Bull Market officially over!! Year heading negative.

[Dendrek]

I can link all kinds of articles proclaiming a new recession was coming in 2011, 2014, 2016, etc, etc. I'm not going to argue against those every time another batch shows up, there's not enough hours in a day. What's important is if you know what is going on. You either understand the economy or you don't. I don't know what else to tell you. All I can do is bump the thread once the market hit new highs and maybe we can discuss this again once you see you are totally wrong and you are in a more humble state.

To be fair, your point should be fairly easy to prove if it's not hyperbole. You're basically saying, "I'm right because I understand the economy better than you do." You also get the nice benefit that if you are right, you can gloat in two years, but if you're wrong you can just not bring up the subject again. There's no accountability for your argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Note, this is what makes fortune tellers and psychics so successful: They only ever bring up the times they were right (or the times the outcome was ambiguous enough they can claim to be right). Surely we should trust them.

[Dontrike]

Chart should be changed
Trump -----> Trump after Democrats Win the House (this is when it starts to fall dramatically) oh also when people where projecting they would win the house, also causing pre-election drops.

Funny, considering Trump has had this kind of drop before.

[Zaydin]

Chart should be changed
Trump -----> Trump after Democrats Win the House (this is when it starts to fall dramatically) oh also when people where projecting they would win the house, also causing pre-election drops.

Trump has been tripping over himself to take credit for the stock market when it set record highs, so he owns it when it starts crashing because of the combination of fears about the pain his trade war will cause and the fact that a recession is forecast to hit sometime between now and 2020.

What goes up must come down, something Trump seemed to forget.

[Crispin]

Chart should be changed
Trump -----> Trump after Democrats Win the House (this is when it starts to fall dramatically) oh also when people where projecting they would win the house, also causing pre-election drops.

Did the dems take office yet? This is on Trump, and luckily he already used a major tool for fighting a drop, withwhen he gave a tax cut while everything was fine.

[Ripster42]

Trump bailed out a booming market, which spiked inflation. At the same time, he initiated trade wars, by using executive orders for national security. This is the direct fault of Trump, in both the tax cut that was passed by congress, but compounded by executive orders that are the sole action of Trump. The 25000 reaction further doesn’t make sense, since we hit nearly 27000 before Droptober last month.

The thing is... we really cannot afford a recession after that tax cut. The deficit is growing far faster than it has in history and we are not even in a recession. Let’s just hope Trump’s talk of defaulting on debt before the election, was bullshit.



Not quite... unemployment was nearly capped when Trump took over, when it was 4.7. The current 3.7 is .3 lower than what is considered full employment. As I said above, have the capital to push back against a recession, Trump spent it on a bail out, during a booming market. This is 100% Trump’s fault... Congress was not involved in his executive orders...

Well, this in addition to new deficit spending which spikes interest rates (more expensiv

What I feel is the worse is not discussing what to do during a recession, and instead blaming someone for the recession. Simply put, we are a debter nation.

Both trade policy and tax policy led us here.e to borrow) and lowers demand for stocks (better returns on bonds).

[Kokolums]

To be fair, your point should be fairly easy to prove if it's not hyperbole. You're basically saying, "I'm right because I understand the economy better than you do." You also get the nice benefit that if you are right, you can gloat in two years, but if you're wrong you can just not bring up the subject again. There's no accountability for your argument.

Note, this is what makes fortune tellers and psychics so successful: They only ever bring up the times they were right (or the times the outcome was ambiguous enough they can claim to be right). Surely we should trust them.

What are you doing? If you have any experience with the stock market at all, you'd know that there are ALWAYS people screaming a recession is coming, they are always linking to articles. Its the first thing most rookie investors do. Its obnoxious. If I spent my time trying to debunk them, there aren't enough hours in a day.

Its like a 6 year old running up to you and saying 2+2 = 5 and then you explain that it is 4 and then set out 2 apples and another 2 apples and merge them into 4 and then the 6 year old wants a hyperlink and says it should be easy to prove why dont you prove it. Then Im gonna say I just set out my proof go look at it. Then they ignore it or cannot process it because they have no education on the matter. Sometimes you just need the kid to put the apples together themselves and see there is no 5th apple.

[Dendrek]

What are you doing? If you have any experience with the stock market at all, you'd know that there are ALWAYS people screaming a recession is coming, they are always linking to articles. Its the first thing most rookie investors do. Its obnoxious. If I spent my time trying to debunk them, there aren't enough hours in a day.

Its like a 6 year old running up to you and saying 2+2 = 5 and then you explain that it is 4 and then set out 2 apples and another 2 apples and merge them into 4 and then the 6 year old wants a hyperlink and says it should be easy to prove why dont you prove it. Then Im gonna say I just set out my proof go look at it. Then they ignore it or cannot process it because they have no education on the matter. Sometimes you just need the kid to put the apples together themselves and see there is no 5th apple.

"I'm an expert. You're all too dumb to understand" is not an argument.

[Crispin]

What are you doing? If you have any experience with the stock market at all, you'd know that there are ALWAYS people screaming a recession is coming, they are always linking to articles. Its the first thing most rookie investors do. Its obnoxious. If I spent my time trying to debunk them, there aren't enough hours in a day.

Its like a 6 year old running up to you and saying 2+2 = 5 and then you explain that it is 4 and then set out 2 apples and another 2 apples and merge them into 4 and then the 6 year old wants a hyperlink and says it should be easy to prove why dont you prove it. Then Im gonna say I just set out my proof go look at it. Then they ignore it or cannot process it because they have no education on the matter. Sometimes you just need the kid to put the apples together themselves and see there is no 5th apple.

Were there no warnings before the 2008 recession? Crying wolf does end with it showing up, at this point it's a matter of wether it does or not this time around. Another recession will come at some point, being such an expert as you apparently are, will be aware of this, your odd example with a kid does not change this fact.

[Kokolums]

"I'm an expert. You're all too dumb to understand" is not an argument.

That's NOT what I said. I laid out precise reasons why there is no recession coming. Then I'm told that is not enough. Instead of looking it up and doing research, I'm just told I'm wrong. So after DECADES of trying to explain the market, I firmly believe the best path is to wait until the market rebounds to new highs without a recession and then we will come back and talk about this more. Then people are more apt to listen.

I'll bookmark this page, and once the stock market hits a new high and there's no recession, we'll resume and we take things apart and see where people went wrong.

[Dendrek]

That's NOT what I said. I laid out precise reasons why there is no recession coming. Then I'm told that is not enough. Instead of looking it up and doing research, I'm just told I'm wrong. So after DECADES of trying to explain the market, I firmly believe the best path is to wait until the market rebounds to new highs without a recession and then we will come back and talk about this more. Then people are more apt to listen.

I'll bookmark this page, and once the stock market hits a new high and there's no recession, we'll resume and we take things apart and see where people went wrong.

From the article linked to earlier: "The probability of a U.S. recession in the next two years, while still low, also nudged up to a median 35 percent from 30 percent in the latest monthly Reuters survey of economists taken Nov 13-19."

This is a definitive statement, but not a definite outcome. If the statistics are to be trusted, then about 2 out of 3 times there will be no recession in the next two years. Based on that article, you get to be right 65% of the time. But unlike that article, your argument is for a definite outcome. And unlike that article, your opinion seems to have no expert source -- other than your own.

If you are right (not about the outcome, but about your justification for your opinion) there is some source for that opinion. Maybe it's because you studied markets (an assertion which really makes no sense)? Maybe because you have read, or regularly read articles from trustworthy sources on the state and future of the economy? You've responded multiple times and written large paragraphs explaining why you shouldn't have to justify your argument.

One thing is obvious: assuming you know anything about probability and statistics -- and as an implied expert on the economy and the markets, you should understand probability and statistics -- your implication that your proof will be when a recession doesn't happen is in fact not proof at all. Future predictions are always statistically motivated, but testing those predictions is essentially impossible when the only data used is a single outcome. Whether it actually happens or doesn't happen is not proof of your argument. And you insisting it will be proof makes me seriously doubt that you are as much of an expert as you claim.

[Crispin]

From the article linked to earlier: "The probability of a U.S. recession in the next two years, while still low, also nudged up to a median 35 percent from 30 percent in the latest monthly Reuters survey of economists taken Nov 13-19."

This is a definitive statement, but not a definite outcome. If the statistics are to be trusted, then about 2 out of 3 times there will be no recession in the next two years. Based on that article, you get to be right 65% of the time. But unlike that article, your argument is for a definite outcome. And unlike that article, your opinion seems to have no expert source -- other than your own.

If you are right (not about the outcome, but about your justification for your opinion) there is some source for that opinion. Maybe it's because you studied markets (an assertion which really makes no sense)? Maybe because you have read, or regularly read articles from trustworthy sources on the state and future of the economy? You've responded multiple times and written large paragraphs explaining why you shouldn't have to justify your argument.

One thing is obvious: assuming you know anything about probability and statistics -- and as an implied expert on the economy and the markets, you should understand probability and statistics -- your implication that your proof will be when a recession doesn't happen is in fact not proof at all. Future predictions are always statistically motivated, but testing those predictions is essentially impossible when the only data used is a single outcome. Whether it actually happens or doesn't happen is not proof of your argument. And you insisting it will be proof makes me seriously doubt that you are as much of an expert as you claim.

His reasoning is abit like the statement:
"I drive a car, therefore I'm an expert on cars"

[Draco-Onis]

That's NOT what I said. I laid out precise reasons why there is no recession coming. Then I'm told that is not enough. Instead of looking it up and doing research, I'm just told I'm wrong. So after DECADES of trying to explain the market, I firmly believe the best path is to wait until the market rebounds to new highs without a recession and then we will come back and talk about this more. Then people are more apt to listen.

I'll bookmark this page, and once the stock market hits a new high and there's no recession, we'll resume and we take things apart and see where people went wrong.

A recession is inevitable because the US doesn't have the regulatory structure to prevent such an event in the market while only a fool will try to predict the market it's wild swings that create recessions are a feature not a bug. It is far more foolish to say there is no recession coming because you are ignoring history, that's like saying it will never rain after a month of no rain the system is not designed to prevent irrational exuberances that create them.

[Zan15]

The bull market is not over and there is no recession in sight. This is just a correction to be bought.

Good call!!

2000 more points and he will wipe out 2 years of gains..

[Celista]

Definitely going to affect the 2020 election cycle. People are not ready another recession.

[Zan15]

Time to buy.

Woops hope you didnt

[Celista]

The bull market is not over and there is no recession in sight. This is just a correction to be bought.

Almost every economic journal is talking about the likelihood of an upcoming recession. They're prepping us for that outcome, people aren't spending because CoL is still high in comparison to wages. Real estate bubble is affecting spending.

Now, economic conditions are complex. Is a recession GUARANTEED at this point? No, of course not.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...ndicators-pt-1
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...ndicators-pt-2

This series is decent if you're interested in more about this topic.

[Xeones]

The stock market is an interesting thing right?

When it's doing really well it doesn't usually mean much other than rich people are making a lot of money without effort.

But when it is doing bad... the effects are widespread and potentially devastating.

Initially I thought we were just going to see another gaming crash since almost every triple a publisher had their stocks get cut by around 50% for releasing shitty games, but maybe shitty games weren't the reason and it was just part of the wider economic problems caused by intentional sabotage by republicans.

[Travis B]

Well at least Trump was right about one thing:

"I’ve been around for a long time and it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans." -- Donald Trump, 2004

[Nadiru]

The stock market is an interesting thing right?

When it's doing really well it doesn't usually mean much other than rich people are making a lot of money without effort.

But when it is doing bad... the effects are widespread and potentially devastating.

Initially I thought we were just going to see another gaming crash since almost every triple a publisher had their stocks get cut by around 50% for releasing shitty games, but maybe shitty games weren't the reason and it was just part of the wider economic problems caused by intentional sabotage by republicans.

Games won't crash, at least not in the way that they did in 1983. You may see the dissolution of several triple-A developers, but game development is way too diffuse to ever meaningfully crash. Just browsing the most popular Twitch streams, more than half of the games are from non-AAA developers. Game stocks follow tech stocks, and tech has taken a beating this year, following a big valuation spike starting in 2017.

[Warning]

Between this and the shutdown it would seem that Donald Trumps War on Christmas is in full swing.