Did you notice how close this blog came to actually "forecasting" (lol) the stock market close today, even when I was DELIBERATELY exaggerating?
See the article eariler today on the LIARS at CNBC. The CNBC anchor was desperately trying to maintain the CNBC NARRATIVE that the stock market was "bouncing back" today, even as stocks began to FALL APART. Recognizing that stocks seemed to be deteroriating fast, I said something like: "Even if the Dow falls 300 points today, CNBC will probablly call it a 'good' day."
Well, the Dow "only" fell 214 points. Since that made this the worst two-day period of the year, and right at the worst single day of the year, even CNBC did not quite dare to call this a "good" day. No problem, of course, but not a good day. You wonder why anyone watches CNBC. Nope. I don't do so for "INISGHT. I merely surf it from time to time as an EASY way of checkng on the direction stocks are moving (IGNORING what the CNBC people are saying abut it, and lookng at the NUMBERS they flash across the top of the screen-probably because they KNOW that no one is going to rely on what their people are saying).
I jsut thought it was funhny. I icked a number (300 Dow ponts) that I thought would make my pont, while being too low to reallly be looked at as a serious "predictoin" on my part. Stil, I KNEW that the market was deteriorating, and I wanted to suggest that CNBC was LYING about what could be developing into a rather significant down move. I was right about that, and (I think) amazingly prescient in suggesting that a LARGE down move was ossible. I was clearly trying to exaggerate, and yet the Dow ended CLOSER to my suggested 300 point loss than to the pont it was at when I wrote the article.
And you wonder why my accuraacy rating is 99.9%!!!!!! CNBC's accuracy rating, by the way, is 17.3%. How could it be higher when they cna't even get the DIRECTIN stocks are moving correct, when they are LOOKING at it (and SAAYING the actual number, right after saing that stocks are going UP today!!!!).