All it took for the markets to reverse their seemingly irreversible upward trend was for me to cease proclaiming that they were over-valued.

Two weeks ago, I wrote the following:

The Dow could blow through 16,000 before month’s end, and the S&P could see 1,800 before year’s end. That is if the Federal Reserve continues to taper its talk of tapering.

Well, the Fed stopped talking taper. Nonetheless, most believe that tapering will start in September. Perhaps that’s the reason for the reversal. Or is it me? Since that Aug. 4 column, the Dow has closed lower six out of nine days, declining 3.5 percent. Coincidence?

I must test my theory.

If I can drive the markets down by simply saying that they will rise – and vice versa – I smell a revenue opportunity. Think of how much hedge funds would pay for my “contrary mojo.”

So here it goes: This downturn is yet another market head fake and presents a buying opportunity. I plan to sell all my tangible assets and invest the proceeds in stocks.

Before I get into hot water, this is how I amuse myself. I don’t believe economic conditions are sufficiently healthy for the markets to have set records highs. I also don’t plan on putting a plug nickel into equities.

But this inexplicably prolonged rally is not the reason. The reason is that I believe Wall Street runs a rigged game. And a shining example of how easily stocks can be manipulated occurred last week.

Two tweets from billionaire-investor Carl Icahn regarding his “large position” in Apple were enough to shoot the stock up more than 5 percent. Apple’s stock gained 22 points in one day on volume that was 250 percent higher than the previous day. The surge resulted in Apple’s market cap increasing by almost $20 billion. That’s $10 billion a tweet.

And you thought I was joking about renting out my mojo.

Granted, Icahn is a famous investor, and like Warren Buffet, when he talks, investors listen. But that’s the problem. One person can so easily influence equity values. Is Apple really worth $20 billion more simply because Icahn bought a bunch of shares? The answer is no. It’s the same company it was the day before Icahn’s tweets.

The Icahn example illustrates the distortions that exist on Wall Street. Usually, it’s not as blatant as a billionaire tweeting. Normally it’s professional hedge funds exerting similar – albeit less dramatic – influences on a daily basis.

I’m not advocating that people shouldn’t invest in stocks. Currently, it’s the only avenue to garner reasonable returns. Just understand that Wall Street can – and likely will at some point – pull the rug out from under your investment feet.

I long for the day when people can truly invest without being at the mercy of traders. And I long for the day when the markets and individual stocks react only to economic and business fundamentals and nothing more.

Of course, that day will never come as long as the current – or similar set of – slugs who run the country continue to run it. The latest hypocrisy to ooze from Washington is a ruling that allows Congress and its staff to continue to receive taxpayer-funded health care subsidies.

The coverage under the Affordable Care Act is good enough for the rest of us.

And it’s fine if small businesses must cope with significant incremental costs. But neither the level of care nor the specter of higher costs is acceptable for our elected leaders and their minions.

Federal employees have long enjoyed health care plans well beyond what is provided under the act. But in a show of solidarity (aka the Republicans sticking it to the Democrats), the Affordable Care Act required lawmakers and their staff to purchase insurance through the exchanges just like the rest of us.

The problem was that the provision that stipulated they “be just like us” contained no mechanism to allow federal contributions to cover the premiums. Consequently, lawmakers and their staffs faced sharply higher premiums.

Lawmakers evidently misunderstood that section of the almost 1,000-page law, or maybe they simply failed to read it. Either possibility is a scary proposition for us, but not for Washington. They simply change the rules to suit themselves.

And so, supported by the president, the Office of Personnel Management said that taxpayer-subsidized federal contribution are perfectly acceptable for exchange-purchased plans. The ruling came none too soon for America.

I think Nancy Pelosi said it best when she defined the bill’s language as causing unintended “collateral damage” that might have resulted in a mass exodus of staffers. “They are a tremendous intellectual resource, people who could, shall we say, be better compensated financially outside” of government, Pelosi said.

A “brain drain” as it were.

Pelosi has a point. People never seek congressional staff positions in order to financially leverage the powerful networks such positions offer. They do it to serve the public. And despite their failure to understand the bill that they championed, she’s undoubtedly right that they are a “tremendous intellectual resource.” Just think how screwed up Washington would be without all that brain power.

Author, professor, entrepreneur, radio and TV commentator Tony Paradiso can be reached at tparadiso@tds.net.