you put the vagon in front of the horse. the probability of obama winning was determined by the market action, not the other way around. the harder the market fell, the higher his chances.
methinks you guys give the president elect much to much credit for pounding the markets... There is no correlation... The market decline (nominal terms) began in August 2007... Since then, we have seen massive bank failures, housing market collapse, 150$ oil, 7$ corn, 14$ wheat, 19$ beans, Russia vs. Georgia, Iran/US rhetoric, a credit collapse, European bedshitting, and of course, the Fed dropping rates back to 1%.... That has nothing to do with a Dem being elected... Our minds require some kind of explanation for this mess - but markets just ARE... Dick Morris, the fat fuck who I hope dies today of a massive coronary, last night said "you see the market fell 500 points today? You think people are afraid of paying more capital gains taxes under an Obama administration"... even O'Reilly the populist tool, who has zero knowledge of economics said "but no one has any capital gains!!!"....
Bro, I CRINGE when O'Reilly talks about markets! The economy rallied beyond value and then imploded from the same root cause. The expansion and contraction of credit. I would argue that Bernanke and Paulson's actions were perceived by market participants much like Obamamania. The de facto socialism of targeted rate cuts and bailouts goes hat in hand with a tax happy interventionist Federal government. In a weird way the Treasury secretary and Fed chief opened the door to the widespread acceptance of populist, anti-free market politicians. Hence Paulson gave Obama an "endorsement" as powerful as Colin Powell's.....
It's hilarious...it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion... You'd think Obamysteria would tank the bonds...could you write a bullish article about them? Remember to always fade the mass media!!!
Mybe this should be moved to politics section of forum Osama's victory is being digested. It ain't good but we'll get over it.
Congratulations on your gains. Charts are merely graphical representations of the raw data Hulbert fed into his computer - data which showed no statistically significant correlation. Therefore, as I've previously stated, "a picture of Obama's Intrade chart doesn't change the facts. Why? Hulbert included THIS CHART, in raw data form, when performing his analysis. "Consider the following: If Obama's growing lead in the polls was a major factor in the market's plunge that began in mid-September, then sensitive econometric tests should have been able to detect, for the months leading up to September, a statistically significant correlation between gyrations in the Obama contract and the stock market. But no such correlation emerged." - Mark Hulbert http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={943D9EF9-47DA-463A-A7D0-10295D680C29} Conclusion The "game-changer" in the 2008 Presidential election was the market meltdown. The causal relationship is as follows: Cause: Market meltdown Effect: Obama's sharp rise in the polls You are trying to switch the cause and effect as a result of your political biases.
Hulbert is being ambiguous. "the months leading up to September". Well from April on the correlation was pretty darn high. Prior to that the market presumed a less threatening Clinton as the nominee. I am not trying to switch the cause and effect as a result of my political biases because I'm not "switching anything." Markets are organic and participants have a host of decision making criteria. Today one thing tomorrow another. The credit implosion is the #1 factor in declining asset valuations. What drove this into CALAMITY was the electoral strength of a liberal Presidential candidate with a strong majority Dem Congress. Last weeks recovery was definitely predicated upon the change in sentiment toward 60 Senate Dems. Honestly bro. Anyone who tries to make the argument that global markets aren't FREAKING OUT over the emergence of leftist governments is lacking required observation skills. Not to say those fears won't be misguided and that Obama won't be forced to the center ect but the sentiment NOW and the PAST 6 months has been that Obama, Democrats, global military instability instead of Bush Doctrine-are all big negatives. To deny that is to let YOUR bias inhibit you from taking proper advantage of events. EOD this game is nothing more than front running people....
Hulbert disagrees. He ran the numbers. You eyeballed the charts. I'm sticking with Hulbert on this one. Leftist governments don't just emerge out of thin air. Perhaps your ideological viewpoint renders you unable to analyze the catalyst of this reaction objectively. Perhaps mine does as well. Incorrect. Two independent paths can lead to the same destination. To suggest that one must adopt YOUR world view in order to extract opulence from the markets is patently foolhardy. Having said that, my goal here is to reach détente within the next couple of messages. "Can't we all just get along?"