Stock market price manipulation would be 'dirty' -- but, of what we can already see, what do we know that is 'dirty'?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

edwha...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 4, 2007, 7:12:20 PM8/4/07
to
Stock market price manipulation would be 'dirty' -- but, of what we
can already see, what do we know that is 'dirty'?

(I figure that our info-providers 'edit' using importantly: "What is
intellectual honesty's cash
flow?".)

DIRTY(1)
Real asset price histories, of compelling structure,
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/RD_RJShomes_PSav.html
are kept well-away from public attention. Deception by omission.

DIRTY(2)
The timing of the only three Fed Chair warnings of overpriced stocks
during 90+ years
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/3warnsRD.html
very strongly supports irrationality/herd behavior as the origin of
the dominant historical volatility (of 3.5 decade periodicity). BUT:
"What is intellectual honesty's cash flow?" Easy call: deception by
omission.

So, the CLEANEST functioning these asset markets can be doing is being
'clean' except for keeping the dominant long-term historical price
realities well-away from public attention! REFLECT: and how clean is
that?

MAYBE DIRTY
Now consider likelihood of stock market functioning being less clean
than the preceding "'clean' except for" -- because of stock market
price manipulation. I provide the next following just to give the
context for "IN PARTICULAR, ..." below -- you don't have to believe
this next following.
>From SAM report, "Move Over, Adam Smith: The Visible Hand of Uncle
Sam", 8/2005, 39 pages, 119 footnotes, at
http://www.sprott.com/pdf/TheVisibleHand.pdf
"This report examines information indicating that the U.S. government
has surreptitiously intervened in the American stock market. ... Given
the available information, we do not believe there can be any doubt
that the U.S. government has intervened to support the stock market."
IN PARTICULAR, Heller (1989) (H. Robert Heller, who three months
earlier was a Federal Reserve Board Governor!!!), writing a column in
The Wall Street Journal, "suggested that the central bank be empowered
to stabilize plunging stock markets by purchasing stock index futures
contracts.", WHICH IMPLIES the existence of an intervention MEANS to
negate
LARGE-scale momentum, which surely allows the existence of an
intervention MEANS to do stock market price manipulation in general.

Soooooooooo, let's see:
big dirty that we can see already
motive
means

Blash

unread,
Aug 4, 2007, 7:38:45 PM8/4/07
to
OK!!!.....Who voted to close the "institutions"???


edwha...@yahoo.com wrote on 8/4/07 7:12 PM:

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages