Strength Of the Russell 2000

Do not be confused by the strength in the Russell 2000. For anyone who does not follow the stock market, this is an index 0f small capitalization stocks. I have explained over and over again the folly of treating the stock market as a Market.

indexThe larger the capitalization of an index, the harder it is to manipulate. The capitalization of just one of the Dow 30 components is as large as the capitalization of all of the Russell 2000 components put together.

The political agenda that determines Federal Reserve policy calls for pushing asset prices higher. The Russell 2000 is is the easiest index of all to manipulate. The first choice is always the large capitalization indexes like the Dow 30 and the Standard and Poors 500. Moving one of these indexes is like moving a boulder. Moving the Russell 2000 is like throwing a pebble. When the big indexes can’t be moved, the efforts shift to moving the next largest index, the Nasdaq 100 and then the Nasdaq Composite. If these can’t be moved, then the focus is on the Russell 2000. It is as simple as that.

When placing trades, do not be fooled into believing market direction is determined by ordinary buyers and sellers. On a day like today, the Russell 2000, closed much stronger than the lager capitalization indexes. That is not because there are better opportunities in small companies. It is because the Russell 2000 could be supported and no other reason.

The Grazin’ is Good by Curbside Jimmy, It is all about our herding nature.

This entry was posted in Daily Comments on by .

About Fantasy Free Economics

James Quillian independent scholar,free market economist,and teacher of natural law. Who is James Quillian? Certainly I am nobody special, Just a tireless academic and deep thinker. Besides that, I have broken the code with respect to economics and political science. Credentials? Nothing you would be impressed with. I am not a household name. It is hard to become famous writing that virtually no one in the country is genuinely not in touch with reality. But, if I did not do that, there would be no point in my broking the broken the code. If you read the blog, it is easy to see that there are just a few charts, no math and no quantitative analysis. That is not by accident. Given what I know, those items are completely useless. I do turn out to be highly adept at applying natural law. Natural law has predominance over any principles the social science comes up. By virtue of understanding natural law, I can debunk, in just a few sentences , any theory that calls for intervention by a government. My taking the time to understand the ins and outs of Keynes General Theory is about like expecting a chemistry student to completely grasp all that the alchemists of the middle ages thought they understood in efforts to turn base metals into goal. Keynesian theory clearly calls for complete objectivity. Government can only make political decisions. Keynesian techniques call for economic decisions. So, why go any further with that? Fantasy Free Economics is in a sense a lot like technical analysis. Technical analysis began with the premise that it was impossible to gain enough information studying fundamentals to gain a trading advantage. Study the behavior of investors instead. Unlike technical analysis, I don't use technical charts. What I understand are the incentives of different people and entities active in the economics arena. For example, there is no such thing as an incentive to serve with life in the aggregate. In the aggregate, only self interest applies. It is routinely assumed otherwise. That is highly unappealing. But, I am sorry. That is the way it is. I can accept that because I am genuinely in touch with reality. Step one in using Fantasy Free Economics is for me to understand just how little I really know. A highly credentialed economist may know 100 times what I do based on the standard dogma. Compare the knowledge each of us has compared to all there is to know and we both look like we know nothing at all. There is always more than we don't know than what we do know. I am humble enough to present myself on that basis. Why? That is the way it is. I am not bad at math. I have taught math. What I understand is when to use it and when to rely on something else. Math is useless in natural law so I don't use it. While others look at numbers, I am busy understanding the forces in nature that makes their numbers what they are. That gives me a clear advantage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.