All 3 major indexes have dropped below their February lows from earlier in the year. Now that they have broke the lows the market is looking for support. It appears the strongest support level will occur around DOW 21,000. From that point technical traders may be looking to buy back into the market and we can get a short term rally and retest the 200 DMA. Also, the DJIA was the last major index to experience the death cross... now in all 3 indexes the 50 DMA has dropped below the 200 DMA.
(https://i.imgur.com/f89vXgH.png)
I noticed a 350 point drop in 5 minutes yesterday, apparently due to the Feds raising interest rates.
I'm still not sure why raising interest rates would cause a drop, though. Can someone explain?
(Note to everyone: If you don't want this thread to be locked, focus on content, not personal attacks.)
I'm currently experiencing a serious level of deja vu.
Quote from: 1 on December 20, 2018, 03:28:49 PM
(Note to everyone: If you don't want this thread to be locked, focus on content, not personal attacks.)
But I want this flaming turd locked.
Quote from: NE2 on December 20, 2018, 03:49:08 PM
flaming turd
(https://cdn.drawception.com/images/panels/2017/11-6/ZqLwxKtrgj-8.png)
Quote from: 1 on December 20, 2018, 03:28:49 PM
I noticed a 350 point drop in 5 minutes yesterday, apparently due to the Feds raising interest rates.
I'm still not sure why raising interest rates would cause a drop, though. Can someone explain?
(Note to everyone: If you don't want this thread to be locked, focus on content, not personal attacks.)
Powell made the statement that current quantitative tightening was on "autopilot", suggesting that the fed shrinking its balance sheet would continue for the foreseeable future. I think this spooked the markets more than the fed hike itself.. the fed hike was pretty much priced into the market, but Powell's comments after the rate hike was seen as too hawkish by many market participants. An economy that has been pumped up with cheap lines of credit doesn't like quantitative tightening and higher interest rates.
To put things into perspective, the fed has really only started to unwind its balance sheet. If the market is already nervous about taking half a trillion off their balance sheet what is it going to do when they try to take an additional 2 or 3 trillion off it to return to pre-recession levels?
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/Yzpyqx8TJ2UxJD56bBA1jQ--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5c1bc13e240000dd0558b25b.jpg)
I don't know much about the stock market. My money is in index funds. But I've always kind of felt like the analysis of candlestick charts like these where you look for an inverted pennant or downward trapezoid or flagging peak or waxing gibbous or whatever the hell is probably psuedoscience. Like stock market astrology.
Because these patterns are made looking backward and there's no guarantee that they'll continue to behave that way in the future. Using any kind of analysis to try to predict or time the market is hogwash anyway. If there's specific information for a specific stock that indicates it's time to get out (like Verizon cutting Tumblr off at the legs, or any news about Sears coming out) then sell, but in general the smart money is to just invest long-term and be done with it.
But then again, the first time I saw this kind of analysis was connected to Bitcoin hucksters. I put $100 in Bitcoin this spring. At one point I got up to $124, but now I'm at $52.01. Investment of the future, I tell you what.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2018, 04:24:49 PM
I don't know much about the stock market. My money is in index funds. But I've always kind of felt like the analysis of candlestick charts like these where you look for an inverted pennant or downward trapezoid or flagging peak or waxing gibbous or whatever the hell is probably psuedoscience. Like stock market astrology.
Because these patterns are made looking backward and there's no guarantee that they'll continue to behave that way in the future. Using any kind of analysis to try to predict or time the market is hogwash anyway. If there's specific information for a specific stock that indicates it's time to get out (like Verizon cutting Tumblr off at the legs, or any news about Sears coming out) then sell, but in general the smart money is to just invest long-term and be done with it.
But then again, the first time I saw this kind of analysis was connected to Bitcoin hucksters. I put $100 in Bitcoin this spring. At one point I got up to $124, but now I'm at $52.01. Investment of the future, I tell you what.
I also like the Warren Buffett approach, using low-cost broad-based investment instruments. That way you get built-in diversification, and your returns aren't eaten up by management fees. The market beats most of the people who try to beat the market, and at a lower cost.
The patterns are interesting, and if you have money to play with you might get lucky with it, but for most people the fundamentalist approach is best. The most important element is time, getting started early and using a long time horizon, not stock-picking or market-timing.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2018, 04:24:49 PM
Because these patterns are made looking backward and there's no guarantee that they'll continue to behave that way in the future. Using any kind of analysis to try to predict or time the market is hogwash anyway. If there's specific information for a specific stock that indicates it's time to get out (like Verizon cutting Tumblr off at the legs, or any news about Sears coming out) then sell, but in general the smart money is to just invest long-term and be done with it.
I'd say don't bet the farm based on technical analysis, but it can give you a general idea of where a market is likely heading. For instance, when looking at the MACD the last time the DJIA has been in this much of a downward momentum condition was in October 2008 right after Lehman Brothers collapsed. That at least suggests that we could be reaching a short-term bottom in this market. IMO, DOW 21000 is the most logical short-term bottom... and as you can tell from my original chart it's not based on any crazy technical indicators... it's just based on some simple support/resistant levels. A lot of price action on the run up in 2017 occurred around the DOW 21000 level... and that seems like the most logical support level that market participants will be looking at.
Here is the current market juxtaposed over the 2008 market. The correlation wasn't that strong in the run up to the high, but ever since the top each market has been trading nearly identical. History doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes. I posted this chart about a month earlier too on another thread, and since that time has continued to trend with the 2008 market.
(https://i.imgur.com/i3LObbR.png)
Bad graph–notice how the right Y-axis goes up by increments of 2000 and the left by increments of 1000? Of course you can make two lines look the same if you stretch them out of proportion like it's New Year's Eve at the OkDOT sign shop.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 20, 2018, 03:30:22 PM
I'm currently experiencing a serious level of deja vu.
It's deja vu all over again.
Quote from: US71 on December 20, 2018, 10:46:15 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 20, 2018, 03:30:22 PM
I'm currently experiencing a serious level of deja vu.
It's deja vu all over again.
Nobody goes to the stock market any more, it's too crowded.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2018, 06:40:20 PM
Bad graph–notice how the right Y-axis goes up by increments of 2000 and the left by increments of 1000? Of course you can make two lines look the same if you stretch them out of proportion like it's New Year's Eve at the OkDOT sign shop.
The columns should have different increments, because the top of the right is nearly twice the value of the top of the left. Different increments reflect equal percentages better. What these lines say to me is that the market goes up until it goes down, and that it goes up gradually and down quickly. Therefore, the market goes up gradually and goes down quickly after the top. The point of this seems to be that a top precedes a fall, which is obvious. I think the implication is that the top causes the fall, but I would propose that instead the fall causes the top. As I said in the previous discussion, the low temperature happens right before the temperature starts going up. The low (and the cooling the caused it) didn't make the air start warming; the warming made the temperature stop falling and establish the low point. A rising stock market doesn't make the market go down later; it goes down for some reason, and the point where that starts will be the top. Because the rises are gradual and the drops are more rapid, the moving averages of different lengths will interact differently on the up side and the down side.
Quote from: abefroman329 on December 20, 2018, 11:02:56 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 20, 2018, 10:46:15 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 20, 2018, 03:30:22 PM
I'm currently experiencing a serious level of deja vu.
It's deja vu all over again.
Nobody goes to the stock market any more, it's too crowded.
I've never seen or heard a conversation that couldn't be improved by a Yogi Berra quote. :wave:
Quote from: 1 on December 20, 2018, 03:28:49 PM
I'm still not sure why raising interest rates would cause a drop, though. Can someone explain?
Because it raises the return on US treasury bonds without raising the risk. This triggers investors to take some of their money out of the higher-return but also higher-risk stock market and buy US treasury bonds. Which makes the stock market go down just like any other selling off of stocks does - supply and demand.
Secondarily, an increase in interest rates from the fed equals an increase in interest rates on all loans - this raises the cost of borrowing money which, naturally, negatively impacts any business that might be looking to do so.
Quote from: 1 on December 20, 2018, 03:28:49 PM
(Note to everyone: If you don't want this thread to be locked, focus on content, not personal attacks.)
Not that those were entirely the OP's fault, but I always assumed it was frowned on to "renew" a locked thread, much less do it twice.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 21, 2018, 10:13:19 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 20, 2018, 03:28:49 PM
(Note to everyone: If you don't want this thread to be locked, focus on content, not personal attacks.)
Not that those were entirely the OP's fault, but I always assumed it was frowned on to "renew" a locked thread, much less do it twice.
IIRC, the OP is also the OP of "Crash Prone Modern Roundabouts", so there's that.
This is actually a good topic, so long as it doesn't have to be tainted by extremist views and can be discussed sensibly.
If you like dividends, buying Ford (symbol F) stock at $8 and change is a good deal. The P/E is under 6 last I looked. $24 billion in cash reserves have been preserved for a decade. Short of F-series pickups up and dying, you cannot beat F stock. Compared to the over-valued tech stocks, Ford is the bargain of the present.
Rick
The DOW dropped another 653 points today and the S&P 500 is officially in bear market territory. Merry Christmas! The market is very oversold right now according to the MACD and I believe a short term bottom in the DOW will occur around 21300 (just 492 points away now). DOW 21300 has a lot of support.
Here is a chart that lists the things the FED has done that have helped prop up the stock market by adding credit into the system. These include QE1, ZIRP, QE2, Operation Twist and QE3. In addition, in 2016 you had a pro-business president that deregulate the markets and reduced the corporate tax rate which helped drive up the market higher even as the FED was winding down it's loose money policy.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.fmgsuite.com%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F35776dca-da83-4080-9b70-541aac067248.png&hash=c4f6643d817ea31c596ca2b59938dd16c547b2ca)
This chart looks at the historic investor credit balance compared to the S&P 500. Now the question being asked is credit drying up in the market. It doesn't help investor confidence when you have Steve Mnuchin on a conference call over the weekend with CEOs of the 6 largest banks to discuss how much liquidity is in the banking system. At some point this bubble is going to pop and that is not going to be good news for stocks.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.fmgsuite.com%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F4da16eb1-a694-40b0-ae9c-f9779c26a1e4.png&hash=3ac4ab367f942df1f1ba19bf00dd12033bec1fa7)
My god man, put down the charts and go enjoy Christmas with your family.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 24, 2018, 04:26:22 PM
My god man, put down the charts and go enjoy Christmas with your family.
Don't worry, I've been spending plenty of quality time with my family over the holidays. Just today i have some down time and it's never a bad idea to reassess your investment portfolio at the end of the year.
Quote from: tradephoric on December 24, 2018, 04:42:28 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 24, 2018, 04:26:22 PM
My god man, put down the charts and go enjoy Christmas with your family.
Don't worry, I've been spending plenty of quality time with my family over the holidays. Just today i have some down time and it's never a bad idea to reassess your investment portfolio at the end of the year.
Most of mine is locked in a trust for the next 5 years.
FWIW here's a look at forward performance of common stocks after severe down quarters such as the current one. The returns are usually pretty decent.
https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2018/12/buying-when-stocks-are-down-big/ (https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2018/12/buying-when-stocks-are-down-big/)
I choose a target asset allocation suitable for age and risk tolerance; it's about 65% stocks and 35% bonds right now. With the drop in stock prices that means the bond portion has risen a few points above 35%. At some point in the next week or so I plan on doing a little rebalancing, selling bonds and buying stocks to bring it back to around 65/35. I have no idea whether stocks are at or even close to the bottom, but they sure are cheaper than they were three months ago.
Since the great depression, bull and bear markets have seemed to last about 18 years. But since 2000 there looks to be a paradigm shift in how long these bull/bear markets run. After only a 9 year bear market (2000-2009) does the current bull market have any more legs to run? It's as if the markets never got a long enough breather like it has in the past.
(https://i.imgur.com/qIeGpKD.jpg)
(https://www.advisorperspectives.com/images/content_image/data/51/517f7fa9928948c8dac26cbbfd2d5f86.png)
Why don't you do something about it, then?
I get the feeling tomorrow is going to be the base in the market short term. Perhaps a low of 21300 in the DOW around 11:00AM before it turns around and closes near the green. A V shape trading day. Who knows what will happen but that's my best guess.
If the Fed would quit raising interest rates, we'd be OK.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 26, 2018, 01:29:12 PM
If the Fed would quit raising interest rates, we'd be OK.
I thought it was the trade war.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/06/3-reasons-experts-say-the-stock-market-is-plummeting-and-what-to-do.html
Quote from: tradephoric on December 25, 2018, 06:05:15 PM
I get the feeling tomorrow is going to be the base in the market short term. Perhaps a low of 21300 in the DOW around 11:00AM before it turns around and closes near the green. A V shape trading day. Who knows what will happen but that's my best guess.
The DOW hit a low of 21,717 at 10:54AM today before rocketing over 600 points. This is definitely the "V shaped" recovery day i was expecting even though it didn't hit my 21,300 target. Regardless, the price action of today definitely suggests we have hit a short term bottom in the market (there is decent support levels at 21,717... close enough for me) and I doubt the DOW drops below 21,717 again until at least after Valentine's Day. The crash may be over for the time-being.
(https://i.imgur.com/93uKLBl.png)
Quote from: hbelkins on December 26, 2018, 01:29:12 PM
If the Fed would quit raising interest rates, we'd be OK.
We are okay. A 2.5% fed funds rate won't strangle a strong economy. What it might do is slow the stock market. The stock market really isn't a reflection of the current state of the economy, but a reflection of bets made about the future state of the economy. It's also influenced by things like bond rates and availability of money. Drying up the money supply, which I thought was left at excessive levels for too long, will make investors nervous. The Fed seems to believe that the rate is slightly accommodative and near neutral, which is probably about where it should be (not the number, but the near-neutral status).
The stock market is not the economy; it's what happens when a bunch of investors are all trying to outsmart each other and get ahead of everyone else in profiting from whatever is about to happen. I don't think we should judge the economy by the markets, and certainly not on the basis of a few days or a few months. On such short terms, there's a lot more psychology than fundamental economic principle at play. And with all the electronic trading we have these days, small ups and downs turn into big ones. The worldwide economy is slowing, something that has nothing to do with the Fed, and if that continues it will weigh on the American economy. For right now, these huge stock market moves don't really reflect anything except the nervousness of investors.
Quote from: wxfree on December 26, 2018, 04:54:13 PM
The stock market is not the economy; it's what happens when a bunch of investors are all trying to outsmart each other and get ahead of everyone else in profiting from whatever is about to happen. I don't think we should judge the economy by the markets, and certainly not on the basis of a few days or a few months.
I completely agree. I would also add that if we're going to obsess about economic statistics, why the stock market rather than employment or wage growth? Some of us have a stake in the stock market, such as through 401(k) or other retirement investments. For many of us, though, the more immediate concern is about keeping our jobs, or getting (better) jobs, or wage/salary levels.
Quote from: oscar on December 26, 2018, 05:22:06 PM
Quote from: wxfree on December 26, 2018, 04:54:13 PM
The stock market is not the economy; it's what happens when a bunch of investors are all trying to outsmart each other and get ahead of everyone else in profiting from whatever is about to happen. I don't think we should judge the economy by the markets, and certainly not on the basis of a few days or a few months.
I completely agree. I would also add that if we're going to obsess about economic statistics, why the stock market rather than employment or wage growth? Some of us have a stake in the stock market, such as through 401(k) or other retirement investments. For many of us, though, the more immediate concern is about keeping our jobs, or getting (better) jobs, or wage/salary levels.
I believe home investors should see the stock market in terms of long-term results. Short-term practices like day trading and short selling should be left to sophisticated investors. (To me, a big part of being a "sophisticated investor" is having lots of money so that when you make a bad decision you can afford to take the hit, and that gives you room to call it a "calculated risk" instead of using the more accurate term, "bad investment.") Jobs and wages are immediate concerns, but retirement investments mostly take care of themselves if they're automated. If you're decades from retirement, the state of the market shouldn't be an immediate concern. The state of the economy is always an immediate concern, because that's what relates to jobs and wages. People need to learn to see that difference.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/024/785/Screen_Shot_2017-11-30_at_1.12.37_PM.jpg)
^That's how i feel every day trying to figure out this market! After a 1086 point rise yesterday and a huge push higher into the close, i wasn't expecting to see the market open 400 points down this morning. Unfortunately, that puts us in target to make a fresh new low again. In the middle of a bear market, it's not a great thing for the market to get accustomed to 1000 point trading days (to the green or red). I thought a 1000 point upswing would give the market enough breathing room to form a base but after the price action today i'm not so sure. Friday could seriously be a blood bath (ie. down 1200 points) if today's trading is any indication. On October 13, 2008 the market was up about 11%.. the next day it was flat... and the day after it crashed back down 7%. Well we aren't trading flat today (not a good sign for tomorrow IMO).
EDIT: And 10/15/08 was on a Wednesday, tomorrow is a Friday where nobody seemingly wants to be holding trades over the weekend.
Yesterday I assumed that the big fall and rise this week were made on thin volume, but what I've heard on television is that the volume was abnormally high for a holiday week. I really don't know what to make of that. My guess is that the rise yesterday was due to short covering. Some of the experts on television also say that. I foresaw a drop today for the same reason in the opposite direction. A huge fall is a good opportunity to cover shorts, and a big rise is a good opportunity for profit taking or unloading uncertain positions.
I really don't know what to make of this period overall. The market seems to be diverging from economic reality. This happens because the market is driven by psychology, and sometimes it just goes crazy. I like to think about why this is happening, but at my age I'm not concerned with whether the market goes crazy over the next year. At my time horizon, it's still a good investment.
Quote from: wxfree on December 27, 2018, 02:36:13 PM
Yesterday I assumed that the big fall and rise this week were made on thin volume, but what I've heard on television is that the volume was abnormally high for a holiday week. I really don't know what to make of that. My guess is that the rise yesterday was due to short covering. Some of the experts on television also say that. I foresaw a drop today for the same reason in the opposite direction. A huge fall is a good opportunity to cover shorts, and a big rise is a good opportunity for profit taking or unloading uncertain positions.
I really don't know what to make of this period overall. The market seems to be diverging from economic reality. This happens because the market is driven by psychology, and sometimes it just goes crazy. I like to think about why this is happening, but at my age I'm not concerned with whether the market goes crazy over the next year. At my time horizon, it's still a good investment.
The WSJ has a good story that I'll cover real briefly: So much trading is automated in today's world that most traders have simply programmed their trading systems to automatically do something based on something else.
Quote from: wxfree on December 27, 2018, 02:36:13 PM
The market seems to be diverging from economic reality.
I've thought that for quite some time now, observing the stock and "value" for Tesla and Amazon, two of the biggest corporate welfare queens in existence. If not for tax breaks, Amazon would be deep in the red, and Tesla's never made any sort of real, consistent profit.
There are reasons for apprehension. Things like the worldwide slowdown and the likely reduction in domestic growth change the outlook for future profitability. In an environment in which everyone's goal is to be ahead of everyone else, uncertainty can bring a lot of instability. With the computer trades reacting to what's happening before the people even realize it's happened, everything is amplified. Today we couldn't even decide if the Dow should be 600 points down or 250 points up. Maybe this is just the way things are now. If the direction isn't strongly up or down for nice solid reasons, maybe instead of boring steady days we end up with flailing back and forth so that the average means a lot more than any day's result. Maybe a slow and steady decline is what's indicated in classical terms, with future earnings potentially falling (but staying positive) or growing more slowly, but the way the market is now, with more participants, include more participants with less experience, and heavy activity controlled by electronic psychology, a slow and steady decline is accomplished by a precipitous drop followed by a huge increase.
In short, maybe it's time to start watching something like a 20 or 50 day moving average instead of daily results.
I was expecting the DOW to be up a few hundred points today but i wasn't expecting it to get there by swinging 850 points in the last 90 minutes of trading! There is something bigger at play than algo's going haywire. I'm not confident in Friday at all. It's setting up to be the largest point decline day in the history of the markets.
The stock index values respond to investor trading activity, and investors trade based on their feelings about investing. Their feelings on investing are based on their goal to turn a profit in the short-term. Long-term considerations don't matter as much to an investor, because investors are as visceral in their considerations as the average person. When I say "visceral," I mean something along the lines of "more impulsive and less scientific than they ought to be." It's visceral in the manner of people who refuse to believe in global warming because they can't feel the increased heat on their own skin. This is why people falsely believe in the long-term benefits of tax cuts for the rich.
Tax cuts for the rich create a little bubble that boosts the stock market for the short term, but it never lasts. The gains of the last year or so will become losses soon. But I worry if another crash will accompany the bursting of that bubble.
Capitalism is not about making everyone happy. Socialism tries and makes very few happy. Choose one.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on December 27, 2018, 06:41:57 PM
Capitalism is not about making everyone happy. Socialism tries and makes very few happy. Choose one.
Socialism.
Quote from: nexus73 on December 27, 2018, 06:41:57 PM
Capitalism is not about making everyone happy. Socialism tries and makes very few happy. Choose one.
And yet, if you look at the lists of countries ranked by happiness, you have Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland in the top four. Maybe the Finnish like their Linux and the Norwegians like their Trafikkalfabetet so much, it cancels out how despondent the socialism makes them?
Quote from: nexus73 on December 27, 2018, 06:41:57 PM
Capitalism is not about making everyone happy. Socialism tries and makes very few happy. Choose one.
Rick
"-Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself." quoth Ferris Bueller
I think there's some truth in this. Instead of picking a system that has good and bad characteristics, and hoping we pick the right one, we should look for how to get the most good and the least bad. There are not two options, there are as many as we can come up with.
Quote from: nexus73 on December 27, 2018, 06:41:57 PM
Capitalism is not about making everyone happy. Socialism tries and makes very few happy. Choose one.
Rick
Monarchy
Quote from: nexus73 on December 27, 2018, 06:41:57 PM
Capitalism is not about making everyone happy. Socialism tries and makes very few happy. Choose one.
Rick
If I can only choose one of the two, socialism. " I got mine, fuck you" is a terrible way to live, in my opinion.
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2018, 09:06:14 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on December 27, 2018, 06:41:57 PM
Capitalism is not about making everyone happy. Socialism tries and makes very few happy. Choose one.
Rick
Monarchy
If you're the monarch, you're probably extremely happy, provided you're keeping your subjects just happy enough that they don't revolt.
Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2018, 07:31:31 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on December 27, 2018, 06:41:57 PM
Capitalism is not about making everyone happy. Socialism tries and makes very few happy. Choose one.
Socialism.
OK, then, give me half of what you have.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 28, 2018, 10:57:24 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2018, 07:31:31 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on December 27, 2018, 06:41:57 PM
Capitalism is not about making everyone happy. Socialism tries and makes very few happy. Choose one.
Socialism.
OK, then, give me half of what you have.
Socialism is not the same thing as communism.
Also, socialism is too far left. Scandinavia (plus Iceland) are far left, but not far enough to be socialism. If Scandinavia switched to actual socialism, things would get worse. (So would moving toward the center; they're near optimal right now.)
Quote from: hbelkins on December 28, 2018, 10:57:24 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2018, 07:31:31 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on December 27, 2018, 06:41:57 PM
Capitalism is not about making everyone happy. Socialism tries and makes very few happy. Choose one.
Socialism.
OK, then, give me half of what you have.
Why? You probably have more than most of the rest of us from that trickle-down economy you seem to admire. Learn to share.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 28, 2018, 10:57:24 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2018, 07:31:31 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on December 27, 2018, 06:41:57 PM
Capitalism is not about making everyone happy. Socialism tries and makes very few happy. Choose one.
Socialism.
OK, then, give me half of what you have.
US is at 38% of government spending to GDP, EU 46%. Almost there.
Quote from: 1 on December 28, 2018, 11:08:18 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 28, 2018, 10:57:24 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2018, 07:31:31 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on December 27, 2018, 06:41:57 PM
Capitalism is not about making everyone happy. Socialism tries and makes very few happy. Choose one.
Socialism.
OK, then, give me half of what you have.
Socialism is not the same thing as communism.
Also, socialism is too far left. Scandinavia (plus Iceland) are far left, but not far enough to be socialism. If Scandinavia switched to actual socialism, things would get worse. (So would moving toward the center; they're near optimal right now.)
I believe this is because the Scandinavian countries fall under the blanket of Democratic Socialism. This is different from both Capitalism and true Socialism.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 28, 2018, 11:13:47 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 28, 2018, 11:08:18 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 28, 2018, 10:57:24 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2018, 07:31:31 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on December 27, 2018, 06:41:57 PM
Capitalism is not about making everyone happy. Socialism tries and makes very few happy. Choose one.
Socialism.
OK, then, give me half of what you have.
Socialism is not the same thing as communism.
Also, socialism is too far left. Scandinavia (plus Iceland) are far left, but not far enough to be socialism. If Scandinavia switched to actual socialism, things would get worse. (So would moving toward the center; they're near optimal right now.)
I believe this is because the Scandinavian countries fall under the blanket of Democratic Socialism. This is different from both Capitalism and true Socialism.
It is.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 28, 2018, 11:13:47 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 28, 2018, 11:08:18 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 28, 2018, 10:57:24 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2018, 07:31:31 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on December 27, 2018, 06:41:57 PM
Capitalism is not about making everyone happy. Socialism tries and makes very few happy. Choose one.
Socialism.
OK, then, give me half of what you have.
Socialism is not the same thing as communism.
Also, socialism is too far left. Scandinavia (plus Iceland) are far left, but not far enough to be socialism. If Scandinavia switched to actual socialism, things would get worse. (So would moving toward the center; they're near optimal right now.)
I believe this is because the Scandinavian countries fall under the blanket of Democratic Socialism. This is different from both Capitalism and true Socialism.
When you hear the term "democratic socialism", all the person really means is that the country has large welfare programs. That doesn't make the government socialist any more than not having them makes a country capitalist. Scandinavian governments are democratic and capitalist.
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2018, 11:12:58 AM
When you hear the term "democratic socialism", all the person really means is that the country has large welfare programs. That doesn't make the government socialist any more than not having them makes a country capitalist. Scandinavian governments are democratic and capitalist.
I don't want my money going to help people I don't like. </sarcasm>
Quote from: US71 on December 29, 2018, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2018, 11:12:58 AM
When you hear the term "democratic socialism", all the person really means is that the country has large welfare programs. That doesn't make the government socialist any more than not having them makes a country capitalist. Scandinavian governments are democratic and capitalist.
I don't want my money going to help people I don't like. </sarcasm>
I'm not sure if that was a dig at me or not, but I didn't intend my post to be any critique of welfare programs. You may think they're great or you may think they're terrible, but that's not what makes a government socialist.
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2018, 11:24:43 AM
Quote from: US71 on December 29, 2018, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2018, 11:12:58 AM
When you hear the term "democratic socialism", all the person really means is that the country has large welfare programs. That doesn't make the government socialist any more than not having them makes a country capitalist. Scandinavian governments are democratic and capitalist.
I don't want my money going to help people I don't like. </sarcasm>
I'm not sure if that was a dig at me or not, but I didn't intend my post to be any critique of welfare programs. You may think they're great or you may think they're terrible, but that's not what makes a government socialist.
No, it wasn't, that why I said sarcasm.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 28, 2018, 10:57:24 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2018, 07:31:31 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on December 27, 2018, 06:41:57 PM
Capitalism is not about making everyone happy. Socialism tries and makes very few happy. Choose one.
Socialism.
OK, then, give me half of what you have.
That's not what Scandinavia does. Those countries are happier. Hmmmm
Uh...Sesame Street. Bubble gum. Scholaring?
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 29, 2018, 03:25:38 PM
Uh...Sesame Street. Bubble gum. Scholaring?
I believe you're confusing the 15-year-old boarder with the 45-year-old boarder who acts 15.
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2018, 11:12:58 AM
When you hear the term "democratic socialism", all the person really means is that the country has large welfare programs. elects the officials that take income away from them and redistributes that income to others. As opposed to "dictatorial socialism" such as Cuba under Castro.
FIFY.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 29, 2018, 04:57:39 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2018, 11:12:58 AM
When you hear the term "democratic socialism", all the person really means is that the country has large welfare programs. elects the officials that take income away from them and redistributes that income to others. As opposed to "dictatorial socialism" such as Cuba under Castro.
FIFY.
They want it, and it works for them. What's the problem?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 29, 2018, 05:09:15 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 29, 2018, 04:57:39 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2018, 11:12:58 AM
When you hear the term "democratic socialism", all the person really means is that the country has large welfare programs. elects the officials that take income away from them and redistributes that income to others. As opposed to "dictatorial socialism" such as Cuba under Castro.
FIFY.
They want it, and it works for them. What's the problem?
Being stuck in thinking that originates from the Cold War.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 29, 2018, 05:38:53 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 29, 2018, 05:09:15 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 29, 2018, 04:57:39 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2018, 11:12:58 AM
When you hear the term "democratic socialism", all the person really means is that the country has large welfare programs. elects the officials that take income away from them and redistributes that income to others. As opposed to "dictatorial socialism" such as Cuba under Castro.
FIFY.
They want it, and it works for them. What's the problem?
Being stuck in thinking that originates from the Cold War.
What thinking? Free healthcare?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 29, 2018, 05:09:15 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 29, 2018, 04:57:39 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2018, 11:12:58 AM
When you hear the term "democratic socialism", all the person really means is that the country has large welfare programs. elects the officials that take income away from them and redistributes that income to others. As opposed to "dictatorial socialism" such as Cuba under Castro.
FIFY.
They want it, and it works for them. What's the problem?
The terms are getting mixed up again. All "democratic socialism" really means
literally is that the people who own everything–and decide who gets what–were elected democratically (and hopefully the democratic model of government continues during their rule). For example, Hugo Chávez was elected democratically, as was Salvador Allende. Their being elected democratically has made them no less Marxist. The ability of democratic socialism to survive long-term without turning into a dictatorial government remains to be seen. But that's not what Scandinavian countries have anyway. Their economies are capitalist, not socialist.
Quote from: Lokke Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark
[Some] people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.
In the Scandinavian countries, the government does not own the means of production, and there are free-market competition and individual upward mobility. The Nordic model merely provides an extensive social welfare net to give assistance to those in need. If you want a name for it, then it should properly be called "social democracy", not "democratic socialism".
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 29, 2018, 05:45:32 PM
What thinking? Free healthcare?
Free healthcare is not mutually exclusive to democracy, capitalism, or individual liberty. Socialism does not own a monopoly on free healthcare.
Ah, that must be what it is (the Scandinavian countries having a Social Democracy). Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are somewhat similar, but not the same.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 29, 2018, 06:29:01 PM
Ah, that must be what it is (the Scandinavian countries having a Social Democracy). Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are somewhat similar, but not the same.
Yes, but everyone (including Bernie
[/politics]) keeps touting it as a successful model of socialism–specifically democratic socialism, which it's
not.
If it has social in the name, the Fox News idiots will call it socialism.
Quote from: NE2 on December 29, 2018, 06:48:22 PM
If it has social in the name, the Fox News idiots will call it socialism.
No, it's those on the left who keep calling the Nordic model "socialism", not those on the right.
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2018, 06:50:02 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 29, 2018, 06:48:22 PM
If it has social in the name, the Fox News idiots will call it socialism.
No, it's those on the left who keep calling the Nordic model "socialism", not those on the right.
I attended a focus group recently that was basically "how to fix Facebook?" where one attendee said he doesn't have social media accounts because he hates socialism, so yes, there is at least some misattribution to socialism on the right. That, and their steadfast belief that anything other than a state of "I get to do whatever I want, whenever I want" is socialism.
I'm supporting the nordic model, not socialism.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2Fa5%2Fa5ef7297e12e5914f983700f89b89ba08c5be01777c1dbe021914ddbdfe439e7.jpg&hash=c3b64fba8c848b7caf0f67d5806d7a0bcdd46f86)
What was this thread about, again? Oh yeah, that's right...
(https://i.imgflip.com/2n17nf.jpg)
Here is a graph of previous secular bear markets in the DOW. Based on previous market contractions, we really haven't seen much pain in the markets yet.
(https://i.imgur.com/ATQ8BHf.png)
Re: Scandinavia and general happiness, I do think to some degree you're seeing the same basic concept in action as in the climate theory of political stability.
Having to deal with heat makes people cranky. The cooler the climate, the happier people are.
As for what the stock market is doing this year, who the hell knows. It's easily conceivable that it could shake this recent correction off and steadily climb back up, finishing the year in the black... it's also conceivable that another selloff could be coming. Or that there won't be a big selloff but that things may gradually start trending down.
Anyone in it for the long run should have course be not reacting to this and continuing to make whatever regular contributions they are going to make because the stock market always goes up over sufficiently long timeframes. People seeking to cash out in the near future, on the other hand, may have more reason to be skiddish.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 02, 2019, 09:20:32 PM
Having to deal with heat makes people cranky. The cooler the climate, the happier people are
Not me, boy. I'm usually ready for spring by the time January rolls around.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 02, 2019, 09:20:32 PM
Having to deal with heat makes people cranky. The cooler the climate, the happier people are
But the farther north you are, the less sun you get. Lack of sun in winter makes people depressed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder).
Quote from: US 89 on January 03, 2019, 12:24:05 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 02, 2019, 09:20:32 PM
Having to deal with heat makes people cranky. The cooler the climate, the happier people are
But the farther north you are, the less sun you get. Lack of sun in winter makes people depressed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder).
Yeah, there are significant parts of Scandinavia that are above the Arctic Circle, after all. I understand that if you're in the military and stationed up there, you get hazard pay.
Quote from: US 89 on January 03, 2019, 12:24:05 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 02, 2019, 09:20:32 PM
Having to deal with heat makes people cranky. The cooler the climate, the happier people are
But the farther north you are, the less sun you get. Lack of sun in winter makes people depressed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder).
I can confirm that to be true. I get a little depressed when it's 4-5 pm and dark.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 03, 2019, 09:09:02 AM
Quote from: US 89 on January 03, 2019, 12:24:05 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 02, 2019, 09:20:32 PM
Having to deal with heat makes people cranky. The cooler the climate, the happier people are
But the farther north you are, the less sun you get. Lack of sun in winter makes people depressed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder).
I can confirm that to be true. I get a little depressed when it's 4-5 pm and dark.
We are wildly off-topic, but I am just obliged to mention that if you lived at the
other end of the EST time zone (Michigan, Indiana), it would be more like 5-6 pm. I'm somewhere in the middle. In fact, our 9 hours of winter daylight align
almost perfectly with my 7:30 - 4:30 working hours. For a few weeks, the sun is just rising as I arrive and just setting as I leave.
Quote from: webny99 on January 03, 2019, 09:40:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 03, 2019, 09:09:02 AM
Quote from: US 89 on January 03, 2019, 12:24:05 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 02, 2019, 09:20:32 PM
Having to deal with heat makes people cranky. The cooler the climate, the happier people are
But the farther north you are, the less sun you get. Lack of sun in winter makes people depressed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder).
I can confirm that to be true. I get a little depressed when it's 4-5 pm and dark.
We are wildly off-topic, but I am just obliged to mention that if you lived at the other end of the EST time zone (Michigan, Indiana), it would be more like 5-6 pm. I'm somewhere in the middle. In fact, our 9 hours of winter daylight align almost perfectly with my 7:30 - 4:30 working hours. For a few weeks, the sun is just rising as I arrive and just setting as I leave.
Maybe we should be in the Atlantic time zone.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 03, 2019, 09:44:16 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 03, 2019, 09:40:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 03, 2019, 09:09:02 AM
Quote from: US 89 on January 03, 2019, 12:24:05 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 02, 2019, 09:20:32 PM
Having to deal with heat makes people cranky. The cooler the climate, the happier people are
But the farther north you are, the less sun you get. Lack of sun in winter makes people depressed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder).
I can confirm that to be true. I get a little depressed when it's 4-5 pm and dark.
We are wildly off-topic, but I am just obliged to mention that if you lived at the other end of the EST time zone (Michigan, Indiana), it would be more like 5-6 pm. I'm somewhere in the middle. In fact, our 9 hours of winter daylight align almost perfectly with my 7:30 - 4:30 working hours. For a few weeks, the sun is just rising as I arrive and just setting as I leave.
Maybe we should be in the Atlantic time zone.
Haven't we had this discussion before?
Quote from: hbelkins on January 03, 2019, 10:11:40 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 03, 2019, 09:44:16 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 03, 2019, 09:40:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 03, 2019, 09:09:02 AM
Quote from: US 89 on January 03, 2019, 12:24:05 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 02, 2019, 09:20:32 PM
Having to deal with heat makes people cranky. The cooler the climate, the happier people are
But the farther north you are, the less sun you get. Lack of sun in winter makes people depressed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder).
I can confirm that to be true. I get a little depressed when it's 4-5 pm and dark.
We are wildly off-topic, but I am just obliged to mention that if you lived at the other end of the EST time zone (Michigan, Indiana), it would be more like 5-6 pm. I'm somewhere in the middle. In fact, our 9 hours of winter daylight align almost perfectly with my 7:30 - 4:30 working hours. For a few weeks, the sun is just rising as I arrive and just setting as I leave.
Maybe we should be in the Atlantic time zone.
Haven't we had this discussion before?
Yes, except that nobody has suggested that webny99's region would switch to Atlantic until now.
I modified the chart above to show roughly 2 years of price action leading up to the top of each market (left side of the chart) and 2 years of price action once the top was formed (right side of the chart). The legend shows the exact date of the each top (the top in 2001 actually formed a year prior but the major downtrend didn't begin until 2001). The similarities of 1987 to 1929 are quite interesting... they both had the biggest run up leading to the top and the largest initial crash.
(https://i.imgur.com/Uxa8ZNK.png)
IMO, the current price action in the DJIA resembles that from 2007. I adjusted the current market top by 15 trading days to show just how similarly the price action has been in recent months to the previous crash.
(https://i.imgur.com/V9suNQF.png)
Quote from: 1 on January 03, 2019, 10:13:17 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 03, 2019, 10:11:40 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 03, 2019, 09:44:16 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 03, 2019, 09:40:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 03, 2019, 09:09:02 AM
Quote from: US 89 on January 03, 2019, 12:24:05 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 02, 2019, 09:20:32 PM
Having to deal with heat makes people cranky. The cooler the climate, the happier people are
But the farther north you are, the less sun you get. Lack of sun in winter makes people depressed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder).
I can confirm that to be true. I get a little depressed when it's 4-5 pm and dark.
We are wildly off-topic, but I am just obliged to mention that if you lived at the other end of the EST time zone (Michigan, Indiana), it would be more like 5-6 pm. I'm somewhere in the middle. In fact, our 9 hours of winter daylight align almost perfectly with my 7:30 - 4:30 working hours. For a few weeks, the sun is just rising as I arrive and just setting as I leave.
Maybe we should be in the Atlantic time zone.
Haven't we had this discussion before?
Yes, except that nobody has suggested that webny99's region would switch to Atlantic until now.
I said we inferring to my region, not to me and webny.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 03, 2019, 10:11:40 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 03, 2019, 09:44:16 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 03, 2019, 09:40:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 03, 2019, 09:09:02 AM
Quote from: US 89 on January 03, 2019, 12:24:05 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 02, 2019, 09:20:32 PM
Having to deal with heat makes people cranky. The cooler the climate, the happier people are
But the farther north you are, the less sun you get. Lack of sun in winter makes people depressed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder).
I can confirm that to be true. I get a little depressed when it's 4-5 pm and dark.
We are wildly off-topic, but I am just obliged to mention that if you lived at the other end of the EST time zone (Michigan, Indiana), it would be more like 5-6 pm. I'm somewhere in the middle. In fact, our 9 hours of winter daylight align almost perfectly with my 7:30 - 4:30 working hours. For a few weeks, the sun is just rising as I arrive and just setting as I leave.
Maybe we should be in the Atlantic time zone.
Haven't we had this discussion before?
That depends on your time zone. For some of us, this discussion is still in the future.
I live on the other side of the Eastern Time Zone (Michigan) and I still battle depression this time of year even though it is still twilight at 6. It isn't so much the early sunset, as it is the lack of sunshine, although today was a nice day.
Support has now become resistance. The market broke below the February 2017 lows in December and this week will be key in seeing if the market can break back above those February lows. Powell's lip service, along with a blowout jobs number, helped propel the markets higher on Friday and we will see if those gains continue into next week. My take is Powell is going to stand pat on rate hikes in March. I know everyone says the Fed is independent but Powell saw what the markets did after the fed hike... it's easy for him to come up with some excuse why the fed isn't raising rates in March. But the fed's guidance calls for a few rate hikes in 2019, so he'll probably try to sneak one in during the June meeting. That to me is when the market starts to roll over again. There's always the chance we do shoot up like a rocket from here (just like happened in the 1962, 1987, and 2015 bear markets) but i believe the downside risk is higher than the upside at this point.
(https://i.imgur.com/ppZup96.png)
The market recently bounced higher after testing the 200-week moving average (red line in charts). The good thing is it hasn't broken the 200-week moving average yet. There are several examples where the S&P 500 tested the 200-week MA only to bounce higher (1962, 1987, 1990 & 2015). This is the best case scenario moving forward:
(https://i.imgur.com/Ubg9v1O.png)
However, there are also times when the market broke down after testing the 200- week moving average. The most obvious examples are 2001 and 2008. A lot of the bear markets during 1966-1982 aren't included in these charts. While the market essentially traded sideways during this time-frame, runaway inflation during the 70s really masked any significant losses in the market. This is the worst case scenario moving forward:
(https://i.imgur.com/HGwNLuM.png)
So what do you guys think. Is this market going to continue higher like 2016 or crash like 2008?
QuoteSo what do you guys think. Is this market going to continue higher like 2016 or crash like 2008?
My Dow Jones plan has it peaking at around 29,000 and then going down a little to bypass Yellowstone National Park. Except it's called the 366 Industrials while servicing Canada and Mexico.
Quote from: formulanone on January 07, 2019, 09:04:38 AM
QuoteSo what do you guys think. Is this market going to continue higher like 2016 or crash like 2008?
My Dow Jones plan has it peaking at around 29,000 and then going down a little to bypass Yellowstone National Park. Except it's called the 366 Industrials while servicing Canada and Mexico.
Per obscure bylaws, it may not rise or fall more than 85 points in a day. Except when it does.
It's almost spooky how closely the market is coorelating to early 2008 right now. Over the past month you can literally trade the market on a day-by-day basis by looking at the price action from the DOW in early 2008. If history is any indication, we are looking at -700 point drop on Wednesday of this week (and a relatively flat day tomorrow).
Quote from: tradephoric on January 07, 2019, 03:02:09 PM
It's almost spooky how closely the market is coorelating to early 2008 right now. Over the past month you can literally trade the market on a day-by-day basis by looking at the price action from the DOW in early 2008. If history is any indication, we are looking at -700 point drop on Wednesday of this week (and a relatively flat day tomorrow).
Because your prediction right before Christmas about the worst day in the history of the markets was spot on too. :meh:
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 07, 2019, 03:29:30 PM
Because your prediction right before Christmas about the worst day in the history of the markets was spot on too. :meh:
I'll give you that! While the day of that prediction was a down day, it was nowhere near the worst points loss in the history of the markets. OTOH, on Christmas Day i made the call that a short term bottom would occur in the markets at 11AM on December 26th. After opening higher that day (which was a surprise to me) the DOW got totally slammed in morning trading before bottoming out at 21,712 at 10:54 AM. At 11AM it turned on a dime and skyrocketting about 1,200 points into the close. I was literally 6 minutes off from calling a short term bottom in this market and it resembled that V-shaped trading day i predicted. In addition, i first posted a correlation chart of the current market with the 2008 market back on November 20th. Since that time, the current market has traded in lockstep with the 2008 market (look at the "Current DJIA to 2008 DJIA" chart above in this thread to see how close the correlation has been).
(https://i.imgur.com/XVguaeS.png)
Quote from: US 89 on January 07, 2019, 12:50:47 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 07, 2019, 09:04:38 AM
My Dow Jones plan has it peaking at around 29,000 and then going down a little to bypass Yellowstone National Park. Except it's called the 366 Industrials while servicing Canada and Mexico.
Per obscure bylaws[1 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/9/79.3)], it may not rise or fall more than 85 points in a day. Except when it does.
Edited to add citation.
Here is a chart of every bear market in the DOW since WWII (and 1929 for good measure). It's kind of a jumbled up mess but there are some interesting observations to be made. If you sold roughly 6 months after a market top, you were able to buy back into the market about 12-15 months from the market top at a lower level. The only times this wasn't the case was in 1962, 1990, and 1998. For the markets that really dropped, this strategy would protect you from significant market losses and you still don't lose out on that much during the fake-outs.
(https://i.imgur.com/xzPg45Q.png)
Quote from: US 89 on January 07, 2019, 12:50:47 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 07, 2019, 09:04:38 AM
QuoteSo what do you guys think. Is this market going to continue higher like 2016 or crash like 2008?
My Dow Jones plan has it peaking at around 29,000 and then going down a little to bypass Yellowstone National Park. Except it's called the 366 Industrials while servicing Canada and Mexico.
Per obscure bylaws, it may not rise or fall more than 85 points in a day. Except when it does.
The Alanland Mercantile Exchange (AllMerEgg)?
I split up the bear markets by decades so it's not so jumbled up. Technically not all of these were bear markets as some didn't lose 20%... but they were all within striking distance.
(https://i.imgur.com/dcyHRwJ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/lhiVx1z.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/AVpu41t.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/yWgMd2X.png)
Will the shutdown affect the stocks?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 10, 2019, 09:38:17 AM
Will the shutdown affect the stocks?
They might have a slight tendency to go down a little, but they won't stop moving the way they did for one day due to Bush 41's death. Keep in mind that the values of the stocks are not entirely based on the United States; other countries matter, too.
The current market seems to parallel the bear markets of 1998 and 2008. Just like 1998 the yield curve is flatting and there is growing talks that the 10 and 2 year curves are about to invert. In 1998, the 10 and 2 yield did invert temporarily, and this really correlates to the near 20% drop we saw in 1998. But after that the market recovered and rose nearly 30% from the 1998 low until it finally topped in 2000. Just like 1998, we may be in the late innings of a long term bull market, but that doesn't mean we don't have a few more years to run.
The case for 2008 is that the FED took extraordinary measures after the financial crisis to prop up and stimulate the economy by pegging interest rates to zero and going through 3 rounds of QE. With such low interest rates companies have taken on massive amounts of debt and undertaken risky mergers and stock buy backs and their corporate debt is now double what it was before the great recession. Now with interest rates increasing and liquidity being taken out of the market with quantitative tightening by the fed, there is nothing left to push the markets higher (and all this debt companies have taken on over the past 10 years is coming due). The argument is in 2008 the can was kicked down the road by the FED to push the markets higher, but now those measures are coming back to bite the markets.
If you are optimistic, then we are on the 1998 path... if you are pessimistic we are about to repeat 2008.
(https://i.imgur.com/Jz0iO78.png)
Quote from: tradephoric on January 10, 2019, 10:29:07 AM
If you are optimistic, then we are on the 1998 path... if you are pessimistic we are about to repeat 2008.
If I am optimistic, then this current feeling I have is only just a fart.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 10, 2019, 11:53:46 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on January 10, 2019, 10:29:07 AM
If you are optimistic, then we are on the 1998 path... if you are pessimistic we are about to repeat 2008.
If I am optimistic, then this current feeling I have is only just a fart.
LOL
It will be going back up again. The economy is still doing fairly well (as it has since 2011), and the economy determines the stock market, not the other way around.
Quote from: Brandon on January 10, 2019, 08:58:09 AM
Quote from: US 89 on January 07, 2019, 12:50:47 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 07, 2019, 09:04:38 AM
QuoteSo what do you guys think. Is this market going to continue higher like 2016 or crash like 2008?
My Dow Jones plan has it peaking at around 29,000 and then going down a little to bypass Yellowstone National Park. Except it's called the 366 Industrials while servicing Canada and Mexico.
Per obscure bylaws, it may not rise or fall more than 85 points in a day. Except when it does.
The Alanland Mercantile Exchange (AllMerEgg)?
You've studied your history, because it's very same one where the short-lived Albumen Juggling Craze of March 27th, 1837 until the Great Fracture of Five Minutes Later.
Since 1990, the 1-year and 2-years of steady gains in the heart of the Great Depression are interesting to compare the effect tax policy has had on asset prices. The recent price action that closely matches a previous crash support has now become resistance. The market broke down after the markets were wiped out in short order over the end of the year, now that he's critical of them for keeping rates artificially low, to prop up and the elevator down. After testing the market lows in February, since the top, each market has traded in lockstep with the 2008 stock market. The correlation wasn't expecting to see the market open 400 points down this morning. Unfortunately, that puts us in target to make a whole lot of sense to me.
This brilliant analysis was generated by putting tradephoric's posts from the last three threads through a predictive text generator.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 11, 2019, 02:12:33 AM
This brilliant analysis was generated by putting tradephoric's posts from the last three threads through a predictive text generator.
My drink was rather unprepared for that twist, as it now exists all over my computer monitor and desk. Thanks. :-D :-D
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 11, 2019, 02:12:33 AM
Since 1990, the 1-year and 2-years of steady gains in the heart of the Great Depression are interesting to compare the effect tax policy has had on asset prices. The recent price action that closely matches a previous crash support has now become resistance. The market broke down after the markets were wiped out in short order over the end of the year, now that he's critical of them for keeping rates artificially low, to prop up and the elevator down. After testing the market lows in February, since the top, each market has traded in lockstep with the 2008 stock market. The correlation wasn't expecting to see the market open 400 points down this morning. Unfortunately, that puts us in target to make a whole lot of sense to me.
This brilliant analysis was generated by putting tradephoric's posts from the last three threads through a predictive text generator.
What you don't like my lingo? Don't listen to CNBC then because all the talking heads sound the same and use the same jargon. All i know is back on November 20th i juxtaposed the current price action to the price action during the great recession, when the correlation really wasn't that high. Since then, the market has been trading in lock-step. What other term would you use when the orange line in that last chart is nearly masked by the black line over the past few months? Most of my predictions have been based on the comparison of the 2008 and current market... some admittedly wrong... but as a whole my technical analysis has been spot on (considering it's largely based on the comparison of 2008). But you are probably just going to continue to troll me in "LOCK-STEP". March behind me.
(https://i.imgur.com/XVguaeS.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/8mHMT90.png)
Cool
I'd like to talk to you a little bit about spoilers not in an effort to beat you about the head and neck with my opinion but rather to at least try to get you to understand where I'm coming from. See, where I'm coming from is, spoilers kinda suck. They trouble me. They trouble me both as an audience member and as a storyteller myself.
A storyteller concocts a story in a certain way. Anybody who tells stories is familiar with this – you want to create a certain rise and fall of plot, you want to escalate tensions and then give some breathing room, and at a great many of the narrative peaks are tentpole moments. Moments of character that seriously complicate or compromise the plot. Characters dying. Secrets exposed. New steps taken. Old enemies reborn. And we orchestrate these moments almost like we're writing music. We're trying to build to various crescendos and not just make a cacophony.
The problem is, were you to isolate that singular moment of musical crescendo, it's not particularly interesting. It's just a blurt of noise, a sudden spike of sound.
Spoilers are kinda like that. When you extract these impactful narrative moments and isolate them – and then broadcast them – you're really just transmitting a weird, context-free spike of sound. It's not that the story is ruined, exactly, but you've robbed some of the potency from it. You've stolen urgency and thieved surprise. It's not the same thing as announcing who won an Oscar or who lost the sportsball game – those are data points not dissimilar from noting the temperature outside or the color of the sky at noon. But when you grab these crucial narrative events and spoil them, you're reducing them down to being just data points. SCOOBY DOO IS DEAD. DOCTOR WHO IS PREGNANT. BRUCE WILLIS WAS ACTUALLY THE STATUE OF LIBERTY FROM PLANET OF THE APES THE WHOLE TIME.
It's like you just told a punchline without letting people hear the joke, first.
See, storytellers spend a lot of time trying to claw and climb to these narrative moments – and the audience spends a lot of time going along for the ride.
Spoilers short-circuit that. They rearrange how I experience narrative.
Which is cool, if that's what I want as an audience member, and if that's how the storyteller has designed the architecture. But if it's just what you want, Mister Spoilertrousers, then you've gone ahead and forcibly changed my experience of the story. And that sucks a little bit.
And here's where someone says, "You don't like spoilers, stay off of social media." And that sounds fair on first blush, but it doesn't really change the fact that inconsiderate is still inconsiderate. You are likely broadcasting this stuff to a whole lot of people who aren't yet aware of it. The Walking Dead – easily the most spoiled show, and one so spoiled for me now I'm not even sure I'm going to watch it anymore – airs later because of the time difference, but those who watched it on the East Coast feed were spoiling the shit out of it as the thing aired. It's not like you're asked to hold spoilers for weeks – but, you know, you might at least wait 24 hours till some folks have caught up? At least until people have watched it live?
I get it. You want to spoil it. And again: you're allowed to. But that doesn't make it particularly nice. And it's not nice to say, well, just stay off Twitter, then. I'd rather you not blow cigarette smoke in my kid's face or take a shit in the public pool, but nobody would ever say, YOU DON'T LIKE POOP, DON'T SWIM IN THE PUBLIC POOL, PAL.
It's funny. The type of audience seems to have an impact on this. The audience for Breaking Bad seemed protective of spoilers – hell, they still are. But The Walking Dead or Doctor Who seems to draw far more spoilers without regard or consideration of those who maybe haven't seen it. People seem to be more protective of spoiling the experience in films than they are television – and take even greater care with books. I know part of this comes down to the "second screen experience" that television seems so keen to push, but certainly you have ways to talk about the experience without spoiling it to a very large, potentially public audience? Google+ allows for limited broadcast. Or there exist forums or second-screen apps or direct messages or blogs or email or... you know, good old-fashioned "go watch the show with human beings and then talk about it over a slice of pie." Hell, even a Facebook update with HOLY FUCK WE'RE GONNA TALK SPOILERS HERE AWOOGA AWOOGA at least tells me at least to stay away from the comments.
But spoilers come fast and furious. No warnings. Sometimes as graphical memes. Sometimes just as a single line: YOU GUYS I CAN'T BELIEVE THE DOCTOR JUST REGENERATED AS A PERSNICKETY POSSUM IN A BOWLER HAT AND A HOUNDSTOOTH JACKET.
The other thing is, I don't know what the value proposition is for spoilers. It's like, for the people who already watched the show – well, you announcing OMG PAPA SMURF GOT SHOT isn't a surprise nor is it in any way insightful. You're announcing something they already know. And for the people who didn't watch it – well, now you just ruined it for them. What do spoilers earn you, exactly? What do you get out of it? Serious question.
I dunno.
Can you spoil stuff? Sure. Should you? Well, that's on you. But I'd rather you didn't. Just as I'd rather you not open my Christmas presents and tell me what's in 'em before I get there. Just as none of us like those movie trailers that seem to give the whole movie away in two minutes and thirty seconds. Just as you'd probably rather not have me time travel to an hour before you watch a show so I can spoil it for you.
I won't come to your house and tell you the endings of all your unread books.
And you don't broadcast spoilers to people who haven't yet caught up within a reasonable time.
Just try to think about the experiences of other people.
Deal?
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2019, 11:44:14 AM
I'd like to talk to you a little bit about spoilers not in an effort to beat you about the head and neck with my opinion but rather to at least try to get you to understand where I'm coming from. See, where I'm coming from is, spoilers kinda suck. They trouble me. They trouble me both as an audience member and as a storyteller myself.
A storyteller concocts a story in a certain way. Anybody who tells stories is familiar with this – you want to create a certain rise and fall of plot, you want to escalate tensions and then give some breathing room, and at a great many of the narrative peaks are tentpole moments. Moments of character that seriously complicate or compromise the plot. Characters dying. Secrets exposed. New steps taken. Old enemies reborn. And we orchestrate these moments almost like we're writing music. We're trying to build to various crescendos and not just make a cacophony.
The problem is, were you to isolate that singular moment of musical crescendo, it's not particularly interesting. It's just a blurt of noise, a sudden spike of sound.
Spoilers are kinda like that. When you extract these impactful narrative moments and isolate them – and then broadcast them – you're really just transmitting a weird, context-free spike of sound. It's not that the story is ruined, exactly, but you've robbed some of the potency from it. You've stolen urgency and thieved surprise. It's not the same thing as announcing who won an Oscar or who lost the sportsball game – those are data points not dissimilar from noting the temperature outside or the color of the sky at noon. But when you grab these crucial narrative events and spoil them, you're reducing them down to being just data points. SCOOBY DOO IS DEAD. DOCTOR WHO IS PREGNANT. BRUCE WILLIS WAS ACTUALLY THE STATUE OF LIBERTY FROM PLANET OF THE APES THE WHOLE TIME.
It's like you just told a punchline without letting people hear the joke, first.
See, storytellers spend a lot of time trying to claw and climb to these narrative moments – and the audience spends a lot of time going along for the ride.
Spoilers short-circuit that. They rearrange how I experience narrative.
Which is cool, if that's what I want as an audience member, and if that's how the storyteller has designed the architecture. But if it's just what you want, Mister Spoilertrousers, then you've gone ahead and forcibly changed my experience of the story. And that sucks a little bit.
And here's where someone says, "You don't like spoilers, stay off of social media." And that sounds fair on first blush, but it doesn't really change the fact that inconsiderate is still inconsiderate. You are likely broadcasting this stuff to a whole lot of people who aren't yet aware of it. The Walking Dead – easily the most spoiled show, and one so spoiled for me now I'm not even sure I'm going to watch it anymore – airs later because of the time difference, but those who watched it on the East Coast feed were spoiling the shit out of it as the thing aired. It's not like you're asked to hold spoilers for weeks – but, you know, you might at least wait 24 hours till some folks have caught up? At least until people have watched it live?
I get it. You want to spoil it. And again: you're allowed to. But that doesn't make it particularly nice. And it's not nice to say, well, just stay off Twitter, then. I'd rather you not blow cigarette smoke in my kid's face or take a shit in the public pool, but nobody would ever say, YOU DON'T LIKE POOP, DON'T SWIM IN THE PUBLIC POOL, PAL.
It's funny. The type of audience seems to have an impact on this. The audience for Breaking Bad seemed protective of spoilers – hell, they still are. But The Walking Dead or Doctor Who seems to draw far more spoilers without regard or consideration of those who maybe haven't seen it. People seem to be more protective of spoiling the experience in films than they are television – and take even greater care with books. I know part of this comes down to the "second screen experience" that television seems so keen to push, but certainly you have ways to talk about the experience without spoiling it to a very large, potentially public audience? Google+ allows for limited broadcast. Or there exist forums or second-screen apps or direct messages or blogs or email or... you know, good old-fashioned "go watch the show with human beings and then talk about it over a slice of pie." Hell, even a Facebook update with HOLY FUCK WE'RE GONNA TALK SPOILERS HERE AWOOGA AWOOGA at least tells me at least to stay away from the comments.
But spoilers come fast and furious. No warnings. Sometimes as graphical memes. Sometimes just as a single line: YOU GUYS I CAN'T BELIEVE THE DOCTOR JUST REGENERATED AS A PERSNICKETY POSSUM IN A BOWLER HAT AND A HOUNDSTOOTH JACKET.
The other thing is, I don't know what the value proposition is for spoilers. It's like, for the people who already watched the show – well, you announcing OMG PAPA SMURF GOT SHOT isn't a surprise nor is it in any way insightful. You're announcing something they already know. And for the people who didn't watch it – well, now you just ruined it for them. What do spoilers earn you, exactly? What do you get out of it? Serious question.
I dunno.
Can you spoil stuff? Sure. Should you? Well, that's on you. But I'd rather you didn't. Just as I'd rather you not open my Christmas presents and tell me what's in 'em before I get there. Just as none of us like those movie trailers that seem to give the whole movie away in two minutes and thirty seconds. Just as you'd probably rather not have me time travel to an hour before you watch a show so I can spoil it for you.
I won't come to your house and tell you the endings of all your unread books.
And you don't broadcast spoilers to people who haven't yet caught up within a reasonable time.
Just try to think about the experiences of other people.
Deal?
Did you post in the wrong thread? :confused: :confused:
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2018, 06:40:20 PM
Bad graph–notice how the right Y-axis goes up by increments of 2000 and the left by increments of 1000? Of course you can make two lines look the same if you stretch them out of proportion like it's New Year's Eve at the OkDOT sign shop.
OK, correlate the letter "C" with the letter "J". They are both lines yet you will never get them to look the same by stretching out the proportions in a linear manner. When i recreated the graph with percentages so the proportions of each bear market are the same, it tells the exact same story as my original chart. It seems like Scott is being critical for the sake of being critical. Why should i lead the audience with elaborate storytelling when the audience is hostile? Then to boot, i get trolled with some 'predictive text generator' comment.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 11, 2019, 12:42:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2019, 11:44:14 AM
wall of text
Did you post in the wrong thread? :confused: :confused:
I was totally blown away as I started reading his post, wondering at how a member of usually such few words must have spent a lot of time and effort at writing such a beautiful masterpiece of snark. In fact, he was starting to become a sort of evil hero to me.
But then it occurred to me that he would have done no such thing.
Nope, it turns out that whole thing was just copied-and-pasted from an author's five-year-old blog post.
Quote from: kphoger on January 11, 2019, 02:21:59 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 11, 2019, 12:42:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2019, 11:44:14 AM
wall of text
Did you post in the wrong thread? :confused: :confused:
I was totally blown away as I started reading his post, wondering at how a member of usually such few words must have spent a lot of time and effort at writing such a beautiful masterpiece of snark. In fact, he was starting to become a sort of evil hero to me.
But then it occurred to me that he would have done no such thing.
Nope, it turns out that whole thing was just copied-and-pasted from an author's five-year-old blog post.
It did have the same flavor as the famous "I'm a ____ and I'm really getting a kick out of these posts" or "What did you say to me, you little bitch?" diatribes.
Quote from: kphoger on January 11, 2019, 02:21:59 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 11, 2019, 12:42:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2019, 11:44:14 AM
wall of text
Did you post in the wrong thread? :confused: :confused:
I was totally blown away as I started reading his post, wondering at how a member of usually such few words must have spent a lot of time and effort at writing such a beautiful masterpiece of snark. In fact, he was starting to become a sort of evil hero to me.
But then it occurred to me that he would have done no such thing.
Nope, it turns out that whole thing was just copied-and-pasted from an author's five-year-old blog post.
My thoughts exactly!!
Do you have a source, or how did you figure it out?
Quote from: webny99 on January 11, 2019, 03:27:12 PM
how did you figure it out?
I just googled a bunch of the text.
Quote from: webny99 on January 11, 2019, 03:27:12 PM
Do you have a source, or how did you figure it out?
Quote from: kphoger on November 14, 2026, 11:03:06 AM
I cannot reveal the details of my source, but let it suffice to say that she works with a chap who is down with grabbing felines of other humans. One night, during one of these sessions, naughty by its very nature, he screamed out "OH WILLY WONKA! JUST FUCKING GOOGLE IT!"
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2019, 03:33:32 PM
I cannot reveal the details of my source, but let it suffice to say that she works
stop lying
https://youtu.be/MXW0bx_Ooq4
I've just set a reminder for 11:03:06 AM on November 14, 2026. We will see whether the prediction holds true.
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2019, 11:44:14 AM
I'd like to talk to you a little bit about spoilers not in an effort to beat you about the head and neck with my opinion but rather to at least try to get you to understand where I'm coming from. See, where I'm coming from is, spoilers kinda suck. They trouble me. They trouble me both as an audience member and as a storyteller myself.
A storyteller concocts a story in a certain way. Anybody who tells stories is familiar with this – you want to create a certain rise and fall of plot, you want to escalate tensions and then give some breathing room, and at a great many of the narrative peaks are tentpole moments. Moments of character that seriously complicate or compromise the plot. Characters dying. Secrets exposed. New steps taken. Old enemies reborn. And we orchestrate these moments almost like we're writing music. We're trying to build to various crescendos and not just make a cacophony.
The problem is, were you to isolate that singular moment of musical crescendo, it's not particularly interesting. It's just a blurt of noise, a sudden spike of sound.
Spoilers are kinda like that. When you extract these impactful narrative moments and isolate them – and then broadcast them – you're really just transmitting a weird, context-free spike of sound. It's not that the story is ruined, exactly, but you've robbed some of the potency from it. You've stolen urgency and thieved surprise. It's not the same thing as announcing who won an Oscar or who lost the sportsball game – those are data points not dissimilar from noting the temperature outside or the color of the sky at noon. But when you grab these crucial narrative events and spoil them, you're reducing them down to being just data points. SCOOBY DOO IS DEAD. DOCTOR WHO IS PREGNANT. BRUCE WILLIS WAS ACTUALLY THE STATUE OF LIBERTY FROM PLANET OF THE APES THE WHOLE TIME.
It's like you just told a punchline without letting people hear the joke, first.
See, storytellers spend a lot of time trying to claw and climb to these narrative moments – and the audience spends a lot of time going along for the ride.
Spoilers short-circuit that. They rearrange how I experience narrative.
Which is cool, if that's what I want as an audience member, and if that's how the storyteller has designed the architecture. But if it's just what you want, Mister Spoilertrousers, then you've gone ahead and forcibly changed my experience of the story. And that sucks a little bit.
And here's where someone says, "You don't like spoilers, stay off of social media." And that sounds fair on first blush, but it doesn't really change the fact that inconsiderate is still inconsiderate. You are likely broadcasting this stuff to a whole lot of people who aren't yet aware of it. The Walking Dead – easily the most spoiled show, and one so spoiled for me now I'm not even sure I'm going to watch it anymore – airs later because of the time difference, but those who watched it on the East Coast feed were spoiling the shit out of it as the thing aired. It's not like you're asked to hold spoilers for weeks – but, you know, you might at least wait 24 hours till some folks have caught up? At least until people have watched it live?
I get it. You want to spoil it. And again: you're allowed to. But that doesn't make it particularly nice. And it's not nice to say, well, just stay off Twitter, then. I'd rather you not blow cigarette smoke in my kid's face or take a shit in the public pool, but nobody would ever say, YOU DON'T LIKE POOP, DON'T SWIM IN THE PUBLIC POOL, PAL.
It's funny. The type of audience seems to have an impact on this. The audience for Breaking Bad seemed protective of spoilers – hell, they still are. But The Walking Dead or Doctor Who seems to draw far more spoilers without regard or consideration of those who maybe haven't seen it. People seem to be more protective of spoiling the experience in films than they are television – and take even greater care with books. I know part of this comes down to the "second screen experience" that television seems so keen to push, but certainly you have ways to talk about the experience without spoiling it to a very large, potentially public audience? Google+ allows for limited broadcast. Or there exist forums or second-screen apps or direct messages or blogs or email or... you know, good old-fashioned "go watch the show with human beings and then talk about it over a slice of pie." Hell, even a Facebook update with HOLY FUCK WE'RE GONNA TALK SPOILERS HERE AWOOGA AWOOGA at least tells me at least to stay away from the comments.
But spoilers come fast and furious. No warnings. Sometimes as graphical memes. Sometimes just as a single line: YOU GUYS I CAN'T BELIEVE THE DOCTOR JUST REGENERATED AS A PERSNICKETY POSSUM IN A BOWLER HAT AND A HOUNDSTOOTH JACKET.
The other thing is, I don't know what the value proposition is for spoilers. It's like, for the people who already watched the show – well, you announcing OMG PAPA SMURF GOT SHOT isn't a surprise nor is it in any way insightful. You're announcing something they already know. And for the people who didn't watch it – well, now you just ruined it for them. What do spoilers earn you, exactly? What do you get out of it? Serious question.
I dunno.
Can you spoil stuff? Sure. Should you? Well, that's on you. But I'd rather you didn't. Just as I'd rather you not open my Christmas presents and tell me what's in 'em before I get there. Just as none of us like those movie trailers that seem to give the whole movie away in two minutes and thirty seconds. Just as you'd probably rather not have me time travel to an hour before you watch a show so I can spoil it for you.
I won't come to your house and tell you the endings of all your unread books.
And you don't broadcast spoilers to people who haven't yet caught up within a reasonable time.
Just try to think about the experiences of other people.
Deal?
Holy shit NE2 posted something that wasn't about roads and it was actually over two sentences long.
:biggrin:
Quote from: formulanone on January 11, 2019, 04:04:43 PM
Holy shit NE2 posted something that wasn't about roads and it was actually over two sentences long.
:biggrin:
Read reply #118.
(WTF? Why have there been that many replies to this thread?)
Quote from: kphoger on January 11, 2019, 04:06:58 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 11, 2019, 04:04:43 PM
Holy shit NE2 posted something that wasn't about roads and it was actually over two sentences long.
:biggrin:
Read reply #118.
(WTF? Why have there been that many replies to this thread?)
Just saw that. Except he re-quoted you in the future, and we all know you're too nice to curse in the Internet.
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2019, 03:33:32 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 11, 2019, 03:27:12 PM
Do you have a source, or how did you figure it out?
Quote from: kphoger on November 14, 2026, 11:03:06 AM
I cannot reveal the details of my source, but let it suffice to say that she works with a chap who is down with grabbing felines of other humans. One night, during one of these sessions, naughty by its very nature, he screamed out "OH WILLY WONKA! JUST FUCKING GOOGLE IT!"
Like this?
http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2013/12/02/spoiler-warning-im-gonna-rant-about-spoilers/
Plagiarism is not a good thing.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 11, 2019, 04:36:22 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2019, 04:18:33 PM
Quote from: ET21 on January 11, 2019, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 11, 2019, 12:42:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2019, 11:44:14 AM
Snip
Did you post in the wrong thread? :confused: :confused:
/sigh..... :popcorn:
FWIW, I didn't get it either.
Ether he got hacked or his snark has reached a level that I can't comprehend.
I'll take the third option, too many chemicals imbibed. What chemicals, I'll leave that up to you.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2019, 04:18:33 PM
Quote from: ET21 on January 11, 2019, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 11, 2019, 12:42:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2019, 11:44:14 AM
Snip
Did you post in the wrong thread? :confused: :confused:
/sigh..... :popcorn:
FWIW, I didn't get it either.
I assumed a connection. The world is a grand drama, and he doesn't want to know what the future will bring because that would ruin the suspense and therewith the pleasure of living–just as knowing how a movie ends diminishes your enjoyment of watching it.
Quote from: kphoger on January 11, 2019, 04:38:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2019, 04:18:33 PM
Quote from: ET21 on January 11, 2019, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 11, 2019, 12:42:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2019, 11:44:14 AM
Snip
Did you post in the wrong thread? :confused: :confused:
/sigh..... :popcorn:
FWIW, I didn't get it either.
I assumed a connection. The world is a grand drama, and he doesn't want to know what the future will bring because that would ruin the suspense and therewith the pleasure of living–just as knowing how a movie ends diminishes your enjoyment of watching it.
That's quite intelligent of him if it's true.
Quote from: kphoger on January 11, 2019, 04:06:58 PM
Read reply #118.
Yours was #117.
Quote from: kphoger on January 11, 2019, 04:38:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2019, 04:18:33 PM
Quote from: ET21 on January 11, 2019, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 11, 2019, 12:42:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2019, 11:44:14 AM
Snip
Did you post in the wrong thread? :confused: :confused:
/sigh..... :popcorn:
FWIW, I didn't get it either.
I assumed a connection. The world is a grand drama, and he doesn't want to know what the future will bring because that would ruin the suspense and therewith the pleasure of living–just as knowing how a movie ends diminishes your enjoyment of watching it.
Yes, but it would unlike NE2 to come as close to giving a compliment as insinuating that someone could actually predict the future. And the future can't really be spoiled like a movie can.
Quote from: webny99 on January 11, 2019, 10:40:57 PM
Yes, but it would unlike NE2 to come as close to giving a compliment as insinuating that someone could actually predict the future. And the future can't really be spoiled like a movie can.
Personally, I believe that getting close to giving a compliment, while not actually doing so, is prime NE2 material.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 11, 2019, 10:53:56 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 11, 2019, 10:40:57 PM
Yes, but it would unlike NE2 to come as close to giving a compliment as insinuating that someone could actually predict the future. And the future can't really be spoiled like a movie can.
Personally, I believe that getting close to giving a compliment, while not actually doing so, is prime NE2 material.
There is probably some truth to that, but I don't think this particular post was supposed to be an almost-compliment. I don't know where he pulled it from, but it sure spiced up the thread, anyways!
Quote from: webny99 on January 11, 2019, 11:45:28 PM
I don't know where he pulled it from
You don't?
Brandon linked to it.
Quote from: kphoger on January 12, 2019, 12:49:06 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 11, 2019, 11:45:28 PM
I don't know where he pulled it from
You don't? Brandon linked to it.
Oh, sorry, I didn't mean that literally. I just meant I don't know what on earth he had in mind when he dug that up and posted it to this thread.
Quote from: kphoger on January 11, 2019, 04:38:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2019, 04:18:33 PM
Quote from: ET21 on January 11, 2019, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 11, 2019, 12:42:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2019, 11:44:14 AM
Snip
Did you post in the wrong thread? :confused: :confused:
/sigh..... :popcorn:
FWIW, I didn't get it either.
I assumed a connection. The world is a grand drama, and he doesn't want to know what the future will bring because that would ruin the suspense and therewith the pleasure of living–just as knowing how a movie ends diminishes your enjoyment of watching it.
I'll spoil 2020 for him. Trump gets re-elected. :-D :-D :-D
Quote from: hbelkins on January 12, 2019, 02:56:24 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 11, 2019, 04:38:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2019, 04:18:33 PM
Quote from: ET21 on January 11, 2019, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 11, 2019, 12:42:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2019, 11:44:14 AM
Snip
Did you post in the wrong thread? :confused: :confused:
/sigh..... :popcorn:
FWIW, I didn't get it either.
I assumed a connection. The world is a grand drama, and he doesn't want to know what the future will bring because that would ruin the suspense and therewith the pleasure of living—just as knowing how a movie ends diminishes your enjoyment of watching it.
I'll spoil 2020 for him. Trump gets re-elected. :-D :-D :-D
Please no! :angry: :banghead:
Hibby dies in the end.
Quote from: NE2 on January 12, 2019, 03:52:03 PM
Hibby dies in the end.
Yes, but his mindset is fixed. If he hasn't changed yet he never will.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 23, 2015, 03:13:56 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSYToBto.png&hash=0f218de666c82bac1775b4751ed3c6378008bfea)
Quote from: NE2 on January 12, 2019, 03:52:03 PM
Hibby dies in the end.
And I'm fine with that. Happens to the best of us.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 12, 2019, 06:49:48 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 12, 2019, 03:52:03 PM
Hibby dies in the end.
And I'm fine with that. Happens to the best of us.
You don't get him. He's saying that voting for Trump will backfire.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 12, 2019, 09:28:47 PM
voting for Trump will backfire.
That depends on what your goals were in voting.
Quote from: webny99 on January 11, 2019, 10:40:57 PM
the future can't really be spoiled like a movie can.
Please explain.
Quote from: US 89 on January 12, 2019, 05:32:09 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 23, 2015, 03:13:56 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSYToBto.png&hash=0f218de666c82bac1775b4751ed3c6378008bfea)
Doesn't even really need the sign for that. It's visible a mile away.
Quote from: kphoger on January 12, 2019, 10:27:23 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 12, 2019, 09:28:47 PM
voting for Trump will backfire.
That depends on what your goals were in voting.
What goals? I can't think of any.
Quote from: webny99 on January 11, 2019, 10:40:57 PM
the future can't really be spoiled like a movie can.
Please explain.
You can't see into the future.
Quote from: kphoger on January 11, 2019, 10:46:40 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 11, 2019, 10:40:57 PM
the future can't really be spoiled like a movie can.
Please explain.
Nobody can visit the future, come back and tell us what happened. They can predict it, but no telling they'll be accurate. More likely than not they'll be wrong, meaning it would be foolish to let a prediction "spoil" everything. Or anything.
Ok, we're done.
(https://previews.123rf.com/images/jpgon/jpgon1508/jpgon150800821/43441077-illustration-of-a-warning-signal-with-a-lock-pad.jpg)