Question for Economaniac Cheerleaders

[Phaedrus]

Just curious, but why is it that every time the stock market goes up a point so many people here break out party hats and declare it a "sad day for liberals ..." yet not a peep when things like today's job report come out, that showed that new nonfarm employment for December was not even 1% of its predicted level?

Seriously, just curious. I get snarled at every time I mention that day-by-day data is not particularly telling when it comes to overall economic conditions; wondering if day-by-day negatives were considered equally important to you guys as the day-by-day positives seem to be.


Phaedrus

 

[SENDITIN]

Easy answer...the market is looking 6 months ahead...current unemployment data is yesterday's news. Also the stock market has a lot more impact on people's lives than the unemployment data does. A lot more people "employed" versus "unemployed"

 

[Phaedrus]

Oh come now, there's plenty of cheerleading over positive employment data as well, conveniently overlooking the fact that for record-keeping purposes the government counts people who become ineligible for unemployment benefits towards any reported reduction.

Honestly, just having a dig. Day-by-day is completely useless in almost any field, unless you're day-trading (had a nice morning with INTU

)


Phaedrus

 

[SENDITIN]

He who daytrades in the Nazz will soon be parted from his money. I know of noone who is successful at doing this over time...way too difficult and dangerous.

P.S. You also have a lot of people collecting who are not looking for a job!!!

 

[D2bets]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SENDITIN:
Also the stock market has a lot more impact on people's lives than the unemployment data does. A lot more people "employed" versus "unemployed"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I want very badly to see President Bush make that statement. That is the day his re-election is doomed. Employment is a lot more iimportant to people who can't get it than the stock market is to people who are in it. Some people care more about helping millions of people to be able to put food on their family's table from day-to-day as opposed to extra capital gains to be able to upgrade from a Lexus to a Jaguar.

 

[SENDITIN]

D2,

I guess 50% of Americans can now upgrade to the Jaguar...typical class warfare distortion from the left as to who owns stock.

 

[D2bets]

Class warfare is saying that millions of unemployed Americans are less important than the stock market going higher.

 

[SENDITIN]

D2,

Quit spinning what I said...50 million people own stock(very conservative number)...U.S. population is 300 million and if you said 6% unemployment that's 18 million....what number is bigger 50 or 18? Go take a private poll and ask people are you more personally impacted by the unemployment rate or the Stock market indices and see what you get.

 

[D2bets]

50 mil is bigger than 18 mil, but what I'm saying is being unemployed vs. being employed is a much much much much more important issue to that 18 mil than is a 10% annualized return vs. a 6% annualized return is to the 50 mil. MORE people are impacted by the market but people are IMPACTED more by employment. Get it?

 

[Phaedrus]

posted by SENDITIN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
He who daytrades in the Nazz will soon be parted from his money. I know of noone who is successful at doing this over time...way too difficult and dangerous.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't I know it!

The only daytrading I do is on a very small group of stocks, not even because the stocks have any particular merit, but because I have followed them long enough to recognise some of their tendencies. No different from capping a given league of a given sport, or exclusively capping a single team.

INTU had a nice run up this morning while everything else was on the way down. I was in at 15:30 and out at 16:30 with a bit of profit on stock and options.


Phaedrus

 

[SENDITIN]

d2,

I understand what you are saying, but you are in the wrong post. Phaedrus was making the point that more people are concerned about the market moving up versus the unemployment data based on the responses to the numbers.

 

[SENDITIN]

Phaedrus,

I do the same thing but not in the Nazz...I like low volatility stocks that fly under the radar scope and try and take advantage of order imbalances and people sleeping. Have been successful but for small amounts...I don't get greedy...am happy to make $100 by the time Judge Joe Brown is over.

P.S. Lost $45 today...punched out early...decided to punt as the market did not like the unemployment numbers posted. In the long run the secret to making money doing this is knowing when and how to take a loss.

 

[WildBill]

The reason why is completely missed here. The unemployment rate went down, for whatever reasons can be argued. That rate though is based on calculations that have been proven to be far more accurate than the headline numbers of how many jobs were added. I can't say 1,000 new jobs is that surprising, who hires at this time anyways? And layoffs are driven by companies wanting to wipe the slate clean in December and take their layoff charges before the new year begins. To have jobs growing in December is a very difficult thing to do because most hiring is by nature temporary and not reflected in new jobs numbers.

Further one would go crazy trying to read the day to day reactions of the market anymore. I mean people are trying to get you to believe that one or two headline stocks each day are making 5,000 tradable stocks go up or down en masse? Come on, we all know it is ridiculous, yet TV people want a nice clean reasoning for market action. There are millions of individual decisions going on in the market and thousands of news items driving those. To try to figure things out over any short period of time is insanity.

 

[lander]

Interesting points Bill, and incidentally I'd imagine a significant number of retail jobs are lost right about the holiday boom for obvious reasons (less consumers).

 

[WildBill]

Those jobs are all temporary and usually aren't counted. Temporary positions are supposed to be noted as such in the surveys, but theoretically they could slip in as regular jobs I suppose. Also the takers of the survey have very massive adjustments right now for seasonality and with those you really can't tell what is going on with the numbers.

Best thing to do is wait until February and deal with all the adjustments, but once again don't let the pundits just wave off the unemployment rate itself for all the factors they usually name. History has shown that number to be far more accurate at this stage of the cycle because at this point is when small business and new business see above average growth in jobs while the big employers, the ones that get surveyed well, generally lag that trend as they want to see proof of a true expansion. Once those small guys start driving the expansion they will start hiring at a relatively similar rate and the numbers should be more accurate.

 

[PatPatriot]

All I know about economics is,is that I have never been hired by a poor person...Bill Gates hires people...General Motors hires people.The only way they make money is if sombody is buying their product...If people are buying that means people have to have money to buy their product. Bill Gates and GM have to hire someone to make it.
the other thing I know is if Bill gates's don't have to tie their cash up giving it to the goverment to burn and waste,the better the chance it is going to be put to GOOD use.

 

[D2bets]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
the other thing I know is if Bill gates's don't have to tie their cash up giving it to the goverment to burn and waste,the better the chance it is going to be put to GOOD use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bush hs provn that even if he eliminated taxes on Bill Gates he'd still find was to burn and waste it in ill-conceived wars. Fact is the govt is hellbent to spend whatever it chooses regardless of what taxes bring in. It's a matter of whether those who are able to will help pay down the deficit. Sooner or later, we will pay for it. Higher deficits will lead to higher interst rates and this will be Bush's legacy.

 

[WildBill]

Most of what the government spends isn't on what it chooses, but what it promised. Don't ever forget that fact. Very little is discretionary spending, unless you consider current levels of education and infrastructure spending purely discretionary and you think that promises to pay out social security checks now and in the future are purely optional.