/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>117123
>No sauce
Hand-drawn charts make me feel indifferent.

Great, because these central banking psychopaths are going to go to jail when shtf

>>117127
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-22/just-12-wtf-charts
Take it or leave it

>>117123
>muh correlations

That graph would make any statistics lecturer sigh.

>>117130

No they won't. Look around. Nobody either #1 understands #2 cares or #3 actually wants the politicians to do anything different.

I think the ptb are just trying to kick the can down the road and pass this hot potato to the next guy while not making any hard choices to improve things. It is not popular to cut military spending or SS or welfare benefits. Meanwhile things get harder and harder to fix.

Since 2008 I have heard nothing but, "the economy is turning the corner". BS. Our current state is the new normal.

>>117186
Look up POMO and then try to claim there is not a direct correlation.

>>119829
>direct correlation
>direct
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA He doen't even know what correlation means

>>119829
>direct correlation

>>117692
This is absolutely correct, but you need to understand that they will always kick the can because they HAVE to. This is the system they exist in, and without kicking the can the system will collapse immediately. It seems we agree that the system will collapse eventually, but it seems no one, including politicians, are ready to swallow that pill.

>>119856
AHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA he doesn't even know what POMO is

see how easy it is to be a pedant?

>>119940
There haven't even been any permanent open market operations since 2011. Open market operations are conducted via REPO agreements.

>>119961
>There haven't even been any permanent open market operations since 2011

nope:
>http://www.ny.frb.org/markets/pomo/display/index.cfm?showmore=1&opertype=orig

>Open market operations are conducted via REPO agreements.
And? Fed considers that POMO.

>>119940
>pedant
>doesn't even know what one of the most fundamental part of statistics is
>tells others to go "look stuff up"

What you just did was walk into a group of investors and say "Yeah I'm gonna put my money in stocks for better liquidity" Then when they start laughing hysterically at you, you say "I bet you don't even know what a hedgefund is".
Nothing you say can be taken seriously after something like that

>>119984
>stats babby talking about hedge funds

Keep projecting. And in any case, nothing I said was wrong.

>>119996
>babby talking about hedge funds
Yes, that was exactly what I meant. Except POMO in your case.

>nothing I said was wrong.
Except the part about not even knowing what a correlation is. As demonstrated by "direct correlation".

>>120024
Prove to me what I said about POMO was wrong. I'll wait.

And prove that there's no correlation between the two.

>>120024

>You aren't allowed to point out correlations unless you have a PhD in stats

Fucking idiots will say literally anything so they don't have to think about the reason the S&P is where it is. Just buy the fucking all time high and shut the fuck up.

>>120039
You didn't really say anything about POMO so you're not "wrong". It's just that you threw it in there like it was something other people didn't know about.

I don't know if there's a correlation or not, but saying "direct correlation" is like saying "a fast Kilo" or "liquid money" it's inane and shows you don't know what the term means

>>120082
It might be redundant, but my point was understood by everyone but your pedant ass.

>>120079
see
>>120082
The only thing that can be attributed to a correlation is it's R^2 value.

>>120082

Are you really and truly retarded? It is clear that he meant direct as opposed to an inverse, logarithmic, or exponential correlation.

Jesus you stockfags are retarded.

>>120105

That sounds like a funny excuse for ignoring correlations and their worrying implications.

>>120100
It's not redundant. Saying "this weighs 100 kilos but they're pretty fast kilos so I can carry it anyway" Is not a pedantic mistake. Its a pants on head retarded mistake and you would have realized this by now if you actually looked up "correlation" on wiki or whatever instead of whining.

>>120114
>It is clear that he meant
No it is not. Then he would have said linear. Or just correlation. He doesn't know the difference between correlation and causation. Neither does this guy >>120126

>>120133
The graph shows correlation. In reality, we know it's the Fed causing the markets to rise.

>>120133
Correlation is not causation, but it does IMPLY causation, unless you want to make the claim that the Fed's balance sheet expansion and the S&P are both being influenced by a common cause.

But seriously, you are sticking your head in the sand.

>>120143
>The graph shows correlation.
I never argued that

>>120144
>it does IMPLY causation
The firs thing you learn on the first day of statistics 101 is that Correlation doesn't imply Causation. Even google will correct you if you search for it without the DOES NOT, try it yourself

>>120133
>direct
>linear

>Implying those aren't synonyms.
>Implying you aren't criticising his phraseology so you don't have to confront the possibility that your financial fate depends 100% on the actions of Janet Yellen.

>>120144
>it does IMPLY causation
oh boy this just gets better and better

>>120144
Correlations can indicate the potential existence of causal relations, but it does not imply.

>>120166
Except it does. It increases the prior probability of a causative relationship. Not to 100%, but to a value higher than it was before you discovered the correlation.

Further looking at market action on POMO days and looking at what POMO actually is blows your dumb ass right out of the water.

>>120211
>Further looking at market action on POMO days and looking at what POMO actually is blows your dumb ass right out of the water.

This. Literally arguing semantics at this point ITT. But the proof's in the pudding.

>>120225
>But the proof's in the pudding.
Is there any empirically observed covariation that you would like to present?

>Align scales as you want
>correlation proven

>>120366

Look at the other charts from the article, which have the same scale.

Also, the S&P/Fed balance sheet correlation goes back a lot further than that chart.

>>117135
Is this real life?

>>117692

I bet you would say that 1 day before Edward Snowden's revelation.

The bankers are fools to think they won't be caught.

More people are aware about them than ever before.

Whoever has the most money owns the government.

Follow the money trail and it'll lead to the old fuckers.

>>120477
Zerohedge has lots of charts. According to them however gold will be at 40,000 in two years, there will be fighting in the streets, and only those with flippers for feet will survive.

That said, the market has been inflated by QE, and will of course correct itself. That does not mean zerohedge is correct, it simply means that the market will go into another bust cycle...no doubt followed by another boom or bubble.

You stockfags are delusional and you will get fleeced like the sheep you are.

>>117123
Wondering why you chose a chart with such a short timeline.