Gallup: Unemployment Is Actually Soaring

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You are not thinking clearly my friend. No one is going to take anything that belongs to you. Now go to work and get more!

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Please.

“They” define “what belongs to you”.

[/quote]

Sorry my friend, I don’t know how things work in Austria but here in the good old USA if you buy $10,000 worth of IBM you own that stock until you decide to sell it. And if you purchase a car for that same amount of money you own that car until you decide to sell it. So there’s no need to qualify that by claiming that “they define what belongs to you.” If you are referring to taxes that is another matter and still does NOT define what you actually own.

[/quote]

What if I’m a GM Bondholder?

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You are not thinking clearly my friend. No one is going to take anything that belongs to you. Now go to work and get more!

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Please.

“They” define “what belongs to you”.

[/quote]

Sorry my friend, I don’t know how things work in Austria but here in the good old USA if you buy $10,000 worth of IBM you own that stock until you decide to sell it. And if you purchase a car for that same amount of money you own that car until you decide to sell it. So there’s no need to qualify that by claiming that “they define what belongs to you.” If you are referring to taxes that is another matter and still does NOT define what you actually own.

[/quote]

What if I’m a GM Bondholder?[/quote]

What if you receive a paycheck and they tell you how much you get to keep?

What if you buy a house and pay for the privilege of “owning it”?

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You are not thinking clearly my friend. No one is going to take anything that belongs to you. Now go to work and get more!

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Please.

“They” define “what belongs to you”.

[/quote]

Sorry my friend, I don’t know how things work in Austria but here in the good old USA if you buy $10,000 worth of IBM you own that stock until you decide to sell it. And if you purchase a car for that same amount of money you own that car until you decide to sell it. So there’s no need to qualify that by claiming that “they define what belongs to you.” If you are referring to taxes that is another matter and still does NOT define what you actually own.

[/quote]

What if I’m a GM Bondholder?[/quote]

Do you understand what a Bond is?

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You are not thinking clearly my friend. No one is going to take anything that belongs to you. Now go to work and get more!

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Please.

“They” define “what belongs to you”.

[/quote]

Sorry my friend, I don’t know how things work in Austria but here in the good old USA if you buy $10,000 worth of IBM you own that stock until you decide to sell it. And if you purchase a car for that same amount of money you own that car until you decide to sell it. So there’s no need to qualify that by claiming that “they define what belongs to you.” If you are referring to taxes that is another matter and still does NOT define what you actually own.

[/quote]

What if I’m a GM Bondholder?[/quote]

What if you receive a paycheck and they tell you how much you get to keep?

What if you buy a house and pay for the privilege of “owning it”?

[/quote]

You are also aware BEFORE you take that job or buy that house that taxes will be imposed. Taxes, which help run the government. And the while I agree that the government (in the US) is too big and must be reduced, government is indeed needed.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You are not thinking clearly my friend. No one is going to take anything that belongs to you. Now go to work and get more!

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Please.

“They” define “what belongs to you”.

[/quote]

Sorry my friend, I don’t know how things work in Austria but here in the good old USA if you buy $10,000 worth of IBM you own that stock until you decide to sell it. And if you purchase a car for that same amount of money you own that car until you decide to sell it. So there’s no need to qualify that by claiming that “they define what belongs to you.” If you are referring to taxes that is another matter and still does NOT define what you actually own.

[/quote]

What if I’m a GM Bondholder?[/quote]

What if you receive a paycheck and they tell you how much you get to keep?

What if you buy a house and pay for the privilege of “owning it”?

[/quote]

You are also aware BEFORE you take that job or buy that house that taxes will be imposed. Taxes, which help run the government. And the while I agree that the government (in the US) is too big and must be reduced, government is indeed needed.
[/quote]

People need to work, people need to live.

If defense of HH , his point is a possibility, not only that but a viable possibility

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You are not thinking clearly my friend. No one is going to take anything that belongs to you. Now go to work and get more!

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Please.

“They” define “what belongs to you”.

[/quote]

Sorry my friend, I don’t know how things work in Austria but here in the good old USA if you buy $10,000 worth of IBM you own that stock until you decide to sell it. And if you purchase a car for that same amount of money you own that car until you decide to sell it. So there’s no need to qualify that by claiming that “they define what belongs to you.” If you are referring to taxes that is another matter and still does NOT define what you actually own.

[/quote]

What if I’m a GM Bondholder?[/quote]

They issues new bonds for every former bond holder. The name on the new bonds is ‘Ben Dover’.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You are not thinking clearly my friend. No one is going to take anything that belongs to you. Now go to work and get more!

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Please.

“They” define “what belongs to you”.

[/quote]

Sorry my friend, I don’t know how things work in Austria but here in the good old USA if you buy $10,000 worth of IBM you own that stock until you decide to sell it. And if you purchase a car for that same amount of money you own that car until you decide to sell it. So there’s no need to qualify that by claiming that “they define what belongs to you.” If you are referring to taxes that is another matter and still does NOT define what you actually own.

[/quote]

What if I’m a GM Bondholder?[/quote]

They issues new bonds for every former bond holder. The name on the new bonds is ‘Ben Dover’.
[/quote]

Do you, or the poster who brought Bonds up as an issue even know what a Bond is? If you did then you wouldn’t be mentioning it as Bonds do NOT give you ownership of anything.

All this Economics talk is funny, seriously just because you have taken a entry level Econ course doesn’t mean you know shit about how economics work let alone how effective or ineffective the fed is, i would like a actual Econ major to chime in the discussion other then just Ideologies.

[quote]optheta wrote:
All this Economics talk is funny, seriously just because you have taken a entry level Econ course doesn’t mean you know shit about how economics work let alone how effective or ineffective the fed is, i would like a actual Econ major to chime in the discussion other then just Ideologies.

[/quote]

If I am interested in econometrics and Keynesian jibber jabber I will happily turn to an economics major.

If that is any consolidation to you, I think I have pretty much all the courses I would need for an economics major, though not enough for a Masters degree.

[quote]optheta wrote:
i would like a actual Econ major to chime in…
[/quote]

Haha, maybe to answer a calculus question; not to seriously discuss economics. Universities these days (especially public universities) don’t teach economics so much as they teach to the propaganda of central planning and how to lie to the masses with statistics.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You are not thinking clearly my friend. No one is going to take anything that belongs to you. Now go to work and get more!

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Please.

“They” define “what belongs to you”.

[/quote]

Sorry my friend, I don’t know how things work in Austria but here in the good old USA if you buy $10,000 worth of IBM you own that stock until you decide to sell it. And if you purchase a car for that same amount of money you own that car until you decide to sell it. So there’s no need to qualify that by claiming that “they define what belongs to you.” If you are referring to taxes that is another matter and still does NOT define what you actually own.

[/quote]

What if I’m a GM Bondholder?[/quote]

What if you receive a paycheck and they tell you how much you get to keep?

What if you buy a house and pay for the privilege of “owning it”?

[/quote]

You are also aware BEFORE you take that job or buy that house that taxes will be imposed. Taxes, which help run the government. And the while I agree that the government (in the US) is too big and must be reduced, government is indeed needed.
[/quote]

People need to work, people need to live.

[/quote]

I agree, and people have the option of moving to a place that may have a lesser tax burden if they so choose. If you don’t like the rules then don’t play the game. It’s simple isn’t it?

[quote]optheta wrote:
All this Economics talk is funny, seriously just because you have taken a entry level Econ course doesn’t mean you know shit about how economics work let alone how effective or ineffective the fed is, i would like a actual Econ major to chime in the discussion other then just Ideologies.

[/quote]

How many economists predicted the global meltdown in 2008?

Econ = next to worthless

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
None of that matters in the slightest. Draw a horizontal line y = 20 on the chart i linked. What happened, almost all the time?
[/quote]

Of course it matters. You found an arbitrary ratio with a limited data set and used it to attempt to define a trend. You’ve ignored any other variables and assumed the data from 120 years ago is as relevant as the data today. Don’t you think there may be a reason why nobody but Robert Shiller uses the PE10? Hmmm, maybe this all has something to do with the fact that he makes money selling books, not buying and selling the market.

Check the options pricing. January '12 puts for SPY (S&P ETF) at 50% of today’s prices are going for about a quarter. 25% of today’s price for a nickel. Not much risk there, you could be a very rich man if you are right. Gonna go for it?[/quote]

Averaging the PE takes out the extremes. And he’s using historical date; do you think he made them up?

Weighted average here only has influence from the last 10 years of a data point. 120 years ago? This can’t be serious. You are grasping at straws.

The market is up roughly 95% from its 2009 low. The number of bulls is very overweight right now. Go ahead and go long – you’ll get your head handed to you.

Thanks for the tip about the puts, btw. I rarely gamble except when the odds are overwhelmingly in my favour. Those look interesting. (already have a rich wife; put her into gold shares when gold was $270/oz back in 2001. Made even more of a fucking fortune.)

"The recent â??bailoutsâ?? and failure to properly restructure the debt shows that the sovereign debt crisis is far from contained. The US recorded its biggest monthly deficit in history yesterday with a $223 billion deficit for February alone, the 29th straight month of deficits â?? a modern record. This does not bode well for the beleaguered dollar and could result in further sharp falls in the value of the dollar. Lloyds TSB’s Assetwatch survey finds gold and silver beat all other assets in 2010 due to investors looking to â??protect the value of their investments amid the renewed uncertainty over the global economic outlook including the debt concerns in the eurozone and rising inflation.â??

Zerohedge

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Averaging the PE takes out the extremes.
[/quote]
I haven’t claimed there is no merit to averaging, comparing the current PE to the historical average definitely has merit. Why didn’t you post that graph?

I’m sure he didn’t make anything up, but since the S&P 500 only dates to 1957 I am curious as to what data was used for the years before then.

I’m talking about the price data. You suggested drawing a line at y=20 and examining the trend. I say I couldn’t care less what happened 120 years ago when the PE10 was >20. There’s no straws to grasp at at all. You are attempting to define a trend based on a data set that has crossed 20 just 8 separate times, and half of those were more than 70 years ago. Without examining any of the other factors that were affecting stock prices at that time that data is nearly worthless in the context of this argument. So again, why would you use PE10 and it’s likelihood to maintain 20 instead of TTM PE and it’s likelihood to maintain 16?

Actually, interestingly enough, if you download the csv and delete everything pre 1957 (to include only the S&P500 as we commonly know it) you’ll find the average PE10 is 19.25 and the standard deviation is a whopping 7.86. What do you think the significance is when the difference between the average and current value is about half of the standard deviation? (Serious question) I’d say your relationship is likely extremely weak, but by all means, prove me wrong with a trendline that shows a decent r^2.

And weren’t you calling for it to fall further at that time? I’ve made excellent money the last two years, well over the market in fact.

There’s a wide spectrum between going long and calling for a devastating crash. Even in the realm of ‘longs’ there is quite a variance.

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Averaging the PE takes out the extremes.
[/quote]
I haven’t claimed there is no merit to averaging, comparing the current PE to the historical average definitely has merit. Why didn’t you post that graph?

I’m sure he didn’t make anything up, but since the S&P 500 only dates to 1957 I am curious as to what data was used for the years before then.

I’m talking about the price data. You suggested drawing a line at y=20 and examining the trend. I say I couldn’t care less what happened 120 years ago when the PE10 was >20. There’s no straws to grasp at at all. You are attempting to define a trend based on a data set that has crossed 20 just 8 separate times, and half of those were more than 70 years ago. Without examining any of the other factors that were affecting stock prices at that time that data is nearly worthless in the context of this argument. So again, why would you use PE10 and it’s likelihood to maintain 20 instead of TTM PE and it’s likelihood to maintain 16?

Actually, interestingly enough, if you download the csv and delete everything pre 1957 (to include only the S&P500 as we commonly know it) you’ll find the average PE10 is 19.25 and the standard deviation is a whopping 7.86. What do you think the significance is when the difference between the average and current value is about half of the standard deviation? (Serious question) I’d say your relationship is likely extremely weak, but by all means, prove me wrong with a trendline that shows a decent r^2.

And weren’t you calling for it to fall further at that time? I’ve made excellent money the last two years, well over the market in fact.

There’s a wide spectrum between going long and calling for a devastating crash. Even in the realm of ‘longs’ there is quite a variance.

[/quote]

If you think that this market is a buy, with the PE I showed you, with the 10 year yield this low, with div yields similar to the 1960’s…well, buy with both hands. Push the PE to 25, 30, 35.

PE10 of 19.25, sigma = 7.86. Okay, so the market is a hair under one std dev above the mean, using your current data. Even using YOUR numbers, you’re buying? My numbers scream ‘Sell’, your numbers say ‘Sell’.

Your data are skewed anyway; earnings ‘growth’ for the past 20 years or so is from the financials (ie leverage). No way that continues; there’s no one left to take on debt load.

Yep, crash coming.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Yep, crash coming.
[/quote]

You’ve been saying that for a while now HH, and nothing yet - Care to give us the year?

[quote]optheta wrote:
All this Economics talk is funny, seriously just because you have taken a entry level Econ course doesn’t mean you know shit about how economics work let alone how effective or ineffective the fed is, i would like a actual Econ major to chime in the discussion other then just Ideologies.

[/quote]

Federal Reserve or Federal government?

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You are not thinking clearly my friend. No one is going to take anything that belongs to you. Now go to work and get more!

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Please.

“They” define “what belongs to you”.

[/quote]

Sorry my friend, I don’t know how things work in Austria but here in the good old USA if you buy $10,000 worth of IBM you own that stock until you decide to sell it. And if you purchase a car for that same amount of money you own that car until you decide to sell it. So there’s no need to qualify that by claiming that “they define what belongs to you.” If you are referring to taxes that is another matter and still does NOT define what you actually own.

[/quote]

What if I’m a GM Bondholder?[/quote]

What if you receive a paycheck and they tell you how much you get to keep?

What if you buy a house and pay for the privilege of “owning it”?

[/quote]

You are also aware BEFORE you take that job or buy that house that taxes will be imposed. Taxes, which help run the government. And the while I agree that the government (in the US) is too big and must be reduced, government is indeed needed.
[/quote]

People need to work, people need to live.

[/quote]

I agree, and people have the option of moving to a place that may have a lesser tax burden if they so choose. If you don’t like the rules then don’t play the game. It’s simple isn’t it?[/quote]

Both of you are idiots right now.