This is something that frustrates the shills in financial media.

So where does the virtually "free money" that investment houses get from the Fed go? Traditionally it goes into equities rather than commodities because it's a deeper and more liquid market.

Also commodities have a fundamental supply and demand story that the shills can only obfuscate to a certain degree. In other words, you’ll find even dumber people buying equities than you do commodities.

If you look at where the markets are now versus their October 2007 peaks, you're not far away. You are in what's called the "shelf area."

This means there's a large shelf of supply -- stock available for sale -- from Joes who were the last bag-holders at the highs of 2007. What happened is they bought at the last peaks and weren’t able to get out.

So for the market to have a real solid advance, you have to have enough continuation trade on the upside to put median indices' prices back to their previous highs, in this case, the highs that occurred in October 2007.

Why? Because you have to get the rest of the shelf sellers, those last bag-holders, a chance to get out and break even... so they can buy again and become bag-holders once again.

The fundamentals do not support it, as almost every Fed governor has pointed out because of the Fed's concern about overvaluation in equity markets -- not only domestically but globally -- noting that both domestic and global economic fundamentals do not support current equity prices.

This is just a lot of shilling and the consequences of flooding the planet's system with endless cheap money, which is driving currencies lower and driving the value of anything the currencies buy, including securities, higher. So we are in both a technically and fundamentally overbought market.

In order for this kind of a market to be sustained and for there to be a whole other move up, you have to get markets a little higher than they are now, from 3-5%, in order to let all of the previous bag holders get out and break even. Why? Because you have to clear the so-called overhang of supply.

Stock has its own supply/ demand fundamentals, separate and distinct from what companies do for a business and separate and distinct from any economic fundamentals.

Now when markets move toward fresh highs, the reason why they get turned back and the reason higher highs are not established more frequently is that there is not sufficient buying power within the professional trade remaining to burn up the so-called "shelf stock," meaning the supply of stock which is available for sale from the last round of Joe Six Pack bag-holders.

Meanwhile Bloomberg reports that Wharton Professor Jeremy Siegel says that there are "even odds that DJIA will reach 17,000 this year." He is another academic who has affiliated himself with the Wisdom Tree funds, as the "Senior Investment Strategy Advisor." However Siegel is an academic who knows nothing about markets.

People should always be leery of professors who have no real world experience in markets. What makes guys like him appealing to "the trade" and why they hire guys like him is because the alphabet soup next to his name. "PhD" is a powerful force in advertising and marketing, and they know that this will impress the Joes.

Another reason they get hired is that it gives credibility to a bull market for guys with lots of initials next to their names to come out and say that the markets are going higher.

They ask -- And how do I know this? Because I got 6 PhDs in Economics and Finance -- when in fact they have no real world experience in trading markets.

If you look at any group that's responsible for leaving bag-holders at tops of markets, it is the academics. The problem is that they're looking at a bigger economic picture they think is viable. They believe that cheap money can support markets endlessly where in fact it can't. It's like eating a diet of sugar -- all the time. Eventually you have to have some protein with the diet. The problem is that the economic fundamentals are such that they aren't providing any protein.

So in his capacity as an academic, Siegel tends to look at cheap money as a panacea for all ills. Even Bernanke and Greenspan did that. This is the inherent problem of having academics as central bank chiefs, instead of having market people as central bankers. Why? Because the academics have more credibility in the eyes of the Unwashed and also because the story sells...

The reason academics are central bank chiefs is to try to sell the "story" to the Unwashed and to increase consumption as well as to increase lending by "selling the story."

Siegel then is just another paid shill. He's a naïve academic who believes in this principle that is widely held within the economic academic community that cheap money is a panacea for all economic ills and that if cheap money is applied long enough that eventually cheap money will "cure" those ills.

For the rest of this Exclusive Analysis by Independent Political/ Economic Analyst Al Martin, click here -- Al Martin Raw.

* AL MARTIN, author of "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider," is an Independent Political-Economic Analyst with 25 years of experience as a trader on NYMEX, CME, CBOT and CFTC. He is also currently trading the commodity futures market day and night and has a teleconferencing service to facilitate transactions in the markets. This is a service for independent market-experienced traders.

For more details on commodity futures trading recommendations and more FREE sample columns, take a look at Al Martin's website "Insider Intelligence" Insider Intelligence for weekly exclusive commodity futures trading recommendations.

Also a Kindle eBook version of "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider" by Al Martin is coming soon. And a Kindle eBook version of "One Nation under Fraud: The Collected Writings of Al Martin," a collection of Al Martin columns published on Al Martin Raw.com since 2000, is also in the works. Stay tuned...