feng-pan 發表於 2010-10-17 09:38
But i don't think QE will do as much as it was supposed to do.

Time will tell, but if it doesn't work you can bet Fed will do something else to prop up prices.

江湖小虾米 发表于 2010-10-18 13:38

看了楼主和ectopic 的见解受益匪浅。但是楼主你有个观点我觉得是值得商榷的。
第600楼里的 “With the increasing liquidity in the market, money will naturaly folw to the 'hot spots', ie devoleping markets, and create commodity bubbles.
Just see the rally of commodity stocks in chinese market, that's the direct cause of QE2, and it's a rally caused purely by liquidity, that's just pure bubble.”
我个人认为我们国内的各种物品的疯涨更多的应该归咎于我们自己的Z F，不应该归咎于热钱。因为Z F里的人就是这些物品疯涨的受益者。他们是支持泡沫的。举个例子，就拿房地产来说，在4月的时候出台了一系所谓的最严厉列打压政策，我个人认为是不可能压下来的，结果的确是这样，见下面附件传的图，更深切的是深圳的楼价也涨了。
我这样认为的原因只有一个，就是房地产绑架了银行。银行是不会让房地产公司有资金缺口的，一旦房子卖不出，房地产公司向银行贷款，银行也不得不借给他们。因为一旦有资金缺口，房子必须降价来促销还钱，如果真的降低销售价格，即使是一点点，那么他们会很麻烦的，因为房子这东西都是追涨杀跌的，销售价格会跌得更多。那么银行的贷款也跟着完蛋了，接着银行也完蛋了（房地产贷款占银行的贷款比率是不可能被真正的公开的，因为很多都是违规贷款，灰色地带）。接着我们的经济也完蛋了。
还有为什么中国不加息呢？如果真的想降低楼价，加息就好了，比干什么都有效。说到底也是为了保护房地产。因为Z F就是泡沫的受益者，所以他们是支持泡沫的支持者。
同时中国的物品疯涨也不是QE2造成的，你看看去年的绿豆和蒜头都涨疯了，最近白糖也在涨了，只能说热钱助长了泡沫，而不是泡沫的根本原因。

江湖小虾米 发表于 2010-10-18 14:42
这几天在想楼主在想楼主在565楼那句“不应该在强阻力位的下方做多！ 所以入场点的选择上有原则性的错误。 更好的入场点应该是价格向上突破了三重顶之后进去，然后追踪止损。”
问题写在了，下面附件的图形里，希望楼主，和各位指导指导！谢谢了。

江湖小虾米 发表于 2010-10-18 13:38

看了楼主和ectopic 的见解受益匪浅。但是楼主你有个观点我觉得是值得商榷的。
第600楼里的 “With the increasing liquidity in the market, money will naturaly folw to the 'hot spots', ie devoleping markets, and create commodity bubbles.
Just see the rally of commodity stocks in chinese market, that's the direct cause of QE2, and it's a rally caused purely by liquidity, that's just pure bubble.”
我个人认为我们国内的各种物品的疯涨更多的应该归咎于我们自己的Z F，不应该归咎于热钱。因为Z F里的人就是这些物品疯涨的受益者。他们是支持泡沫的。举个例子，就拿房地产来说，在4月的时候出台了一系所谓的最严厉列打压政策，我个人认为是不可能压下来的，结果的确是这样，见下面附件传的图，更深切的是深圳的楼价也涨了。
我这样认为的原因只有一个，就是房地产绑架了银行。银行是不会让房地产公司有资金缺口的，一旦房子卖不出，房地产公司向银行贷款，银行也不得不借给他们。因为一旦有资金缺口，房子必须降价来促销还钱，如果真的降低销售价格，即使是一点点，那么他们会很麻烦的，因为房子这东西都是追涨杀跌的，销售价格会跌得更多。那么银行的贷款也跟着完蛋了，接着银行也完蛋了（房地产贷款占银行的贷款比率是不可能被真正的公开的，因为很多都是违规贷款，灰色地带）。接着我们的经济也完蛋了。
还有为什么中国不加息呢？如果真的想降低楼价，加息就好了，比干什么都有效。说到底也是为了保护房地产。因为Z F就是泡沫的受益者，所以他们是支持泡沫的支持者。
同时中国的物品疯涨也不是QE2造成的，你看看去年的绿豆和蒜头都涨疯了，最近白糖也在涨了，只能说热钱助长了泡沫，而不是泡沫的根本原因。

ectopic 发表于 2010-10-17 13:35

feng-pan 發表於 2010-10-17 09:38
But i don't think QE will do as much as it was supposed to do.

Time will tell, but if it doesn't work you can bet Fed will do something else to prop up prices. Bernanke is very, very phobic of deflation. So if S&P500 ever approaches 800 again, I'll be going 100% long without waiting for double bottom confirmation.

In terms of real economic fundamentals, I think 99.9% of all government inteventions don't do as they are supposed to. It's sad that we learn and talk about the efficiency of free markets in economics 101, but in practice we do not allow markets to be free. We come with all sorts of excuses for governments to interfere with prices and make markets inefficient. For traders it's actually good, you just learn to play along with the government and profit from the inefficiencies. But for people who do not understand the nature of the game, they lose without even knowing.

feng-pan 发表于 2010-10-19 01:42
今天标普指数仍在上周五形成的范围内盘整。成交量低迷，价格波动也不是明显测试支撑阻力的样子。

十分无聊的一天，什么都没有发生。

非主流書生 發表於 2010-10-19 02:59
When inflation pressure drives up prices, is central bank increasing the interest rate an intervention?

ectopic 发表于 2010-10-19 08:07

非主流書生 發表於 2010-10-19 02:59
When inflation pressure drives up prices, is central bank increasing the interest rate an intervention?

Why did inflation pressure occur in the first place? What would cause prices of EVERYTHING to go up?

When you think about it, ONLY the central bank is capable of causing inflation, by increasing the money supply.

Greenspan is blamed for causing the bubble. If he did not cause the bubble in the first place, he would not have been blamed for causing recession, because there would be no bubble to pop.

You are right though, government is part of the market, in fact the biggest market participant/manipulator. It's the same in every country.

非主流書生 發表於 2010-10-19 19:12
When IT technology increased productivity significantly, there are more goods and services needed to be consume for the economy not slipping into recession.

Greenspan gave his famous speech of "irrational exuberance" in 1997. But some people argued that it was not bubble but properly reflected the fundamental increases in assets' potential future incomes. What should Greenspan have done at that time? Increasing the interest rate preemptively enough without clear signs of inflation?