Yesterday I commented on some Main Stream Media reactions to Tuesday's big break in stocks.
Today the New York Times published an editorial entitled "After the Sell-Off".
The Times tells us that yesterday's rebound "..was as troubling as Tuesday's rout". Underlying economic conditions in the USA are dangerous, they say. "The torrent of bad news on housing is only worsening.....manufacturing has already slipped into recession". And then there is this: " In recent year, as housing and stock markets have surged, ...highly speculative investors have been enouraged to an unusual degree by their bankers and regulators....[in their maniacal] excessive risk taking."
The Times concludes, "The next crisis appears to be building around weakness in the United States......Tuesday's stock market decline could turn out to be a garden-variety correction. But major market participants would be wise to rethink [this] assumption."
It is unusual for the Times to comment so directly on stock market action in an editorial. I think we can fairly conclude that the Times continues to view the US econonomy and stock market in very bearish terms. As I pointed out yesterday, the Times is a reliable fade. I think this editorial is telling us that the reaction which started last week is closer to its end than to its beginning and will be followed by new highs within a couple of months.
4 comments:
He did say "weeks ahead" so its 8 weeks
Yes, great comment! Moreover, back in 2002 the NYT was very bearish in May, right before the waterfall drop in June. I understand your thought as the press pushing investors to sell and we know you can only get so much selling then it dries up. But we are in the age of the ETF's and, IMO we cant even try to look at what happened in the past as it is a very different environment.
Great blog site!
"Nice-JOB' Carl (as always).
A week, a few weeks, a month or two, who knows for sure, no one! But Carl puts his name on the line not just daily but also by the hour at times, ... and dog-gawn it, he hits them closer more-often then the lousy Pay-sites.
Great Work, or is that (also) not the same as "Nice-Job'.(smirk).
Stockman
The Times hates Bush and always hated him. They have been writing about how allegedly bad the economy is since Clinton left office. They let their hatred for Bush get in the way of objective reporting. They should spend their time on getting shareholder value into the stock and start objective reporting. Maybe they will then see their readership increase and the stock increase.
Post a Comment