Hurray! CNBC reports:
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is repeating a pattern that appeared just before markets fell during the Great Depression, Daryl Guppy, CEO at Guppytraders.com, told CNBC Monday.
“Those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it…there was a head and shoulders pattern that developed before the Depression in 1929, then with the recovery in 1930 we had another head and shoulders pattern that preceded a fall in the market, and in the current Dow situation we see an exact repeat of that environment,” Guppy said.
The Dow retreated 457.33 points, or 4.5 percent last week, to close at 9,686 Friday. Guppy said a Dow fall below 9,800 confirmed the head and shoulders pattern.
#27: I’m really hoping you’re right, but have a bad feeling that someone out there will scheme another way to enrich himself (like Bernie Madoff, though that was a long term Ponzi scheme). The attempt will send the economy and stock market to hell in yet another way.
War gets us out of depression. We should probably start one. Maybe a land invasion of China.
Coolidge relaxed credit requirements and pushed out money from the Fed to stimulate the economy. Hoover, as Sec of Commerce, pushed banks and S&L’s to lend money for new long term mortgages spurring a construction boom. They also cut income tax and inheritance tax, which provided little real difference to lower income workers. Personal debt went up, stocks and real estate inflated and went through the roof, and it all eventually crashed with massive bank failures.
I swear I could have read this somewhere else recently.
Darrel Guppy is the equivalent of the ‘get rich with real estate’ guys that you see on late night TV.
“Buy my book for $19.95 and get rich… get even richer if you attend my seminar for only $1500, and get really rich of you sign up for coaching for only $5000 more. And if you don’t get rich…. it’s your fault because you didn’t exactly follow my techniques.”
Personally, I think that the market is really really cheap right now… look at what companies like US Steel (symbol: X) are selling for…
#26–gypkap==thanks for the heads up. As uniformily negative as I am, I still allow anyone to have “a bad day” or a bad post. So, I give all such posters the benefit of the doubt==and every once in a while, one of them will come back with a defensible position, or at least “something.”
Most are like Centrist though. They think in terms of bumper sticker dogma and respond with equal insight–ie: nothing. Hurling insults at passing bumper stickers is not good training for actually engaging in a dialectic ordered train of thought.
But every once in a while, so my search for intelligent right wingnuts continue until I can field a basketball team.
#30–Thomas==you are mixing up several issues to the point that you probably don’t know what you actually think either. It certainly isn’t clear by what you post.
I’ll break it down:
1. A direct tax on oil would create free market incentives to develop renewable energy sources. To say it won’t work because an oil tax won’t “SOLELY” be used for energy development is retarded and beneath you. If you don’t realize why immediately on having it pointed out, post back.
2. You say: “I think that taxes to fund alternative energy, for a host of reasons, is the wrong approach.” /// We could discuss that but first lets understand YOU are throwing out a red herring/straw man argument. What I said was the government should fund RESEARCH. Its sad you want to manipulate an otherwise fruitful discussion with such diversions. Why do you, and every wingnut that posts here, do that so uniformly? Is your thinking so biased you can’t even hear the issue put before you or do you fully recognize the issue and want to mislead other people?
Honest people would like to know.
@Shubee (#3),
Wow, you have moved from hating the SDA Church to hating Israel in your signature link. Have you had enough hating? Maybe you ought to find a new hobby, or maybe a church that doesn’t make you so angry…
#38
You have a habit of going off the deep end when you get an answer you do not like. We are talking about two different subjects:
1. Finding ways to spur the market into alternative energies
2. Funding research into alternative energies.
Again, I answered both of these. Increasing the cost of oil via a tax will increase the price of everything not just petroleum by more than five cents. The people hit hardest will be the poor and middle class. What you are basically proposing is to punish people using petroleum, either directly or indirectly, by artificially increasing the price of oil so that they will move into alternate energy sources or work to be more fuel efficient. If what you want to do is to spur the market, do it with incentives rather than taxes. I.e., rather than make the incentive based on increased production costs, make the incentive be lower production costs via tax breaks for lower use of petroleum. Effectively, you want to tax petroleum like a sin tax.
Secondly, the research angle is just that. It is a load of baloney as I have absolutely zero confidence that is on what it would be spent. But you don’t care about that do you?
IMHO, it looks like we are getting into 1990’s Japan pattern, a grinding bear market marked by short rallies.
Either way, not good…
#40–Thomas==excellent response/repetition (sorry about that) regarding incentive vs sin tax. I like that, intelligent you are. You might even be “right” in the abstract. I sense that the sin tax while not initially as effective might be very much easier to manage/enforce and net out way ahead of any incentive plan. Seems to me the sin tax approach, used all over Europe (does that argue for or against it?) provides a greater market incentive to respond with oil saving alternatives, but who knows? If we don’t do “something” seems to me “poor people” may or may not be greater impacted than the middle class and thats the whole point. Start now artificially while there is room to maneuver before the decline in oil production makes it more expensive without any alternatives because we have been asleep at the launch pad for the last 30 years.
2. Anti research funding huh? Even if true, you totally fail. I will therefore equal your effort in responding.
Bobbo, there is a futures market in oil, that drives current prices higher if the supply is running out. So the taxes are not needed, as the oil price is headed higher anyway, assuming supplies are limited.
Mike, yes but that is responding “too late” for a rational/ordered transition to the next great thing.
I know, its a liberal thing to think ahead, but thats the way I roll.
Is there a circumstance worse than bankruptcy?
Yes there is, and it will happen to all those banks who refuse to acknowledge their part in the quadrillion of derivative junk.
The non-event that will occur in the next several years will be total ceasing of financial activity. Bankruptcy cleans things up, so smart people can take action.
Mankind will look upon this as the hell that is caused when you bail out fools.
I am very optimistic that the coming hell will be a good lesson learnt by the next generation. The upcoming events will not be forgotten. Perhaps businesses will reconsider the idea that employment of people enables them to buy the goods they make. Perhaps some creative creation?
It’s weird to hear people argue about taxes on oil, etc. How about the subsidies on oil, gas, and coal? Should they be reduced? It seems like a better place to start.
So stop investing in the stock market. If you know about a system thats full of criminals and corruption, don’t be part of it.