I questioned your claim that the market would have had a "countervailing subsequent loss" if the Geithner appointment were not responsible to Friday's gains. That's a mysterious concept to me, and one that you have not elucidated any further.

Also, you seem to be stating that the market was responding to the perception that the Geithner appointment was a harbinger of economic rescue, but I don't buy that either. I agree with the Chimp that the market was making a normal adjustment after a week of precipitous decline, just as it did the previous Thursday. I meant to suggest that analyses such as the Chimp's, had they been widespread in the Librul Media, would have put a damper on the rally, but I did not mean to suggest that their absence was responsible for the rally.

I hope that clarifies my observations.

Steve
Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.
(Native American prayer)