He IGNORES the empirical data in charts while claiming that OTHERS need to prove something to him. This CAN'T be done logically because he refuses to look at ANY empirical data.
It is a WASTE of time listening to him. It's the SAME OLD nonsense that he keeps blurting out day after day, year after year., AS IF someone should care. He has NEVER shown any skill at trading. In fact his predictions of doom for the last nine years have had nothing to do with the economy or stock prices. Since 2006 when he first started posting on the QQQ board it has been the same bearish nonsense every day while we went from SPX 1250 to 1500 to 700 to 2100 and now back to 1900.
Funny how our accounts NEVER show us to be up a nice round even amount to the nearest 100% like your "empirically true" account does.
We know you don't trade Rob.
That was with the Fed doing everything it could to "fix" things. What's it going to do now?
Relax and look at a ten year chart. Support is at the prior all-time record highs before the banking/mortgage bubble burst. Former resistance becomes support. It doesn't matter what the supposed reasons might be. "Fundamentals" and other such fabricated baloney will just confuse you. It's generated by people paid to generate it on a daily basis AS IF it is needed.
"I will be up 700% year to date."
lol. We KNOW you don't trade Rob.
Who's your broker? What online trading interface do you set up? What's your screen look like?
Oh and how is your "long term investment" in TZA doing for the last five years?
The last market crash caused a black President to get elected and then RE-elected. Look what the Great Depression did for FDR liberals. Now get ready for President Sanders! lol
Investing in dead cats?
Don't you think it would be good to test this morning's bottom first?
I guess it depends on your time frame.
Oversold Stochastics are ignored.
It had been on a stochastic mode SELL since the 7/20 close so this is not a signal/trade change.
The VXN 20 day sma crossing the 50 and 200 from below in only 2 trading days caused this condition.
It also did this after Lehman.
"Any "claim" has to be either true or false"
A claim about a BELIEF need not be proven true or false(like most beliefs). That doesn't mean it can't be accepted as true or false in the future. You can and should believe that currently undiscovered facts WILL in the future support your argument.
You're such a simpleton Rob.
Oh - I'm sorry - Is calling you Rob being too factual?
It would be the third test on the 200 if we go back there and that has a much higher chance of failure.