"I'm not going to debate with someone who says that 2 + 2 does not equal 4."

Jeez, what's your problem? Someone disagrees with you and they're instantly an idiot. I could say the same about your target of 250 on the S&P. I'm sure that's based on some sort of mathematical equation, right? Did 2+2 equal 4 there?

Sheesh

"Yes you are.

You're arguing that the math is wrong and refusing to recognize how the market rose to where it is now.

This is CNBS-style "analysis" - I like the market because it's going up, so I'll buy buy buy.

Ok. It worked well in 2008 after all.
"

How much debt did the govt sell in 2009? How much did rates go up?

It's all good guys. Oil is running because the economy is so strong...even in the face of a higher dollar. Bonds are collapsing because the economy is so strong. And equities are rallying because life is great once again.

Your can paint the lips on this pig any color you wish, but the bottom line is that enough of the world believes we are experiencing a massive recovery that whathever the detractors think doesn't matter.

And the people who control 99% of everything in this market are going to ensure that it stays "healthy" regardless of how you spin the numbers.

Quote:

Jeez, what's your problem? Someone disagrees with you and they're instantly an idiot.

You're not "disagreeing" with me, you're arguing that the root cause didn't happen when the evidence is right in front of you in the form of official government documents that proves it did.

The sum total of all sales in the economy = GDP. That's what GDP IS!

Yes, you're an idiot if you try to claim that the government didn't replace 12% of GDP last year, when every week they announced and sold debt to do so, that debt is tallied up on the Treasury's web page, and what they spent it on is clearly delineated through the bills that are reported out and passed, all being reported on in the press on a daily basis.

This is FIRST grade math - addition.

Willful ignorance of how that GDP was generated, what distortions (if any) are present, and what conditions must continue for GDP (and thus corporate sales which in turn flow to profits) to continue is intentional and willful idiocy.

Buying a market on the premise of "reasonable valuations" when fully 12% of GDP is present ONLY as a consequence of that government deficit spending without making a case for its ability to continue IS, IN MY OPINION, OUTRIGHT STUPID.

It is EXACTLY this same idiocy that got people DESTROYED - without warning - in 2000.

Oil is running because the speculators have been "turned loose." JMO.

If all the bulls get banned, then we'll be in an echo chamber, twiddling our puds. Also I have noticed on this blog that when a few bulls show up, or people express some doubts about the bearish case, we are near a correction.

"You're not "disagreeing" with me, you're arguing that the root cause didn't happen when the evidence is right in front of you in the form of official government documents that proves it did."

I'd actually argue that the reason a rally occurs in a market has more to do with everyone that was in the market from the long side selling and there being no sellers left.

And I'd also argue that today's close on the S&P 500 of 1,187.44 is about oh 1,000 points higher than 210.53. But then again, I'm just some idiot that doesn't know how to add 2+2, that doesn't bold every word he writes for extra emphasis, and that doesn't blindly ignore positive things going on in the economy because my opinion absolutely has to be correct.

Gen wrote:

Quote:

It is EXACTLY this same idiocy that got people DESTROYED - without warning - in 2000.

On the other hand how many bears have been destroyed since March 09, sticking to the Math?. So far TF's cause and effect arguments such as, if Fed buys MBS, Dollar will crash etc., have not materialized. This is just one example. I am not arguing with math, but without trading experience and skills, one can blowup their account even when math is right. As I said in the Bar, based on math if a conservative trader steps out of the market then its fine. If one plays the market based on math, well... It appears the market kills bears for a while and then kills bulls for while.. rinse, repeat.

I am bringing in trading because the discussion is revolving around relationship between math and trading results.

it is "team on fuego" or "te amo en fuego" (I love you on fire)?

Team - maybe you should "get out" more...

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/blame-i....
It seems traders are just waiting for the day when 10 blocks of ES move the market by 10%, and represent all the daily volume. Because at this rate we will get there in less than a year, just in time for the Dow to hit 36,000. At 0.751MM ESM0 volume is 40% below the trendline average by this point in the day. In a week we would be at half; in a year - 99%? The Prime Dealers and Liberty 33 is more than happy with this: it simply means much less capital has to be allocated to push the market in any one direction as moves in the broader market now have absolutely no breadth.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/blame-i....
It seems traders are just waiting for the day when 10 blocks of ES move the market by 10%, and represent all the daily volume. Because at this rate we will get there in less than a year, just in time for the Dow to hit 36,000. At 0.751MM ESM0 volume is 40% below the trendline average by this point in the day. In a week we would be at half; in a year - 99%? The Prime Dealers and Liberty 33 is more than happy with this: it simply means much less capital has to be allocated to push the market in any one direction as moves in the broader market now have absolutely no breadth. "

I stopped paying attention to Zero Hedge a year ago and I'm glad I did. I'd be broke otherwise.

@Teamonfuego

What do higher lending cost, tax increases from ObamaCare, and higher energy cost mean for equities or unemployment.

Because that is what I'm seeing in the future today.

Rally on.

Quote:

I stopped paying attention to Zero Hedge a year ago and I'm glad I did. I'd be broke otherwise.

uhhh - I thought it was an unwritten rule that you dont use logical arguments or economics to trade? That stuff only works in the Looooong haul, assuming something doesnt come out of left field to blow away your arguments, which half the time it does. Maybe thats just the way I think? I never thought that a bearish economic argument meant that I should start shorting - it just means that I have to be aware of the fact that *some day* barring printing or some such there will probably be a crash/downtrend resumption so I better be hedged or small/tight stop if long and take what profits I have when I have them, and not assume things will come back to breakeven if I suddenly find myself in the red. Long term thinking is dead in this market IMHO anyway - too F'in dangerous to try to see past tomorrow or next week.

I never understand why people fail to read. The Ticker has never been a short-term trading tool.

If you want my view in the short term get a Gold Star and watch the videos and/or read TICKS.

Another contrarian indicator here - a gloating bull. You don't see THAT very often here.

heh we have seen gloating bulls here for months now

I must have them on ignore, eternal.

There's a difference between being bullish and just pointing out an opposing view to everyone's doomsday scenarios.

either that's a lie or your previous posts are.

One or two more rate increases and I would say we have a problem.

Let's see what happens.

Tick-tick-tick.

Congrats on your superior investing skills team! Come on back in a few months and we'll compare notes. The whole B.S. rally is on low volume and was built on smoke and mirrors and creative accounting. Every non-pigman person I know is hurting financially. Jobs are being lost right and left. States and municipalities are bankrupt. Oil and commods breaking out and you call this evidence of a recovery. Jobless recovery my $SS.

Nothing more dangerous than an analyst with a ruler.

Uh, G_Hedge..

Quote:

On the other hand how many bears have been destroyed since March 09, sticking to the Math?

If they didn't wait until 2009 to become bears then.. none? They're slightly above break-even probably? Yes if you went short in March 09 that was a bad idea. Hell the bulls have been "destroyed" for 10 years and still are if you arbitrarily assume they went long in 2000.. And that's in NOMINAL terms!

Morla,

That is kind of my point as well... both bears and bulls can pick some point in time and say that the other side got destroyed. Having the right math or wrong math doesn't seem to matter as much as the ability to read the market, as for successful trading is concerned. The problem is math doesn't manifest itself in the market all the time, therein lies the rub. Who's to say when math will or will not manifest in the market. The pure economic math does not factor in trading variables such as margin calls, limited life of options etc.,

"I never understand why people fail to read. The Ticker has never been a short-term trading tool."

Genesis - At what point do you agree that your long term target of 210.53 on the S&P 500 is wrong? Since you're busy calling people idiots when they disagree with something you write, I figured I'd ask you this...