|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I'll echo this sentiment as well. Here's
one of many links on the net to information on that era: <A
href=""><FONT face=Verdana
size=2>http://history.searchbeat.com/greatdepression.htm<FONT
face=Verdana size=2>.
I just love the drivel I hear from political
hacks that compare Bush to Hoover. The only thing they have in
common is impeccably bad timing as they both took office after a financial
bubble collapsed. We also had a little something called 9/11 18
months after the bubble collapsed and 7 months after Bush took office. But
what's really funny/sad is that Bush and his team took a completely different
approach than Hoover which in my view averted a disaster, while kerry and his
ambulance chasing buddy will most certainly adopt a Hooveresque style
tax/spend/regulate approach in sync with their life-long voting records (unless
you believe that mystical, magical transformation we just saw in Boston which I
call "The Sting III").
Right now there's an obvious negative correlation
between the price of oil and the stock market...see attached chart. And if
you look at a long term chart of oil and compare it to a long term GDP
chart you can see that previous spikes in oil have preceded economic
downturns/recessions. There's also an obvious negative correlation between
kerry's poll numbers and the stock market so the markets are simply discounting
a kerry win along with an economic slowdown which is already underway.
Whether this is just a soft spot or something
more ominous only time will tell, but it's hard to imagine the economy picking
up anytime soon given the "perfect storm" we seem to find ourselves in at the
moment. Plus we have greenspan raising rates in this environment
which would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Things can change quickly, but if you had to
place your bets today it would be hard to put them on Bush so it appears the
politicos may actually be right about a 2nd coming of Hoover
- it's just going to be kerry. Funny how things work out
sometimes.
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Bob Jagow
To: <A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 12:05
AM
Subject: RE: [RT] Fwd: Bond and S&P
update - $18 crude oil
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Right on, Clyde.
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>
The
real stoke of genius was to give the money to the top 1% because,
given <FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>trickle-down's inefficiency, a larger cut can be
justified.
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff>Bob
<SPAN
class=961585204-08082004>
<SPAN
class=961585204-08082004> -----Original
Message-----From: Clyde Lee(clc)
[mailto:clydelee@xxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 7:37
PMTo: <A
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject:
Re: [RT] Fwd: Bond and S&P update - $18 crude
oil
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="jpg00054.jpg"
border=0>
Attachment:
Oil-spx.gif
Description: GIF image
Attachment:
GDP.gif
Attachment:
Description: "Description: GIF image"
Attachment:
Description: "Oil.gif"
Attachment:
Description: "Attachment:"
Attachment:
Description: "Description: GIF image"
|