i'm sure they are not going unnoticed. i think under normal trading conditions these reports themselves would have been enough to jeopardize an oversold bounce.
as to the choice of the wtc, i'd have to disagree with sir that the thugs had no intentions of victory thru mkt declines. the mkts were at a vulnerable juncture to begin with. their choice of target and timing would certainly lead me to believe that their intention was to stimulate a recession. they would like nothing more than to see americans "poor" as they view our economic processes in general as evil in its ability to generate wealth. how hypocritical it would be to find out these terrorists were in fact "short" making profits themselves in what they so despise.
as to short covering, i think you stated it best on your thread, its not gonna happen. i would reference the inability of european mkts to stabilize today as evidence of that.
debates of unpatriotic shorting or patriotic buying have just gotten out of control. reference shark's thread where generally its "wrong" to be short or long. rather than patriotic buying, patriotic covering, banning oil uses as have been suggested, in light of the consumer confidence numbers, my unrealistic patriotic contribution, maybe it'd be cheaper for everyone to just go out and buy another computer or two.
as for wolf's commentary. seems unrealistic that things have changed in light of recent economic news. his precedence based on a bottom here, now seems unlikely in the near term.
historically, as i've read somewhere in econ books and recent posts indicating rebounds in mkts afterward, these books demonstrated that war is an economic policy. i wish i could find the examples that demonstrated as it even on occasion being "intentional" for such purposes. like it or not, this seems to be factual. certainly i'm not promoting war for economies purpose, just stating information that i had come across long ago and trying to relate them to recent statistics being posted on si. perhaps an example is to show our policies in protecting oil interests. or on other occasions to "stand aside" mainly bcuz there were no interests to protect or be involved in. further, i would guess these subsequent mkt gains mentioned are a result of political economic stimulus. 20b will be thrown into the mix. this is not "potential" money available via borrowing, but will result in direct spending. this spending, now and historically, would seem the stimulus for subsequent market advances as demonstrated in the data regarding how mkts respond to such tragic events over time. with the talibastiges taunting, "bring it on", i would suspect by the time we've thoroughly kicked their ass, our economy will have stabilized as well via spending stimuli.
rantinov |
