market selloff

[deadheadskier]

way to make yourself look like an utter retard your like your idols Hannity and Rush.

Make a thread about Market Sell Off

Market has best month in 20 years

Completely deflect the fact that your prediction was wrong and change the subject entirely to Food Stamps.

Good show!!!!!

Got any more garbage you want to copy and paste from zerohedge?

Oh, and shouldn't you be off shooting skeet or something there Zimmerman?

[madhatter]

way to make yourself look like an utter retard your like your idols Hannity and Rush.

Make a thread about Market Sell OffIN NOVEMBER

Market has best month in 20 years for blue chips 2 months later, all is well hahahaha dope

Completely deflect the fact that your prediction what prediction? I asked if gold was going to go to 2k by jan 31 ( um nope) and pointed out the 1k plus point drop in the market in real time as it happened in direct response to the election results. was wrong and change the subject entirely to Food Stamps.are you incapable of following along, it's not a "new thread" , it's not a change of subject. how stupid are you?

Good show!!!!!

Got any more garbage you want to copy and paste from zerohedge?

Oh, and shouldn't you be off shooting skeet or something there Zimmerman????

learn to read and you might not be so ill informed.

from the article and my post:


"I point all of this out this morning not to state right or wrong but to state with clarity that the markets will be seriously impacted by all of this. The equity markets may be at all-time highs today as fed by the central banks but a turn is coming, a quite severe turn in my view, which will wipe the glitter from the ornaments. As Treasury yields begin to rise and as markets reassess relative value then the rose petals will begin to fall and if the central banks begin to end their monetary flood at the same time then “Katie Bar the Door” will be the result.


from the food stamp chart link:

In the aftermath of Friday's mediocre jobs report, and while we wait for the USDA to release the latest November foodstamp update which will almost certainly print at a new record high, here is yet another representation of a relationship we have shown on several occasions previously, yet which is always entertaining, and shows just what kind of "recovery" the US is undergoing. Presenting the indexed change of payrolls (green line) and foodstamps recipients (red). No explanation is necessary.

Some thoughts from Bloomberg Brief:

An ongoing concern is that growth in jobs continues to be dwarfed by the surge in food stamps. During the first 10 months of 2012 there were 1.01 million new additions to the USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a 2.2 percent increase. During the same period, the number of nonfarm payroll jobs increased by 1.5 million, a 1.1 percent gain.



The results from the end of the recession in June 2009 are even more staggering. The number of food stamp recipients has rocketed 30 percent since mid-2009, yet the number of nonfarm payroll jobs has inched up a mere 2 percent over that same period. Considering the composition of those jobs – in low wage industries – the household sector is clearly suffering.



In a conference call last Thursday, a day before the jobs report, Scott Beattie, CEO of Elizabeth Arden noted that the company’s customers remain challenged by the economy. “These are customers that are living paycheck-to-paycheck, many of them reliant on government subsidy in food stamps and unemployment insurance and other kinds of government subsidies, and you see it,” he said.

apparently for the braindead an explanation is necessary. just for you:

the market is not an indicator of the economy, the market is a reflection of excess bank reserves. Jobs, mostly crappy ones, are going up almost immeasurably when compared to the dramatic rise in foodstamps. Europe is in a shambles, the US is following the same blueprint.

summarized from the article: The rich are poorer, the middle class is poorer, the poor become better off at first and then less well off in the second instance as taxes bleed the entire economy of excess capital.

also from my post:

Of course, with record deficits, and a record fed balance sheet, the message now is that everything is fixed - the economy is healed.this is the message idiots like you are receiving. This, as ZH readers can surmise, is complete nonsense.this is the reality However, since we are ruled by a "new keynesian" elite, and they are supported by their media arms,and useful idiots well, they control that message Kool-Aid."


FYI the market is down 116+ at 1040 am ALL IN!!!

[deadheadskier]

Oh look, he copied and pasted

Newsflash Zimmerman, this is how many people care what you have to say



You should have cut bait and left when you lost your bet to Junior, but you were too much of a pussy to man up to your word.

Instead, we all get to keep our crazy little internet troll around for entertainment where you day by day further cement in the minds of your audience what a crazed delusional hermit you are. If you were so smart you'd figure out long ago that you've made yourself the Glen Beck of Kzone.

good show Zimmerman

Have fun with your skeet

[Bubba]

The market is a reflection of the economic future as seen by market participants, both traders and investors. Whatever the driver of the market's vision, that is what the market is and always has been. Zero Hedge and Madhatter obviously see the primary driver being the Fed. That very well may be true. Of course, the Fed is taking those actions as one step to increasing the rate of economic growth. Confidence in a recovery is a major step in creating a recovery and growth of the market is a significant factor in building confidence. Is it an illusion? Maybe, but we definitely see economic growth, although still sluggish for sure.

There are other market drivers as well - both positive and negative. If you think that as interest rates start to go up, as they eventually will, the market will crash, so be it. Interest rates will be going up, hopefully, because economic growth has improved to the point that inflationary pressure becomes more important a factor than it is today. The Fed's problem will always be to react quickly enough to stave off inflation without moving so quickly as to douse the recovery. If you think they can do that job well, you take one view of the market's future. If you think they can't, you foresee a major market correction and write ZH.

Comparing jobs growth to Food Stamp growth is an intersting comparison. Comparing job growth to commodity prices is another interesting comparison. Comparing job growth to skier visits is even one more interesting comparison. Interesting, however, does not necessarily mean "meaningful".

[Bubba]

Oh look, he copied and pasted

Newsflash Zimmerman, this is how many people care what you have to say



You should have cut bait and left when you lost your bet to Junior, but you were too much of a pussy to man up to your word.

Instead, we all get to keep our crazy little internet troll around for entertainment where you day by day further cement in the minds of your audience what a crazed delusional hermit you are. If you were so smart you'd figure out long ago that you've made yourself the Glen Beck of Kzone.

good show Zimmerman

Have fun with your skeet

Bet with Junior, kemosabe?

[madhatter]

The market is a reflection of the economic future as seen by market participants, both traders and investors. Whatever the driver of the market's vision, that is what the market is and always has been. Zero Hedge and Madhatter obviously see the primary driver being the Fed. That very well may be true. Of course, the Fed is taking those actions as one step to increasing the rate of economic growth. Confidence in a recovery is a major step in creating a recovery and growth of the market is a significant factor in building confidence. Is it an illusion? Maybe, but we definitely see economic growth, although still sluggish for sure.

There are other market drivers as well - both positive and negative. If you think that as interest rates start to go up, as they eventually will, the market will crash, so be it. Interest rates will be going up, hopefully, because economic growth has improved to the point that inflationary pressure becomes more important a factor than it is today. The Fed's problem will always be to react quickly enough to stave off inflation without moving so quickly as to douse the recovery. If you think they can do that job well, you take one view of the market's future. If you think they can't, you foresee a major market correction and write ZH. so it all comes down to how well you trust the fed???

Comparing jobs growth to Food Stamp growth is an intersting comparison.pretty sure his point was the jobs we are adding need to be subsidized with foodstamps, gov insurance etc and thus will not fuel any kind of meaningful recovery, ie a crappy job w some gov money to make it liveable is not only "not a recovery" it's also unsustainable, thus the point that the poor are better off at first til the tax burden they create sinks everyone. no one has to agree, but to dismiss it immediately as foolishness is well uh foolish... Comparing job growth to commodity prices is another interesting comparison. Comparing job growth to skier visits is even one more interesting comparison. Interesting, however, does not necessarily mean "meaningful".

gold, platinum and corn are up today, DOW? not so much. but hey how 'bout that january for blue chips? When does aapl fall below 400?

[Bubba]

The market is a reflection of the economic future as seen by market participants, both traders and investors. Whatever the driver of the market's vision, that is what the market is and always has been. Zero Hedge and Madhatter obviously see the primary driver being the Fed. That very well may be true. Of course, the Fed is taking those actions as one step to increasing the rate of economic growth. Confidence in a recovery is a major step in creating a recovery and growth of the market is a significant factor in building confidence. Is it an illusion? Maybe, but we definitely see economic growth, although still sluggish for sure.

There are other market drivers as well - both positive and negative. If you think that as interest rates start to go up, as they eventually will, the market will crash, so be it. Interest rates will be going up, hopefully, because economic growth has improved to the point that inflationary pressure becomes more important a factor than it is today. The Fed's problem will always be to react quickly enough to stave off inflation without moving so quickly as to douse the recovery. If you think they can do that job well, you take one view of the market's future. If you think they can't, you foresee a major market correction and write ZH. so it all comes down to how well you trust the fed???

Comparing jobs growth to Food Stamp growth is an intersting comparison.pretty sure his point was the jobs we are adding need to be subsidized with foodstamps, gov insurance etc and thus will not fuel any kind of meaningful recovery, ie a crappy job w some gov money to make it liveable is not only "not a recovery" it's also unsustainable, thus the point that the poor are better off at first til the tax burden they create sinks everyone. no one has to agree, but to dismiss it immediately as foolishness is well uh foolish... Comparing job growth to commodity prices is another interesting comparison. Comparing job growth to skier visits is even one more interesting comparison. Interesting, however, does not necessarily mean "meaningful".

gold, platinum and corn are up today, DOW? not so much. but hey how 'bout that january for blue chips? When does aapl fall below 400?

Seems to me that if the jobs we are adding have to be subsidized with Food Stamps, there should be little growth in Food Stamps since previously unemployed people would likely have been on Food Stamps already prior to employment. The growth, therefore, is more likely attributable to the recession causing a dramatic increase in unemployment thus an inrease in Food Stamps demand as well as (possibly - I don't know the rules) a loosening of requirements in at least some states.

As for last week's jobs report, as I recall:

- Private sector jobs grew reasonably well
- Government jobs decreased
- November and December jobs were revised upward significantly, which was interesting considering the surprising decrease in Q1 FY13 GDP

I'll have to go back and look to verify those recollections.

As for trusting the Fed, having a variety of investments including some that hedge against inflation and others that are countercyclical or defensive in nature is the best way to go. Do not put all your eggs in one basket unless you're prepared to watch that basket 24/7.

[madhatter]

The market is a reflection of the economic future as seen by market participants, both traders and investors. Whatever the driver of the market's vision, that is what the market is and always has been. Zero Hedge and Madhatter obviously see the primary driver being the Fed. That very well may be true. Of course, the Fed is taking those actions as one step to increasing the rate of economic growth. Confidence in a recovery is a major step in creating a recovery and growth of the market is a significant factor in building confidence. Is it an illusion? Maybe, but we definitely see economic growth, although still sluggish for sure.

There are other market drivers as well - both positive and negative. If you think that as interest rates start to go up, as they eventually will, the market will crash, so be it. Interest rates will be going up, hopefully, because economic growth has improved to the point that inflationary pressure becomes more important a factor than it is today. The Fed's problem will always be to react quickly enough to stave off inflation without moving so quickly as to douse the recovery. If you think they can do that job well, you take one view of the market's future. If you think they can't, you foresee a major market correction and write ZH. so it all comes down to how well you trust the fed???

Comparing jobs growth to Food Stamp growth is an intersting comparison.pretty sure his point was the jobs we are adding need to be subsidized with foodstamps, gov insurance etc and thus will not fuel any kind of meaningful recovery, ie a crappy job w some gov money to make it liveable is not only "not a recovery" it's also unsustainable, thus the point that the poor are better off at first til the tax burden they create sinks everyone. no one has to agree, but to dismiss it immediately as foolishness is well uh foolish... Comparing job growth to commodity prices is another interesting comparison. Comparing job growth to skier visits is even one more interesting comparison. Interesting, however, does not necessarily mean "meaningful".

gold, platinum and corn are up today, DOW? not so much. but hey how 'bout that january for blue chips? When does aapl fall below 400?

Seems to me that if the jobs we are adding have to be subsidized with Food Stamps, there should be little growth in Food Stamps since previously unemployed people would likely have been on Food Stamps already prior to employment. The growth, therefore, is more likely attributable to the recession causing a dramatic increase in unemployment thus an inrease in Food Stamps demand as well as (possibly - I don't know the rules) a loosening of requirements in at least some states.

As for last week's jobs report, as I recall:

- Private sector jobs grew reasonably well
- Government jobs decreased
- November and December jobs were revised upward significantly, which was interesting considering the surprising decrease in Q1 FY13 GDP

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-0 ... job-losses" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"the same data that showed that the unemployment rate actually rose from 7.8% to 7.9% "

"Indeed, as the chart below demonstrates, based on BLS data which breaks down jobs gains and losses granularly by age group, in January there was a total of 115,000 jobs losses, with the biggest losses once again concentrated in the 20-24, and 25-54 age groups, a total of 205,000 job losses, offset purely by job gains in the 16-19 age category: hardly the "quality" of jobs worth writing home about."





I'll have to go back and look to verify those recollections.

As for trusting the Fed, having a variety of investments including some that hedge against inflation and others that are countercyclical or defensive in nature is the best way to go. Do not put all your eggs in one basket unless you're prepared to watch that basket 24/7.yeah I think we've covered this, there IS money to be made in the market, lots of it, but can YOU make it? Or are HFT's and other advanced instruments far outstripping you? When/if the bottom falls out, for any reason, imaginary digital credits won;t get you much if anything. ( what if a cyber attack were able to totally corrupt or erase financial assets permanently? just one of a zillion possible scenarios.) Physical assets must be taken physically ( for the most part) having your portfolio in skeeball tickets ( stocks and other paper) isn't all that good if the skeeball arcade won't redeem em.

another big drag is the cost of fuel, both for transportation and heating. both have been high for sustained periods while wages have been largely stagnant, real wages have actually declined and the jobs we are creating are low paying. The cost of goods and services increases as heating and transportation costs increase. Really hard to find any place where things are rosey ( -er than they were previously) for a good number of people , whether they are capable of realizing that or not.

[Bubba]

How does ZH figure jobs went down 115,000 when BLS data show seasonally adjusted job gains of 155,000?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[steamboat1]

How does ZH figure jobs went down 115,000 when BLS data show seasonally adjusted job gains of 155,000?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not seasonally adjusted shows a loss of 2.8 million jobs.

Not to mention that 167,000 left the labor force. That means in Obama's 4 years a total of 8.5 million people have left the labor force.

Outstanding news.

[madhatter]

How does ZH figure jobs went down 115,000 when BLS data show seasonally adjusted job gains of 155,000?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"While it is enticing to fall for the same old trick of reading the "quantitative", or headline, jobs data, driven entirely by the Establishment Survey, which as the BLS itself showed today, is nothing but mere noise based on seasonal adjustments and population estimates which is revised at least once a year based on new and improved exit assumptions, below we show the actual unvarnished truth contained in today's jobs reports."-- from ZH

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

their data is extrapolated using that data, I'm not a financial analyst but using the chart of the data above:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/ ... roup_0.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the 106+ in the 16-19 category negate the 106 lost in the 25-34 category which leaves the 99 lost in the 20-24 category plus the 16 lost in the 55-69 category for a total of 115 lost.

MAFF:


106
(106)
(99)
(16)
________

(115)

that work for you?

[Bubba]

If you don't seasonally adjust, then certain months will generally go up and certain months will generally go down due to normal seasonal hiring factors.

[steamboat1]

If you don't seasonally adjust, then certain months will generally go up and certain months will generally go down due to normal seasonal hiring factors.

So just to be clear what you're saying is that the non-adjusted numbers are the real numbers.

[madhatter]

If you don't seasonally adjust, then certain months will generally go up and certain months will generally go down due to normal seasonal hiring factors.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

( can't paste the formatted chart but the numbers ARE seasonally adjusted are they not?

Seasonally adjusted
Jan.
2012 Dec.
2012 Jan.
2013 Jan.
2012 Sept.
2012 Oct.
2012 Nov.
2012 Dec.
2012 Jan.
2013

AGE AND SEX


Total, 16 years and over
139,944 143,060 141,614 141,608 142,974 143,328 143,277 143,305 143,322

16 to 19 years
3,990 4,192 4,120 4,391 4,429 4,469 4,468 4,402 4,508

16 to 17 years
1,160 1,342 1,269 1,336 1,428 1,448 1,351 1,405 1,453

18 to 19 years
2,830 2,849 2,850 3,049 2,986 3,032 3,126 2,985 3,048

20 years and over
135,954 138,868 137,494 137,218 138,545 138,858 138,809 138,903 138,814

20 to 24 years
12,953 13,412 13,064 13,339 13,503 13,549 13,595 13,570 13,471

25 years and over
123,000 125,456 124,430 123,859 125,027 125,285 125,200 125,406 125,311

25 to 54 years
93,271 94,305 93,418 93,989 94,340 94,328 94,079 94,253 94,147

25 to 34 years
29,995 31,162 30,775 30,370 30,805 30,918 30,971 31,115 31,137

35 to 44 years
30,394 30,523 30,270 30,612 30,658 30,668 30,490 30,524 30,480

45 to 54 years
32,883 32,620 32,373 33,007 32,877 32,742 32,618 32,614 32,531

55 years and over
29,729 31,151 31,012 29,871 30,688 30,957 31,121 31,153 31,164

Men, 16 years and over
73,772 75,686 74,823 75,257 75,769 76,027 75,983 76,060 76,290

16 to 19 years
1,880 1,971 1,918 2,119 2,157 2,182 2,163 2,111 2,151

16 to 17 years
524 632 566 619 651 719 656 690 673

18 to 19 years
1,357 1,339 1,352 1,489 1,497 1,467 1,492 1,422 1,472

20 years and over
71,892 73,716 72,905 73,138 73,612 73,845 73,821 73,949 74,139

20 to 24 years
6,685 6,969 6,779 6,973 6,989 7,096 7,125 7,104 7,070

25 years and over
65,207 66,747 66,126 66,110 66,636 66,790 66,720 66,902 67,002

25 to 54 years
49,592 50,286 49,778 50,325 50,352 50,342 50,194 50,370 50,474

25 to 34 years
16,120 16,801 16,589 16,440 16,608 16,715 16,734 16,799 16,889

35 to 44 years
16,357 16,437 16,345 16,557 16,552 16,527 16,380 16,443 16,519

45 to 54 years
17,116 17,048 16,844 17,327 17,193 17,100 17,080 17,127 17,066

55 years and over
15,615 16,460 16,348 15,785 16,284 16,447 16,526 16,532 16,528

Women, 16 years and over
66,172 67,373 66,790 66,351 67,206 67,301 67,294 67,245 67,032

16 to 19 years
2,110 2,221 2,201 2,272 2,272 2,287 2,305 2,291 2,357

16 to 17 years
636 710 703 717 777 729 695 715 780

18 to 19 years
1,474 1,511 1,498 1,560 1,490 1,565 1,634 1,563 1,576

20 years and over
64,062 65,152 64,589 64,080 64,934 65,014 64,988 64,954 64,675

20 to 24 years
6,268 6,443 6,284 6,365 6,514 6,453 6,470 6,467 6,402

25 years and over
57,794 58,709 58,305 57,749 58,391 58,496 58,480 58,504 58,309

25 to 54 years
43,679 44,019 43,640 43,664 43,987 43,986 43,885 43,883 43,674

25 to 34 years
13,875 14,361 14,186 13,929 14,197 14,203 14,237 14,315 14,248

35 to 44 years
14,037 14,086 13,925 14,055 14,106 14,141 14,109 14,080 13,961

45 to 54 years
15,767 15,572 15,529 15,680 15,684 15,643 15,538 15,487 15,465

55 years and over
14,115 14,690 14,664 14,085 14,404 14,510 14,595 14,621 14,636

MARITAL STATUS


Married men, spouse present
43,191 44,014 43,660 43,662 43,980 44,134 44,016 43,924 44,117

Married women, spouse present
34,672 34,942 34,488 34,422 34,804 34,561 34,576 34,611 34,271

Women who maintain families
9,075 9,125 9,092 - - - - - -

FULL- OR PART-TIME STATUS


Full-time workers(1)
111,879 115,079 113,868 113,833 115,259 115,469 115,665 115,868 115,918

Part-time workers(2)
28,065 27,980 27,746 27,753 27,692 27,869 27,517 27,502 27,467

MULTIPLE JOBHOLDERS


Total multiple jobholders
6,830 7,081 6,738 7,011 6,882 6,927 7,109 7,017 6,919

Percent of total employed
4.9 4.9 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.8 5.0 4.9 4.8

SELF-EMPLOYMENT


Self-employed workers, incorporated
5,191 5,175 5,244 - - - - - -

Self-employed workers, unincorporated
9,256 9,502 9,200 9,565 9,622 9,570 9,735 9,682 9,





so to recap when is 115k lost jobs equal to 157 k job gained? when the BLS says so...

kinda like having 2 options on the bench to pinch hit, one is batting .750 the other .300. is .750 batter the obvious choice or should one take a look at the data to see that .750 has only 4 AB's whereas .300 batter has more than 100 AB's and half a dozen hits vs this specific pitcher? Ma gov and the BLS would like you to simply go with the .750 print.

[madhatter]

If you don't seasonally adjust, then certain months will generally go up and certain months will generally go down due to normal seasonal hiring factors.

So just to be clear what you're saying is that the non-adjusted numbers are the real numbers.

no he is saying " oh that goddam madhatter ( and ZH) just must be wrong somehow, I know it, I just know it"