"Mission Accomplished" - With CNBC now lost for countdown-able targets (though 20,000 is so close), we leave it to none other than Jim Cramer, quoting Stanley Druckenmiller, to sum up where we stand (oh and the following list of remarkable then-and-now macro, micro, and market variables), namely that "we all know it's going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money" - ZH translation: "just make sure to sell ahead of everyone else."
- GDP Growth: Then +2.5%; Now +1.6%
- Regular Gas Price: Then $2.75; Now $3.73
- Americans Unemployed (in Labor Force): Then 6.7 million; Now 13.2 million
- Americans On Food Stamps: Then 26.9 million; Now 47.69 million
- Size of Fed's Balance Sheet: Then $0.89 trillion; Now $3.01 trillion
- US Debt as a Percentage of GDP: Then ~38%; Now 74.2%
- US Deficit (LTM): Then $97 billion; Now $975.6 billion
- Total US Debt Oustanding: Then $9.008 trillion; Now $16.43 trillion
Well as some have been saying for years now this market belongs to the Fed. and sooner or later is going to end with an crash.
ReplyDeleteFrom that dreaded Fox business news and appears to be creeping slowly thru a few other news sources but not quite in such a graphic manner
Proof the Fed is Juicing the Markets
By Elizabeth MacDonald
Emac's Bottom Line
Published March 04, 2013
FOXBusiness
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2013/03/04/proof-fed-is-juicing-markets/#ixzz2Mh6aD3bd
THIS is a MUST READ,Really.Follow the blue line,and it ain't a yellow brick road.
There are some in the Fed.that are breaking nervous.
There is NO good way out.
Thank you Obama and Ben,and your wonderful Keynesian economic bullshit.
The Crash is going to be devastating,and please read Twins topic "The Strategy of Forcing Political Change"
Sorry Folks I think that you have been had,or better said F***ed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOK, I'll try again . . .
DeleteRojayalso,
Two comments. First, I thought it was quite well known the FED's QEs were intended to pump up the stock market. Perhaps the point of the FOX Business article was to put a clear graphic to it, yes?
Second, my spouse's eensy-weensy business is a testament to the concerns about the big guys and their hesitancy to hire or invest. Our business volume really took a hit last year, about half what it was 2011, and the market is almost completely dependent on discretionary spending. Our take is that people are still wary about opening up their wallets due to uncertainty, the same uncertainty that is making the biggies pause.
We daydream about how things might e a bit different if the Romney plan (FIT cut for all, paid for by capping deductions of the stratosphere-aires) would be getting ready for signatures. Don't misunderstand, neither of us espouse redistribution of the wealth, yes? But the justification for that plan, igniting the economy, certainly looked promising, yes.
Meanwhile, we hold on for the bumpy, long ride.
Jean
Respectfully, the uncertainty thing, IMO, has become an overblown smokescreen to keep people NOT talking about other important things. Business invests when they see opportunity to make money. This country has been on a 30+ year de-industrialization phase. Put another way, our workers have no money and they aren't going to make more of it any time soon.
DeleteI don't rail on the massive explosion of wealth going to just the few because I am a socialist. It just seems matter of fact to me that (in simple terms) if you redistribute the majority of income away from workers to owners of capital, there can't be any other outcome then to see the economy shrink. I don't buy less food or other items because I worry about uncertainty, I don't buy them because I no longer have enough money to buy them. The workers in the sweat shops of Asia, despite still making shit for money, have no place BUT up for their incomes to go. That is where money is flowing to. If you think about it, business has just as much risk if not more so, to invest so much capital overseas where political risk could wipe them out.
And again, I ask this as a respectful question Jean, if we were so flippin adamant that we could not raise taxes outright on the rich, why should we think that a tax bill could be passed that truly took away the kind of deductions that allowed Romney to pay 15%? I just think it's fantasy that Romney was saying we could actually do this. Why would we reject outright raising taxes but agree to the same thing done by different means?
When they feed the market to bring it up the turnaround is diminishing.
Deletegreat graph Rojayalso
Jean runnin short on time.
ReplyDeleteYes it was intended to pump the market,and has. The real problem is this pump has done nothing to help small business and us commoners.
It has been good for your 401,if you still have one,but has done nothing for your job or business.
Hope for investments as far as the Stock market is starting to look to be more risky by the day,reason the pump cant last forever hence many believe that since the only thing supporting the rise in market is the Fed pump the market can't last forever since the there is virtually no economic growth in this country,hence we have a house of cards so to speak.
Furthermore when the Fed starts to sell off it's balance sheet of a mere 3 trillion all hell is going to break loose,there appears to be no good way to ease out of this. Debate is currently being kicked around by some of the members of the Fed that the pump has currently gone too far.In short some think one hell of a market crash is on the horizon.
This has the potential to devastate what is currently a very weak economy.
Personally I hope they are wrong,but.....
Times up gotta go maybe I'll get back latter in the week,I'm sure Twins has a take on this.
"Yes it was intended to pump the market,and has. The real problem is this pump has done nothing to help small business and us commoners. It has been good for your 401,if you still have one,but has done nothing for your job or business."
DeleteThat, Rojay, is stated absolutely perfectly. This was the devil's deal we made and the stock market and our 401k's was the smokescreen to suck us into letting our stability and prosperity be sold out from under us. When interest rates used to be higher, people could save money. They could store "power" in the bank and draw on it when they needed to. They could be paid a fair interest rate and by default, participate in the process of lending to grow the economy. Thanks to Greenspan, you have a simple choice, save money and lose power year after year to inflation, or put your money in the stock market. Banks don't lend to community interests anymore because they don't give a shit about communities. They are just branches of some giant monolith and the shrug their shoulders at you because if you don't deposit your money with them, they will eventually buy your bank out anyway.
Once Greenspan made it clear, after 87, that investors would always be made whole by the Fed, everyone became an investor and what millions of people dreamed of after that was "flipping" things instead of working. To say commoners didn't participate as well as accurate, but slightly misleading. Bit by bit we crushed wages, we crushed savers, we crushed small business by letting trusts destroy them and we did it all in the name of being able to consume cheap. Meh, what's the point. People want short, simple bromides that they don't have to think about.