Originally Posted by stereoman
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.
I don't want to belabor the point, because it is somewhat off-topic, but my point is simply that "the market" responds to a lot of forces that are not always rational. In this case, there was a direct timing link to the Geithner appointment which was inconsistent with the Chimp's analysis. The Chimp piece (sorry, I don't remember the author and don't care to go back to look for it) tried to argue that it was a normal bounce, but that doesn't comport with the facts. Were that the case, there would have been a reciprocal response - a dip - that reflects the cyclical nature of stock sales following a run-up as investors (speculators, mostly) "take profits." Instead, there has been a steady rise all week, despite otherwise dim economic news. The Chimp piece/analysis does not explain this discrepacy. THAT is all I am trying to say. It is sloppy analysis based more upon its own opinion than empirical evidence.
Quote
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.
It does for me, as I hadn't taken it that way. I think, truly, any anthropomorphic explanation for the behavior of the market is mostly speculation anyway. Analysts, including me, try to make behavior fit their perceptions equating coincidence with causality.

On the broader theme, I expect that there will be a significant retrenchment within the market, and the smart money will follow the smart analysis of individual stocks. The overall problem with the market has been the willingness of analysts to follow expectations rather than sticking to the fundamental soundness of the underlying businesses. But then, that is the inherent stupidity of stock markets in general. Stocks are supposed to represent fractional shares of assets of a going company, not an exchange based upon daily marginal fluctuations of perceptions. Until we get away from that idiotic thinking, speculative bubbles will persist.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich