Obama FTW

[crb]

Is there anyone here who still refuses to admit that the stock market is a futures market and that politicians, even when not in power, can influence it?

Here is a timeline...

McCain gets a bounce from the convention, stock market starts going up

Obama regains lead, stock market waivers

Obama pulls ahead by larger margin, stock market goes down big.

McCain claws back, race tightens with Obama still in the lead, starts going up moderately again.

Obama wins election, stock market falls off a cliff.

Obama does nothing, stock market continues to suck. 1 up day in a couple weeks, the one day being a day Bush gave a speech defending free market principles heading into the G20 meeting.

Obama gives a news conferences, starts to trot out his economic team centrist or even fiscally conservative people. Market goes up

Obama gives another confererence next trading day, which started down, after his conference, it is back up. More centrists.

Obama gives another conference the next day, up again, and his people start saying that he just might not raise taxes afterall.

The next day market starts down, Obama gives another conference, picks Paul Volcker (Fed Chairman under Reagan) to head his economic policy council, market makes a 200 point reversal, and is currently up.


Now before you rip me for being anti-Obama, I approve of what he is doing, he is making all the right moves. It appears that during the election the pandering he did was to the left, not the middle. Its great.

But, I just wanted to point how just how much affect he can have on things.

Also, I think this is a very good sign. a 4 day winning streak hasn't happened in a VERY long time. This'll be on the evening news assuming it stays green through today. That means, going into the biggest shopping day of the year, people will have a good sign on the economy, that could result in more holiday spending starting on Friday, which'll push the market up even more once the measurements are out. This could be the turnaround. And why? Because Obama picked fiscal conservatives and centrists for his economic people and said he wouldn't raise taxes. Way to go Barack.

[Kembal]

I highly doubt a 4 day increase in the stock market will result in a bump in holiday sales. You're kind of ignoring that people lost 50% or more of the value in their portfolios in the first place. The outlook for the economy is still very pessimistic. I'd expect a small wave of layoffs next week, and a huge wave after the first week of January. People are going to save money with those expectations.

[Keller]

Wait a minute. I thought we elected Karl Marx?

Khariz? Mabus? Care to comment?

I never saw Obama as being anything less than pragmatic. He's been extremely pragmatic over the last couple of weeks.

[Sean of the Thread]

Argh

[CrazyEyesMcKinney]

Wait a minute. I thought we elected Karl Marx?

Khariz? Mabus? Care to comment?

I never saw Obama as being anything less than pragmatic. He's been extremely pragmatic over the last couple of weeks.

I thought we elected (instead of me, FUCK YOU ALL) a Indonesian-born Muslim terrorist baby-slaughtering communist.

[DeV]

I thought we elected (instead of me, FUCK YOU ALL) a Indonesian-born Muslim terrorist baby-slaughtering communist.Go hunting with Dick Cheney please.

[CrazyEyesMcKinney]

Go hunting with Dick Cheney please.

I would never hunt! I don't kill animals and don't eat anything that casts a shadow.

[Hulkein]

I never saw Obama as being anything less than pragmatic. He's been extremely pragmatic over the last couple of weeks.

Yup, part of the reason why I wasn't dreading him winning.

[crb]

Wait a minute. I thought we elected Karl Marx?

Khariz? Mabus? Care to comment?

I never saw Obama as being anything less than pragmatic. He's been extremely pragmatic over the last couple of weeks.
I followed the primaries very closely, and his race to beat Hillary to the left made me question him.

I'm very pleased that I was wrong about him (thus far).

[crb]

I highly doubt a 4 day increase in the stock market will result in a bump in holiday sales. You're kind of ignoring that people lost 50% or more of the value in their portfolios in the first place. The outlook for the economy is still very pessimistic. I'd expect a small wave of layoffs next week, and a huge wave after the first week of January. People are going to save money with those expectations.
I disagree. Consumers have short memories and sentiment is easily swayed. Already consumer confidence is on the uptick (still low, but increasing), unemployment has declined, slightly as well as announced this morning too.

Many people don't even think about shopping until Thanksgiving, so they'll be sitting there, thinking, and the most recent economic news on their mind will be that the markets had a record week on the upside.

Its got to help, at least a little bit.

[Kranar]

Also, I think this is a very good sign. a 4 day winning streak hasn't happened in a VERY long time.


The probability of a 4 day winning streak on the stock market is precisely 6.25% regardless of economic conditions, regardless of who is in power, regardless of anything for that matter. This is just pure and basic math, you know, that ancient superstition that only those academic elites give a damn about.

But assuming this... math... thing may be relevant, that means one should expect a 4 day winning streak once every 30 days in which the stock market is open, or on average, once every month and a half.

Oh... wait a minute... guess what? The last 4 day winning streak on the stock market started October 30th. Oh, and the one before that? July 15th. And the one before that? May 23rd...

In seven months... there have been 4 instances of a 4-day winning streak on the stock market. Dear God that's exactly what the math predicts!

Meh... probably just a coincidence... after all, math is boring. It's much more entertaining to extrapolate things like Obama having a day to day effect on the stock market. Afterall, Obama is to blame for the worsening of this financial crisis...

Hey, I got a haircut on the same week that these stock rallies occured... maybe I should get my haircut more often.

[Gan]

Except for his pending Hillary appointment, I have no issue with his progress so far.

Lets see what happens after January 20th.

[Daniel]

I disagree. Consumers have short memories and sentiment is easily swayed. Already consumer confidence is on the uptick (still low, but increasing), unemployment has declined, slightly as well as announced this morning too.

Many people don't even think about shopping until Thanksgiving, so they'll be sitting there, thinking, and the most recent economic news on their mind will be that the markets had a record week on the upside.

Its got to help, at least a little bit.

You do realize that the Republican Party's underestimation of the American Public's intelligence was one of the main reasons why they lost the election right?

[Sean of the Thread]

I love math I just suck at it.

[Jorddyn]

Hey, I got a haircut on the same week that these stock rallies occured... maybe I should get my haircut more often.

If you can show that's the cause for the performance of my portfolio this past week, I'll pay for daily haircuts for you :)

[crb]

The probability of a 4 day winning streak on the stock market is precisely 6.25% regardless of economic conditions, regardless of who is in power, regardless of anything for that matter. This is just pure and basic math, you know, that ancient superstition that only those academic elites give a damn about.

But assuming this... math... thing may be relevant, that means one should expect a 4 day winning streak once every 30 days in which the stock market is open, or on average, once every month and a half.

Oh... wait a minute... guess what? The last 4 day winning streak on the stock market started October 30th. Oh, and the one before that? July 15th. And the one before that? May 23rd...

In seven months... there have been 4 instances of a 4-day winning streak on the stock market. Dear God that's exactly what the math predicts!

Meh... probably just a coincidence... after all, math is boring. It's much more entertaining to extrapolate things like Obama having a day to day effect on the stock market. Afterall, Obama is to blame for the worsening of this financial crisis...

Hey, I got a haircut on the same week that these stock rallies occured... maybe I should get my haircut more often.
I swear you are the biggest douche on the planet. You get so frothy at the mouth wanting to dispute anything I post you end up just looking like an ignorant twit.

You can overlay the tick by tick market on top of an Obama press conference and see changes that directly coincide to things he says. Just like you can with a company's earnings call. You get on the call, the CEO says revenue was up, instantly the stock price ticks up, then the CEO says that they're reducing their guidance going forward, instantly the stock price ticks down.

You can do it with statements from Paulson and Bernanke. You can do it with employment data, you can do it with any information out there. When the news reported that Saudi Oil tanker was captured by pirates, oil instantly traded up.

I'm starting to think Kranar you're just like 16 year old kid, for you to claim you're in the business and really not know that information and national news affects the markets. You're going to sit here and say the announcement of the people who are going to be the chairman of the fed, the treasury secretary, and all the other muckety mucks in our federal governments doesn't have an affect?

I get it Kranar, you don't like me, but really, disputing that just makes you look retarded.

The notion that the markets went up because probability told them too is also wrong. Thats like saying it gets cold in December because going back through history the probability that December is cold in the northern hemisphere is high. December gets cold because of the orientation of the northern hemisphere towards the sun changes.

Its like saying that because a baseball player hit .300 in the past, they will always hit .300 in the future.

And, there wasn't a 4 day winning streak at the end of October. Oct 29th was down, Oct 30th up, 31st up, 2 weekend days, monday Nov 3rd was down. Time to recheck that model.

The tail doesn't wag the dog.

[Daniel]

Man you're stupid.

[TheEschaton]

BTW, I don't think anyone here ever said the market is a futures-based system, I think people were saying (or at least, I've always felt this way) that a system set up like that is fucking retarded.

-TheE-

[crb]

Man you're stupid.
Stupid is assigning cause to a probability.

Stupid is saying national economic policy has no bearing on the national economy.

[Daniel]

What policy has been changed?

Right.

[Keller]

What policy has been changed?

Right.

Uhhh, it's a forward looking market.

Obama is putting a pragmatic economic team that will steady the ship instead of rocking it.

[Daniel]

Uhhh, it's a forward looking market.

Obama is putting a pragmatic economic team that will steady the ship instead of rocking it.

So you believe that the stock market tanked because Obama was leading in the polls and elected and it has now reversed because he named long term advisors to key positions within the economy?

[Keller]

So you believe that the stock market tanked because Obama was leading in the polls and elected and it has now reversed because he named long term advisors to key positions within the economy?

No to the first, yes to the second.

With regard to the first: in a normal market, individuals would be selling appreciated capital assets (stock) to lock in their book gain at the lower capital gains rate (under the assumption that Obama is going to raise it). They would hold on to their depreciated capital assets (to offset future capital gains at the higher rate). And the would be reinvesting the revenue from the sale of the appreciated capital assets because the capital gain rate is still lower than their marginal income rate, even if Obama raised it.

[Tea & Strumpets]

You do realize that the Republican Party's underestimation of the American Public's intelligence was one of the main reasons why they lost the election right?

I don't think that was the reason. I'm still not convinced of the political/economic/international/whatever intelligence of "any country's" general population. Most people are too immersed in day to day life to have an informed opinion, and I tend to wear a tin foil hat while watching the general news and assume I'm only getting a vague picture of the real story.

[crb]

Uhhh, it's a forward looking market.

Obama is putting a pragmatic economic team that will steady the ship instead of rocking it.

Bingo.

If a football coach pulls his backs and puts in 5 receivers, even before he runs a play, you can be fairly sure he is going to pass.

Obama's picks lets you know how he will govern and since, as Keller said, it is forward looking, the market reacts.

Like with gas... gas prices rose in anticipation of the hurricanes this fall, because of speculative worry that production would be shut down. The markets don't wait until events happen to react, they always try to hedge against such events beforehand.

[crb]

Hey Kranar good chap, the last S&P 4 day gain streak was May. Just fyi.

[Kranar]

I'm starting to think Kranar you're just like 16 year old kid, for you to claim you're in the business and really not know that information and national news affects the markets. You're going to sit here and say the announcement of the people who are going to be the chairman of the fed, the treasury secretary, and all the other muckety mucks in our federal governments doesn't have an affect?


I'm saying it has no explanatory power. It's nice rhetoric, blame Obama for a worsening financial crisis because of a speech, and then praise him another day because of another speech, then blame him, then praise him, yaddy yadda... but as far as making money goes, which is what most people care about, knowing that Obama is going to give a speech or that Bernanke is going to say something has absolutely NO value in determining how the stock market will react to it.

Explanatory power, not rhetoric. No matter how much rhetoric you use to claim that AIG will be a profitable company and this financial crisis will go away in 16 more months, it just ain't gonna happen.



I get it Kranar, you don't like me, but really, disputing that just makes you look retarded.

If it's how people look or appear that you wish to debate, believe me, you're by far considered one of the biggest douche bags on these forums.



The notion that the markets went up because probability told them too is also wrong.

Probability doesn't tell things to do things. Probability tells you the frequency with which a phenomenon occurs. It informs you of how regular something is.

The probability that the stock market will go up 4 days in a row is 0.0625. That is a mathematical and empirical fact that you can verify for yourself using a chart. Heck, use the following chart for all I care:

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=spy

This happens irrespective of political party, what year it is, what the weather is and whether Obama is giving a speech or not.

So the question is, what is the relevence of such an observation?

It's that while you can pinpoint individual speeches where the stock market happens to go up and then individual speeches where the stock market happens to go down, you will be unable to draw any statistically significant conclusion based on those observations to assist you in FUTURE decisions.

Over a long period of time, a large enough sample space, there will be REGULARITY in the stock market such that the probability of Obama giving a speech and the market going up is 50%, and Obama giving a speech and the market going down is 50%, and over a 30 day period you're going to get 4 days in a row of the market going up and so on so forth...

Regularity... it's how you assess whether a hypothesis of yours has any explanatory power. If your hypothesis affects the regularity of an assumption, then the hypothesis has empirical value. Otherwise... it doesn't.

[crb]

The world according to Kranar...

The stock market doesn't care about the economic outlook.

National economic policy has no bearing on the economic outlook.

The people making economic policy have no bearing on the type of policy they make.

Words said by a president elect are ignored by the market because he is not president yet.


None of these make sense Kranar. Ask any rational person who isn't merely trying to measure cock sizes on a message board if they make sense and they'll say "Of course not."

I suppose in your fantasy world Kranar if say... Pelosi said she wants to introduce a bill right away next year making solar panels free (100% government subsidy), and then Harry Reid says he likes it and will make it his top priority too, and then Obama says that he would love to sign it once he is in office. Then of course solar panel stocks went up. I suppose Kranar if I said the sector went up because of what Pelosi, Reid, and Obama said you'd call me a douche and say it is merely probability causing it?

Just because you can measure things and come up with probabilities, averages, and all other sorts of statistics does NOT mean those chances are the cause of the event. Was the market crash after 9/11 caused by a probability?

REAL events shape markets Kranar, and the announcement of an entire new economic team to lead our country is a REAL event.

[crb]

It's that while you can pinpoint individual speeches where the stock market happens to go up and then individual speeches where the stock market happens to go down, you will be unable to draw any statistically significant conclusion based on those observations to assist you in FUTURE decisions.

HOLD THE PHONE! Did you just say I was right? I can point to a speech as the cause of a rally? Well shit, thanks Kranar!

You can keep talking about predicting future market direction all you want, that is just a strawman, not anything I brought up. I posted a reason for why things have happened, not a system for predicting what will happen in the future (other than I think consumer confidence will increase). I never said you'll see the market go up every time Obama talks, merely that this information coming from him the past 4 trading days has helped push things up.

Thanks for conceding the point.

[g++]

The world according to Kranar...

The stock market doesn't care about the economic outlook.

National economic policy has no bearing on the economic outlook.

The people making economic policy have no bearing on the type of policy they make.

Words said by a president elect are ignored by the market because he is not president yet.


None of these make sense Kranar. Ask any rational person who isn't merely trying to measure cock sizes on a message board if they make sense and they'll say "Of course not."

I suppose in your fantasy world Kranar if say... Pelosi said she wants to introduce a bill right away next year making solar panels free (100% government subsidy), and then Harry Reid says he likes it and will make it his top priority too, and then Obama says that he would love to sign it once he is in office. Then of course solar panel stocks went up. I suppose Kranar if I said the sector went up because of what Pelosi, Reid, and Obama said you'd call me a douche and say it is merely probability causing it?

Just because you can measure things and come up with probabilities, averages, and all other sorts of statistics does NOT mean those chances are the cause of the event. Was the market crash after 9/11 caused by a probability?

REAL events shape markets Kranar, and the announcement of an entire new economic team to lead our country is a REAL event.

Your original post stated the market has not increased 4 days straight in a long time as proof that the economy was improving under the new regime, Kranar pointed out there is a reasonable chance that will happen under any circumstances by pointing out if you flip a coin 4 times the odds of it coming up heads 4 times straight is reasonable(6.25%). Your stating causality without any real proof.

[SHAFT]

I would never hunt! I don't kill animals and don't eat anything that casts a shadow.

Mmmmmm.....steak.....cooked medium......pink center......

[SHAFT]

You do realize that the Republican Party's underestimation of the American Public's intelligence was one of the main reasons why they lost the election right?

Can you blame them for underestimating our intelligence? I didn't, but lots of people voted Bush into a 2nd term. I can see why they think the American public isn't bright.

[thefarmer]

That means, going into the biggest shopping day of the year, people will have a good sign on the economy, that could result in more holiday spending starting on Friday, which'll push the market up even more once the measurements are out.

I don't look at the stock market to figure out how much money I'm going to spend on 'holiday shopping'. I look at my bank account.

I imagine a large majority of people in the US do the same.

[Keller]

I don't look at the stock market to figure out how much money I'm going to spend on 'holiday shopping'. I look at my bank account.

I imagine a large majority of people in the US do the same.

His point is that people have different requirements on their banking reserves depending on their outlook for the economy. If we had seen the Dow lose another 1000 instead of gaining 1000, people wouldn't spend shit this weekend.

[thefarmer]

His point is that people have different requirements on their banking reserves depending on their outlook for the economy. If we had seen the Dow lose another 1000 instead of gaining 1000, people wouldn't spend shit this weekend.

I got his point, I just disagree.

The Dow has no bearing on how much money I'm going to spend.

Edit: To clarify that, I'm sure that some people use the dow as an indicator as to how much to spend, and how much to keep in savings, etc, but I think a larger majority of people don't.

[Keller]

I got his point, I just disagree.

The Dow has no bearing on how much money I'm going to spend.

So you've not been saving more and spending less in the last few months?

[Hulkein]

The probability of a 4 day winning streak on the stock market is precisely 6.25% regardless of economic conditions, regardless of who is in power, regardless of anything for that matter. This is just pure and basic math, you know, that ancient superstition that only those academic elites give a damn about.

But assuming this... math... thing may be relevant, that means one should expect a 4 day winning streak once every 30 days in which the stock market is open, or on average, once every month and a half.

Oh... wait a minute... guess what? The last 4 day winning streak on the stock market started October 30th. Oh, and the one before that? July 15th. And the one before that? May 23rd...

In seven months... there have been 4 instances of a 4-day winning streak on the stock market. Dear God that's exactly what the math predicts!

Meh... probably just a coincidence... after all, math is boring. It's much more entertaining to extrapolate things like Obama having a day to day effect on the stock market. Afterall, Obama is to blame for the worsening of this financial crisis...

Hey, I got a haircut on the same week that these stock rallies occured... maybe I should get my haircut more often.

Woah there buddy, calm down.

[Sean]

So you've not been saving more and spending less in the last few months?

I haven't. Neither apparently are all the people who were hording all the roulette tables this past weekend in AC.

[thefarmer]

So you've not been saving more and spending less in the last few months?

Actually, I've been spending more, since gas prices have come down.

Spending more on non-essential things (gas), that is.

[Daniel]

No to the first, yes to the second.

With regard to the first: in a normal market, individuals would be selling appreciated capital assets (stock) to lock in their book gain at the lower capital gains rate (under the assumption that Obama is going to raise it). They would hold on to their depreciated capital assets (to offset future capital gains at the higher rate). And the would be reinvesting the revenue from the sale of the appreciated capital assets because the capital gain rate is still lower than their marginal income rate, even if Obama raised it.

As you've said before. You've never seen Obama as anything but pragmatic.

The appointment of some of his long term advisors to positions within his administration is not exactly earth breaking news. Sure, you'll get a few retards like CRB who thought he was gonna turn the country socialist who will do something different. But I don't see enough people across the country suddenly jumping on board because he made an announcement anyone paying attention would have seen coming.

Yes, you can demonstrate that statements have an effect on the economy but you're taking this to the extreme level here. There's no telling what Obama's team is going to put into place in 6-12 months.

[Miscast]

That means, going into the biggest shopping day of the year, people will have a good sign on the economy, that could result in more holiday spending starting on Friday, which'll push the market up even more once the measurements are out.
Unfortunately... http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN2633812620081126?feedType=nl&feedName=usdai

[Miscast]

And won't this be icing on the shitcake if it happens... http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4AP5U220081126

[Parkbandit]

Unfortunately... http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN2633812620081126?feedType=nl&feedName=usdai

You do realize consumer confidence looks BACKWARDS, right? This is for last month.

[Parkbandit]

And won't this be icing on the shitcake if it happens... http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4AP5U220081126

This is just the Bush Administration playing their fear mongering card again

[Miscast]

Upper middle class families like mine who spend quite a bit every Christmas have already decided not to this year. News like this will just reinforce these decisions.

[Parkbandit]

Upper middle class families like mine who spend quite a bit every Christmas have already decided not to this year. News like this will just reinforce these decisions.


I don't disagree with you.. just your method of reasoning. You are basing your argument on data from prior to the latest stock surge.

[Gan]

My Christmas gift/seasonal budget is increased this year from last year simply due to an increase in disposable income this year over last.

I expect to see some massive incentives from retailers this holiday season to attract buyers to their stores. And I intend on taking full advantage of those incentives.

[Parkbandit]

As you've said before. You've never seen Obama as anything but pragmatic.

The appointment of some of his long term advisors to positions within his administration is not exactly earth breaking news. Sure, you'll get a few retards like CRB who thought he was gonna turn the country socialist who will do something different. But I don't see enough people across the country suddenly jumping on board because he made an announcement anyone paying attention would have seen coming.

Yes, you can demonstrate that statements have an effect on the economy but you're taking this to the extreme level here. There's no telling what Obama's team is going to put into place in 6-12 months.


Have you noticed the main platform point Obama ran on.. raising the taxes on the wealthy and "spreading the wealth".. have dissapeared? He's already stated that raising taxes during this time would be a bad idea.

[Keller]

Have you noticed the main platform point Obama ran on.. raising the taxes on the wealthy and "spreading the wealth".. have dissapeared? He's already stated that raising taxes during this time would be a bad idea.

Was that his main platform?

Or is that the only fucking thing Faux News, crb, Mabus, Khariz, Gan, etc would talk about for the last 2 months?

[Daniel]

Was that his main platform?

Or is that the only fucking thing Faux News, crb, Mabus, Khariz, Gan, etc would talk about for the last 2 months?

That's kinda my point. Obama isn't doing anything spectacular, but really what we said he would do. Take a measured approach to the economy and do certain things or the long term growth. That never meant that he was going to seize the land of the rich and give it to the poor.

So, it doesn't really make a lot of sense for the stock market to be surging because he picked someone who anyone could have guessed he would. The ability of influential people to effect the stock market has only been discerned when they advocate a specific policy (We're going to limit the money supply) and even then it's barely there and loaded with all kinds of caveats.

[Stanley Burrell]

Is there anyone here who still refuses to admit that the stock market is a futures market and that politicians, even when not in power, can influence it?

Here is a timeline...

McCain gets a bounce from the convention, stock market starts going up

Obama regains lead, stock market waivers

Obama pulls ahead by larger margin, stock market goes down big.

McCain claws back, race tightens with Obama still in the lead, starts going up moderately again.

Obama wins election, stock market falls off a cliff.

Obama does nothing, stock market continues to suck. 1 up day in a couple weeks, the one day being a day Bush gave a speech defending free market principles heading into the G20 meeting.

Obama gives a news conferences, starts to trot out his economic team centrist or even fiscally conservative people. Market goes up

Obama gives another confererence next trading day, which started down, after his conference, it is back up. More centrists.

Obama gives another conference the next day, up again, and his people start saying that he just might not raise taxes afterall.

The next day market starts down, Obama gives another conference, picks Paul Volcker (Fed Chairman under Reagan) to head his economic policy council, market makes a 200 point reversal, and is currently up.


Now before you rip me for being anti-Obama, I approve of what he is doing, he is making all the right moves. It appears that during the election the pandering he did was to the left, not the middle. Its great.

But, I just wanted to point how just how much affect he can have on things.

Also, I think this is a very good sign. a 4 day winning streak hasn't happened in a VERY long time. This'll be on the evening news assuming it stays green through today. That means, going into the biggest shopping day of the year, people will have a good sign on the economy, that could result in more holiday spending starting on Friday, which'll push the market up even more once the measurements are out. This could be the turnaround. And why? Because Obama picked fiscal conservatives and centrists for his economic people and said he wouldn't raise taxes. Way to go Barack.

Shut.

The fuck.

Opposite of down.

[crb]

So my local newspaper on Thursday, the lead headline was a big Stock Market Goes Up a Ton type thing. The headline, of the Thanksgiving paper, the biggest paper of the year, that everyone gets because of the bajillion black friday ads stuck in it.

Then another up today makes the best week in the market in 75 years.

This has to help consumer confidence.

[crb]

That's kinda my point. Obama isn't doing anything spectacular, but really what we said he would do. Take a measured approach to the economy and do certain things or the long term growth. That never meant that he was going to seize the land of the rich and give it to the poor.

So, it doesn't really make a lot of sense for the stock market to be surging because he picked someone who anyone could have guessed he would. The ability of influential people to effect the stock market has only been discerned when they advocate a specific policy (We're going to limit the money supply) and even then it's barely there and loaded with all kinds of caveats.
It did though, as I said you can superimpose a tick by tick graph on top of his news conference and see measured reaction.

Just like you can with that Bush speech a couple weeks ago, at the beginning of his speech it was down 200, by the end up 200.

You may have seen it coming because you looked at Obama and saw nothing but good. But myself, and many others, looked at everything he said and rightly or wrongly we focused on the more socialist comments. I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong, and so far I approve of Obama as I've said multiple times now. He keeps this up I may even vote for him in 12.

[crb]

You do realize consumer confidence looks BACKWARDS, right? This is for last month.
To explain further. Consumer confidence is both backwards looking and a very poor indicator of future growth and GDP. It is almost as if people have a hard time changing spending habits, they get ingrained. It is best only used as a indicator for short term retail buying by consumers, or, since it is backwards looking, explaining the buying behavior of consumers in previous months.

I think then you look back from 2009 you'll see October through mid November as the low for everything, and then an uptick from there.

[Parkbandit]

To explain further. Consumer confidence is both backwards looking and a very poor indicator of future growth and GDP. It is almost as if people have a hard time changing spending habits, they get ingrained. It is best only used as a indicator for short term retail buying by consumers, or, since it is backwards looking, explaining the buying behavior of consumers in previous months.

I think then you look back from 2009 you'll see October through mid November as the low for everything, and then an uptick from there.

Actually, it's not an indicator of anything future as it is 100% based upon the past.

[crb]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081129/holiday_shopping.html

And Black Friday preliminary data shows stronger than expected sales.

[Gan]

I did my part. ;)

[Parkbandit]

I did my part. ;)

So did my wife :(

[Bobmuhthol]

My contribution to this thread is that Volcker was the fucking man for fixing Carter's retarded shit.

[Daniel]

It did though, as I said you can superimpose a tick by tick graph on top of his news conference and see measured reaction.

Just like you can with that Bush speech a couple weeks ago, at the beginning of his speech it was down 200, by the end up 200.

You may have seen it coming because you looked at Obama and saw nothing but good. But myself, and many others, looked at everything he said and rightly or wrongly we focused on the more socialist comments. I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong, and so far I approve of Obama as I've said multiple times now. He keeps this up I may even vote for him in 12.

Yea. Sorry dude. This has absolutely nothing to do with my support of Obama and everything to do with the fact that you're full of shit.

If you notice, I'm refusing to give Obama credit for causing the market to go up, mainly because he hasn't done anything.

The ability of public officials to influence the markets by word alone is hard to pinpoint with any regularity because it hardly plays out the way people will predict. Even then, it's usually only works with people in the position to make positive changes right then. That said, there is no evidence to support the notion that the market was changing by the minute based upon what someone was saying in a speech. That's just retarded.

[crb]

Yea. Sorry dude. This has absolutely nothing to do with my support of Obama and everything to do with the fact that you're full of shit.

If you notice, I'm refusing to give Obama credit for causing the market to go up, mainly because he hasn't done anything.

The ability of public officials to influence the markets by word alone is hard to pinpoint with any regularity because it hardly plays out the way people will predict. Even then, it's usually only works with people in the position to make positive changes right then. That said, there is no evidence to support the notion that the market was changing by the minute based upon what someone was saying in a speech. That's just retarded.
Its retarded that a futures market would react instantly to significant developments in federal government?

Do you know why companies release earnings data on public conference calls Daniel? Because if the CEO or CFO or whomever says something relevant it will instantly (instantly) have a bearing on the stock and to release the data in any other way that could result in some people knowing before others would be, well, unfair. There are many laws in fact to guard against that exact thing.

So the words of a CEO can instantly move a company's stock, and even instantly move stock in others in their industry. News such as terrorist attacks can also instantly move markets, and yes, the words of someone so unimportant as to merely be in the on-deck circle for the top job on the planet also can move the markets, instantly, in real time, in a measured way.

[Daniel]

I really hope you can differienate between someone releasing hard data like financial earnings for a specific company that have a demonstrable impact on the value of a company and someone appointing an advisor.

I highly suggest you go take a basic macro econ course and get back to us.

[crb]

I really hope you can differienate between someone releasing hard data like financial earnings for a specific company that have a demonstrable impact on the value of a company and someone appointing an advisor.

I highly suggest you go take a basic macro econ course and get back to us.
Come on Daniel, you're not that dumb.

Obama has two choices, he can choose a liberal guy, or a centrist guy.

You really honestly think it makes absolutely no difference to future federal economic policy, hence future United States economy, whom he picks? You don't think that money managers out there don't think so? And it isn't just who he picks, it is what both of them say at the press conference. It is what they say they will do, it is what they say guides them.

To take the corporation analogy further, you say that it is hard numbers and not merely an appointment, well stocks can also instantly move on the announcement of a new CEO, or a new member of the board, or the announcement of a new direction for the company. Pretty much anything new a CEO says about the company he runs can and will move a stock, not just the earnings release.

Is it really so much of a stretch for you to believe that the stock market cares about the economic policy of the federal government? Or that the choice of cabinet members and other appointees and what they say has no bearing on how the policy may be shaped?

[ElanthianSiren]

Except that the market and the economy have both been contracting for over a year now, hence the definition of recession.

[Daniel]

Once again you're stretching.

I'm not saying any of those things. I'm saying that the economy (or the stock market if you want to quibble) is not going to turn around because Obama made an obvious choice.

[Parkbandit]

Once again you're stretching.

I'm not saying any of those things. I'm saying that the economy (or the stock market if you want to quibble) is not going to turn around because Obama made an obvious choice.


We should post the intra-day Dow Jones chart on whatever day Obama made the announcement.

[Daniel]

Maybe we can do it by the second. See how much each um and uh undermines investor confidence.

[BriarFox]

Shockingly, I agree with CRB on the points I've actually read in this thread. Obama's choices for personnel do have the power to impact the stock market significantly.