Rationalize Posted November 3, 2004 Report Posted November 3, 2004 Sorry to say it, but it's tempting to be long for the next little while - then very short.
Sudaca Posted November 3, 2004 Report Posted November 3, 2004 I think thgis rally is thelast leg of the bear market rally that began in Oct 2002 I think it will abort when we get either : a) terrorist event less than 30 posts on a thread here
Hiding Bear Posted November 3, 2004 Report Posted November 3, 2004 When we get Ohio's election results?
lucid and confused Posted November 3, 2004 Report Posted November 3, 2004 After they monetize social security
jstrack Posted November 3, 2004 Report Posted November 3, 2004 When Bush threatens Iran directly, the world then knows he is crazy, the world begins to exit our debt....
Mars Posted November 3, 2004 Report Posted November 3, 2004 I'm one of the stooligans who voted for 2029. Only because "I don't know" wasn't one of the solutions. But I really think that it will crash when people stop buying stocks just as it always does. The other night someone, in an attack against something I said, said that if no one was selling why did the stocks go down? The answer is simple - stocks don't go down because of selling - stocks go down because no one buys what you are trying to sell at the price where you are trying to sell it. Markets always work that way. I hope I don't get attacked again for stating the obvious.
FauxCaster Posted November 3, 2004 Report Posted November 3, 2004 2029, when the baby-boomers run out of home-equity to tap and have to start selling off that magic elixir of wealth known as the stocks.
pleiotropik Posted November 3, 2004 Report Posted November 3, 2004 I voted JAN for its aesthetic value: Bush inauguration and Iraq mega-mayhem election in tandem.
DrStool Posted November 4, 2004 Author Report Posted November 4, 2004 I voted for the guy who lost. I'm kinda thinking this is very analagous to the 72 election. Market topped in early January and went down for nearly two years. January is a possibility.
rayok Posted November 4, 2004 Report Posted November 4, 2004 The other night someone, in an attack against something I said, said that if no one was selling why did the stocks go down? The answer is simple - stocks don't go down because of selling - stocks go down because no one buys what you are trying to sell at the price where you are trying to sell it. Markets always work that way. I hope I don't get attacked again for stating the obvious. You're right! Here's a crash with 4.5 million shares bought, at reduced prices, with no selling. Actually, the price declines, because sellers are more motivated than buyers. You "should" consider this a lesson, rather than an "attack".
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.