2
0

When the next great stock crash will happen - and how it will look


 invite response                
2018 Sep 21, 7:19pm   7,212 views  46 comments

by barrister   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

Please vote:
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
After 2022

Backdrop: we're in the 4th turning, 10 years after 2008, 17 years after 9-11 FF, in a mid-term election cycle (who cares?), more student/auto/corporate debt, private central bank interest rates going up (we all care), long in tooth economic (debt fueled) expansion, tariff trade wars coming on (for show or not), continued US military war maintenance globally... we also had a "scare" in February or so of 2018 when stocks dropped 10% or so? Then there's bitcoin, no pets.com or webvan this time, but probably lots of similar angel investment; talk of the US Dollar giving way to a RMB-RBL-RUPEE-ETC "SDR" basket... energy prices are lower but maybe EROEI is lower too and the miracle shale "oil" milkshake is nearly all sucked out

This time more businesses seem to be run smartly than last time. But there are likely other mistakes, and cheap debt again.

Maybe the crash this time is more of a 50% of 2008? (Split into a "2019" -20% and a "2025" -20% to make it all seem less disastrous/epic vs 2008?)
Or maybe it's 200% of 2008 due to USD losing its status? (our military is still Murika Strong)
Or maybe Venezuela, China, Ethiopia, Haiti (always), and EMs are taking it on the chin for us?

FRACTIONS OF PENNIES FOR YOUR THOUGHTS

Comments 1 - 40 of 46       Last »     Search these comments

1   bob2356   2018 Sep 21, 7:31pm  

barrister says

When the next great stock crash will happen
When it happens obama deficits will be fondly remembered as being small and quaint . It's going to take some time for all the tax cut money to roll through the system. Without a black swan (keep an eye on the corporate bond bubble) there should be enough momentum to carry through the 2020 election. But that was the whole point of the tax cut, a giant pump and dump to carry trump to a second term.

2   RWSGFY   2018 Sep 21, 7:40pm  

Already happened in 2017.
3   HeadSet   2018 Sep 21, 7:43pm  

DASKAA says
Already happened in 2017.


Interesting, please elaborate. Do you think it has already bottomed? Or is it the first shock?
4   RWSGFY   2018 Sep 21, 7:45pm  

HeadSet says
DASKAA says
Already happened in 2017.


Interesting, please elaborate. Do you think it has already bottomed? Or is it the first shock?


Sigh. You must be new here.
5   mell   2018 Sep 21, 8:10pm  

DASKAA says
HeadSet says
DASKAA says
Already happened in 2017.


Interesting, please elaborate. Do you think it has already bottomed? Or is it the first shock?


Sigh. You must be new here.


lol according to an unnamed feathered animal we should be in a full stage depression by now, also according to fake economists such as Paul Krugsheister. Next year for sure!
6   lostand confused   2018 Sep 21, 8:14pm  

I was expecting and got out of my stocks-except the ones I hold as an investment/dividend stream. I don't know -but maybe expecting 20-30% decline next year-have been expecting that for a few years though-LOL!
7   HeadSet   2018 Sep 21, 8:23pm  

DASKAA says
HeadSet says
DASKAA says
Already happened in 2017.


Interesting, please elaborate. Do you think it has already bottomed? Or is it the first shock?


Sigh. You must be new here.


Sorry, did not catch the "tone." Seems obvious now.
8   barrister   2018 Sep 21, 10:51pm  

I think a lot of us have been expecting a downturn for the last few years. It'll be surprising this time again I'm sure - at least for TV talking heads. But for us the people on main street? No surprise - 2008 was too vivid.

2017 could be the start if that's when rates started rising..

@LOST- what if instead of 30% discount, it's double or triple that due to USD losing its value and the military being disbanded? But that seems like a distant scenario. Couldn't happen now. More likely: lower purchasing power through inflation (QE infinity + rising interest rates) and through more expensive goods (imports, energy costs go up).

We are not the USSR in 1988, are we? Since I believe energy underpins debt, we will be fine and dandy -- until our American Shale Shake gets sucked fully dry, with no milkshake left to go around. There's still plenty of debt-fueld shake shack 'n snack on the menu, the odd shale quake (to go with the chemical shake and land subsidence), and plenty of debt floating about period.

There's a nice comic about energy supporting our current slave-less lifestyle here: http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/energy-slaves/

There's a nice movie about this here:www.youtube.com/embed/4ILoXhrLbO8 (murdered/"suicided")

In other parts of the world due to lacking domestic oil sources (energy = money), people are PAYING BANKS TO HOLD THEIR CASH. What is that? (denmark, japan, etc have negative interest rates. we might too if our gubmint stats were honest.)

So anyway, what I expect is that "after shale oil goes the way of the dodo" we'll see more obvious post-oil economics - a slide. not in a day or a year, but over decades. (unless some new magical energy source is unveiled or found.)
9   WookieMan   2018 Sep 21, 11:13pm  

Yeah, not seeing it to be honest. Until job numbers start declining, things will be fine. No need to say age, but we're entering a baby boom right now for millennials. Kids need shit. That shit creates jobs on a massive scale that are sustainable. Call me out later, but I think we're entering a post WW2 era of expansion if there's a period to compare to.

Boomers are skeptical of anything positive it seems now, which is why I mentioned age. Not a knock, I just think there's some jealousy. I'd be surprised if there's anything close to a 20% "correction" in the next 8 years or so. Call me out if I'm wrong, which I probably will be, but there's too much money going to be sunk into family creation over the next decade.
10   bob2356   2018 Sep 21, 11:56pm  

WookieMan says
Yeah, not seeing it to be honest. Until job numbers start declining, things will be fine. No need to say age, but we're entering a baby boom right now for millennials. Kids need shit. That shit creates jobs on a massive scale that are sustainable. Call me out later, but I think we're entering a post WW2 era of expansion if there's a period to compare to.

Boomers are skeptical of anything positive it seems now, which is why I mentioned age. Not a knock, I just think there's some jealousy. I'd be surprised if there's anything close to a 20% "correction" in the next 8 years or so. Call me out if I'm wrong, which I probably will be, but there's too much money going to be sunk into family creation over the next decade.


There is no way to compare the post WWII era with today. There isn't 15+ years of pent up demand, there isn't a wartime manufacturing powerhouse ready to convert to making consumer goods, there isn't zero foreign competition because we just bombed every manufacturing nation flat. .

The 80 million millennials needing shit is going to be considerably offset by 70 million baby boomers dying and not needing shit. There is going to be a shitload of boomer houses for sale. Lots of them in the wrong places. Be very interesting to watch the markets.

There will be a correction/recession. There always is. It's never different this time.
11   Evan F.   2018 Sep 22, 1:39am  

bob2356 says
No need to say age, but we're entering a baby boom right now for millennials.

Not really, population growth is the slowest it's been in like 80 years. Last year was a .7% growth rate. Younger adults are having fewer kids and waiting longer to have them.

I originally thought last year was going to be the start of very mild correction, but the tax cut is putting it off. Now it's going to set on even slower, I'm thinking lost decade Japan-type recession that dragged on for years.
12   barrister   2018 Sep 22, 2:01am  

WookieMan says
Yeah, not seeing it to be honest. Until job numbers start declining, things will be fine. No need to say age, but we're entering a baby boom right now for millennials. Kids need shit. That shit creates jobs on a massive scale that are sustainable. Call me out later, but I think we're entering a post WW2 era of expansion if there's a period to compare to.

Boomers are skeptical of anything positive it seems now, which is why I mentioned age. Not a knock, I just think there's some jealousy. I'd be surprised if there's anything close to a 20% "correction" in the next 8 years or so. Call me out if I'm wrong, which I probably will be, but there's too much money going to be sunk into family creation over the next decade.


Not a boomer. The shit we buy now is shitted out of machines and ferried by robots. Otherwise by low wage people in "Chindia" and other EM/BRICTs. There's a massive drive towards AI and factory automation on every continent and has been, even at your local restaurant chain. Automation continues becoming more elaborate and pervasive with LoRa, MQTT, drones sensors etc. I'm not saying there won't be a need for jobs, or customer service, nurses, hair stylists, or R&D - there always will. It's more a matter of how much energy is there to underpin debt creation for "infinite growth" in a finite world.

If you haven't studied peak oil, it might be good to study it. If you already know it- well who knows when it will "finally kick in" but we can see that it's already here. Same with wood for furniture (we had hardwood, then plywood, then MDF with wood veneer, now MDF with plastic veneer, then particle board, then card board....) and other natural resources. (Though luckily, trees and grass grow back, as long as there's good quality topsoil full of nutrients, ample water, no temperature adjustments..) And regardless of that, "Federal" "reserve" type private central banks continue issuing cheap credit (debt) to fuel unsustainable house-of-cards economics.

More cheap/easy credit allows more purchases of stuff, houses, cars, education. (QE money printing, low rates)

Low rates = more jobs, loans, stuff, house prices and stock prices rising.

Higher rates = fewer jobs, fewer loans, fewer refinancing HELOC ATMs, lower house prices (see news stories on patrick.net in the past week), stock prices falling (not yet but soon), fewer purchases (ditto), smaller stock dividend payouts: in all, a repeat of prior recessions.

Without moar oil we revert to life before fossil fuels. How do you like them horse apples.
13   barrister   2018 Sep 22, 2:03am  

Evan F. says
population growth


Yep... https://www.google.com/search?q=world+population+growth+rate



Countries with negative population growth rates:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline#Economic_consequences

"For an agricultural or mining economy the average standard of living in a declining population, at least in terms of material possessions, will tend to rise as the amount of land and resources per person will be higher.

But for many industrial economies, the opposite might be true as those economies often thrive on mortgaging the future by way of debt and retirement transfer payments that originally assumed rising tax revenues from a continually expanding population base (i.e. there would be fewer taxpayers in a declining population). However, standard of living does not necessarily correlate with quality of life, which may increase as the population declines due to presumably reduced pollution and consumption of natural resources, and the decline of social pressures and overutilization of resources that can be linked to overpopulation. There may also be reduced pressure on infrastructure, education, and other services as well.

The period immediately after the Black Death, for instance, was one of great prosperity, as people had inheritances from many different family members. However, that situation was not comparable, as it did not have a continually declining population, but rather a sudden shock, followed by population increase. Predictions of the net economic (and other) effects from a slow and continuous population decline (e.g. due to low fertility rates) are mainly theoretical since such a phenomenon is a relatively new and unprecedented one."
14   barrister   2018 Sep 22, 2:26am  

Birth rate in US 1909-2009.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Birth_Rates.svg

Curiously, there's a huge drop in birth rate for nearly 10 years BEFORE 1929.
Wonder if this hurt the ponzi schemes of that era?

Huge drop from 1960 onward... is this from farmers moving to the city where life is more expensive? Better life expectancy also lowers # of kids?

Another big dip after 1991 ("end of cold warez") but hardly any change after 2001 (minor surge) and 2008 (minor dip- but the chart only goes until 2009 and it takes 9 months...)

Other food for thought- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_in_the_American_workforce#Economy
15   clambo   2018 Sep 22, 7:21am  

Is a "great stock crash" a drop of the stock market index of 1. 20% 2. 30% 3. 40% 4. 50%?

I vote after 2022 #2, 30%

By then I won't care that much.

I would worry more if a meteorite crashed into Apple headquarters in Cupertino, CA.
16   RWSGFY   2018 Sep 22, 8:19am  

Nobody knows nothing.
17   Shaman   2018 Sep 22, 8:49am  

bob2356 says
The 80 million millennials needing shit is going to be considerably offset by 70 million baby boomers dying and not needing shit. There is going to be a shitload of boomer houses for sale. Lots of them in the wrong places. Be very interesting to watch the markets.

There will be a correction/recession. There always is. It's never different this time.


Of course you are correct. Combining your prognostications with some of my own I get this:
1)Trump is going to keep the economy great, but his personal style is going to grate on everyone after eight years. We will have a Democrat who is very statesmanlike elected to POTUS in 2026.
2)this will coincide with the beginning of the mass Boomer die-off. They’ll be in their 80s and starting to really shuffle off this mortal coil. Medical stocks will plunge first, as the massive apparatus needed for maintaining Boomer elderly is less needed. Housing will remain strong in popular places, but drop off sharply in rural areas and retirement locations.
3) this will all take some time. I’d give it three to four years of the New Democrat President before we get a significant downturn.
4) we can probably count on a really good run for the time being. Invest your money in growth stocks and bank on good times. Save! Get ahead! As bob has noted, the recession always arrives, even if it is late.
18   HeadSet   2018 Sep 22, 2:15pm  

DASKAA says
Nobody knows nothing.


True, but but it is fun to read reasoned, educated guesses. Also, you gotta put your chips somewhere, so you may as well try to ferret the best odds.
19   CBOEtrader   2018 Sep 22, 5:33pm  

Each bitcoin will purchase power equivalent of a 50 story Manhattan tower
20   MrMagic   2018 Sep 22, 7:16pm  

WookieMan says
No need to say age, but we're entering a baby boom right now for millennials. Kids need shit. That shit creates jobs on a massive scale that are sustainable.


WookieMan says
Call me out if I'm wrong, which I probably will be, but there's too much money going to be sunk into family creation over the next decade.


OK, you're wrong... again... it's actually the opposite. Millennials are opting out of having kids and birth rates are dropping. Their spending their money on 4 legged creatures.

Millennials Aren't Having Kids. Here's Why That's A Problem For Baby Boomer Real Estate & Retirement
https://www.forbes.com/sites/josephcoughlin/2018/06/11/millennials-arent-having-kids-heres-why-thats-a-problem-for-baby-boomer-real-estate-retirement/#79acfe812058

And in place of kids, Millennials are getting pets instead. The rate Millennials are getting pets is actually higher than kids.

4 Reasons Millennials Are Choosing Dogs Over Babies
https://simplyfordogs.com/millennials/4-reasons-millennials-choosing-dogs-babies/

Fewer babies, but more ‘fur babies’

But while fertility is down — women are having an average of 1.8 kids today, down from 3.7 in 1960, according to the Census Bureau — pet ownership (and pampering) is on the rise. A survey by TD Ameritrade finds that Millennials are spending lavishly on their pets. Out of 1,500 Millennials survey, 72% had pets and most of those pet owners (67%) regarded their animals as “fur babies.”
https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/reports-millennials-put-off-kids-due-to-money-but-pamper-pets-lavishly

You should consider investing in pet products instead of cannabis.
21   WookieMan   2018 Sep 24, 10:37am  

MrMagic says
You should consider investing in pet products instead of cannabis.


Got a ticker in mind? Otherwise I don't think anyone cares.

MrMagic says
Millennials Aren't Having Kids. Here's Why That's A Problem For Baby Boomer Real Estate & Retirement


Forbes, that's rich. You understand that babies don't just pop out the same day they're conceived, right? I live in shitty ass IL, with super high property taxes, so the financial struggles are real for most people living here. Almost every couple I know right now around my age is pregnant. If things were soooooo bad, they wouldn't be having kids.

Yes, I'll grant that millennials are having kids later in life then their folks. But they are now having kids. I'm making a prediction and it's currently happening in the moment. Show me the stats in 3 years and rub it in my face if I'm wrong. You won't be able to.
22   WookieMan   2018 Sep 24, 10:55am  

MrMagic says
Fewer babies, but more ‘fur babies’


You do understand you just linked and read propaganda, right? You literally just posted a site that has more affiliate links for dog products then almost any other site I've seen. Please be aware of what you're reading and claiming it as fact.

A site selling dog products WANTS PEOPLE TO GET DOGS! They did research and found out that these crazy millennials are getting older and might want to have kids. Knock, knock. Who's there? The article claiming it's cool to have a dog and millennials are not having kids.....

Please do some more research on how businesses operate, specifically web based sites. The internet is not your friend and will lie to you.
23   Heraclitusstudent   2018 Sep 24, 12:17pm  

barrister says
There's a nice movie about this here:www.youtube.com/embed/4ILoXhrLbO8 (murdered/"suicided")


This guy is all so dramatic. You should read a little bit of Steven Pinker, for balance.
24   barrister   2018 Sep 26, 12:17am  

I wonder if the crash already happened outside America and the obvious places (S&P, Dow).

- Bitcoin ($19k to 6k) - not huge, but not insignificant (especially for the guy who mortgaged his house at the wrong time)
- Emerging Markets down 10-20% this year
- Interest rates rising

Also heard something today that was interesting: on average, over the past 116 years, the US stock markets lost 14% on average every year, for about a two month period -- almost a seasonal thing. (Yearly stock sale lol) I'm wary of averages as data points, and obviously our markets have gained a lot over the same time period of generally cheap energy and widespread debt financing.

On MCR being dramatic in his movie CoLLapse. Sure, certainly he's dramatic. That's the doom porn entertainment value. I think he'll be proved right in several generations though as we burn up our fossil fuels endowments and go back to outright slavery, as you can see already globally in hotspots, and in the US through the servant economy and high rents. Wages in the US have been dropping since the 1970s which coincides with "peak CONVENTIONAL oil" in the US in the 70s.

We're using fossil fuels much faster than we find new caches of it. We can use it more efficiently especially in US suburbs, but there it is. A future of less fossil fuel energy used per person.
25   Evan F.   2018 Sep 26, 1:58am  

WookieMan says
Almost every couple I know right now around my age is pregnant. If things were soooooo bad, they wouldn't be having kids.

Well jeez, if it's true for everyone you know, it must be true for everyone else!

Forbes isn't perfect, but the article is borne out of actual data, not one person's personal experience. It's not hard to look at population data and birth rates and arrive at the same conclusions as the article.
26   CBOEtrader   2018 Sep 26, 4:58am  

barrister says
Also heard something today that was interesting: on average, over the past 116 years, the US stock markets lost 14% on average every year, for about a two month period -- almost a seasonal thing. (Yearly stock sale lol)


Wtf r u talking about?
27   CBOEtrader   2018 Sep 26, 4:59am  

Evan F. says
Well jeez, if it's true for everyone you know, it must be true for everyone else!


Lol yeah the $120/brunch crowd totally hangs w the poor and unfortunate.
28   WookieMan   2018 Sep 26, 11:44am  

Evan F. says
Forbes isn't perfect, but the article is borne out of actual data, not one person's personal experience.


What data? Where did it come from? Who did it come from? Do birth rates account for women currently pregnant (my point)? I wouldn't trust an academic as far as I could throw them. It was a poorly written, condescending (lol, all academics) and if you believe it, more power to you I guess.

Anecdotal evidence has done me 10 fold better then anything a "news" source puts out. I'll stick with my gut, experiences and my own data. Again, in three years call me out on this thread. Never said I was batting 1000, but millennials will replace the dying boomers with kids at a higher rate compared to deaths. That's all that matters.

Here's the fact, look around you, it can help you more than you think. Stop believing everything you read. I live by a municipal airport. What do you think that place looked like in 2010? Versus now? On the way to your job, keep an eye out for trucks carrying lumber. I'm 1/3 mile from a train (fucking annoying). Track the frequency (horns). Things look different when times are bad.

If you don't think Forbes (or ANY media) has an agenda, you'll continue to be fooled. All data is loaded with bias. All of it. Hello? Trump polls!
29   bob2356   2018 Sep 26, 11:57am  

WookieMan says

What data? Where did it come from? Who did it come from? Do birth rates account for women currently pregnant (my point)?


The CDC. Is says so right in the article. The number of women currently pregnant wouldn't affect the birth rate more than a minor amount. If every millennial women was suddenly pregnant it would be very big news. Not to mention having lines around the block at every OB office in the country.

WookieMan says
Stop believing everything you read. I live by a municipal airport. What do you think that place looked like in 2010? Versus now? On the way to your job, keep an eye out for trucks carrying lumber. I'm 1/3 mile from a train (fucking annoying). Track the frequency (horns).


WTF? 2010 was the bottom. There have been 8 years of growing economy. Who says the economy hasn't grown since 2010 that your anecdotal evidence contradicts?

WookieMan says
Trump polls!


Hello,look up margin of error. Trump won within the margin of error of all major polls. People wanting to believe is a different story. I told people trump was very likely to win based on margin of error and they thought I was crazy.
30   WookieMan   2018 Sep 26, 12:25pm  

bob2356 says
Hello,look up margin of error. Trump won within the margin of error of all major polls. People wanting to believe is a different story. I told people trump was very likely to win based on margin of error and they thought I was crazy.


You're not getting my angle. I understand what you're saying with margin of error. The problem is that people take the data (in most cases flawed) and create a narrative. X candidate is ahead and will MOST certainly win. People are idiots and will believe that "news" story. They do it to their benefit. More ad revenue. More clicks. Whatever is in their best interest. There is NO honest news organization in this world. This is fact. They need to make money, and doing that involves bending the truth.

bob2356 says
The CDC. Is says so right in the article.


You trust this government (or any)? CDC? I don't. It's a straw man, but would you trust the CDC of Mexico? They're all run by people (humans), why is our CDC version better then theirs? Drink from the tap in Mexico and let us know how it goes. I'm not a tinfoil hat guy, but take any gov. data with a grain of salt. Like they don't have any agenda....

bob2356 says
WTF? 2010 was the bottom. There have been 8 years of growing economy. Who says the economy hasn't grown since 2010 that your anecdotal evidence contradicts?


You didn't get my point. I was saying 2010 looks different than now. How many small jets per week you think were at that airport in a weeks time in 2010 versus now? 2 vs. 12. The economy has obviously improved and it's obvious by just observing and not necessarily believing everything you read. Some say shit is bad and some say it's good. I go by what my eyes see. That's what I'm getting at.

3 trains a day 2010
15 trains a day 2018

While I don't write everything down, these things do matter if you pay attention. That's what I was getting at.
31   Goran_K   2018 Sep 26, 1:17pm  

The only people who think the economy is "worse off" now are stricken with a severe case of TDS and symptoms of butt hurt-itis.
32   bob2356   2018 Sep 26, 1:34pm  

WookieMan says
You trust this government (or any)? CDC?


ROFLOL. Great. Anecdotal it is for you. I wish you the best of luck. Should the CEO's of major corporations be using anecdotal also since there is no good data. How about lawmakers?

WookieMan says
d. Some say shit is bad and some say it's good.


Dodging the question. Who says the economy is bad?
33   CBOEtrader   2018 Sep 26, 2:22pm  

WookieMan says
I understand what you're saying with margin of error. The problem is that people take the data (in most cases flawed) and create a narrative. X candidate is ahead and will MOST certainly win. People are idiots and will believe that "news" story.


The data and polls themselves also wrong though. Polling is incredibly tough, and every poll should come complete w methods, assumptions, and effects of those assumptions.

Want hard data? Look at the number of people who show up to a Trump rally vs the 2 dozen who who up for Jay-Z and Beyonce while HRC pretends to have supporters.

Anyone who suggests the polls were correct are allowing themselves to be lied to.
34   WookieMan   2018 Sep 26, 2:42pm  

CBOEtrader says
The data and polls themselves also wrong though.


So how much faith can you put in them is what I'm getting at? It's like baseball. There's the analytics on players and then the eye test. By no means am I saying fuck ALL data, just understand it can be biased or at least the sources presenting said data. Data is just one tool in the tool box. Too many people take it as the gospel is what I'm getting at.

bob2356 says
Dodging the question. Who says the economy is bad?


Jesus, I don't know, not me. Not dodging anything. I'm not saying you or anyone here is saying the economy is bad. What I'm saying is smart people, can see for themselves if the economy is good or bad without getting buried in data that very likely is intended to be misleading.

The data is visible around us everyday. This is what good CEO's do in major corporations. Critical thinking. Not just rely on data sets, but anticipating future outcomes ahead of what the data is showing.

My anecdotal way of life has done well by me. Unless I die, retired by 45 and not thinking about money at that point. It's not hard to outsmart 80-90% of the population.
35   CBOEtrader   2018 Sep 26, 3:18pm  

WookieMan says
it can be biased or at least the sources presenting said data.


The methods will always be biased to the assumptions of the polling group. Once a polling group proves itself to be biased, ignore their numbers. CNN polls, for ex. haha what garbage.

bob2356 says
Should the CEO's of major corporations be using anecdotal also since there is no good data.


Yes. They should. I spoke with an executive of a mexican market chain in Texas. He told me when choosing a new location, they do slow drive by's of the local elementary schools and literally count the number of brown kids to white/black kids.
36   WookieMan   2018 Sep 27, 5:57am  

CBOEtrader says
WookieMan says
it can be biased or at least the sources presenting said data.


The methods will always be biased to the assumptions of the polling group. Once a polling group proves itself to be biased, ignore their numbers. CNN polls, for ex. haha what garbage.


Exactly. But it extends beyond just election polling. Someone researching the farm business, say from Monsanto, is going to have bias. Even university funded research will be biased based on the people doing the research. Is there value in it, sure. But unless you're looking at the raw data, most people will rely on the "media" to forward the data to them. They need clicks and views, so they're going to do what ever is reasonably "acceptable" to get you to click on it without completely trashing their reputation.

CBOEtrader says
bob2356 says
Should the CEO's of major corporations be using anecdotal also since there is no good data.


Yes. They should. I spoke with an executive of a mexican market chain in Texas. He told me when choosing a new location, they do slow drive by's of the local elementary schools and literally count the number of brown kids to white/black kids.


I get Bob's point, but this is exactly what I'm getting at and you're spot on. There are things you can physically SEE that can influence your business or finances. I'm probably on some spectrum or something, but just noticing things around you matters. Listen to what people say, but look at the airport if you drive by one every time. Keep note of trains going by. Look at the semi's on the highway, see what they're carrying on the flatbed variety (there were ZERO lumber trucks in 2009-2010). That regular restaurant you visit once a month on a Friday, is it packed or not (they're packed now).

2010 looked a whole lot different then now if you look at just the 4 things I mention.
37   NuttBoxer   2018 Sep 27, 10:45am  

@bob2356 Late 80's Boom huh? That's the nicest name I've ever seen for the SnL scandal.
38   NuttBoxer   2018 Sep 27, 10:47am  

barrister says
When the next great stock crash will happen - and how it will look


I'm gonna play it safe and say 2018. But they've been blowing this debt/inflation bubble for a while, and to unprecedented proportions. Maybe they'll keep it inflated another year?
39   bob2356   2018 Sep 27, 2:23pm  

CBOEtrader says
bob2356 says
Should the CEO's of major corporations be using anecdotal also since there is no good data.


Yes. They should. I spoke with an executive of a mexican market chain in Texas. He told me when choosing a new location, they do slow drive by's of the local elementary schools and literally count the number of brown kids to white/black kids.


That is called research at that point, not anecdotal. Who was that and what chain? .
40   bob2356   2018 Sep 27, 2:33pm  

WookieMan says

Jesus, I don't know, not me. Not dodging anything. I'm not saying you or anyone here is saying the economy is bad. What I'm saying is smart people, can see for themselves if the economy is good or bad without getting buried in data that very likely is intended to be misleading.

The data is visible around us everyday. This is what good CEO's do in major corporations. Critical thinking. Not just rely on data sets, but anticipating future outcomes ahead of what the data is showing.


This would apply to 2007? How did that work out for CEO's of major corporations like say banks? I looked at the number of house sales in 2006 that were going to be owner occupied (considerably less than 50%) and sold out of RE. If I had looked at the happy days are here again bubble going on all around me I would have gotten killed. Anyway whatever floats your boat. Go and be happy.

Comments 1 - 40 of 46       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions