Dow down another hundred today. According to everything I've been told that means

[no limit]

that the economy really doesn't like republicans. I mean look, the eve of the election stocks went up by huge margins, the day after when Brown won they came crashing down. So according to the conventional wisdom our media would follow the economy hates republicans because of the all important dow jones industrial average.

By the way, Im sure Jim Cramer predicted this down turn after a Brown win, right? I didn't get a chance to watch him this week.

[TxRider]

It means

That stock traders don't like what China did this week, and the bank reforms Obama announced.

It presents uncertainty which always pushed down the markets.

[no limit]

2. I'll be sure to add a sarcasm tag just for you next time ;)

[HughMoran]

11. Seriously

:)

[paulsby]

8. generally, i agree

the market hates uncertainty. fwiw, as i posted, i have been adding to a short position, and the last two days have been VERY nice.

the market was very very overbought.

[Xenotime]

17. It means a war is brewing between goverment and greedy caplitalists.

I got news for you..government always wins.

[TheKentuckian]

1. Nope, he was wrong as ususal and Stewart burned him again.

[no limit]

3. You don't say?

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. I'm frankly surprised they aren't up today.

I would think the Wall Street Criminals would be orgasmic over the Opie Roberts Dred Scott remix yesterday.

[rucky]

5. Hedge Fund Cramer lies to his viewers on purpose.

nobody - not even a monkey - can be that wrong, that often.

[Gman]

6. There may be more truth to what you're saying than what you realize

and we will find out soon enough. Keep your money in your mattresses until at least the general election in November.

[sabrina 1]

7. Wall St. is throwing a temper tantrum because

there might be some rules the banks have to follow in the future.

They should be treated in the same way a tantrum-throwing child is treated, ignore them and do what is best for the country. Wall St. is completely unimportant to the working class. I don't know why anyone cares what those greedy, corrupt gamblers do or say anymore.

[HERVEPA]

9. Uh, maybe some of our retirements depend on it.

[sabrina 1]

12. And how did that happen? People's retirements did not

depend on Wall St. until people were convinced to join the gambling Casino. Those who stayed away from that, have no reason to fear for their retirement. There was never a worse idea than to hand over people's retirement money to a huge gambling industry. That too, needs to change.

[Blue-Jay]

21. Umm...

They did away with most pensions so anyone who wanted any kind of retirement savings were forced into it because 401k plans were all that their employers offered. I guess that anyone who didn't want to be homeless or eat dog food in their retirement are nothing more that foolish corporate tools in your little world.

[paulsby]

10. wall st is important because

it is a way for companies to raise capital and share profits.

it also affects the net worth of scores of millions of americans, through IRA's, 401k's, etc.

dow 7k was a phenomenal buying opp. the market, all other factors aside has been very overbought. to go from under 7k to the mid 10k's with nary a blip says to ANY trader - some deviation towards the mean is/was needed.

[sabrina 1]

13. Maybe it's time for people to go back to just working for a living

and not getting involved in a gamble with their future security. If people haven't learned by now that depending on Wall St. is a huge mistake, I guess they never will.

None of it worked out very well, did it? Maybe you will end up enough to live on doing it the old-fashioned way, or maybe a few might luck out and make a killing on Wall St. but so far, the old-fashioned way is looking a lot more secure to people. Enron should have taught people that gambling is always risky.

[paulsby]

14. actually, it's worked VERY well

there has NEVER been a 20 yr period in the HISTORY of the US stock market where dollar cost averaging into a broad index wasn't profitable. in the VAST majority of 20 yr periods, it was amongst the top 30% of asset class performers

nowadays, its no different. DCA'ing meant that when the dow was 8k 7k etc. you were getting more shares for your monthly (or biweekly investment).

my grandfather, a very smart man, told me to start investing EVERY month at 21 years old. it was the smartest thing i ever did.

i ALSO actively trade, but there is no better way to consistently build longterm wealth than dollar cost averaging into a broad index, at least for the average investor.

the RIGHT WAY always looks sucky during a pullback, a recession, or a depression.

take a look at a longterm chart of the dow, otoh, and you will see the longterm trend is up. nothing's changed.

my grandfather was a classic son of immigrants, blue collar guy. through consistent investing, over the course of his life, he built a nice nest egg, one that my grandmother is living off of now, in his absence.

the stock market is a WONDERFUL thing, and it has never been easier/more cost efficient for the average investor due to no load mutual funds, and discount brokers. one of my brokerages charges $1 per 100 shares. 30 yrs ago, you'd be lucky to get $15 per 100 shares.

those of us who KNOW, know the market works. the naysayers who don't take advantage of it, have only themselves to blame.

get yer money working FOR you.

mine does

[no limit]

16. Nobody disagrees with you. But our policies should not be based on enriching the stock market

you wanna play the game and take risks then you have every right to do so. but it is not the job of the government to minimize those risks for you and if the government does something that makes the market go down don't blame the government, blame your own risk taking.

Yes, the last 20 years brought a huge amount of wealth on wall street. Like all bubbles that one burst, now we are all paying for it because the government had this idea that they should do as much as possible to help inflate that bubble.

[paulsby]

18. i agree our govt. shouldn't try to enrich the stock market

the govt. should do its best to provide a good environment for businesses (large and small) to thrive.

that , in itself, in the long run, helps the stock market. when companies do well, ceteris paribus, so does their stock.

that, in fact, is the general history of the USA, as our stock market has shown. we have built wealth, and the longterm rising market reflects that.

the stock market represents investors opinion (in the aggregate) of the worth of various companies.

[sabrina 1]

19. I think what this country is going through is more than just a

'pullback'. What happened was runaway capitalism based on greed and corruption where people's investments were decimated. People's pensions and 401Ks were in some cases, completely wiped out. If they had been in traditional pension funds which were not being used to gamble on Wall St., those people might not be rich today, but they would be far better off.

Your grandfather probably did not risk his pension in the hands of Wall St. gamblers. Investment is fine, but investing in a system that is unregulated, where corrupt individuals are unrestrained by any fear of consequences when they risk other people's money to enrich themselves, is just plain foolish.

If people want to trade with their own money, as you say you do, fine, you are free to do so. But trading with other people's money is not fine, as many have found out. I have friends who lost half of their investments before they finally realized it was time to pull out of this gambling casino on Wall St. Let the high rollers with no consciences find money some other way, but I would not trust them with ten dollars.

[paulsby]

22. what i say holds true

even during the great depression.

in EVERY recession, people claim "this time is different"

just like every bubble

do u want to talk about excesses in 1929?

they had bucket shops offering 10:1 leverage lol

[sabrina 1]

23. Well, I didn't say it was different. In fact that's what's so scary

about it. That it has happened before and will, if we don't do something about it, happen again. And each time it happens, people's lives are destroyed. And yes, some people profit from it all.

A boom and bust economy is guaranteed to destroy lives. That is what needs to change. This country needs stability, your are actually proving my point, that it is a system of gambling we live under, where some people profit from other people's misfortunes. I'm not really interested in living in that kind of society even if I were on the receiving end of it.

[paulsby]

25. bubbles are natural and not a bad thing.

basic investment theory mandates diversification (to include gold, etc. ) and lower exposure to equities as a person nears retirement.

granted, i fed on graham and buffett (warren). those who chase momo w/o controlling for risk deserve to get wiped out.

bubbles offer opp's, just like crashes.

for a prudent investor who DCA's, they are merely deviations from the mean in the long road to wealth

[sabrina 1]

26. Bubbles under the current system we live under are natural.

Again, that is the problem. That's what is so wrong about it. Capitalism has failed. When more people are adversely affected by a system than benefit from it, when the system has the potential to collapse a country's entire economy, then that system needs to be changed.

What would have been natural, for those who support Capitalism, would have been to let those who failed, fail. What we discovered was that when the most ardent supporters of Capitalism stand to lose, they run to the tax-payers to bail them out. Then they go right back to the same practices that caused the bust in the first place.

Capitalism also demands that there be no socialist safety nets for those who are adversely affected by these practices. Overall, this system is unstable regardless of what opportunities it may present to a few savvy investors. It is bad for the Common Good and that has now been demonstrated twice in less than a century.

[paulsby]

28. bubbles will ALWAYS exist in markets

because humans will ALWAYS be (to some extent) irrational.

the markets are ultimately an aggregate of human decisions.

they existed centuries ago in holland (see dutch tulip bulbs) and will always exist

capitalism hasn't failed. capitalism has been a great success.

what other system has done BETTER? not socialism. not communism. capitalism.

the system doesn't need to be changed. tweaks need to made, as they have been and will.

capitalism remains (by far) the best economic system devised by man. with the results to prove it.

or, the worst system, except for all the others :)

[sabrina 1]

29. Well, I'm not disputing the existence of markets or advocating

that they be abolished. But our economy should not be based on something as unstable as 'the market' which is not only not regulated, but based on the whims of gamblers. They have far too much control over this economy and even over elections.

If they have any role, it should be minor in terms of having influence over people's lives. I am not interested in gambling and do not want my life controlled by those who are. They have their place, like any other entity, but most of us out here in the real world simply are not interested in participating, just as I am not interested in gambling at any other casino. People have not had a choice in this. Their pension funds have been frittered away by Wall St. gamblers, some not even realizing it was happening, until they found out they were screwed.

You are free to do what you want, but not with my money. Today, eg, after the WH announced it was finally going to start regulation the corrupt banking industry, Wall St. threw a temper tantrum. As far as I am concerned, let them. The problem is they have been allowed to play too big a role in this government.

When the people's power is diminished by Corporate power, it is no longer a democracy. I like the idea of democracy. I'm not thrilled by a Corporate run state at all.

[paulsby]

15. actually, it's worked VERY well

there has NEVER been a 20 yr period in the HISTORY of the US stock market where dollar cost averaging into a broad index wasn't profitable. in the VAST majority of 20 yr periods, it was amongst the top 30% of asset class performers

nowadays, its no different. DCA'ing meant that when the dow was 8k 7k etc. you were getting more shares for your monthly (or biweekly investment).

my grandfather, a very smart man, told me to start investing EVERY month at 21 years old. it was the smartest thing i ever did.

i ALSO actively trade, but there is no better way to consistently build longterm wealth than dollar cost averaging into a broad index, at least for the average investor.

the RIGHT WAY always looks sucky during a pullback, a recession, or a depression.

take a look at a longterm chart of the dow, otoh, and you will see the longterm trend is up. nothing's changed.

my grandfather was a classic son of immigrants, blue collar guy. through consistent investing, over the course of his life, he built a nice nest egg, one that my grandmother is living off of now, in his absence.

the stock market is a WONDERFUL thing, and it has never been easier/more cost efficient for the average investor due to no load mutual funds, and discount brokers. one of my brokerages charges $1 per 100 shares. 30 yrs ago, you'd be lucky to get $15 per 100 shares.

those of us who KNOW, know the market works. the naysayers who don't take advantage of it, have only themselves to blame.

get yer money working FOR you.

mine does

[upi402]

24. Well said! ty, n/t

[malaise]

20. For the answer

check Jon Stewart's program from Wednesday night - priceless
http://www.thedailyshow.com/

[Yavin4]

27. Craemer Urged His Viewers To Jump Into The Market on a Brown Win

He explicitly told them to buy on a Brown win.