Is the stock market glass half-full or half-empty? In a column for TheStreet.com, Doug Kass shares 11 economic indicators suggesting that the glass might be half-full, including the following:

(1) Corporate Debt as a % of Assets and Corporate Cash as a % of Assets;

(2)  S&P 500 Dividend and Buyback Combined Yield;

(3)  Earnings Growth and P/E Expansion;

(4) S&P 500 P/E and Forward Return;

(5) The performance of stocks vs. other asset classes since 2000. 

Keep in mind, however, that many of these indicators are based on past performance -- and, as we all know, past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Sudden, one-time events - like the collapse of Bear Stearns - are evidence enough that the market does not always behave the way it is "supposed" to behave. Still, as Doug Kass points out, there is reason to believe that many of the economy's problems are well-known and have already been discounted by market participants.

What do you think: Is the stock market glass half-full or half-empty? 

[image: Half Full Etched Glass by bibliogrrl on Flickr]

The Glass is Half Empty with a HOLE.

While we are looking at indicators, we tend to forget about Economy Events. What people did do, What they are doing now, What will they do in the future. This includes everyone on the food chain of life; From the consumer all the way up to the Federal Reserve Board Members on the Money side.

The action of one affects the other.

The same holds true from Country to Country. While most look at the Monetary Policies of a Country to see how influential they are or are not in the world. Basic Commodity like Grain is a good example of a leverage tool in commerce and humanitarian aide.

What effects everyones attitude in today's economy is very different response than what affected the economy. A perfect example is Sub-Prime and the current events surronding the Fed's action to Bail out Bear Sterns. This action was supposed to be a Knight in Shinning Armour moment that would kick start the economy, what i understand from analyts and economists news articles.

Which would have been a good use of Taxpayers dollars, (I am on the other side of the Table, in that I believe the FED should have NOT Bailed out Bear).

What could go wrong with action, If something did go wrong, What would be the EFFECT on the Economy and People in the "Chain of Life". Anything and Everything in my opinion that is why they should have let the chips fall with Bear Sterns.

What is happening, JPMorgan is trying to upbid the FED. this EFFECTS everyone on the Food Chain.

Effects The Fed, JPMorgan actions will either confirm everyones fear of Bears solvency or Deny there was anything was wrong in the first place, other than cash flow problem.

Effects the Taxpayer, Extra Cash is being used in all of this that would have not been printed or if it was printed, could have gone to other- better uses than trying to put out fires that didn't exist or do exist but are part of the business economy.

My Opinion, How can any business lose Money and remain in business? How can any company come out of bankruptcy, still lose money and remain in business? Very ironic.

Back to Effects

Effects the Banks, in that now, Banks and Institutions can cry wolf and know the Fed will magically appear with Money in Hand or Slick Deals that bails them out.

Effects Investors, Lost savings, retirement extra capital that could have been used in other investments that would have shoored up the Economy, rather than allowing the Money be lost on 100% Risk - 0% Return  investments.

Effects Consumers/Retail Investors, changes there mythology on saving, investing, and spending as consumers.

When these chain of events happens, an opposite and equal action is created on the overall economy. The result or action is equivilant to how a boa Constrictor kills its prey. Slowly squeezing and contracting to a point were the victim can no longer breath.

We look at Economies as a linear hierachy when in reality it is a full Circle. When one segment starts faltering the cirlcle reduces or contracts because there is less to go around at a higher cost for the majority.

Hierarchy consists of the basic give and take. meaning there has to be two of something, one to give and one to take. The balance (one way, center, other way) that exists is dependant on the amount that is being given or taken. when they are equal in amount it is said to balanced, when they are not equal it is said to be off balance.

When one is in need and something is given then that would be considered a good thing by the reciever.

But if one is always in need, then that would be considered a bad thing by the giver.

Peace

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/ETFs_%28A_to_Z%29/ETFs_S/threadview?m=te&bn=45991&tid=34489&mid=34489&tof=7&frt=2#34489

He is a little long winded, but he is saying what I have been saying all along. This bull market is leading us down the road to nowhere. Ben is running out of bullets and will be forced to print money or rather buy bad debt to back up his position. We could have just let the market correct down to 9000 Dow and 1000 S&P. But Ben was afraid of what Will Profit pointed out big banks would fail. Now we are helpless, because our actions like it or not will have far reaching consequences. Enter stage door left, HYPER-INFLATION. Two years from now all our wealth will be funneled off.

Half empty with a big hole.

This is probably the biggest financial crisis in the last 50 years.  Housing will take a year or two.  Credit crisis,  earnings slowdown, consumer tightening, expect some bank bankruptcies.

Yes there may be a bounce or two, but I know I'm slowing my spending.  Businesses will also slow until the end is in sight.  

The dollar is tanking and will continue as long as interest rates are lower than everywhere except Japan.

Then we'll get hit with inflation and more taxes by the dems.   Mabye I'll move to Argentina.

JB