I also refuse to participate in this "recession" depression . . . Ha Ha Ha !
 

DJIA breaks into the 7,000's, lost 500 points in one week.
I don't own stocks what does that have to do with me?

As we all know it's just an average of 30 stocks. But it a
barometer of the economy. As we head into the depression
everyone will participate in it, either directly or indirectly.

Bill Gates will lose billions, lay of workers, he will participate.
Your $200,000 home is now worth $125,000 you will participate.
Your family members that can't find jobs will participate.
We all are going to participate, don't feel like you are special
and it will pass you by.

No matter what party is in the White House they had nothing to
do with this depression. Events don't change trends.

Regards,
D.R.(Don)McArdle

Re: I also refuse to participate in this "recession" depression . . . Ha Ha Ha !
 

Don,

By refusing to participate, I mean I'm not changing my lifestyle, buying decisions, etc, on what the nightly news reports as the latest impact.

Since I'm in my house for the long term, any market decline in housing doesn't affect me as a non-buyer, non-seller in real estate. I'm an owner and any loss in value would be like the "loss on paper" they report for Bill Gates, owners of Yahoo, WalMart, etc.

I'm self-employed, so I'm not worried about a pink slip in my next pay check or hearing my employer's name on the news as the economy exposes another corporate finance scandal.

When i cited the news anchors reporting about the "Worst economy in 50 years" I was focusing on the news media's manipulation of the situation and not which party benefited or was in power.

The same media gave us the flip-flop reporting on FL for Gore, OOPS, we mean FL for Bush, ERR Correction it's too close to call.

I'll wait to see the results, rather than accepting the pre-digested events as they choose to relate them.

Following like sheep to the slaughter is for people who can't use their own grey matter to make decisions on their own.

Like after any President gives their State of the Union speech, and before we hear the rebuttal, the talking heads on the boob tube tell us what the speech meant. I'm sure you don't need Dan Blather, Ted, Peter, or any of the others to tell you what the man just said 5 minutes before.

I respect a journalist who tells my his opinion or take on political speech or actions, but don't respect any who spin and massage the message to glean what they want from it and pass it on as unbiased reporting.

JMHO.

Dennis Bevers




And capitalistic life goes on, meeting the needs of businesses large and small!

Re: I agree...
 

Far too many investors focus on the "market value" of their holdings. I think it's one of the main reasons most stock market investors lose money.

No business focuses on its inventory's market value -- they buy, put a reasonable markup on it, and then sell when they can. They only address market value when they determine they want to buy or sell. And they restrain their buying and selling (and their fear and/or greed) with a plan. Age is another factor -- you don't want your inventory on hand too long.

Most stock market investors don't view their portfolio as a business. It's a shame; it's more profitable and less stressful that way.

Best,
Phil

Profit from market downturns
 

If you believe the market is heading down, there's no reason you can't benefit from that. You can always short sell stocks, buy put options, or write call options, which would all be profitable strategies in a falling market. :)

Best Regards,

- Thomas.

Re:Never use one indicator to figure your net-worth
 

Hi Dennis

>For the record, the company I represent as an independent agent,
>posted a 8.7% increase in sales from 2000 to 2001.

You have some good information to predict what the next 5 years
will be like in a depression in your field. Go to your company and
request the sales% from 1929 to 1933. This will be a good indication
of what to expect in 2002 to 2006. If you do please post it here, it should
be interesting

Ø $3000+ drop has no direct impact in my net worth.

I got out of the stock market when it was 10,000 plus. I saw this coming.
So this part of my net-worth is safe. But . . . .

Everyone should evaluate their net-worth every year on all their
income producing finances and possessions. Your possessions value
should be figured on not what you paid for it, but it's market value now.

That car I just bought cost $22,000. I drove it 5 miles to my house,
now it worth $18,000. My net -worth just decreased.

Now the real estate bubble, when it busts my $200,000 home value
will be around $125,000. My net-worth just dropped again.

Net-worth should be figured on today's values not what you paid for it.

>The same media gave us the flip-flop reporting on FL for Gore, OOPS,
>we mean FL for Bush, ERR Correction it's too close to call.

I agree one should analyze the new. When I was a kid we had a saying
"Don't believe everything you hear, and only half of what you see".

The news media caught hell on this one, but I don't put the blame on them.
Two out of three voters that was polled after they voted said they voted for
Gore, or they thought they did. Between the chads and a terrible looking
ballet the pollsters got, I voted for Gore, but the voting machine said
otherwise.

It was not really the news media fault, they were just reporting the news
they were getting. I think they shouldn't report about the election till
all the polls close in all 50 states.

>I'll wait to see the results, rather than accepting the pre-digested events as
>they choose to relate them.

>Following like sheep to the slaughter is for people who can't use their own grey matter to make
>decisions on their own.

This is the same way I fell when I visit forums. There is always the same
three people that post "this is spam" . It's like the forum board owner
and people that read the messages "can't use their own grey matter to make
decisions on their own".

It's like if their names are not there as a stamp of approval then we can't
figure out it spam. By the way they are regulars at fib forum.

Regards,
D.R.(Don)Mcardle

Participate does not mean Be Effected By
 

> DJIA breaks into the 7,000's, lost 500
> points in one week.
> I don't own stocks what does that have to do
> with me?

> As we all know it's just an average of 30
> stocks. But it a
> barometer of the economy.

I always thought the stock market was only what the psychotic market thought the company was worth that day. Sometimes based on things as stupid as superstition (every year at a certain date the stock market dives because that's what happened back in '97).

The day to day value of stock does not reflect the performance of the underlying business. Over time, yes, but not day to day.

The stock market is just one form of investing.

A drop in stock prices could mean many different things - superstition, bad "crop report," CEO scandal, law suit threat, actual poor company performance, investors moving their money into other areas, etc.

Whether or not the CEO of Coke is found to have an affair or not, it does not have an impact on my decision to buy Coke and thus send more money to Coke.

One hundred thousand people may decide to take their money out of the stock market - causing a ripple and scare and price drop - because they want to buy into "gated" retirement communities. On one hand the stock drops while on the other hand a lot of money is now being spent on construction and that industry booms.

As we head into
> the depression
> everyone will participate in it, either
> directly or indirectly.

> Bill Gates will lose billions, lay of
> workers, he will participate.

He may lose money (paper money he never had in the bank in the first place) but whether he lays people off is something we cannot know for certain.

Some sales may drop... then again, he may also already have things in place to counteract this. So actual microsoft sales figures may hardly change at all.

> Your $200,000 home is now worth $125,000 you
> will participate.

And what if it is worth only half? If I own it and never intend to leave, then who cares? If I sell it to move into another house I bought, it will also be worth half. So I will pay less for it. - It's all relative.

> Your family members that can't find jobs
> will participate.

And what about those who do have jobs?

For that matter... what's with all the hypotheticals to make things look bad?

> We all are going to participate, don't feel
> like you are special
> and it will pass you by.

I may be effected by the recession... but that does not mean I will participate in it (change my spending habits, do nothing if business begins to fall off, etc). Or sit by and do nothing.

Lets face it... if every body decided to not participate in this recession, there would be no recession.

> No matter what party is in the White House
> they had nothing to
> do with this depression. Events don't change
> trends.

Events don't change trends... they compound and cause trends.

Michael Ross


If you haven't subscribed to The Great Ideas Letter you are missing out on a lot of good stuff

My Net Worth is only and indication of
 

my net worth.

It doesn't measure how much I make, or spend. Those factors may come into its calculation... but the final number only measures my net worth.

> Everyone should evaluate their net-worth
> every year on all their
> income producing finances and possessions.

WHY should we do this every year?

I do this (figure my net worth) on a monthly basis to measure my financial progess towards my financial goals. For me, waiting until the end of the year to see how things are going doesn't allow me to adjust direction fast enough.

But most people do not really have financial goals... they just go to work to pay the bills until they retire and get the pension (usually paying off whatever debts they have with their lump sum when they retire). So why should they know their financial worth? And why every year?

> Your possessions value
> should be figured on not what you paid for
> it, but it's market value now.

Good point... and to figure "market value now" I figure what my possessions would sell for in a garage sale! Not insured value, or the price similar items are priced at in a second hand store. There may be a better method but I use the same method all the time so my figure are consistant. It also means I am under-mistic :o)

> The news media caught hell on this one, but
> I don't put the blame on them.
> Two out of three voters that was polled
> after they voted said they voted for
> Gore, or they thought they did.

Don, as per my other post... polls are meaningless unless we know WHO was polled - sex, demographics, political leaning, employment status, etc.

We all know we can find whatever answer we want when doing polls. And we can do five polls and get five different sets of results.

> It was not really the news media fault, they
> were just reporting the news
> they were getting. I think they shouldn't
> report about the election till
> all the polls close in all 50 states.

There is an alternative to this... make voting compulsory. Then it won't matter as much because everyone will be voting anyway.

Michael Ross


This could be what you are looking for...

Michael and Don, a question ...
 

Michael and Don -

You both make good, solid points.

Without taking sides, I have a question for both of you:

Don,you say: "Events don't cause trends."

Michael, you say: "Events don't cause trends ... they compound and cause them."

Could you both explain what you mean by your statements?

I am enjoying your discussion. Good posting!

Robert M. Campbell


Book coming soon: Timing the Real Estate Market

Re: My Net Worth is only and indication of
 

Hi Michael

>So why should they know their financial worth?

Because when you get into big business deals they want to know
your net-worth.

>And why every year?

Because most people never do it at all.

You said you do it every month. That is a waste of time. If you make three
lines of people, one line of people that do it every month, that line would
be pretty short. The other line once a year, that line would be very long.
The third line for people that never make one out, that line would go from
coast to coast.

I been retired now for 9 years, and my retired income is in the top 10%
of retired peoples income. So I think I have made some good decisions in
my life. So once a year has worked just fine with me.

> Don, as per my other post... polls are meaningless unless we know WHO
>was polled - sex, demographics, political leaning, employment status, etc.

These exit polls are used in every election and they are right on the money.
All they want to know, who did you vote for. Nothing tricky about that question.

Nice talking with you Michael .

Regards.
D.R.(Don) McArdle

Re: Michael and Don, a question ...
 

Hi Robert M. Campbell

It's always nice to see your name on a post, glad you dropped by.
First by question to you. Is the real estate bubble ready to pop?

Now to answer your question.

>Don,you say: "Events don't cause trends."
>Michael, you say: "Events don't cause trends ... they compound and cause them."

Evidently Michael has never study cycles and trends, or he would never make
that statement. I think he's saying that events causes trends.

Now back to real estate, I know you have expertise in this field. And this is a
good example of the trend in real estate. I bought a house in Calif. in early 1974
it doubled in value in less then 4 years. And the trend still seems to be bullish.

A lot of events have gone by since 1974 and not one of them made the trend change.
"Events do not create or change stock market trends" or any other trend.

Two good books to read on trends, cycles, and herding. Yes herding! You will be
hearing more on this as time goes on. Seems like people follow in herds just like
animals.

We are NOW in a double dip recession which will end up a depression.
But the gov will not tell you that for at leased 6 to 8 more months that
we are in a double dip recession.

I rely on my information by studying the Kondratieff Wave and the
DJIA Wave over the last 100-150 years. They are just about a mirror
image of each other. You will see the 30 and 70 year cycles jump out
at you. Couple this with The Elliott Wave that explains the above two
waves and you can see where we are headed.

Two books that will explain in detail what's ahead by author Robert R
Prechter Jr .

Book one:
"The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science
of SOCIONOMICS" The purpose of this book is to establish the idea
that in humans, an unconscious HERDING impulse impels social mood
trends and changes that are specifically pattern according to a natural
growth principle and which in turn is the engine of cultural expression
and social action. He goes on to explain the herding that takes place
in the stock market. This is a book everyone should have, buy it or
pick it up at your local library.

Book two:
"Conquer the Crash, you can Survive and Prosper in a Deflationary Depression"
This book is what is happing right now. This is the other book you should have
in your home library.

Regards,
D.R.(Don)McArdle

Re: But Sometimes...
 

There is always the same
> three people that post "this is
> spam" .

> It's like if their names are not there as a
> stamp of approval then we can't
> figure out it spam. By the way they are
> regulars at fib forum.

its fun to play with the trolls. If you can't make jokes about Elvis sunglasses and chilled rolls what good are these forums. LOL

I also agree with you that the networks should have waited until the polls closed to declare any projected wins. But, these are the same networks who promised us they wait until the polls closed in each state before they would make their pronouncements. The blew that one, as several counties in the Florida panhandle are in Central time zone, and were still open.

Needless to say, the networks held a trial and declared themselves innocent of any wrong doing.

So when does the American public get to be judge and jury?

Dennis Bevers




Fighting the recession one customer at a time!

Re: But Sometimes...
 

Hi Dennis

>its fun to play with the trolls. If you can't make jokes about Elvis
>sunglasses and chilled rolls what good are these forums.

This has nothing to do with Elvis or chilled rolls. They do this on
other forums I visit. Seems you know who I'm referring to.

>Needless to say, the networks held a trial and declared themselves
>innocent of any wrong doing.

I have to agree with the networks, I live in the Tampa Bay area of
Fl. where a lot of this mess happened. And what happened in the
panhandle had no influence on the out come.

But to go a little further there was 10 million votes that were not
counted in all the 50 states. But you don't hear anything about that.

Do a little arithmetic and divide 50 states into 10 million and you
come up with 200,000 voters from each state that didn't count.

I know Ca. and NY have more voters then the smaller states, but
this will give you an idea of the problems that need to be corrected.

They keep telling us "every vote counts". Looks like a few slipped
through the crack.

Regards,
D.R.(Don)McArdle

Re: Michael and Don, a question ...
 

> Michael, you say: "Events don't cause
> trends ... they compound and cause
> them."

> Could you both explain what you mean by your
> statements?

Individually, an event, whatever that event may be, does not cause a trend. A series of events, sometimes unrelated, compound over time and create the trend...

After 9/11 last year, a lot of airlines asked for assistance because without it they would have to fold.

The 9/11 event itself didn't cause them the trouble. They had been in trouble for a long time before hand. Struggling. The 9/11 event highlighted it. Sped up what was most likely going to happen anyway.

A baby being born is an event. And individually, not a major thing. Yet, when it happens many many times above "normal" then we have a "baby boom."

As each individual in this "boom generation" buys the things they are interested in, the little buying event compounds with the little buying events of all the other individuals in the generation to create a trend.

If these people have children when they are 20, ten years later the child now needs more stuff... but the parents are also producing more so they can spend more.

As the adult moves towards 70 and retirement, they take money out of the stock market and spend again - some of their retirement money pays off personal debt, some goes on holidays, etc.

Either way, they stop working.

Their children, now 40 to 50, are paying off their homes, buying middle age toys, and generally not having money in stocks. They may, at this stage, begin to put money away for retirement. Then money stays out of the economy.

Individually, the events are not major - birth, spending, working, debts, saving, retiring, etc. But as a large group of people do the same things, it compounds and becomes a trend.

Two dollars is not a lot of money. So it's easy to spend it on coffee every day. It's also easy to buy a newspaper everyday for $1. And a $5 a week magazine. Yet just these three expenses add up to $110 ($60 for coffee, $30 for newspaper, $20 for magazines) after one month.

Throw in a $6 video rental once a week, and $20 on booze a week, and you can add $104 to the previous $110 and have now blown $214 on stuff. Yet you didn't notice it going because individually, the spending event was not major. But compounded over time it adds up and forms a $214 a month short-fall trend.

Businesses do not suddenly go bust. A series of bad financial decisions and bad other decisions, compounds over time to send the business down the tubes.

Let me give you an example of a "trend" which has no real single cause, and yet it is plainly visible...

Books stores in shopping malls.

If my memory serves me right it went something like this...

The classic old book store in the city. That's all there was.

Cars allowed people to live out of the city and drive in to work.

WWII encouraged people to move out of the city. Books stores followed. Shopping malls sprang up and books stores moved in. To be profitable they needed to have as many books covering as many topics as space would allow. They had to attract the walking by customer.

Without the car, it would not have happened. Without WWII it would most likely not have happened... at least not as soon as it did. Without shopping malls (or land developers taking the risk, or the large supermarkets being the major tenant and the reason people went to the shopping mall in the first place etc.)... and so on.

No single event made it happen. Events compound to create the trend.

Michael Ross

Excuse me Don...
 

> Evidently Michael has never study cycles and
> trends, or he would never make
> that statement. I think he's saying that
> events causes trends.

Don,

Please do not talk about me to someone else and do it in front of me. If you want to say/imply I have not studied cycles or trends than please say it to my "face."

And please don't make observations about what I meant or why I said something when the question was directed at me and you haven't yet seen my answer.

Michael Ross

Re: My Net Worth is only and indication of
 

> Because when you get into big business deals
> they want to know
> your net-worth.

Most people won't ever get into big business deals, though.

> You said you do it every month. That is a
> waste of time. If you make three
> lines of people, one line of people that do
> it every month, that line would
> be pretty short. The other line once a year,
> that line would be very long.
> The third line for people that never make
> one out, that line would go from
> coast to coast.

Once a month might be a waste of time to you... being "retired"... but it does me quite fine and takes hardly any more time than updating my financials for the month.

I'm certainly not going to do it only once a year because that's how often most people who figure it out, do it.

> I been retired now for 9 years, and my
> retired income is in the top 10%
> of retired peoples income. So I think I have
> made some good decisions in
> my life. So once a year has worked just fine
> with me.

Yes. Just as once a year works good for you, once a month works good for me.

I look at it from a business point of view... it would be foolhardy for a business to not know what was going on except for once a year...

There's a company who keeps such a sharp eye on their financial status they know it by the hour!!!

Their reason... if they did it once a week, they could be blowing loads of money. And it's hard to argue with them seeing as since implimenting their hourly update their company has boomed. It has boomed because knowing their financials by the hour allows them to make production decisions by the hour.

> These exit polls are used in every election
> and they are right on the money.
> All they want to know, who did you vote for.
> Nothing tricky about that question.

A seemly simple question. But it still leaves a lot to be asked about... WHO is doing the polling, WHEN are these polls taken (that is, the results of the polls mentioned), WHICH booths are taken into account when the poll is released, Is everyone being asked or is it so-called random, and so on.

I mean, if there is a trend (:o) HA!) for Democrats to vote early in the morning and Republicans to vote later in the day, then an early poll will give a misguided figure. As will revealing early polls in Democrat strong areas.

And none of this takes into account the trend of not answering the question in combination with political leaning - do Democrats answer more or less than Republicans.

> Nice talking with you Michael.

Yes, thank you. Shows we can disagree? and discuss at the same time without calling names.

Michael Ross

Real Estate: The Next Domino to Fall?
 

Hi Don -

Please don't take this wrong because I respect your endeavors to predict economic cycles with K-wave and Elliott Wave theory.

I, however, take a more objective approach to anticipating major turning points in real estate cycle. My approach, called "The Campbell Method" is based on five key real estate indicators - which I call "Vital Signs" - which careful market research shows are highly correlated with with the direction (up or down) that real estate prices are likely to move.

Basically, my Vital Sign indicators are measuring supply and demand in the real estate marketplace, which we all know is the true driving force in all markets.

So where are real estate prices headed?

That is a difficult (impossible?) question to answer for the reason that you should look at real estate markets from a local, not a national, perspective. This is because all local markets are driven by their own local dynamics; therefore, like the weather, it could be "sunny" in Chicago, for example, and "stormy" in San Diego.

Don, here is my standing rule for determining buying and selling points in real estate markets - or any other market for that matter:

"Whatever your "opinion," whether it is based on K-wave, Elliott wave, or whatever else, MAKE the market itself "confirm" your opinion before you make important market decisions to buy or sell.

In other words - and this is Market Truth #2 in my book Timing the Real Estate Market - "The market is alway right, and you aren't."

I enjoy reading your viewpoints, Don.

Best wishes,

Robert M. Campbell

Michael, here is how I look at trends
 

Hi Michael -

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

Please allow me to share my viewpoint in light of your concluding words.

You say "No single event made it happen. Events compound to create the trend."

In subscribing to Chaos Theory, I believe that any single event can indeed cause the beginning of a trend.

Are you familiar with the "Butterfly Effect?"

Briefly, it goes something like this: a butterfly in China can cause air movements that can eventually turn into a storm in Los Angeles.

In other words, according to Chaos Theory, small events often set up a chain reaction of events that will continue to compound over time that ultimately result in a big event.

This is the way I view things, both in the markets and in the weather.

Best wishes, Michael.

Robert M. Campbell


New book in 30 days: Timing the Real Estate Market

The trend of following/studying trends...
 

> You say "No single event made it
> happen. Events compound to create the
> trend."

> ...according to Chaos Theory,
> small events often set up a chain reaction
> of events that will continue to compound
> over time that ultimately result in a big
> event.

Pretty similar to each other, eh?

And so, according to Chaos Theory could you say: internal combustion engine, vehicles, global travel, gas, more lethal and varied forms of war, power generators built with the aid of machines, electricity, modern cities, aeroplanes, 9/11???

Why stop with just the engine, though? Why not go back further... the iron age? Or further still... when man first discovered how to smelt metal (for without metal we have not engine).

Or better yet... the invention of the wheel! Or Fire!!!

Reminds me of a show called "Connections" which was about inventions and how "connected" they were/are. And it really showed how much of a fluke our modern world is.

What gets me though, is that trying to predict where a certain event could lead is near on impossible (do you think the first person to create fire would have ever thought it would, via a series of "connections," end up in the world in which we now live?). And yet, looking back, things can seem so clear cut and "obvious." (I've noticed this many times with events within my life.)

Michael Ross


Subscribing to The Great Ideas Letter may be the event you are meant to experience...

Web site of interest for you, Don
 

Don,

While we disagree on cycles (not whether they exist, but the degree to which they matter), the following web site will take you to a book that you may find interesting:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000819071355/www.pei-intl.com/Research/GBM/GBM-MAST.HTM

It's a link to the now-defunct Princeton Economics International group, who's work on cycles was some of the most original I'd seen. This link will take you to one of their best books, called The Greatest Bull Market in History. The book is about the Great Depression (most people don't realize that the great depression was preceeded by an amazing bull market) and is full of historical material from the newspapers of the time. One of the book's conclusions is that the government did quite a bit to exacerbate the damage. It's a bit long, but utterly fasciating, especially if, like me, you like seeing history as it was. The PDF files appear to still be available.

Hope that's of interest.

Best,
Phil

PS -- Doesn't the Kondrateif wave assume a predominantly agricultural economy?


Learn how to invest profitably in the stock market...

Michael, one more question ...
 

Hi Michael -

In looking at the stock market, for example, or any speculative market for that matter, if your claim that "events don't cause trends" is correct, then what causes trends to reverse direction?

Robert M. Campbell

Robert, one more question answered ...
 

> In looking at the stock market, for example,
> or any speculative market for that matter,
> if your claim that "events don't cause
> trends" is correct, then what causes
> trends to reverse direction?

Robert:

First, let me clarify... I don't say "events don't cause trends" and leave it at that. I say "Events COMPOUND to cause trends."

Without being pedantic - and nit picking every littling thing and reverse analyzing it to find a single solitary "event," which can end up being linked back to fire if you go back far enough like I did in my other post - each thing an indivudual does COMPOUNDS with the things other individuals do, to create a visible trend.

Yes, there had to be a first person to "do it" or "buy it" or "wear it" or whatever. And yes, if it wasn't for the "manufacturer" the garment wouldn't even have been avaiable. And if it wasn't for the textile designer... and so on.

People think they are individual, but they are more herd-like than they imagine.

Personally, I like Stetson style hats. Search the archives here and you'll see my prediction about them. I based my prediction on the fact that *I* like them and want one. I know others... maybe of my generation, maybe not, will also be thinking like me and want one. Together, our want and taking action to satisfy that want, creates a trend.

Once our want has been satisfied, we stop buying. Less demand eventually creates less supply. Less supply creates less availability. Which removes the item from people's mind and so they want it less. Around and around we go. But the downward trend began when DEMAND was met and stopped increasing.

The same with speculative things, like stocks...

I am NOT what you would call "Stockmarket savvy". Put options, call options, shorts, etc., have minimal meaning to me. Basics of the terms I may know... the details which fill the thick books are not a part of my knowledge.

Nevertheless, from my observations of the stockmarket, it is based on DEMAND.

The initial DEMAND gets the ball rolling. I believe these people are called the "early adapters."

The next segment, whatever they are called, see what the first-comers have (or have received by way of return) and start to jump on board.

The third segment... the largest... now wakes up and gets in on it too. DEMAND is still there.

The early-adapters and the second segment stay "in the market" because DEMAND is driving the market UP.

As DEMAND starts to dwindle - because the third and largest segment has bought as much as they will buy - the early adapters and second segment people start to "get out" of the market and offload their stock.

Dwindling DEMAND now encounters OVER-SUPPLY just as the last segment of "buyers" comes on board only to be burnt. And the stock now starts to go down.

The thing with the early-adapters leaving the market is, they do it "around" the same time but not AT the same time.

Some early-adapters get out earlier than others. But seeing as there are many many of them all doing the same thing, the stock price drops because of sudden oversupply.

Can this type of thing be caused by a "single event"? Yes and no.

Yes: Whenever Kerry Packer (Australia's richest man) sells stock in companies he owns stock in, all the people who buy into whatever he buys into also sell their stock. And the price drops. So in a sense, Kerry Packer's decision to sell - that single event - seems to cause what then followed.

No: Other elements came into play to cause Kerry Packer to sell the stock in the first place - poor company performance, he needed the money to launch a new venture of his or bolster his other companies, bad hair day, or whatever.

But basically, it all comes down to DEMAND and SUPPLY.

At the moment, property where I live is going up Up UP. And its value will continue to rise, in my opinion, as these things happen...

1: Baby boomers begin to retire and move here.
2: They move here from the higher-priced cities.

I live on The Gold Coast, where they have the Indy race (in October).

Real Estate is cheaper than in Sydney - Australia's largest city.

What happens is, people sell up in Sydney, then move up here and buy. They end up getting bigger and newer houses with the same amount of money, and still have money left over.

But as there are only a limited number of these houses, demand and price goes up.

Does that help or just make it more confusing? :o)

Michael Ross


The idea you have been looking for could be here.

Michael, okie dookie
 

Michael -

We have now gone full circle and I completely agree with you that "events do cause trends." :o)

Robert M. Campbell

Re:Is the glass half full . . .
 

Hi Robert

> We have now gone full circle and I
> completely agree with you that "events
> do cause trends." :o)

Here is one to think about. . . . . . "Trends that cause events".

We are now in a bear market trend, and if history repeats it's self,
Bush will be a 4 year president (one term).

There are three presidents that were voted out of office by the people.
Hoover . . . . depression
Carter . . . . . Recession
Bush Sr . . . . Recession

We are now starting to hear "It's the economy stupid".

Look for Bush Jr to be a one term president. The trend that caused an event.

Regards,
D.R.(Don)McArdle

The law of cause and effect ...
 

Hi Don -

The law of cause and effect states that some "events" are highly correlated with other "events."

Yes, you are probably correct in your assessement of George W. Bush's chances for re-election: low.

Of course, while nobody can know for sure what the future will bring, the prudent always position themselves so they have the "odds" on their side.

Best wishes, Don.

Robert M. Campbell

Recessions and Leaders
 

> We are now in a bear market trend, and if
> history repeats it's self,
> Bush will be a 4 year president (one term).

> There are three presidents that were voted
> out of office by the people.
> Hoover . . . . depression
> Carter . . . . . Recession
> Bush Sr . . . . Recession

Robert...

Wasn't Clinton president during a recession?

Also, seeing as the depression lasted for such a long time, isn't there also eveidence that there are presidents who lasted two terms during bad economic times?

Michael Ross

Re: Recessions and Leaders
 

Hi Michael

I hope you don't mind if I jump in.

>Wasn't Clinton president during a recession?

The recession started on Bush Sr watch. When Clinton was elected,
are country was in red ink up to it armpits. When Clinton left office
we were running in the black ,and he left a huge surplus. And the
stock was in a bull market.

Since then on Bush Jr watch he gave all the surplus money away. We
are back in red ink, and the red ink is flowing like wild fire. The stock
market is heading into a great depression.

What is happing now is just about a carbon copy of what happened on
Bush Sr watch, red ink, down market, and a war with Iraq.

Needless to say Bush Jr has about the same adviser that Bush Sr had.

The battle cry when Clinton was elected was "It's The Economy Stupid" .
Now I'm starting to hear the same battle cry.

>Also, seeing as the depression lasted for such a long time, isn't there also
>eveidence that there are presidents who lasted two terms during bad economic
>times?

None that I can think of.

Have a great day Michael.

Regards,
D.R.(Don)McArdle

Hang on a sec...
 

> I hope you don't mind if I jump in.

Course not... actually, my post was meant for you. I type Robert in by mistake. :o)

Anyway...

> The recession started on Bush Sr watch.

Hold on here. Isn't it Reagan who supposedly caused the stock market collapse? What was with the S&Ls back in '87 (I believe it was '87)?

When
> Clinton was elected,
> are country was in red ink up to it armpits.
> When Clinton left office
> we were running in the black ,and he left a
> huge surplus. And the
> stock was in a bull market.

Hang on again here...

Clinton was responsible for the LARGEST TAX HIKE in history, if I'm not mistaken. And for TAXING SOCIAL SECURITY! That's where your surplus came from... from the government making money off of the people - something no government should ever be doing.

And Clinton may have been in office at the time, but I would hardly draw the conclusion that he was the driving force behind the craziness of the stockmarket. I'd say it's more like good luck (timing) than good management.

Reminds me back when Fraser (conservatives) lost the election to Hawke (socialists) down our neck of the woods. The economy was down the crapper, drought was going gangbusters and things did not look good. After Hawke won the election the drought broke, and a few other things came into play - which had been instigated by Fraser before the election. It all made Hawke look good even though he had nothing to do with it.

> Since then on Bush Jr watch he gave all the
> surplus money away. We
> are back in red ink, and the red ink is
> flowing like wild fire. The stock
> market is heading into a great depression.

Again, I would hardly draw any conclusion that Bush Jr's presence in the White House has caused the stock market to go down.

If stocks are a reflection of the underlying business (and they are). And if eventually the prices will correct themselves to be more inline with the true value of that underlying business (and they do). Then what's really going on is nothing more than a market correction back to the underlying business' true worth, based on its "business."

If "business" is down, it is not to do with Bush. It is to do with the flamboyant, non-thinking crazy, hyper-inflated stock prices coming back down to reality. The dotcom bubble bursting as people finally realized a company which has never made a single penny in profit should not be worth $150 a share. Thousands of people suddenly being layed off around the same time. Vast amount of vacant commercial office space. The pool of advertising money drying up. And so on.

If anything. Bush has inherited a bad economy which had not fully exhibited how bad it was until after the election.

> What is happing now is just about a carbon
> copy of what happened on
> Bush Sr watch, red ink, down market, and a
> war with Iraq.

A carbon copy inasmuch as a bad economy being inherited, maybe.

As for war... isn't it Clinton who has committed more American troops and gotten involved in more conflicts than any other president in history?

What's the point of mentioning war anyway?

> None that I can think of.

I did a search and found a president who was in power for more than one term during a bad economic time. His name is...

Roosevelt. He was president from 1933 - 1945. During The Great Depression!

So doesn't that disprove any so-called trend that presidents in bad economic times only get one term before being voted out of office?

Michael Ross

Clinton was...
 

I'm really not trying to cause a flame war with this post, but...

Love him or hate him, the fact is Clinton was a master of the media (and still is, although he comes off more corny now).

The economy wasn't doing so good during Clinton's terms, but he was masterful at presenting things in a good light (he had to, after all "it was the economy, stupid"). Then, he took credit for the "good economy" -- which is in part accurate. He did (with the aid of a willing media accomplice) help create the impression of a booming economy. It was like a self-fulfilling impression. Unethical? In my opinion, yes. But he did it very well.

And, really, the main way the president affects the economy is through his tax policies -- which should be checked by the congress (although Clinton did go around them pretty well). It's not as though the president (any president) can push a button and *poof* we get a fantastic economy.

It's interesting: just about everyone who relies on the major news media in the U.S. thinks Clinton was a good president. Everyone else thinks he's got unbelievable gall.

Definitely a master of the media.

-Phil

Blame it on the media
 

Phil:

Reminds me of a Kerry Packer incident down here...

He sold of his Westpac (One of our major banks) shares and his "followers" did likewise.

This BIG offload resulted in the media printing that Westpac was "shakey."

Of course, more people offloaded Westpac shares because of the media and the bank did become "shakey." Not enough to even be remotely close to collapsing. But still...

And all because a journalist didn't understand WHY the shares took a quick dive.

I agree with his ability with the media. The man knows how to play them to his best advantage.

Now if only we could get the media to NOT report the state of the economy. Then people would go about their business without changing their behaviour. And things might not get as bad as they do or overflourish as they have done.

Michael Ross