Dow Jones crashing fast

[Policenaut]

Holy crap. I was watching the news and in a matter of minutes it has fallen over 400 points. As of this moment it's down 1000 points and still crashing. WOW.

edit- Now it's going back up. Gained back 500 points in another few minutes. That was a wild swing.

[Free Thinkr]

Wow. finance.yahoo.com isn't even responding. I'm guessing the server is flooded. Craziness.

[timhau]

At Goldman Sachs, someone tripped and fell on the 'sell' button?


Wow, must've been crazy 15 minutes or so. Exxon Mobil fell from around 65 to 58 and change; I don't think it was under 60 even during the worst panic in March a year ago.

[Policenaut]

Yeah that's why I posted. I'm not a big follower of the stock market usually but they were talking about it on the news. It was down a few hundred and all of the sudden it started dropping at least 20-50 points every update tick until it was down a thousand. This was all in a matter of minutes. Then it rapidly started gaining back those points.

[Just thinking]

Just what is the volatility index? ... 1000?

Do fewer folks now think that a DD is still very unlikely?

[timhau]

Heh... take a look at the NYSE page for Philip Morris (http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=PM). The stock opened at 48.58, is now trading at 46 and change, with a day low of two dollars.

Edit:
And here (http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=ACN) is the winner of the day: management consulting company Accenture. 40-dollar stock, opened at over $41. Daily low: $0.01.

[drkitten]

Just what is the volatility index? ... 1000?

Do fewer folks now think that a DD is still very unlikely?

What the hell is a DD aside from the cup size of a well-endowed woman?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Just what is the volatility index? ... 1000?

Do fewer folks now think that a DD is still very unlikely?

DD?

[Just thinking]

Double Dip

[drkitten]

Double Dip

Ah.

No, I don't think a DD is particularly likely. Look at the Black Monday crash of '87 for a vague parallel. Actually, Black Monday was substantially worse both in percentage loss and in long-term effect,... and even so, it didn't trigger a recession. (http://hnn.us/articles/895.html)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Double Dip

A double dip recession? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't spend much time thinking about it.

[Just thinking]

Ah.

No, I don't think a DD is particularly likely. Look at the Black Monday crash of '87 for a vague parallel. Actually, Black Monday was substantially worse both in percentage loss and in long-term effect,... and even so, it didn't trigger a recession. (http://hnn.us/articles/895.html)

No, it didn't. But it didn't come at the heels of a recession, either.

[paiute]

Holy crap. I was watching the news and in a matter of minutes it has fallen over 400 points. As of this moment it's down 1000 points and still crashing. WOW.

edit- Now it's going back up. Gained back 500 points in another few minutes. That was a wild swing.

There are automated sell mechanisms which kick in to minimize losses. These just add fuel to the fire and prices plunge until profit-takers jump back in. I would not be surprised if there are also automated buyer programs.

When the machines take over, it won't be a military Skynet. It will be a financial HAL.

[Free Thinkr]

I'd say that, in a number of ways, we're kind of at an unprecedented juncture here. Is a double-dip likely? I don't suspect there's a person on earth who really has much of an idea.

[geni]

There are automated sell mechanisms which kick in to minimize losses. These just add fuel to the fire and prices plunge until profit-takers jump back in. I would not be surprised if there are also automated buyer programs.


Algorithmic trading. These days most trades are done by such programs.

[timhau]

This (http://www.cnbc.com/id/36999483) is pretty funny if true:

In one of the most dizzying half-hours in stock market history, the Dow plunged nearly 1,000 points before paring those losses in what possibly could have been a trader error.

According to multiple sources, a trader entered a "b" for billion instead of an "m" for million in a trade possibly involving Procter & Gamble [PG], a component in the Dow.

[Bell]

At one point the Dow lost nearly 1,000 points before partially recovering to close down 347 points. In the final minutes of trading it was revealed that a trader may have mistyped a trade as billions instead of millions.

www.1010wins.com

[GlennB]

If this 'b' vs. 'm' error is true, then may I offer my services as an I.T. consultant/designer for these morons that have probably caused many innocents to lose good money? My fees are very reasonable .

jeez .. in my 20 years in I.T. we had the brains to look for unusual amounts and prompt for confirmation.

"You are selling in
BILLIONS
whereas your usual trades are in millions, according to our records. Please type the fuzzy wobbly characters you see in the box below, to prove you are not a total wanker" Or similar ;)

[timhau]

Hey, maybe that guy was just busy with something else, so he couldn't devote his full attention to typing.

It is National Masturbation Day (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=174835), after all.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This (http://www.cnbc.com/id/36999483) is pretty funny if true:

Calling all attorneys!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If this 'b' vs. 'm' error is true, then may I offer my services as an I.T. consultant/designer for these morons that have probably caused many innocents to lose good money?

Of course, it may have also caused many "innocents" to make money.

[lionking]

They are calling it a "technical error" on our news. Australians usually call this a "stuff up".

[ZirconBlue]

They are calling it a "technical error" on our news. Australians usually call this a "stuff up".

Yeah, but you probably don't have "wardrobe malfunctions" down there, either.

[GlennB]

:rolleyes:Of course, it may have also caused many "innocents" to make money.

Yeah, it's a zero-sum game so what the hell does anything matter? :rolleyes:

[lomiller]

lol BP is the only stock I own that didn't lose more then the DOW...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

:rolleyes:

Yeah, it's a zero-sum game so what the hell does anything matter? :rolleyes:

I don't know. You're the one who brought it up. You tell me.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

lol BP is the only stock I own that didn't lose more then the DOW...

There's gotta be a joke in there somewhere! :)

[roger]

Had some cash burning in my pocket. I bought.

[Tippit]

I'd say that, in a number of ways, we're kind of at an unprecedented juncture here. Is a double-dip likely? I don't suspect there's a person on earth who really has much of an idea.

It's not likely, it's inevitable. The Federal Reserve led "recovery" is akin to a heroin addict receiving a big "fix". How many fixes can the economy sustain? Probably as many before the service of the debt we have to monetize becomes itself unsustainable due to the threat of hyperinflation. At that point the US dollar will not so much as collapse, but evaporate. What we're seeing now is the evaporation of the Euro, but the dollar is next and it won't be very long.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Had some cash burning in my pocket. I bought.

I didn't know it was happening until it was over! Maybe nothing on my shopping list went on sale.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's not likely, it's inevitable. The Federal Reserve led "recovery" is akin to a heroin addict receiving a big "fix". How many fixes can the economy sustain? Probably as many before the service of the debt we have to monetize becomes itself unsustainable due to the threat of hyperinflation. At that point the US dollar will not so much as collapse, but evaporate. What we're seeing now is the evaporation of the Euro, but the dollar is next and it won't be very long.

How much longer do we have? I'd at least like to make it to the end of the year.

[daenku32]

Machines do the darndest things!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Machines do the darndest things!

It's being reported that one of the NYSE computers was overheard saying "I'm sorry Dave..."

[Thunder]

what happened today was a bit frightening. at one point, I see the Dow down 3.5%. not a minute later..it jumped to 4.5%. it seemed like a big joke.

than, when I saw the Dow down 9%....I closed my web browser...because it seemed like the end of the world had come (not really...but you know what I mean).

I was very glad to see the Dow earn half of this back.

what the hell happened?????

[bpesta22]

At Goldman Sachs, someone tripped and fell on the 'sell' button?


Wow, must've been crazy 15 minutes or so. Exxon Mobil fell from around 65 to 58 and change; I don't think it was under 60 even during the worst panic in March a year ago.

I was short and well leveraged on real estate, but covered with about a 10% gain. I then went long exon calls and went to lunch. When I came back, I noticed the 1000 point drop....lol

From what I read, $1 trillion dollars was "lost" in that temporary drop.

[bpesta22]

Hey, maybe that guy was just busy with something else, so he couldn't devote his full attention to typing.

It is National Masturbation Day (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=174835), after all.

Ah, on my birthday. I guess it's fitting.

[timhau]

lol BP is the only stock I own that didn't lose more then the DOW...

Hmm... hey, I did better! COP and PFE beat the DOW (and S&P 500) yesterday.

I really don't get this... COP beat the DOW, and XOM fell more. Is there any reason to doubt that Exxon is the safest, least risky play among the Big Oil?

[bpesta22]

Hmm... hey, I did better! COP and PFE beat the DOW (and S&P 500) yesterday.

I really don't get this... COP beat the DOW, and XOM fell more. Is there any reason to doubt that Exxon is the safest, least risky play among the Big Oil?

That's why I bought it. I predict the market will have a horrid summer....except maybe oil.

[timhau]

I advised my brother to buy it in February, and I'm feeling a little guilty. No, he's probably not in the red with it since the buck has gone up in value and he's gotten two dividends out of Exxon, but I could have recommended COP, which is up about 10% (dollar-wise) and pays a better dividend. I hold COP, because way back in July I thought that COP at 39 is a better deal than XOM at 65; when the numbers were 49 and 65, I thought XOM was the better buy. It may still turn out to be, but it wasn't exactly stellar advice from my part.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I advised my brother to buy it in February, and I'm feeling a little guilty. No, he's probably not in the red with it since the buck has gone up in value and he's gotten two dividends out of Exxon, but I could have recommended COP, which is up about 10% (dollar-wise) and pays a better dividend. I hold COP, because way back in July I thought that COP at 39 is a better deal than XOM at 65; when the numbers were 49 and 65, I thought XOM was the better buy. It may still turn out to be, but it wasn't exactly stellar advice from my part.

February was 3 months ago. Hardly enough time to judge an investment. Wait 5-10 years, then see how you did.

[roger]

February was 3 months ago. Hardly enough time to judge an investment. Wait 5-10 years, then see how you did.Oh, come on. Surely the fortunes of the companies have completely changed in 3 months. ;)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Oh, come on. Surely the fortunes of the companies have completely changed in 3 months. ;)

Well, maybe they are the Lehman Brothers of the oil industry!

[timhau]

February was 3 months ago. Hardly enough time to judge an investment. Wait 5-10 years, then see how you did.

I know, I know. And as far as I can tell, he's ready to leave those stocks to his six-year-old son as inheritance, so there's no hurry. I'd just feel a lot better personally if someone who trusted me for investment advice would be ahead all the time.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I know, I know. And as far as I can tell, he's ready to leave those stocks to his six-year-old son as inheritance, so there's no hurry. I'd just feel a lot better personally if someone who trusted me for investment advice would be ahead all the time.

This is pretty much why I don't give specific (i.e. buy stock XYZ) investment advice. I used to tell people what I was buying (only if they asked, of course), but then invariably I'd get the idiotic "You bought Coca Cola last week at $50, and now it's at $48. I thought you knew what you were talking about". So I no longer do that in real life or on this forum.

[Almo]

This is pretty much why I don't give specific (i.e. buy stock XYZ) investment advice. I used to tell people what I was buying (only if they asked, of course), but then invariably I'd get the idiotic "You bought Coca Cola last week at $50, and now it's at $48. I thought you knew what you were talking about". So I no longer do that in real life or on this forum.

Very sensible of you. I don't own many stocks (like 3 or something). I put most of my dough into S+P index funds. :)

[a_unique_person]

Heh... take a look at the NYSE page for Philip Morris (http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=PM). The stock opened at 48.58, is now trading at 46 and change, with a day low of two dollars.

Edit:
And here (http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=ACN) is the winner of the day: management consulting company Accenture. 40-dollar stock, opened at over $41. Daily low: $0.01.

Everyone knows Accenture are a pack of dodgy rip off merchants.

[a_unique_person]

They are calling it a "technical error" on our news. Australians usually call this a "stuff up".

The word is there was no 'technical error'. The markets are just inhererently unstable at the moment.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The word is there was no 'technical error'. The markets are just inhererently unstable at the moment.

"The word" is wrong.

[a_unique_person]

"The word" is wrong.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/no-pointing-at-fat-finger-of-error-20100512-uy5p.html


SECURITIES and Exchange Commission chairman Mary Schapiro rejected speculation that a ''fat finger'' error, a sell order on Procter & Gamble or a terrorist cyber-attack triggered last week's market plunge.
Ms Schapiro, in testimony prepared for a congressional hearing, said neither reviews by the SEC nor stock exchanges points to such scenarios causing the Dow Jones Industrial Average to fall as much as 9.2 per cent on May 6.

[Frank Newgent]

"The word" is wrong.


Looking for an explanation of how the Dow could drop close to ten percent in less than ten minutes I found this (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=ax0kTsl0dBXw) story on maybe rigged markets.

In a feat that would seem to defy the odds, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America this week each said its trading desk made money every day of the first quarter. Goldman said its daily net trading revenue topped $100 million 35 times last quarter out of 63 trading days. JPMorgan and Bank of America disclosed similar eye-popping stats. Citigroup, too, recorded a profit on each trading day, Bloomberg News reported, citing unnamed people who knew the results.

The intrigue is high. If a too-big-to-fail bank’s traders were able to make money every day of a quarter, were they really trading in any normal sense of the word? Or would vacuuming be a more accurate term? What kinds of risks do such incredible profits entail, for the banks and the rest of us taxpayers? And are results such as these too good to be true?

There seems to be no satisfying way to answer those questions, or even the more basic inquiry: How exactly do these banks’ trading divisions make money? Reading the companies’ impenetrable financial reports is of little help. However they did it, the data suggest it was as easy last quarter as hitting the side of a barn with a baseball from three feet away.

This isn’t the way “trading” works in the real world. A simple exercise in measuring probabilities is instructive here.

Long Odds

Let’s say you manage a highly leveraged, diversified investment fund, and have become so skilled at playing the markets that you have a 70 percent probability of making money any given trading day. This would be a remarkable achievement in most markets. The odds that you would post a daily net gain 63 times in a row, though, would be about one in 5.7 billion. The formula for calculating this is: 1/(0.70 to the 63rd power).

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Looking for an explanation of how the Dow could drop close to ten percent in less than ten minutes I found this (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=ax0kTsl0dBXw) story on maybe rigged markets.

Well, if the markets are rigged, I hope they stay that way. It has worked well for me over the years.

[Chaos]

Looking for an explanation of how the Dow could drop close to ten percent in less than ten minutes I found this (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=ax0kTsl0dBXw) story on maybe rigged markets.

Ah... the old "I don´t understand it, so it can´t be real" argument that has so admirable failed to disprove evolution is not being used to fail to disprove working markets.

Consider me not impressed.

[rjwould]

Well, if the markets are rigged, I hope they stay that way. It has worked well for me over the years.If there is just one lesson to learn over the past 2+ years its that the stock market will be protected at all costs, even jobs, though thats been evident for quite some time, but only crystal clear lately, I suppose.

The question is: can it continue? Doesn't everything have an ending?

[Frank Newgent]

Ah... the old "I don´t understand it, so it can´t be real" argument that has so admirable failed to disprove evolution is not being used to fail to disprove working markets.

Consider me not impressed.

??

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If there is just one lesson to learn over the past 2+ years its that the stock market will be protected at all costs, even jobs, though thats been evident for quite some time, but only crystal clear lately, I suppose.

The question is: can it continue? Doesn't everything have an ending?

Huh??? What "ending"?

[rjwould]

Huh??? What "ending"?Can growth continue eternally? Where do we go after the stock market? It seems to me that the stock market has been an attempt to reward people financially in the replacement of manufacturing and actual labor. We can call it financial evolution if you like, but where do we go next - after the stock market fails to fulfill its purpose of equalizing all and providing the elusive American dream for everyone?

Its a rhetorical question.

[drkitten]

Can growth continue eternally?

Why not? Can human knowledge and creativity grow eternally? Even if the economy as a whole levels off, there will always be individuals that are growing and/or shrinking.

Where do we go after the stock market?

Why do we need to?

It seems to me that the stock market has been an attempt to reward people financially in the replacement of manufacturing and actual labor.

I'm not even sure what this means. The stock market is a way to match people with money up with people who want access to that money.

If one can do "better" things by not-manufacturing or not-laboring, then that should be rewarded. Which is why agriculture today is much less labor-intensive than it was 200 years ago.


We can call it financial evolution if you like, but where do we go next - after the stock market fails to fulfill its purpose of equalizing all and providing the elusive American dream for everyone?

That is not and never has been "the purpose" of the stock market.


Its a rhetorical question.

Funny how often "rhetorical" equates to "based on blatantly wrong assumptions."

[rjwould]

My line of thinking is that the idea and purpose of capitalism is that if one works hard enough and plays by the rules financial rewards will inevitably come his/her way. As I see it, the stock market is a gizmo to that end.

I'm certainly not a financial geek nor pretend to be, but I'm definitely open to learning or at least hearing others POV.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Can growth continue eternally?

It's continued for thousands of years, is there some reason to think it will stop any time soon?

Where do we go after the stock market?

Is it closing?

It seems to me that the stock market has been an attempt to reward people financially in the replacement of manufacturing and actual labor.

It rewards people who invest in it. What do you think the issuer of shares does with the money it gets? Oh, I don't know, maybe build new factories or something?

We can call it financial evolution if you like, but where do we go next - after the stock market fails to fulfill its purpose of equalizing all and providing the elusive American dream for everyone?

I wasn't aware that was its purpose.

[rjwould]

It rewards people who invest in it. What do you think the issuer of shares does with the money it gets? Oh, I don't know, maybe build new factories or something? With the number of people and other entities gaining the rewards of the stock market, why then have we been witnessing drops in employment? You'd think that as more workers invest in the market via 401k's and IRA's we'd be all happy-chaps, but thats not the case, is it.

[drkitten]

With the number of people and other entities gaining the rewards of the stock market, why then have we been witnessing drops in employment?

Because companies aren't in business to employ people; they're in business to make money?

That's like asking "with the number of people eating food, why have we been witnessing a drop in farm employment?"

[rjwould]

Because companies aren't in business to employ people; they're in business to make money?

That's like asking "with the number of people eating food, why have we been witnessing a drop in farm employment?"I agree. Of course my reply was to the other poster who reasonably suggested that wealth obtained through stock investments would/should/could result in 'factory' jobs. I also agree that the stock market is a way of making money without the burden of needing to create jobs. That task now seems to be the governments, or at least thats what it sounds like coming out of conservative circles.

But as for 'companies'; its the hope and belief of America's political leaders that growth will lead to more employment, isn't it? Thus money making is a worth while goal because it leads to job creation, no? Our tax system is set up that way; to reward, through deductions, those who adhere to certain behaviors.

[drkitten]

I agree. Of course my reply was to the other poster who reasonably suggested that wealth obtained through stock investments would/should/could result in 'factory' jobs.

No, he didn't. He just mentioned factories as one area that a person who sells stock to raise capital might put his capital. That same person might also sell stock and use it to buy more equipment, or to fund research and development,.... or for that matter, to buy fur-bearing trout ranches, but in that case I would hope to avoid his stock (and so would most other potential investors).

I also agree that the stock market is a way of making money without the burden of needing to create jobs.

Here's a hint. It's no longer 1950. You don't need to build factories to create jobs.

That task now seems to be the governments, or at least thats what it sounds like coming out of conservative circles.

Well, apparently "conservative circles" are inhabited largely by idiots.


But as for 'companies'; its the hope and belief of America's political leaders that growth will lead to more employment, isn't it?

Sort of. Growth leads to wealth, wealth leads to spending, spending leads to jobs. That's rather incontrovertible.

But job creation per se isn't necessarily a good thing -- job destruction is often a short-term consequence of wealth creation. But by freeing up labor for more productive uses, that same job destruction will eventually lead to job creation as the new money generates new spending. Hence farm payrolls have plummeted.

Thus money making is a worth while goal because it leads to job creation, no?

Don't confuse consequences with goals. Wealth creation is a goal by itself.

[rjwould]

Thanks for your explanations. So you think this is working okay and its just a matter of everyone becoming properly educated and then getting on board?

[drkitten]

Thanks for your explanations. So you think this is working okay and its just a matter of everyone becoming properly educated and then getting on board?

Largely, yes. If you're a travel agent, for instance, you need to be able either to work as cheap as Travelocity, or to add value over what I can get through Travelocity. This is true whether you're someone's employee, or whether you're in business for yourself. If you can't do that, then I will go with Travelocity and you'll be out of a job.

But I'm going to do something with the extra money I save through Travelocity. And someone's going to get that money. Even if I just stuff it into the cookie jar, I had to buy that cookie jar from someone. If you move fast, it might even be you.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

With the number of people and other entities gaining the rewards of the stock market, why then have we been witnessing drops in employment? You'd think that as more workers invest in the market via 401k's and IRA's we'd be all happy-chaps, but thats not the case, is it.

Seriously? You really don't know?

ETA: Never mind. It looks like it has been addressed.

[ksbluesfan]

Richard Russell is predicting doom (http://www.businessinsider.com/dow-theorist-richard-russell-sell-everything-liquid-you-wont-recognize-america-by-the-end-of-the-year-2010-5)

Do your friends a favor. Tell them to "batten down the hatches" because there's a HARD RAIN coming. Tell them to get out of debt and sell anything they can sell (and don't need) in order to get liquid. Tell them that Richard Russell says that by the end of this year they won't recognize the country. They'll retort, "How the dickens does Russell know -- who told him?" Tell them the stock market told him.

Just as for years I asked, cajoled, insisted, threatened, demanded, that my subscribers buy gold, I am now insisting, demanding, begging my subscribers to get OUT of stocks (including C and BYD, but not including golds) and get into cash or gold (bullion if possible). If the two Averages violate their May 7 lows, I see a major crash as the outcome. Pul - leeze, get out of stocks now, and I don't give a damn whether you have paper losses or paper profits!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

:dl:

[timhau]

And we should listen to Richard Russell because... he's got a a stock market newsletter he's selling? What's his track record? Is it better than Robert Prechter's (http://www.erictyson.com/articles/20090616)?

[ksbluesfan]

And we should listen to Richard Russell because... he's got a a stock market newsletter he's selling? What's his track record? Is it better than Robert Prechter's (http://www.erictyson.com/articles/20090616)?

If those questions are directed toward me, I was merely hoping to get the reaction that The Central Scrutinizer gave.

[GlennB]

Can growth continue eternally?

It's continued for thousands of years, is there some reason to think it will stop any time soon?


That's what the yeast said to me as they sat there, happily fermenting to their hearts' content, in the grape juice.

In the end they hit the buffers of increasingly scarce resources and self-generated pollution.

Is it possible that the growth of our society will eventually be constrained by a factor that is itself the result of growth? Just wondering.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That's what the yeast said to me as they sat there, happily fermenting to their hearts' content, in the grape juice.

In the end they hit the buffers of increasingly scarce resources and self-generated pollution.

Is it possible that the growth of our society will eventually be constrained by a factor that is itself the result of growth? Just wondering.

Possibly. Wise investors will profit either way.

[GlennB]

Possibly. Wise investors will profit either way.

The Über-yeast ? And what is their world like?

[drkitten]

That's what the yeast said to me as they sat there, happily fermenting to their hearts' content, in the grape juice.

In the end they hit the buffers of increasingly scarce resources and self-generated pollution.

Is it possible that the growth of our society will eventually be constrained by a factor that is itself the result of growth? Just wondering.

Sure, almost anything is possible. But in terms of likelihood, an extinction-level-event meteor is more plausible.

At least we know that those exist, while these phantasmagoric "buffers of increasingly kozmic gibberish" don't even have that going for them.

[ZirconBlue]

The Über-yeast ? And what is their world like?

Delicious!

[GlennB]

Delicious!
Alcoholic!

[GlennB]

Sure, almost anything is possible. But in terms of likelihood, an extinction-level-event meteor is more plausible.

At least we know that those exist, while these phantasmagoric "buffers of increasingly kozmic gibberish" don't even have that going for them.

"Is there in an inherent limit to economic growth" was pretty much all I asked. These 'buffers' are totally real for the yeast, not phantasmagoric at all, and explain how we get beer and wine.What's your view?

TCS seems to think it's possible, but that some may benefit nevertheless.

[ZirconBlue]

Alcoholic!


Am not!

Honest, Occifer! I only had ti martoonies!

[drkitten]

"Is there in an inherent limit to economic growth" was pretty much all I asked.

And "no" was pretty much all you were answered. And there's good reason for that. Not only do we have theoretical reasons -- yeast, after all, are not intelligent and can't redesign their environment the way humans can -- there's also good empirical reasons. Basically, these kind of doomsday predictions have been around a long time and have always failed precisely because technological progression has been able to develop workarounds for any specific proposed limitation. Most notably, look at the Simon-Ehrlich wager. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager)

If you had left it at the "no" you were given, you wouldn't be subjected to all this ridicule. But if you want to be the only person in the thread who aspires to the intellectual achievement and creativity of brewer's yeast.....

From the relevant Wikipedia article : Many economists understand the principle of substitution and the dynamic influence of technology with respect to commodity prices. For example, in the absence of any new technologies, copper prices would indeed be expected to increase as growing economies demanded more copper to meet the needs of expanding communications networks and plumbing infrastructure. Technological changes mitigated much of this expected demand as fiber optics replaced copper wire networks and various plastics replaced the once ubiquitous copper pipes throughout the construction industry.

And this new technology is exactly what has been getting us around limitations by substituting new goods for old for literally millennia. What happened to all the coal in northern England? What happened to good old-fashioned whale oil? And when growth-created use of copper appeared to make the price of copper into a barrier for further growth, fiber optics and PVC plumbing became economically viable. (To the point that I'm not sure I can find copper piping at the local hardware store....)

[MikeMangum]

It seems to me that the stock market has been an attempt to reward people financially in the replacement of manufacturing and actual labor.

No, the stock market was not designed with any social change objective in mind. The stock market is a place to buy and sell shares of publicly traded companies. That's what was "attempt[ed]" with the stock market.

[dudalb]

Can growth continue eternally? Where do we go after the stock market? It seems to me that the stock market has been an attempt to reward people financially in the replacement of manufacturing and actual labor. We can call it financial evolution if you like, but where do we go next - after the stock market fails to fulfill its purpose of equalizing all and providing the elusive American dream for everyone?

Its a rhetorical question.
Nope. The stock market was aplace where people who wanted to start manfacutring companies could sell stock to finance the companies in the first place.
Take some economics, buddy.

[drkitten]

Nope. The stock market was aplace where people who wanted to start manfacutring companies could sell stock to finance the companies in the first place.

Not even. The first stock markets were places where people who wanted to finance mercantile voyages could get the capital. Even if you're just selling beads to the natives and getting Manhattan Island in payment, the ship to get you there in the 17th century wasn't cheap.

So the idea was rather than finding someone who wouldn't miss twenty thousand pounds, you could find a thousand people who wouldn't miss twenty pounds each.

See the East India Company for an example (shares of which were trading on the London "exchange" at Jonathan's Coffee House in the 1680s).

[Just thinking]

Seems to be heading for major plunge, today.

And it's not just the US.

[timhau]

Actually, the major indices right now seem to be more than 2 percentage points above their day lows.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Seems to be heading for major plunge, today.

And it's not just the US.

Actually, the major indices right now seem to be more than 2 percentage points above their day lows.

Both of which mean exactly......nothing. :)