If a market hasn't moved a kopek's worth in nineteen months, it is not a bull-market - that's all I was saying in the above. So we should not be celebrating the tenth anniversary of something that died when it was eight years and four months old - to suggest such a thing would be a tad tendentious, no? Yet all the pundits are suggesting it. Methinks they suggesteth too much ...
>It's funny how the critics
>are stuck in this pattern worse than the market participants:
>looking at the last 9 months could tell tales of doom and gloom,
You gotta go back a long way to find the timespan that makes the last 19 months look like anything but shit, Jordan.
If that $1.5 billion-per-day foreign capital drip suddenly dries up - because it's scared of the role of rising energy prices (from what oil is doing to, say, GM projections, to what privatised electricity is doing to, say, everyone in California), and scared of tech markets that terrify a central bank into shoring it up with public money, and scared of a financial sector that won't say just how exposed it is to plumetting junk bonds - well, you're suddenly looking at the inflation, interest rates and a credit crunch. Shit, someone might even look up the CAD! Oh, and all this in the only economy that's keeping a lot of other economies rolling. Europe and Japan don't seem ready to assume that role right now.
>but what: were you looking for a sure thing?
Shit, if that were my moolah in the furnace, this'd be sure enough a thing for me to pull the lot, swop it for Euros, and bury it deep.
Sorry about the overposting, Doug. I promise a day's contrite silence as of now.
Cheers, Rob.