patrick.net

tatupu70 says

dunnross says

And you obviously have no clue what a civilized debate is all about. I give

you facts and you give me insults. Nice.

Sorry--I'm not used to you being civilized. But your "facts" are incorrect. The current P/E of the S&P 500 is 19.86

http://www.multpl.com/

On the high side, but clearly not a bubble.

Nope, your data is from last year. This year, it's 25.6, just like my link says:

http://www.gurufocus.com/shiller-PE.php

And, it's over 50% higher than the historic mean. At the end of the bear market it should be 6, but it never got that low. So, any fool who thinks that the worst is still behind us, clearly thinks that "This time is different". Whether this is a bubble or not is completely irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant, is that some uncivilized philistines like you, can't even read the subject of the post.

CDon says

So, again, as of July 6, 2012 you said you were "fully invested in gold and silver, right now". Yet, a little over a year later when it was clear that Gold was in a rout, you conveniently change your claim to "I was actually shorting gold back in 2011". So do you now want to tell us which one of these positions is true?

What is it about the difference between 2012 and 2011 which you can't understand?

dunnross says

CDon says

So, again, as of July 6, 2012 you said you were "fully invested in gold and silver, right now". Yet, a little over a year later when it was clear that Gold was in a rout, you conveniently change your claim to "I was actually shorting gold back in 2011". So do you now want to tell us which one of these positions is true?

What is it about the difference between 2012 and 2011 which you can't understand?

So you want to play it this way? Ok, lets start here... On July 6 2012 were you:

(a) short gold?

OR

(b) long gold?

Feel free to answer (a) or (b) at your first opportunity, and then we will go from there.

CDon says

So you want to play it this way? Ok, lets start here... On July 6 2012 were you:

(a) short gold?

OR

(b) long gold?

Feel free to answer (a) or (b) at your first opportunity, and then we will go from there.

Wait a minute? Did I sign up to take this SAT test last week?

dunnross says

CDon says

So you want to play it this way? Ok, lets start here... On July 6 2012 were you:

(a) short gold?

OR

(b) long gold?

Feel free to answer (a) or (b) at your first opportunity, and then we will go from there.

Wait a minute? Did I sign up to take this SAT test last week?

Again, you previously said:

What is it about the difference between 2012 and 2011 which you can't understand?

Accordingly, we will now go through this step by step. Ready?

On July 6 2012 were you:

(a) short gold?

OR

(b) long gold?

Feel free to answer (a) or (b) at your first opportunity, and then we will go from there.

Alternatively, you can just admit which one of your 2011/2012 statements was a lie and short circuit this whole process. Your choice...

tatupu70 says

Homeboy says

Not continuing with 20%/year returns" would mean the chart would have that huge

ramp up, then just level off. Look at the chart - has that ever happened before?

No, it has never happened before.

Sure it has. There have been times of low growth and times of negative growth.

Sure it has what? The question was not "have there ever been times of low growth or negative growth?"; the question was, "has the S&P ever had a huge ramp up and then just leveled off?" Please try reading for a change.

When was the last time the S&P went up 1,000 points in 5 years? It was 1995-2000. Did it level off after that? (Hint: no, it didn't).

RIP, common sense.

Tat, are you willing to go on record right now saying that there will be no stock market correction?

Homeboy says

Sure it has what? The question was not "have there ever been times of low
growth or negative growth?"; the question was, "has the S&P ever had a huge
ramp up and then just leveled off?" Please try reading for a change.

No it wasn't. I posted that there's a difference between a 20% rate of increase and a major correction. Somehow you interpreted that to mean that I was saying stocks would "level off". And now you want to start a fight again.Homeboy says

When was the last time the S&P went up 1,000 points in 5 years? It was
1995-2000. Did it level off after that? (Hint: no, it didn't).

So, that proves exactly nothing. If it happened once, it will happen that way every time?

Homeboy says

Tat, are you willing to go on record right now saying that there will be no
stock market correction?

Why would I do that? Eventually there will be a correction. If you want to pick a time period and a magnitude, then maybe.

In 2011 I was short gold. In 2012, I was long gold. It's just as simple as that. Both statements were true. Do you have an issue with that?

tatupu70 says

bob2356 says

Ask a Keynsien how the debt can increase forever without ever seeing a day of

reckoning and it's like listening to my 5 year old explain how the flower vase

got broken.

A Keynesian doesn't advocate debt increasing forever, so it's not really a good question.

A keynesian in theory doesn't advocate the debt to increase forever. The problem is they never see a good time to stop increasing never mind decreasing. So it's actually worse than believing the debt can increase forever, it's self delusion that some day the debt will be decreased.

bob2356 says

A keynesian in theory doesn't advocate the debt to increase forever. The
problem is they never see a good time to stop increasing never mind decreasing.
So it's actually worse than believing the debt can increase forever, it's self
delusion that some day the debt will be decreased.

Well--I agree that politicians don't actually practice Keynes. I'd say that nobody actually practices Keynesianism rather than saying keynesians want to increase debt forever.

tatupu70 says

bob2356 says

A keynesian in theory doesn't advocate the debt to increase forever. The

problem is they never see a good time to stop increasing never mind decreasing.

So it's actually worse than believing the debt can increase forever, it's self

delusion that some day the debt will be decreased.

Well--I agree that politicians don't actually practice Keynes. I'd say that nobody actually practices Keynesianism rather than saying keynesians want to increase debt forever.

How can someone believe in something they don't practice? So you are saying anyone who believes in keynes will never attain a position to do anything about it? That rather makes keynes a moot point then. As well as austrians who have the same exact problem. The blue sky ivory tower theorists don't work in the real world and people who work in the real world don't pay the least bit of attention to the guys in their ivory towers.

bob2356 says

The blue sky ivory tower theorists don't work in the real world and people who
work in the real world don't pay the least bit of attention to the guys in their
ivory towers.

Hey--I'm not arguing with you. People can call themselves whatever they want. Actions are what matters. Our politicians don't want to make hard choices because they might lose their job.

My only point is blame the people, don't discredit the theory.

tatupu70 says

So, that proves exactly nothing. If it happened once, it will happen that way every time?

1990s vs current run-up is different:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP/

tatupu70 says

Our politicians don't want to make hard choices because they might lose their job.

WILL lose their reelection.

That's the lesson of 1994. Don't raise income taxes on the middle class.

tatupu70 says

Why would I do that? Eventually there will be a correction. If you want to pick a time period and a magnitude, then maybe.

Then you agree with me. So why are you trying to argue, dumbass?

tatupu70 says

No it wasn't. I posted that there's a difference between a 20% rate of increase and a major correction. Somehow you interpreted that to mean that I was saying stocks would "level off". And now you want to start a fight again

You bob and weave so much, it's like being in the ring with Mike Tyson.

tatupu70 says

So, that proves exactly nothing. If it happened once, it will happen that way every time?

Arguments tatapu has made so far:

1. The stock market isn't going to correct; it will simply level off.

2. I never said the stock market will level off.

3. There will be a correction in the stock market.

4. There won't be a correction in the stock market.

Dude, seriously - you are all OVER the place. Why don't you actually go on record here and SAY something, pussy.

Homeboy says

Then you agree with me. So why are you trying to argue, dumbass?

If your statement was that given an infinite timeline and the broadest definition of "correction"---yes, there will certainly be a correction then, I agree.

I don't think that was your statement.

Homeboy says

Arguments tatapu has made so far:

1. The stock market isn't going to correct; it will simply level off.

Please show me where I said that.

Homeboy says

There won't be a correction in the stock market.

Please show me where I said that.

Homeboy says

Dude, seriously - you are all OVER the place. Why don't you actually go on
record here and SAY something, pussy.

Dude--you need a class in reading comprehension. I'm not sure where you come up with this stuff--even if someone agrees with you, your mind somehow twists it to make you think they are arguing with you.

dunnross says

Nope, your data is from last year. This year, it's 25.6, just like my link
says:

Your link is not the commonly accepted P/E ratio. Mine was. As of today, it's at 19.77

http://www.multpl.com/

tatupu70 says

Dude--you need a class in reading comprehension. I'm not sure where you come up with this stuff--even if someone agrees with you, your mind somehow twists it to make you think they are arguing with you.

This was your first post directed towards me:

Homeboy says

Funny, the more buzzwords people learn and the more they become mired in the
silly Austrian vs. Keynes competition, the more common sense gets thrown out the
window. One has simply to look at a chart of the S&P and imagine the line
continuing on its current trajectory to realize that this is not
sustainable.

There's a big difference between not continuing with 20%/year returns and losing 50%+ of its current value.

The first I agree with, the second I don't.

This is what you do, tatupu, you argue, then you backpedal. Any normal person would read your comment as meaning you believe the market will level off rather than go down. You omitted ANY mention of a correction, and even made the specific point that not continuing with the same returns is DIFFERENT than a correction. Sure, you didn't explicitly state "there will be no correction", but if your intent was to agree with me that there is going to be a correction, that sure was a strange way of indicating it. Are your posts always that inscrutable?

Anyway, I don't have time to play silly word games with you, so have a nice day.

Homeboy says

This is what you do, tatupu, you argue, then you backpedal. If your intent
was to agree with me that there is going to be a correction, that sure was a
strange way of indicating it.

OK--suit yourself. I was pretty plain--I don't think there is going to be a major 50%+ correction like the OP is implying. Sure there could be a 10% drop. Or stocks could level off for awhile.

You said that the current gains are unsustainable and I agree. I just don't think we're due for a huge correction.

I didn't backpedal at all. You just can't comprehend simple concepts.

tatupu70 says

You said that the current gains are unsustainable and I agree.

You could have just said that in the first place and saved everyone a lot of time.

tatupu70 says

Sure there could be a 10% drop.

Only 10%? So you don't think the S&P will go below 1680? I think it's highly probable it will.

tatupu70 says

Or stocks could level off for awhile.

Hedging your bet, I see. "Stocks might go down or they might not". Way to go out on a limb, there. LOL.

Homeboy says

You could have just said that in the first place and saved everyone a lot of
time.

I thought I did.

Homeboy says

Hedging your bet, I see. "Stocks might go down or they might not". Way to go
out on a limb, there. LOL.

I wasn't making a prediction other than saying that I don't think we're heading for a major correction like the OP.

The 1990s stock run-up was driven by speculative fever, as valuations well outpaced profits.

The 2000s stock run-up failed when corporate profits failed after the Potemkin Village nature of the Bush Economy (i.e. its utter dependency on mortgage equity withdrawal) became apparent.

I don't see what's going to fail this decade, assuming the Yellen Fed can hold the conservative hawks at bay and away from actual policy.

I do see Congress getting back into the stimulus game in 2017. Gov't spending of 2020 is going to look a lot different from now.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FGEXPND

shows Bush took them from $2T to $3.2T. I expect a similar move to close out the decade.

As is the national debt -- I also expect tax cuts coming. Politicians love handing out tax cuts.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEGDQ188S

the world hasn't ended with 100% debt to GDP, it won't end at 150% level either.

CDon says

Any response appreciated.

I decided to write a new thread. Hope you find it helpful. I called it Elliott Wave Theory - fact or fiction.

tatupu70 says

No arguments here. I'm not very good at predicting stocks--I'm more on the efficient market side of things. My money goes into a very low fee index fund...

I'm not asking you to predict individual stocks. I'm asking you to predict what the S&P is going to do. You seem to have very strong opinions on the matter, but then when I ask you to actually define what you're talking about, you clam up.

Homeboy says

You seem to have very strong opinions on the matter, but then when I ask you
to actually define what you're talking about, you clam up.

My only strong opinion was that I don't think we're due for a major correction of 50% or more. Not sure how much more plainly I can state it. I think the OP is wrong. I don't think stocks are in a bubble. That is my opinion.

jojo says

@tatupu70

Are you a Real Estate agent or broker?

Both. And I'm also a paid shill for the government, as well as a part of the zionist conspiracy.

tatupu70 says

My only strong opinion was that I don't think we're due for a major correction of 50% or more. Not sure how much more plainly I can state it.

Since there has never been a 50% correction in the entire history of the S&P500, that's hardly going out on a limb.

But I understand; you don't want to say anything specific because you are afraid of being wrong.

tatupu70 says

I think the OP is wrong.

I don't see where the OP said "50% drop", but if he did, I also disagree. However, you specifically responded to MY post, not the OPs.

tatupu70 says

I don't think stocks are in a bubble.

That statement is meaningless, since you refuse to define what that means in anything but the most overly broad terms.

Homeboy says

Since there has never been a 50% correction in the entire history of the S&P500, that's hardly going out on a limb

My goal wasn't to go out on a limb. There are many, many others who do that--I usually try and impart of bit of reality.

Homeboy says

That statement is meaningless, since you refuse to define what that means in anything but the most overly broad terms.

Maybe to you. I think most others understand what the statement--"I don't think stocks are in a bubble" means.

Bellingham Bill says

I don't see what's going to fail this decade, assuming the Yellen Fed can hold the conservative hawks at bay and away from actual policy.

What will fail this decade is likely not in the US but in Asia.

tatupu70 says

My goal wasn't to go out on a limb. There are many, many others who do that--I usually try and impart of bit of reality.

I didn't say your goal was to go out on a limb. I was facetiously saying you are "hardly going out on a limb". That's another way of saying what you wrote is so broad in scope as to be meaningless. Like if I said, "President Obama isn't going to sprout wings and fly around the oval office." It's rather obvious, right? The chances of my being wrong are almost zero. You really didn't get that? Are you imparting reality or just stating what is patently obvious? Again, the S&P 500 has NEVER dropped 50%, so you really aren't saying anything when you say you don't believe it will now. Other than that, what have you really said here? That the stock market will either go up, go down, or level off? That's a truism.

tatupu70 says

Maybe to you. I think most others understand what the statement--"I don't think stocks are in a bubble" means.

They may understand what that means, but they don't understand what YOU mean when you say it, because you refuse to define what "being in a bubble" means to you. You have admitted that you agree with me when I say there could be a correction, so I presume that when the correction happens, you will simply say, "Oh, no - that wasn't a bubble".

Predictions, for dumbasses who don't know how to read:

http://patrick.net/?p=1239518&c=1062129#comment-1062129

http://patrick.net/?p=1239518&c=1062523#comment-1062523

Which takes a lot more fortitude than simply babbling meaningless phrases like "we're not in a bubble".

Homeboy says

I didn't say your goal was to go out on a limb. I was facetiously saying you
are "hardly going out on a limb". That's another way of saying what you wrote is
so broad in scope as to be meaningless. Like if I said, "President Obama isn't
going to sprout wings and fly around the oval office." It's rather obvious,
right? The chances of my being wrong are almost zero. You really didn't get
that? Are you imparting reality or just stating what is patently obvious? Again,
the S&P 500 has NEVER dropped 50%, so you really aren't saying anything when
you say you don't believe it will now. Other than that, what have you really
said here? That the stock market will either go up, go down, or level off?
That's a truism.

FFS-Your post basically said that we're due for a correction because stocks can't keep rising at the current rate. I posted to say that while I agree stocks can't keep rising at the current rate forever, that doesn't mean that a major correction is coming either.

That was my point. I wasn't trying to make a prediction. I was just showing that it was a false choice.

Homeboy says

They may understand what that means, but they don't understand what YOU mean
when you say it, because you refuse to define what "being in a bubble" means to
you. You have admitted that you agree with me when I say there could be a
correction, so I presume that when the correction happens, you will simply say,
"Oh, no - that wasn't a bubble".

No, I typically don't go around defining terms that have well accepted definitions. And you're correct, even if a correction happens, I will maintain that we are not in a bubble now. Corporate profits are at an all time high. P/E ratios are on the high side of normal, but certainly not in bubble territory. The overall market rise has been slow and steady--it hasn't become exponential in nature. I see few signs of a bubble.