I can’t comment on the other poster’s post because I didn’t read it. I was only referencing your inference that the inauguration was responsible for an improvement in rates.
There is virtually no correlation at all at this point because no one in the bond market understands the policies and impact of those policies. So my point is that the current sample size is zero, not small.
In fact, if the bond market actually did react by now to stated policies, then the ten year would probably be at 5% and rising. Why hasn’t it? They aren’t sure what the policies really are because this administration has a history of saying one thing and doing another, often as a negotiating tactic. The bond market is taking that into account at this point and as a result rates have been bouncing around.
And on the topic of jobs, early reported job numbers have always been way off, and often too optimistic. It’s been that way forever. It’s a difficult metric to get accurate data early. It’s is not unusual at all to see them revised downward, a lot.
If people are mocking you (I’m not), maybe it’s because you are assuming the Fed doesn’t understand that and as a result have kept rates too high for too long. That is a bit naive. Like I said, these revised job numbers surprise no one, including the Fed. They have more data in front of them than we could ever imagine. Sometimes they get it wrong. Sometimes they get it right. You boasting that you are the only one to get it right is not only premature, it’s a fifty fifty coin flip anyway.