Boo-hoo for bloodsucking retailers
plen...@yahoo.com
I recall that around Christmas in the USA,
the mass-media cartel told us repeatedly that
retailers were having a hard time. Boo hoo!
Based on this new, I assumed that post-Christmas
discounting would be widespread. But no,
what I discovered was hiked-up prices or
worse, hiked-up-then-discounted prices.
For instance at Kohl's, which sells clothing.
Their "sale" prices were simply hiked-up
prices taken down. The result was that
prices were actually higher than normal.
At Sears I do notice many sales, however,
including a comical ad for jeans starting
at $3.50 -- bait and switch surely.
Electronics stores have had very few
real discounts after Christmas, except for
a few items e.g. the $450 Toshiba laptop
at BestBuy (always check that the factory
seal isn't broken). But other items remain
at high prices.
However at MicroCenter there are
a few deals on thumb drives and media,
although that's typical for them.
clams_casino
Considering the widespread losses, I'd say prices have generally
bottomed out.
It's going to be hard to replace inventory with the ever declining value
of the US dollar.
Jeff
A lot of people don't understand just how rotten the underpinnings of
the economy have become.
The value of the dollar has fallen by nearly half in the last 7
years. The credit markets are a mess, no one knows the amount of risk in
the debt. And the economy is kept sputtering along by cheap money and debt.
The DJIA closed at 12,100 friday and when "W"onder President was
inaugurated it was 10,700. 1 1/2 % a year, and that is the group that
has gotten the top deal.
Jeff
Rod Speed
We'll see...
> It's going to be hard to replace inventory with the ever declining value of the US dollar.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
have never ever had a clue about anything at all, ever.
The yuan is locked to the USD, stupid. Where do you 'think' those goods are coming from ?
Rod Speed
Wrong, those with property have.
William Souden
2005. How will he respond to this:
"irrelevant"
"bullshit"
the flushing bot
http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/21/news/international/china_yuan/index.htm
By Chris Isidore, CNN/Money senior writer
Video More video
China announces the adoption of a more flexible currency system. CNN's
Tara Duffy reports.
Play video
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - In a move that could trim the trade gap with the
United States, China revalued its currency higher against the dollar
Thursday and said it would no longer have the yuan tied to a fixed rate
against the U.S. currency.
The move, while small at this point, could be the first step to reduce
competition for some U.S. companies from lower-priced Chinese imports.
A stronger yuan could also increase the sales U.S. exporters get from
business with the world's largest country, one of the fastest growing
consumer markets. U.S. exporters could keep their prices the same in
U.S. dollars, thus lowering the price in yuan and spurring increased
sales. Or they could keep prices in yuan level, and bring in a greater
amount of dollars.
Rod Speed
William Souden <sou...@nospam.com> wrote
> The yuan has not been pegged to the dollar since 2005.
So stupid that it actually buys that chinese lie. No surprise that its a racecourse bum.
Have a look at whats happened to the currency relativitys during the recent slump in the USD, cretin.
William Souden
> Some stupid pig ignorant racecourse bum claiming to be
> William Souden <sou...@nospam.com> wrote
>
>> The yuan has not been pegged to the dollar since 2005.
>
> So stupid that it actually buys that chinese lie. No surprise that its a racecourse bum.
Are CNN and Forbes also lying?
Rod, you should go the the track, it is the only place where I enjoy
seeing clueless people.Let me guess, you went once, were unable to
decipher all the numbers so you bet by random numbers or cute names
,lost and decided it was rigged. Bet you love lotteries. They make
racing look like a charity.
Rod Speed
>> William Souden <sou...@nospam.com> wrote
>>> The yuan has not been pegged to the dollar since 2005.
>> So stupid that it actually buys that chinese lie. No surprise that its a racecourse bum.
> Are CNN and Forbes also lying?
Nope, they just repeated the chinese lie and we have since seen what
a lie it always was when the USD has slumped rather dramatically in
recent times and the yuan has followed it down, so US retaillers wont
have any problem with restocking because the price of what they
almost universally get from china now hasnt been affected significantly.
<reams of mindless racecourse bum raving flushed where it belongs>
I'd not actually stupid enough to piss my money against the wall with any gambling thanks, fuckwit.
>> Have a look at whats happened to the currency relativitys during the recent slump in the USD, cretin.
Too stupid to be able to do that tho.
William Souden
> Some stupid pig ignorant racecourse bum claiming to be
> William Souden <sou...@nospam.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> William Souden <sou...@nospam.com> wrote
>
>>>> The yuan has not been pegged to the dollar since 2005.
>
>>> So stupid that it actually buys that chinese lie. No surprise that its a racecourse bum.
>
>> Are CNN and Forbes also lying?
>
> Nope, they just repeated the chinese lie and we have since seen what
> a lie it always was when the USD has slumped rather dramatically in
> recent times and the yuan has followed it down, so US retaillers wont
> have any problem with restocking because the price of what they
> almost universally get from china now hasnt been affected significantly.
Right, CNN,Forbes and the media lie but a welfare leach knows the truth.
>
> <reams of mindless racecourse bum raving flushed where it belongs>
>
> I'd not actually stupid enough to piss my money against the wall with any gambling thanks, fuckwit.
>
How could you afford to gamble on your welfare stipend? I bet for fun
but there are people who make a living at the track but unlike you they
have bankrolls and brains.
Larry Bud
> inaugurated it was 10,700. 1 1/2 % a year, and that is the group that
> has gotten the top deal.
Pretty good considering inheriting a slowing economy in 2001 combined
with the biggest terrorist attacks known to man kind that literally
shut down a number of industries. And yet we still have growth of the
GDP, low inflation, and very low unemployment.
Rod Speed
attempted to bullshit its way out of its predicament
and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
William Souden
Know anything about horse racing other than the fact that you have no
idea how it works?
Rod Speed
William Souden
the following:
At the track you are betting against_______________
The odds are determined by___________________
My guess is you will do what you always do when your ignorance is
exposed- post another mindless bot.
William Souden
standing room area, lost his welfare stipend and decided it was fixed.
-
combination of policies by this Globalist Administrations.
His mandate was to reduce the US to the global economic level lowest
common denominator. He said he was a "Globalist" he has restated that
many times. Global Business and the Global Ruling Economic Aristocracy
had declared that the US Dollar was too high. To reduce U S
Citizens/Consumers to the same level as the third world would, in the
long run bring about a higher wealth poverty ratio for them. To have
great wealth you must have poverty. If everyone had the same wealth
their would be no wealth. There would be no demand and there would be no
power.
They have rewritten our Banking Laws and Contracts Laws. By their very
wording they are unconstitutional. The Administration is championing
Globalism not the Republic. The Constitution is an obstacle and much in
contempt by the Globalists.
Rod Speed
Rod Speed
William Souden
Rod Speed
Logan Shaw
> A lot of people don't understand just how rotten the underpinnings of
> the economy have become.
>
> The value of the dollar has fallen by nearly half in the last 7
> years. The credit markets are a mess, no one knows the amount of risk in
> the debt. And the economy is kept sputtering along by cheap money and debt.
>
> The DJIA closed at 12,100 friday and when "W"onder President was
> inaugurated it was 10,700. 1 1/2 % a year, and that is the group that
> has gotten the top deal.
I'm not fond of the current US President. I voted for the other guy
both times. And I think that GW has done a lot damage, possibly
permanent damage, to the Bill of Rights.
But let's not lose sight of the relevant facts. When Bush took
office, possibly the biggest stock market bubble in US history
was bursting. Stocks had been falling like a lead balloon for
quite some time before he was even elected. And the rate at which
they fell was getting worse and worse as time went on.
Go take a look at this historical chart of the S&P 500:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EGSPC&t=my&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=
The overall shape you're going to see is a relatively smooth,
straight line going gradually upwards. Starting in about 1985,
the market just goes steadily up. Then in 1995, it veers off
course and the value goes up like crazy. Then it drops, and
eventually the correction finishes in about 2003. At that point,
it resumes following the exact same line that it had followed
before that.
My point is that you're comparing a point near the peak of the
Internet boom with a point that fits in much better with the
longer term picture. Sure, right now there is a lot of worry,
and the economy has problems, but when you take a wider view
(literally -- when you scale the graph out to show more years),
it looks like the point we're at now is less of an outlier than
when Bush took office.
So yeah, maybe the market only went up 1.5% per year during the
time Bush was in office. But maybe that was the *right* *amount*
for it to have gone up in that time considering how over-inflated
it was when he got there.
- Logan
Rod Speed
> Jeff wrote
>> A lot of people don't understand just how rotten the underpinnings of the economy have become.
>> The value of the dollar has fallen by nearly half in the last 7 years. The credit markets are a mess, no one knows
>> the amount of risk in the debt. And the economy is kept sputtering along by cheap money and debt.
>> The DJIA closed at 12,100 friday and when "W"onder President was
>> inaugurated it was 10,700. 1 1/2 % a year, and that is the group that
>> has gotten the top deal.
> I'm not fond of the current US President. I voted for the other guy both times.
> And I think that GW has done a lot damage, possibly permanent damage, to the Bill of Rights.
No he hasnt.
> But let's not lose sight of the relevant facts. When Bush took
> office, possibly the biggest stock market bubble in US history
> was bursting. Stocks had been falling like a lead balloon for
> quite some time before he was even elected. And the rate at which they fell was getting worse and worse as time went
> on.
> Go take a look at this historical chart of the S&P 500:
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EGSPC&t=my&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=
> The overall shape you're going to see is a relatively smooth,
> straight line going gradually upwards. Starting in about 1985,
> the market just goes steadily up. Then in 1995, it veers off
> course and the value goes up like crazy. Then it drops, and
> eventually the correction finishes in about 2003. At that point,
> it resumes following the exact same line that it had followed
> before that.
> My point is that you're comparing a point near the peak of the
> Internet boom with a point that fits in much better with the
> longer term picture. Sure, right now there is a lot of worry,
> and the economy has problems, but when you take a wider view
> (literally -- when you scale the graph out to show more years),
> it looks like the point we're at now is less of an outlier than
> when Bush took office.
> So yeah, maybe the market only went up 1.5% per year during the time Bush was in office. But maybe that was the
> *right* *amount* for it to have gone up in that time considering how over-inflated it was when he got there.
And there is a lot more involved than just the stockmarket too.
Don Klipstein
I do want to add:
Go from the 1929 high to the 1971 high or the 1999-2000 high
Go from the 1932 low to the 1982 low
As for downside when you can put time into making stock investing pay
off from a young age - go from the 1929 high to the 1982 low.
Find what the S&P 500 did with dividends reinvested. It appears to me
to have given annual rate of return close to 9.5-9.8% from high-to-high or
low-to-low. Subtract from that the "expense ratio" of a major S&P 500
index mutual fund, such as the major such one offered by Vanguard.
Even from 1929 high to 1982 low the "broad stock market"
(with dividends reinvested) outperformed all savings accounts and
certificates of deposit, house prices, and most commodity prices. From
low to low or from high to high on decades scale, broad market stock
investing has even beaten precious metals and crude oil prices.
If you want a more-true USA "broad market" stock index mutual fund than
an S&P-500 one, Vanguard has "Index Total". That one invests into the
S&P 500 as well as (in my words) a "scientifically selected" sampling
of smaller stocks, which I found totally adequate. Last time I checked,
they charged 1/4% "transaction fee" to buy in to cover such extra expenses
as bid-ask-spreads of smaller stocks, though annual expense ratio has been
impressively low. The Vanguard "Index Total" is designed to track the
"Wilshire 5000", except for an impressively low annual expense ratio, and
with automatic reinvestment of dividends into purchasing more shares of
this mutual fund.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
clams_casino
> Jeff wrote:
>
>> A lot of people don't understand just how rotten the underpinnings
>> of the economy have become.
>>
>> The value of the dollar has fallen by nearly half in the last 7
>> years. The credit markets are a mess, no one knows the amount of risk
>> in the debt. And the economy is kept sputtering along by cheap money
>> and debt.
>>
>> The DJIA closed at 12,100 friday and when "W"onder President was
>> inaugurated it was 10,700. 1 1/2 % a year, and that is the group that
>> has gotten the top deal.
>
>
> I'm not fond of the current US President. I voted for the other guy
> both times. And I think that GW has done a lot damage, possibly
> permanent damage, to the Bill of Rights.
>
> But let's not lose sight of the relevant facts. When Bush took
> office, possibly the biggest stock market bubble in US history
> was bursting. Stocks had been falling like a lead balloon for
> quite some time before he was even elected.
Huh? It started falling almost to the day he was elected (stock
markets tend react to the 6-18 month future), in fear of this guy from
the getgo.
> And the rate at which
> they fell was getting worse and worse as time went on.
More and more fear of GW policies
>
> Go take a look at this historical chart of the S&P 500:
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EGSPC&t=my&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=
>
> The overall shape you're going to see is a relatively smooth,
> straight line going gradually upwards. Starting in about 1985,
> the market just goes steadily up. Then in 1995, it veers off
> course and the value goes up like crazy. Then it drops, and
> eventually the correction finishes in about 2003. At that point,
> it resumes following the exact same line that it had followed
> before that.
>
> My point is that you're comparing a point near the peak of the
> Internet boom with a point that fits in much better with the
> longer term picture. Sure, right now there is a lot of worry,
> and the economy has problems, but when you take a wider view
> (literally -- when you scale the graph out to show more years),
> it looks like the point we're at now is less of an outlier than
> when Bush took office.
market has been near static since GW took over as investors have flocked
to CDs, bonds & other safe investments - savvy investors obviously found
WAY too much risk with the GW leadership. Even bearish CDs have out
performed the market since GW took over.
>
> So yeah, maybe the market only went up 1.5% per year during the
> time Bush was in office. But maybe that was the *right* *amount*
> for it to have gone up in that time considering how over-inflated
> it was when he got there.
>
> - Logan
Huh? A true optimist - GW's poor leadership has been what the US
economy needed so as to offset the "unwarranted" advancements of the
1980's-1990's (so much for the Regan effect - can't have it both ways).
Hint - if GW hadn't pissed away the surplus (GW invasion / paid for tax
refunds for the wealthy via borrowing, etc) , there would be enough to
have real tax reduction today & help boost the current downtrend.
Who says a president has very little effect on the economy / world
affairs? GW has sure left his mark. Furthermore, any day now, I'm
confident the effect of GW's 2001 tax refunds should be kicking in to
reverse the poor economic conditions over the past eight years.
clams_casino
>
>
> Go take a look at this historical chart of the S&P 500:
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EGSPC&t=my&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=
>
>
>
> So yeah, maybe the market only went up 1.5% per year during the
> time Bush was in office. But maybe that was the *right* *amount*
> for it to have gone up in that time considering how over-inflated
> it was when he got there.
>
I wonder what portion of the "gain" since 2000 has been related to the
inflated gains in energy prices / energy company profits / energy stock
prices (I wonder who's family incomes are directly related to oil /
coal, etc?) and if there is any real gain after factoring in the decline
of the dollar over the past eight years.
Too_Many_Tools
> I recall that around Christmas in the USA,
> the mass-media cartel told us repeatedly that
> retailers were having a hard time. Boo hoo!
>
> Based on this new, I assumed that post-Christmas
> discounting would be widespread. But no,
> what I discovered was hiked-up prices or
> worse, hiked-up-then-discounted prices.
>
> For instance at Kohl's, which sells clothing.
> Their "sale" prices were simply hiked-up
> prices taken down. The result was that
> prices were actually higher than normal.
>
> At Sears I do notice many sales, however,
> including a comical ad for jeans starting
> at $3.50 -- bait and switch surely.
>
> Electronics stores have had very few
> real discounts after Christmas, except for
> a few items e.g. the $450 Toshiba laptop
> at BestBuy (always check that the factory
> seal isn't broken). But other items remain
> at high prices.
>
> However at MicroCenter there are
> a few deals on thumb drives and media,
> although that's typical for them.
Okay..the discussion is getting off track.
I too have noticed that the after holiday discounting is nonexistent.
I also noticed that the discounts up to Christmas were less than what
one normally sees.
Usually I am buying stuff for next Christmas now....at good
pricing...but not this year.
I suspect the retailers had already factored in the possibility of
sales being poor and did not order as much inventory.
Also I too have no sympathy for the blood sucking merchants.
TMT
Logan Shaw
> Logan Shaw wrote:
>> I'm not fond of the current US President. I voted for the other guy
>> both times. And I think that GW has done a lot damage, possibly
>> permanent damage, to the Bill of Rights.
>>
>> But let's not lose sight of the relevant facts. When Bush took
>> office, possibly the biggest stock market bubble in US history
>> was bursting. Stocks had been falling like a lead balloon for
>> quite some time before he was even elected.
> Huh? It started falling almost to the day he was elected (stock
> markets tend react to the 6-18 month future), in fear of this guy from
> the getgo.
Try checking your statement against the numbers.
According to wikipedia[1], the election was November 7, 2000, and on
December 12, the Supreme Court ruled that Bush had carried Florida.
Also according to Wikipedia[2], the Dow-Jones hit its peak value of
11723.00 on January 14, 2000, and the NASDAQ hit its peak value of
5048.62 on March 10, 2000. By definition, the peak is the point
where the value starts dropping. So the DJIA started dropping about
10 months before Bush was elected, and the NASDAQ started dropping
about 7 months before.
Also, when Bush took office, the DJIA was at 10,587.60 and the NASDAQ
was at 2770.38.
For your theory (that fear of Bush was the motivator for the drop in
the stock market) to hold water, the market would've had to factor a
9.7% drop into the DJIA and a stunning 45.1% drop into the NASDAQ,
just to account for Bush. According to your theory, not only was the
market extremely afraid of Bush, but it was particularly, and VERY
specifically, afraid that Bush would have a negative effect on tech
stocks (i.e. NASDAQ stocks), because the effect on NASDAQ stocks
was 5 times as bad as the effect on DJIA stocks.
Oh also, if you're not convinced yet that Bush wasn't the cause of
the stock market drop, think about this: between January 14, 2000
and March 10, 2000, the DJIA dropped a painful 15.31%. The 2000
Republican National Convention lasted from July 31, 2000 to
August 3, 2000[3]. Therefore, the stock market had already had
one really dramatic drop almost 5 months before George W. Bush
had even been *nominated*.
Once again, I'm not saying the George W. Bush has been a good
president. I don't think he has. I just think blaming the
"dot com bust" on him requires being completely out of touch
with the facts. Sure, the stock market factors the future in
to some extent, but it's not a magic oracle that can predict
who's going to win an election months in advance even before
the parties' conventions take place.
- Logan
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market_downturn_of_2002
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Republican_National_Convention
clams_casino
>
>
> Once again, I'm not saying the George W. Bush has been a good
> president. I don't think he has. I just think blaming the
> "dot com bust" on him requires being completely out of touch
> with the facts. Sure, the stock market factors the future in
> to some extent, but it's not a magic oracle that can predict
> who's going to win an election months in advance even before
> the parties' conventions take place.
>
>
Never claimed the dot.com crash was due to GW. That was greatly due
to corporate corruption & Greenspan's easy money policy of 1999.
I merely pointed out that the market has been near static (with some
noise) ever since this joker was first elected. About the only gain has
been through GW's self serving energy policies (energy stocks). Even
bearish CDs have outperformed the market under GW.
Savvy investors have obviously been quite leery of his policies
throughout both his terms - significantly restricting US investments as
well as US business expansion.. His backers should be real proud that
he was able to completely reverse / offset all the expansion / gains
realized over the previous 20 years - often claimed to be a result of
the Regan policies.
Snowbound
Logan Shaw <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> So the DJIA started dropping about 10 months before Bush was elected
Likely in anticipation of his faux victory. That is certainly how it
seemed at the time to this investor. The ambient filthy political circus
surrounding the campaigns-- mostly generated by the Republican party and
its seemingly endless supply of inbred grunts-- and the "election"
itself gave rise to a deep-seated pessimism among shrewd investors.
Even now, this time of bottomless debt issues, most investors
acknowledge that it is attitude that most determines which way the
market goes. Degenerate Republican smears furthered the damage,
intentionally spreading FUD throughout the market. Given the gains of
the past, no investor was willing to part with his holdings, except for
the fear liberally dispersed through the nation by the Republican
campaign.
This is indeed how the Republicans won in 2000, and the only way they
can advance their real agenda in the future. Their form of "change" is
the wanton destruction of all that was built in the past.
Snowbound
> For your theory (that fear of Bush was the motivator for the drop in
> the stock market) to hold water, the market would've had to factor a
> 9.7% drop into the DJIA and a stunning 45.1% drop into the NASDAQ,
> just to account for Bush. According to your theory, not only was the
> market extremely afraid of Bush
Hardly a "theory". It's called "history". The Republicans had been
working hard to deliberately create that atmosphere since the 90s'
Democratic takeover. Their increasingly loud and shrill cries that the
sky is falling were accompanied by massive inside fundraising and
political crimes (such as district redraws) that make New York's and
Chicago's political machines look prissy in comparison. This absolutely
belies their intent to wrest power by creating fear across the country,
which admittedly has become quite pussified.
But what do you expect the market to do under those conditions? No
doubt, the Republicans considered market losses a necessary sacrifice,
but they also probably thought it would be temporary, since once "the
adults" came to power, their scrimp-and-save policies would make it
stronger.
Well, they (and you) were wrong then, and you both are just as wrong
now. Except that *now*, the facts and the historians can prove you wrong.
The problem is, that there may be no fix that won't take successive
generations to accomplish. The damage the neocons have done is so
extensive, the cuts so deep, this nation has for the last 8 years been
hemorrhaging everything that once made it of value, including official
adherence to its own Constitution.
Markets thrive under political stability, not under despotic, criminally
incompetent regimes. The United States, once the greatest nation in the
world, has taken away it shining star of political stability and
replaced it with the myriad tarnished voices of intolerance, racial
hatred, indiscriminate violence, and unjust force. No market can work
freely under these conditions, and investors know it. They sensed it
'way back in '99, too. It's called chickens coming home to roost.
Spinner
> In article <479578c1$0$10992$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
> Logan Shaw <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> So the DJIA started dropping about 10 months before Bush was elected
>
> Likely in anticipation of his faux victory. That is certainly how it
> seemed at the time to this investor. The ambient filthy political circus
> surrounding the campaigns-- mostly generated by the Republican party and
> its seemingly endless supply of inbred grunts-- and the "election"
> itself gave rise to a deep-seated pessimism among shrewd investors.
I don't have time to look into this but I'll throw it out there for
your consideration: Could it be that the DJIA drop towards the end of
Clinton's term was the result of Republican interference in his
presidency via their abuse of the impeachment process?
clams_casino
It's generally accepted that the stock market tends to reflect 6-18
months ahead, not what's already happened.
Bert Hyman
news:Rhslj.25638$3b7....@newsfe23.lga:
> It's generally accepted that the stock market tends to reflect 6-18
> months ahead, not what's already happened.
That must explain the wild gyrations the markets go through whenever
economic reports summarizing data from the previous month or previous
quarter are released.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
clams_casino
>PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com (clams_casino) wrote in
>news:Rhslj.25638$3b7....@newsfe23.lga:
>
>
>
>>It's generally accepted that the stock market tends to reflect 6-18
>>months ahead, not what's already happened.
>>
>>
>
>That must explain the wild gyrations the markets go through whenever
>economic reports summarizing data from the previous month or previous
>quarter are released.
>
>
>
Are you suggesting you invest on what's already happened?
Snowbound
Spinner <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I'm not enough of a conspiracy theorist to give too much weight to the
idea, but given the genuinely impressive lockstep planning and
implementation that went into the neo-conservative coup, I certainly
would not be surprised to find out that market manipulation was indeed
on their agenda from the start.
Bert Hyman
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
Are you suggesting that I revealed anything about my own investments in
that statement?
I was simply pointing out that your assertion is wrong.
clams_casino
That businesses consider expansion & savvy investors make investments
based on future expectations vs. past events?
Good luck living in the past................
Logan Shaw
> I merely pointed out that the market has been near static (with some
> noise) ever since this joker was first elected.
You have an extremely odd definition of the word "static" then.
Based on the numbers I see, the entire market plunged quite
dramatically, with the NASDAQ losing about half of its value,
then recovered over the next several years, so that recently
it approximately regained its peak value. If my house were
vaporized by a gigantic volcano eruption that wiped away my
entire neighborhood, and then the insurance company paid to
have the land terra-formed and the house rebuilt just exactly
like it was before, by your definition my house would have been
"near static".
> Even
> bearish CDs have outperformed the market under GW.
Yep, because GW took office at the start of a historic crash.
Newsflash: the market goes up and down. After it goes way up
for a sustained period, it eventually goes down later. During
the calendar year of 1999, the NASDAQ went up over 85%. Am I
supposed to believe that was sustainable and that if GW hadn't
taken office, the streets would've been lined with gold? A
correction was inevitable. Therefore, you can't compare the
price now with what it was when he took office.
- Logan
clams_casino
> Therefore, you can't compare the
> price now with what it was when he took office.
>
> - Logan
Wow - You obviously listen to Mr Kudlow - famous for his condemning
Clinton for holding back the economy and praising GW for the dynamic
economy over the past seven years.
Stormin Mormon
cash) is improper?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Spinner" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:13pcii3...@news.supernews.com...
Stormin Mormon
than...." but can't give you a tax cut (1993, WJC) and campaign cash from
the Chinese.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Snowbound" <loose...@ixnay.invalid> wrote in message
news:13pcbpm...@news.supernews.com...
Snowbound
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Do you think that impeaching for selling military secrets (for campaign
> cash) is improper?
Read the articles of impeachment. Clinton was impeached for perjury
regarding his testimony about sexual matters-- other peoples' sexual
proclivities being the subject of obscenely morbid interest for most
thin-lipped, self-appointed, bluenosed "religious" morals police and
other busybodies-- not for anything to do with campaigns, contributions,
or treason, as you hilariously suggest. Indeed, given the intense
scrutiny under which the Clinton regime operated, had there been even a
hint of sufficient evidence to bring such charges against your man,
neo-cons and religious righters would have trampled their own mothers in
their haste to do so.
Notice that I didn't argue with anything in your other article
responding to me, because I am absolutely impartial about which party
cheats, lies and steals the most. That's why defenders of any politician
inescapably strike me as mere shills, and political critics possess the
voice of reality. But through the last eight years, the sick,
puss-spewing sores on the body politic has certainly been all about the
Republicans, and sadly, the deluded faux faithful have done everything
they can to expedite the loss of verity and sincerity. At best, U.S.
"religious" leaders have minimalized if not criminalized themselves and
ruined any credibility their "churches" might once have had. I now await
the inevitable whine about shrinking flocks and how the government
justly treats churches like the businesses they have become. We've
already heard these whines from the churches who associate wealth with
godliness. About time. People who preach Christ *or* Mohammed or any
other religion spouting some stupidly cow-like inflexible fundamentalist
fanatical base all look increasingly like a foul bunch of psychos, scam
artists, boobs and hicks, Mormons included. That they would think
*anyone* outside of their circle shares their "values"-- however
"traditional"-- is symptomatic of their delusion.
But that's the nature of rightist religion, isn't it? It has no choice
but to devalue *everything* that doesn't fit its scheme, including
purple dinosaurs and blue Smurfs, for God's sake. Then it cries
piteously when its own shortcomings become all too conspicuous. Well,
unfortunately, Christians were all too successful in helping their
choice of President devalue what America had come to stand for: such
things as individual freedom, equality, justice, and the rule of law.
They helped Republicans devalue the very foundation their own
oh-so-precious freedom was built upon-- the Constitution. Too busy
destroying it to notice what was taking its place. Too preoccupied to
wonder how their success could damage or even destroy them. Get set, I
think that kind of change is coming quick. If that happens, most
churches deserve the same kind of sympathy and consideration they handed
out to others over the past eight years. Personally, I hope they get it.
Logan Shaw
> Logan Shaw wrote:
>> Therefore, you can't compare the
>> price now with what it was when he took office.
> Wow - You obviously listen to Mr Kudlow - famous for his condemning
> Clinton for holding back the economy and praising GW for the dynamic
> economy over the past seven years.
I have no earthly idea who you're talking about. The closest name
I recognize to Kudlow is Lisa Kudrow, from "Friends", but obviously
that's not the same thing.
Also, I don't think GW is worthy of praise for how he's handled
the economy. As I said before, and despite your apparent attempts
to ignore reality, I don't like GW. I just think that the
difference in price between the stock market today and the price
when GW was elected is not a meaningful number (due to the
extenuating circumstance of the dot-com bubble).
It is not part of my agenda to defend George Bush. I just really
hate poor analysis of the facts. Especially when it amounts to
"our side is great, look how much the other side sucks in every
possible way" cheerleading rhetoric. For the record, in case you
mistake what I'm saying, I hate that when it comes from any side.
- Logan
clams_casino
Over the past 4 years, the Dow is up perhaps 10% - barely inflation (not
including the reduced value of the dollar) and about 16% since the day
GW was put into office (again barely inflation).
The S&P is essentially where it was the day he was elected.
You seem to feel that seven year stagnation in the stock is a natural
corrective reaction to the 80's - 90's robust economy / bull stock
market - completely out of GW's control.
I'll agree that the 2000-2001 decline was a corrective reaction to the
cheap dollars Greenspan brought on during 1999 through low interest
rates to prevent what was believed to be potential Y2K problems coupled
with some corruptness by several Tech company financials, but I'm also
a believer that the stagnant economy, ever declining dollar and
stagnant stock markets are a direct result of low business &
investor perceptions of the GW policies. (The 9/11 oversold crash
being an exception, fully recovered within a few months.)
Eventually, the markets and economy will once again improve (as we get
closer to the day GW gets the boot). And, of course there will always
be those who will believe it will be due to GW's 2001 tax rebates
finally taking effect. The amusing part is that GW first argued the
tax rebates were justified because the economy was very robust where
those paying high taxes were justified in having a (claimed non
inflationary) tax reduction since there was an excess of tax collections.
Soon after GW was elected, I'm a firm believer that businesses started
significantly retracting their expansion plans and investors flocked to
bearish CDs & bonds in fear of GW (savvy investors plan / businesses
invest on future expectations where fear is typically the reason for
sell offs). Suddenly GW went on with the same tax rebate plan, but
provided an opposite spin - the economy was doing so poorly where the
solution was tax relief for the wealthy to restart the economy. So
which logic was correct - The economy was doing so well that tax refunds
were justified and would not be inflationary (not result in increased
demand) or because the economy was doing so poorly that tax relief for
the wealthy would create much needed demand? (Bush Sr had it right -
VooDoo economics)
Studies have shown that a significant portion of those borrowed tax
refunds went into paying down debt, having minimal effect on spending
improvement, but negatively affecting the budget & borrowing rates.
Factor in the excess spending / borrowing for GW's Iraq invasion and
it's no wonder that the dollar has dropped some 50% of its value since
GW took over. The Fed can play with US rates, but the world markets
can see through such as noted via the declining value of the dollar.
Simply put, the US stock market's stagnation has a lot more to do with
failed GW policies than you seen to want to believe. It's not simply
a zero-sum game based on an extrapolated graph.