Who else thinks Wall Street is trying to intimidate Obama this week?

[LuckyTheDog]

Obama starts talking about reform and Wall Street starts selling. I think this is imtimidation at work.

[moondust]

1. I do.

I think they do it a lot but I can't prove it. Some apologists would probably call it "sending a message."

[timeforpeace]

11. By plummeting the day after Brown wins in MA?

[moondust]

13. It's not every day.

Sometimes there are reasonably legitimate reasons for the markets to rise or fall that have nothing to do with what goes on in Washington. Other times the behavior of the stock market makes no sense at all.

[PATRICK]

14. The most predictable form of this

that I have noticed is that when it comes time for a Fed decision to raise interest rates the markets try in all sorts of ways to react to push against it at the cost of crashing points to make things look too risky to change. The president as a force of unwanted change is a little trickier to see as clearly as are a lot of factors a rational person would think natural to provoke a sell off or an incentive boost. The Fed at decision time always has their FULL attention. Nothing close to the vest there.

[moondust]

16. Agree.

I was actually going to mention interest rate decision time but decided against wading into the details.

[wtbymark]

2. That's alright.

In my opinion, the dow is still over rated by 3,000.

[LuckyTheDog]

6. No way.

Corporate profits are up and the economy is turning around. Stocks should be going up.

[Nite Owl]

3. It might be the

excuse de jour but the market is in need of a correction.

[LuckyTheDog]

7. By what measure?

I don't see that as being the case.

[Nite Owl]

12. We've been in an uptrend

since March '09. There has been a lot of negative divergence on the charts for a while now. Price was holding but support lines were broken definitively yesterday, we further broke support support today on the S&P. I don't chose to follow the Dow the S&P contains more and varied companies.

[Pirate Smile]

4. They did this to him in February and March of 2009 too. Then people started freaking out, the

media was saying it was going down because of Obama and it was about Obama "hurting" Wall Street and the economy. It is disgusting.

[DrToast]

5. The market has been down every day since Brown won!

[ShortnFiery]

9. It's the new Scotty Brown Bear Market! :P eom.

[Bragi]

8. Dunno, but they're intimidating me

<Joke!>

[glitch]

10. If you can do plunge protection you can do plunge instigation. nt

[Imajika]

15. Do you realize how ridiculous this is?

Honestly, this line of thinking is right up there with the 9-11 conspiracies.

The market does not, and can not, suddenly decide to collectively punish any politician.

[slipslidingaway]

17. Another theory ...

the market was due for a correction, what a great time to say we're going to be tough on the banks. The market sells off and everyone says it is because the administration is getting tough.

Who does the TA for the WH, they were pretty good in March calling the bottom of the fifth wave.

;-)

:silly:


This was from December '08 when the market was tracing out a symmetrical triangle.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=327&topic_id=792&mesg_id=792

FWIW one person's view...

"Here are some bullish looking charts we are looking at. The first two show Ellliot Wave counts that we have been tracking for some time. For some background theory on Elliott Wave, please see my October 10 post S&P 500 Crash Count.

click on chart for sharper image

In Elliott Wave terms we are looking for a "wave <4>" bounce. The short term implications are bullish with possible retrace targets of 1008 for a 38.2% retrace or 1090 for a 50% retrace of "wave <3>". The long term implications are rather nasty. Our "Wave <5>" target back down is approximately 600..."

[slipslidingaway]

18. Krugman on the Geithner interview last night ...

FDL had an earlier and more detailed post on this subject as well ... guess Krugman agreed with the post.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/what-did-geithner-say/

"What did Geithner say?

Various news reports that Tim Geithner is privately opposed to the new Obama bank plan — which isn’t that much of a surprise, but he should not be talking about it (if he is). What we do have is this PBS interview, in which he certainly isn’t doing much to back the concept. The correct answer to “In essence are you saying that big banks need to be broken up” is “Yes”; add some qualifiers if necessary — “we’re not talking about a sudden disruption, but about new rules of the game, but the eventual goal is smaller banks that aren’t engaged in inappropriate activities” or something like that.

As it was, Geithner might as well have had a chyron underneath as he spoke, with the words DON’T WORRY, WE’RE NOT GOING TO TAKE ANY REAL ACTION.

I don’t know what’s really going on here, but Obama needs to find some officials who can talk about taking on Wall Street as if they mean it."