will never see again in our
life time. One can thank Henry Kissinger for that one.
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
<DIV
>-----
Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Mark
Simms
<DIV
>To:
<A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV
>Sent:
Saturday, August 07, 2004 10:47 AM
<DIV
>Subject:
RE: [RT] Fwd: Bond and S&P update
Bear market $18 crude oil....will we see that in
our lifetime ?> -----Original Message----->
From: topos8 [<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="">mailto:topos8@xxxxxxx]>
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 10:32 AM> To: <A
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [RT] Fwd: Bond and S&P update>>>
--- In <A
href="">gannsghost@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
"topos8" <topos8@x...>
wrote:> I last updated my bond and stock forecasts in GG#
26884, May 13, 2004.>> At the moment my square of 9
calculations say that the S&P's will> make a low at 1055
this week and then rally to or above the 1200>
level.>> The market has completed the three peaks part
of a George Lindsay> style, "three peaks and a domed house
formation" (March, April and> June are the three peaks in the
S&P) and the current break is the> separating decline.
Normally the subsequent rally that traces out the> domed
house part of the pattern ends the bull market and also ends>
what Lindsay called a basic advance. However, my calculations
using> Linday's guidelines say that the current basic advance
began in March> 2003 and is likely to last into the second
half of 2005. Even an 8> month rally (the typical duration of
a "domed house" rally) from a> low now would not last into
the second half of 2005.>> I think this conflict will
be resolved in one of two ways.>> The first way is the
pattern I have been expecting for the past year.> In this
pattern the March top is iself only the first peak of a>
larger three peaks formation that lasts through the end of 2004;
in> this scenario the second peak still lies ahead (early
November 2004> and about 1250 in the S&P?) and the third
peak (January 2005 ?) will> be lower than the second. After
the third peak in January 2005 the> separating decline will
carry to 1075 in the S&P and last 1-3 months> from the
third peak. After the 1075 low we then will see a domed>
house rally that carries the S&P up to 1350 in the fall of
2005.>> The second resolution is becoming more and
more likely given the> degree of pessism I currently think I
see in public investment> perceptions. In this scenario, the
market rallies to 1350 in April-> June of 2005, then goes
into a 6 month trading range (something like> March-September
2000) and then begins a new bear market.>> In either
scenario I expect the next bear market to extend through>
most of 2006 and carry the S&P from about 1350 down into the
850-950> range.>> In my May 13 message I said
that the bonds were about to begin a> rally from the 103
level in the futures that would last 4-8 weeks and> carry the
market up no more that 6 points. In the event we have seen> a
rally that has carried the market up nearly nine points over a
12> week span.>> I now think that this bond
rally is nearly over. I can see the bonds> moving up a bit
more into the 112-00 to 112-16 range(vs. a high of> 111-26
yesterday) but first the market will probably drop to
109-08.> The 10 year notes reached the 113-10 level yesterday
and have the> potential to get to get up to 114-16. First
they will probably drop> to 111-16. The next big downleg will
probably carry the bonds down> into the 100-102 range and
that may well be the bear market low for> bonds. The
notes will drop to 104 but I think lower lows for the> notes
will evntually be seen as the yield curve continues to
flatten> substantially.>> I thought crude would
top in the $41-42 range in May but all we got> was a break to
$35. I now think that the bull market high will occur> in the
$45-47 range and that the next bear market will carry down
to> $18.>> Carl> --- End forwarded
message --->>>>>>>
Yahoo! Groups
Links>>>>>>
-- <IMG
src="jpg00052.jpg"
border=0>
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtraders/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Attachment:
Description: ""
|