AAPL hitting new highs for the day, and a poster (post 848415) there lists these criteria for a "Key reversal day":
>>Here are the 6 characteristics. At end of day they should ALL be met to qualify for a key reversal day. Let's see:
1) A downswing - Generally steep with conspicious momentum
2) A new intraday low for the downswing
3) A vigorous lift off from that low
4) A close in the upper half of the day's range
5) A close above prior day close
6) All this on a marked increase volume<<
For most of the day (when I've been able to get out of the kitchen), Island has been showing more buyers than sellers for both AAPL and AKAM.
>>Maybe some people believe that, but I think he left the possibility of further raises hanging in his last statement (given when he last raised rates). I seem to remember Greenspan used the 50 points and out tactic before, so I'm guessing that's what Ben will do . . . he's got to stop before too long so why not follow the pattern of the master.<<
I didn't know that about Greenspan. And he was a master conductor, for sure. OTOH, what if Ben thinks different?
[ >>How will Baghdad Ben argue for inflation no with tax revenues driving down the national deficit?
I don't think he will. I'm going with the guess that he'll raise rates 50 points in August and announce he's done for a while. That ought set the market off. ]
From the comments I've read in a few financial articles, I get the idea that investors/traders think he's already stopped raising rates. Maybe I'm misremembering, or misinterpreted, what I read?
In case it wasn't evident, I'd intended my "no" in my Ben question (above) to be "now." It's time again to dismantle and vacuum my keyboard. It DRAWS particles, making the keys repeat and skip and stick. Someone in a forum on Apple's site complained about this keyboard's particle-attracting design. None of my other keyboards EVER behaved like this cheap thing.
Thunder crackling here, but not a problem yet.
>>I don't know, but what a wonderful Fed chairman Clarabell could have been.<<
LOL She could moove the market!
How will Baghdad Ben argue for inflation no with tax revenues driving down the national deficit?
>>And right now I don't see anybody I like who would run.<<
Well, how about Ed Orzechowski, Howdy Doody puppeteer? When I was browsing Google for Republican potential, I came upon this article in The Republican.
And I learned I'm a dodo bird twice in less than a week � HD's princess was not Winterspringsummerfall but Summerfall Winterspring. I'll go stand in a corner.
>>They need someone who can take almost all of the independents. Lieberman could, but won't be allowed. Maybe Gov. Warner, also as Ted Kennedy would say, Senator Osama (Barack) Obama. Of course either would have to become better known.<<
Well, two years is a long way off, politically. A new meteor could rise, as it could in the Republican party, of course. Or terrorists could obliterate the US, along with the rest of the globe, then *poof* no candidates, no election . . . no more need for ballot tutors . . . ;-)
>>He probably couldn't, but then I think Dean is a more likely independent candidate than Lieberman.<<
Oh, boy, Entertainment Tonight! Do the Dems have _anyone_ formidable?
>>I'm hoping he'll go independent. I'm pretty sure he'd win and it would free him from any residual influence of the anti-war hard left.<<
Is Lieberman that popular with both the major parties that voters would vote outside their boxes? And if the Dems were the majority in Congress, how could Lieberman succeed against the anti-war hard left?
>>Maybe Rupert Murdoch will launch a hostile takeover bid, and the NYT will commit suicide rather than submit . . . one can dream.<<
Well, as long as we're gonna dream, let's dream BIG. Let's dream that FOX NEWS buys out the failing NYT and keeps all the NYT editors and makes them electioneer daily for the Republican slate.
I'd include Libertarian electioneering, but I worry that a house divided would split votes so that each party would lose. Lieberman is one Democrat I like, but he has announced that if he loses the Dem primary he'll run as an independent. I think that can really put a crimp in the Democrats' vote count. Which I won't fight, will you? ;-)
>>They're not doing so good, and I doubt it's just coincidence:
Somebody musta liked NYT on Friday, though, buying, right in the thick of all the denouncements, for the next quarter. :-(
But the NYT's 5-year chart more than underscores your 1-year chart.
The Scratching Post blog proposes:
<. . .
I suggest that the NYT is hoping, praying, begging the Bush administration to take them to court. That stock price drop is no fluke. The NYT is an uncompetitive product. Unless they change consumers' attitudes, their revenue will continue to drop.
People who see all sources of information as equally good will, in time, drop those that cost money. I no longer subscribe to any newspapers at all. I can get everything I want on the Internet for free. The NYT has to make clear it's value proposition to the consumer. My bet is that they are positioning themselves as being the only news media large enough to uncover government scandals. They are appealing to the fear that in their absence, government agencies will run wild with corruption and deceit. . . .
The New York Times does not have an efficient advertising channel to get this concept in front of the public quickly and easily. If the Bush administration takes them to court, the entire country will have it propped up in front of them day and night until well after the trial is over. All of the usual suspects will rally to their defense. The ACLU, the MSM news channels, other newspapers and the Democratic Party will broadcast that concept morning, noon and night. In one fell swoop, the NYT will execute a marketing campaign that it hopes will change consumer sentiment.
. . .>
But whether it's for $$ or for politicizing, the New York Times has made crystal clear its disregard � its downright contempt � for American lives and for the coalition's lives. And that, the NYT can be sure, has stopped my hand from buying their publications, whether it's their newspaper or their crossword puzzle magazine or whatever.
>>Considering this war has a considerably larger propaganda component than most wars, and is being fought with information as well as bullets, I'd say the NYT rates right up there with Zarqawi and Ahmabadjihad.<<
I agree with you. For ANY publication or entity whatsoever to knowingly and willfully jeopardize its country's security, to risk the lives of that country's citizens, I can't think of it as being anything other than treason, treachery.
I don't think I'm a vengeful person, but, thinking of treason's fallout, of the people who can lose their lives as a result, I can't help hoping that all the negative publicity the NYT is getting now will bomb their business as utterly as the US's bombs did to Zarqawi's safehouse.