Skip to main content

If you thought I was negative on the world economy....

[I've moved away from chatting about the markets, but this article has to be mentioned if only for the shock value]...

I thought I was negative about the economy over the coming year thinking we could hit DOW 8,500-10,000 (with unemployment reverse trending to the upside dramatically, say 12%+ in the US), but a recent article on cnbc has one pundit calling DOW 3,000 by 2013. Even guys like Nouriel Roubini or Marc Faber haven't tossed out numbers like DOW 3,000 (although they see a crash coming).

I'll admit, even I find DOW 3,000 hard to believe, although if enough dominoes fall at the right time it's feasible.

The market is already primed for panic, the only question is what's going to set that panic off (or on the flip side, what will defuse it). A lot of current 'ride it out' mentalities are born out of the same mentality associated with the 2008 crash - essentially investment managers who have to remain in the markets to have a job (and as such have to keep all those 401ks, RRSPs, etc. in the market as well).

Not to mention the FED keeping interest rates low and essentially forcing people to either be in equities (hence the recent rush in to high-yield dividend stocks) or gold if they want any shot at some kind of return (which to me is just insane to essentially force capital in to equities, thereby over exposing people's 401ks to a market crash should it occur).

But you know, if we ever did hit DOW 3,000 we should have a party, because we'll be celebrating our move in to a brand new era for mankind. I don't believe capitalism as we know it could survive DOW 3,000. Heck, I don't think we could even survive dipping back down to DOW 6,500 again. So hitting either one of those levels will usher in a brand new era that will be unlike anything we've ever seen.

Anyway,was it irresponsible for CNBC to run this article on their homepage (it wasn't buried in their site, it's the lead story)? It's hard to say.

If CNBC ran a headline saying "Author says russians planning nuclear attack on USA" - and yet it was merely said author's theory that this would happen - we'd call that irresponsible journalism. Yelling fire without proof of fire isn't good journalism.

Yet when it comes to the economy, theories are all anyone has to report on. As such, who is to say DOW 3,000 isn't possible.

All I know is that it's unnerving to see a top-tier media outlet pushing this kind of headline. Even with my money out of the market, DOW 3,000 is a Mad Max type scenario that I wouldn't want to see unfold.
 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Featured Post: Where Can You Buy My Books?

Interested in purchasing one of my books? Below are the links that will take you to the right place on Amazon. A Manufactured Mind On Amazon On Kobo On Barnes and Noble On iTunes Obey On Amazon On Kobo  On B&N  On iTunes  The Fall of Man Trilogy Days of Judgment (Book One) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes System Crash (Book Two) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes A Fool's Requiem (Book Three) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes

E-cigarettes: A PR battle Health Canada cannot win?

So I've now been using an e-cigarette (e-cig) for two months and thought I'd talk a bit about how I see the upcoming battle between Health Canada and e-cigs going. First though, let's do a quick overview of what exactly an e-cig is. Basically an e-cig vaporizes liquid that contains nicotine. The vapor is then inhaled. People who use e-cigs are called vapers (not smokers). Because the liquid is atomized (ie. vaporized), not burned the way tobacco is, vapers do not consider themselves 'smokers' in anyway. An e-cig is comprised of basically three components: The tank - this is the component that holds the juice (sometimes referred to as e-juice or e-liquid). The atomizer - this a coil and wick unit that atomizes the juice. When the coil is heated (from the battery) it atomizes the juice that has soaked into the wick. The battery - batteries for e-cigs come in various capacities (some last 8 hours, others 40+ hours, depending on their size).  The ba...

More evidence of the Internet Revolution

Bell ushers in new era with CTV deal  So Bell has purchased CTV.  Not really that big a deal under normal circumstances, except when you realize why they did it... Driving convergence this time, the Internet-enabled mobile devices such as smart phones and computer tablets are threatening home television’s lock on viewers. Bell, like its rivals, wants to offer more content to its subscribers, however they receive the signal. Viewers are increasingly interested in watching their favourite shows on their phones while they ride the bus or sit in the park, and the cable and phone companies that have served as middle men between viewers and broadcasters were in danger of being marginalized. You know what sort of worries me about this kind of acquisition? It's clearly an attempt to own (control) content. When they say marginalized what they really mean is service providers being nothing more than dumb pipes - providing connectivity to the internet and nothing more. As ...