Stock Market breaking key resistance levels...

[tradephoric]

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.

[Roadgeekteen]

Will the shutdown affect the stocks?

[hotdogPi]

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.

[tradephoric]

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.

[MNHighwayMan]

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.

[kevinb1994]

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

[hotdogPi]

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.

[formulanone]

So 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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[MNHighwayMan]

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.

[tradephoric]

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.

[ET21]

Cool

[NE2]

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?

[Roadgeekteen]

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? 

[ET21]

Snip

Did you post in the wrong thread? 

/sigh..... 

[tradephoric]

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.

[kphoger]

wall of text

Did you post in the wrong thread? 

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.

[abefroman329]

wall of text

Did you post in the wrong thread? 

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.

[webny99]

wall of text

Did you post in the wrong thread? 

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?

[kphoger]

how did you figure it out?

I just googled a bunch of the text.

[NE2]

Do you have a source, or how did you figure it out?

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!"

[kphoger]

I cannot reveal the details of my source, but let it suffice to say that she works

stop lying

[Takumi]

https://youtu.be/MXW0bx_Ooq4

[US 89]

I've just set a reminder for 11:03:06 AM on November 14, 2026. We will see whether the prediction holds true.

[formulanone]

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.