Artificial Stock Market rally?

Originally posted by whodey
As for who might have that kind of money, what say you? Who has $400 billion, assuming that figure is true?

Whodey I like your style. What if it were $4,000 billion? In other words, $4 trillion. Or $40 trillion, even. Come on, think it through. Assume it is $40 trillion - an unaccounted for $40 trillion - assuming - for the purposes of my only question: which is - why would it be THAT much? Or if it were $400 trillion? My only question is: why would it be $400 trillion? And as for $4,000 trillion? Don't even go there with that 'only' question. Unless you want to be rounded up by Big Brother and "re-educated" on "Uncle Ben" (I don't want Tea Bagger Watch to be able to auto-scan "Fed" in my posts) or on child-rearing. Or dragged up in front of a Death Panel.

I always wondered why the stock market goes up whenever the USA wages war. I know industrial production stimulates the economy but why not non war industrial production?
War is instability, so why a higher stock market every time like clockwork? I don't have time to be a number cruncher but I think Whodey may have something here.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
War is instability

Existential war is instability. Corporate war is bankabilty.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I always wondered why the stock market goes up whenever the USA wages war. I know industrial production stimulates the economy but why not non war industrial production?
War is instability, so why a higher stock market every time like clockwork? I don't have time to be a number cruncher but I think Whodey may have something here.

Considering the USA has been at war pretty much all the time since the 1940s, it's hardly surprising to find that the USA is at war when its stock markets are going up.

Maybe it's been artificially depressed before now.

Originally posted by whodey
I suggest the Fed bought the stocks. If not, where did the money come from? It seems to me the only possibility.

What can I say Whodey...it's world gone mad!!!🙄🙄🙄

Originally posted by FMF
Existential war is instability. Corporate war is bankabilty.

Corporate war? Existential war?

Are you the only one that knows what you are talking about?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Considering the USA has been at war pretty much all the time since the 1940s, it's hardly surprising to find that the USA is at war when its stock markets are going up.

The day a new war is waged results in a bump in stock prices overall. I'm not talking about a war happening during a continuing bull market rise. You missed my point.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The day a new war is waged results in a bump in stock prices overall. I'm not talking about a war happening during a continuing bull market rise. You missed my point.

Show the data.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Corporate war? Existential war? Are you the only one that knows what you are talking about?

Perhaps you are the only one who doesn't.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The day a new war is waged results in a bump in stock prices overall.

How many corporations traded on the stock market benefit directly and indirectly from war being waged?

Do people buy or sell the shares of companies whose business prospects benefit from changing circumstances?

Why would you find it curious that the business prospects of corporations - that are oriented towards benefitting from war being waged - flourish relatively less when they are engaged in "non war industrial production"?

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/01/08/is-fed-buying-behind-the-stock-rally.aspx

...

Ultimately, though, this is all just conjecture, I think the likelyhood of a Fed share buying campaign is very low, and here is why: Both the Hong Kong and Japanese central banks publically announced their plans to buy equities; if the Fed has intervened in t ...[text shortened]... if it were to surface. I don't think it happened -- but I can't rule it out entirely.

...

re "this would surely amount to political suicide if it were to surface", the question is not whether Geithner, Bernanke, Obama etc. could get away with it. the question is whether they THOUGHT they could get away with it.

Originally posted by whodey
We are essentially talking about $400 billiion of unaccounted funds flooding the market. I would assume that something is amiss, or the firm is so inept they should not be in business.

As for who might have that kind of money, what say you? Who has $400 billion, assuming that figure is true? Would it not have to be uncle Ben?

like ATY said. China. but it would need US collusion.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
like ATY said. China. but it would need US collusion.

China? Are you referring to Sun Yat-Sen's, decendents. If so, do you think their faked Hawaii birth certificates qualify their intervention to be characterized as "US collusion" if serious questions are still being asked about whether they are U.S. citizens at all?

Originally posted by FMF
China? Are you referring to Sun Yat-Sen's, decendents. If so, do you think their faked Hawaii birth certificates qualify their intervention to be characterized as "US collusion" if serious questions are still being asked about whether they are U.S. citizens at all?

is "decendents" a valid spelling in some dialect or are you partaking tonight?

if Sun Yat-Sen has any descendants here, their citizenship should be considered on a case-by-case basis, with births claimed to have been in Hawaii to be taken with a grain of salt, of course.