Ok, this one floored me. Some elected official with a funny name, “Obama” or something like that, just called a stock market bottom.

Forget about he’s one of maybe a million nimrods trying to do the same thing, for the same reason: valuation. Apparently this clown was over in London talking to some other politician, I think he’s named after a color or something, or maybe the other clown came over here or something, and he says, get this, he says that “Profit and Earnings ratios” have now come down to an attractive level for stock market investors that take a “long-term perspective.”

Forget politician, this guy sounds like some snot-nosed weenie that just got his MBA and passed his Series 7 and got a job selling stock in some retail Merrill Lynch office in Jersey or someplace. (Do they even have those anymore?) “Take a long-term perspective” means “yer gonna lose money on this puppy.”

So what’s the profit and earnings ratio this guy’s talking about? It can’t ever be anything but one, can it? Because aren’t profits and earnings basically the same thing? You divide something by itself, you get one, right? Unless it’s a freakin’ mortgage or something. I mean I can see talking about the price to earnings ratio. But that’s no good either because most of the quants I know are talking about another hundred points down on the S&P.

But who listens to politicians? I mean if Bernanke or Geithner or God or someone like that got up and started talking about the stock market, I’d listen. I mean, what they do might actually make a difference. But they’re too smart for that anyway, they know we’ll overreact.

Remember when Greenspan would go up to Congress, and people would buy or sell based on how thick his briefcase was? I mean forget about it, if the guy had a three-decker brisket-liver-’n-onions from the Second Avenue Deli instead of a baloney sammidge in there, the stock market’d go up.

But some politician? Who cares what he thinks?