• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

It's the economy stupid!

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
And so I said to myself "Self It aint the labor force that starts the chain it's the confidence of consumers and sellers and everyone. If someone who makes shoes loses confidence in the ability of the consumer to buy shoes then he'll lay off workers till his inventory is reduced. Hmmm then that means if a person or entity can, by any means, cause folks to think all is well it will be. Hmmm Noah build a boat in the middle of the desert knowing he couldn't drag it to the sea. Ok. And ya can't just go poof and everyone is employed, right.
So what has to happen first for the bunches to assume everything is groovy? "

And then as if in a dream where nothing makes sense I remembered that during Viet Nam, Nixon (I think)(looked like him) came up with a 10% war sur tax and I was confident that there must be a nut loose on the machinery of government. There was! Made me go out and buy lots of stuff cuz I was confident that inflation was soon to come. Well first came the unreal gas lines.

Maybe the government will issue an edict. If you don't become confident I'll reduce interest rates until the lender pays the borrower interest to secure the investment.

Maybe I'm still asleep or ought to be..😀
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Blah, blah, blah.

I don't care what "economic experts" you present, they all have their slant and their agenda. The economy will roll on regardless of who is in office. It will ebb and flow. The economy rises and falls in cycles and there's not really anything that anybody can do to change it. If we had all gotten together and decided that Clinton was the best leader the world has ever seen (as many Democrats seem to think) and elected him for a 3rd term we'd still be in a recession. The tech bubble has burst. This was inevitable.

I'm almost disappointed that Gore didn't win. If he did, we'd have seen the recession occur under a Democrat after years of growth under a Democrat. Then maybe people would see that Democrats are not the answer to the problems of the world. Or not. People are stupid.
Click to expand...

Thank you, BoberFett, for another stirring opinion. Backed up as always with - NOTHING!

As you said, and this must have been your own critique of yet another of your baseless opinions - Blah, Blah, Blah.

Let's recap. Mike Porah, Business Producer for NY Times.com points out in his article Dept of Labor figures on the increase in unemployment in March (another 108,000 jobs lost), added to the 357,000 already lost in February but the jobless remains at 5.8% because so many people are simply giving up and leaving the job market they don't count anymore. So, as I have been saying, we've lost about 2.4 million jobs since Bush has become our "leader." Add to that the 1.5% drop in factory orders and the report from the Philly Fed that said new orders and hiring in the region had dropped sharply and its broadest measure of manufacturing indicators had plunged. Add to that William C. Dudley, Dhief US Economist at Goldman Sachs stating that we've now experienced 3 consecutive quarters of below trend growth. Amid fears the nation is slipping back into recession Fed Chariman Greenspan says the economy has hit a "soft spot." We can see what the consumer confidence numbers from the U. of Michigan look like on Friday. They dropped to a 9 year low in February.

The next article points out that even though we went through myriad corporate scandals and continue to see CEO's who cook the books (eg: Health South for one) the boards of directors of corporations are still paying people who are leading their corporations into deeper red ink millions plus bonuses to keep them on as CEO. I suppose their leadership is important as these companies face bankruptcy. Truth is it's just a good old boy's club. They keep getting their ridiculous salaries and bonuses while they shed workers by the millions. Oh well, someone has to pay for that Grey Poupon!

Next article. It seems that since Bush took office we've gone from a $240 billion surplus to an estimated $300 to $400 billion deficit in only two years! But it's OK now. The Bush administration has declared that budget deficits are a GOOD thing! Read the piece. It'll answer your questions about how the deficit affects the economy. Check out the Congressional Budget Office's figures and outlook regarding Bush's first $1.4 trillion tax cut and their outlook on his most recent larceny, oops! I mean tax giveaway to the rich, OOPS! I mean stimulus package.

Next piece. Many economists believe we're headed for our second recession in two years. Some think we'll eke out another year of slow growth. But the usual medicine, in the form of 12 interest rate cuts since Bush took office, isn't working this time. And economists don't agree with Bush's "economic stimulus package." (Funny, if Bush can't affect the economy as you claim, Bober, why is he asking for another $726 billion tax cut? Bush seems to think he can stimulate the economy and end the recession. Don't you believe your leader?) Anyway, Rory Robertson, an economic strategist for Macquarie Equities New York, an Australian investment bank says the numbers don't look good. It's the war (DUH!) and underlying fundamentals. I might add the unnecessary war.
David Wyss, the chief economist at Standard & Poor's also says the war isn't the only problem. Businesses aren't spending or hiring and we can't afford another tax cut and the increased deficits.

Just read the pieces I posted. All from reliable economists. And all Bober Fett has to say is Blah, Blah, Blah. Without even posting anything to back up even that nonsense. And he wishes Gore could have won so we could see what would have happened. A have a little surprise for you Bober. Gore did win. By over 500,000 votes if memory serves me. But Bush is in the White House so why don't we concentrate on that problem instead of your fantasies?
 
Originally posted by: HJD1
And so I said to myself "Self It aint the labor force that starts the chain it's the confidence of consumers and sellers and everyone. If someone who makes shoes loses confidence in the ability of the consumer to buy shoes then he'll lay off workers till his inventory is reduced. Hmmm then that means if a person or entity can, by any means, cause folks to think all is well it will be. Hmmm Noah build a boat in the middle of the desert knowing he couldn't drag it to the sea. Ok. And ya can't just go poof and everyone is employed, right.
So what has to happen first for the bunches to assume everything is groovy? "

And then as if in a dream where nothing makes sense I remembered that during Viet Nam, Nixon (I think)(looked like him) came up with a 10% war sur tax and I was confident that there must be a nut loose on the machinery of government. There was! Made me go out and buy lots of stuff cuz I was confident that inflation was soon to come. Well first came the unreal gas lines.

Maybe the government will issue an edict. If you don't become confident I'll reduce interest rates until the lender pays the borrower interest to secure the investment.

Maybe I'm still asleep or ought to be..😀
Click to expand...

Well, it's got to be one way or the other. The economy is to some extent a self fulfilling prophecy. But at some point the fundamentals come into play and then no matter what people feel reality sets in. Reality is setting in now. We're in a downward spiral and instead of doing something to help Bush and Co. just keep digging that hole deeper. It will take us decades to recover from the damage these supply siders are doing.

 
Somebody wake me up when BOBDN has something to say besides the current vomit mixture of preconceived notion and party line.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Somebody wake me up when BOBDN has something to say besides the current vomit mixture of preconceived notion and party line.
Click to expand...

It is becoming quite obvious that no one will ever be able to wake you up. BoberFett van Winkle. See you in forty years. You're probably better off though. It'll take forty years to clean up this mess Bush is making.

Your only weak reply, "Somebody wake me up when BOBDN has something to say." With the usual inane insult added.

If you'll take the time to learn how to read and go back over my posts you'll find I have plenty to say.

You people are always the same. You demand everyone back up their posts with information. When someone (me for instance) provides the information you ignore it and attack the person presenting the info to back up their opinion.

You are pathetic. If you can't back up your ideas why bother posting? You are only highlighting your ignorance.
 
That sums up why everything you've posted here is useless. You're suffering from Moonbeams Syndrome.
Click to expand...

Everything I posted here is useless to you. You are obviously illiterate.

If you could read you couldn't make that ridiculous statement.
 
Quote
Maybe I'm still asleep or ought to be..😀[/quote]
Quote
Well, it's got to be one way or the other. The economy is to some extent a self fulfilling prophecy. But at some point the fundamentals come into play and then no matter what people feel reality sets in. Reality is setting in now. We're in a downward spiral and instead of doing something to help Bush and Co. just keep digging that hole deeper. It will take us decades to recover from the damage these supply siders are doing.[/quote]

The Market TREND is the only thing that I am reasonably confident indicates the mood of the really smart folks. I don't mean the periodic movement or the day trader gamble but, rather the longer term historic trend of megashare transfers. I also look beyond the DOW 30 toward the S&P 500. I look at big bloc trades and try to get some insight into the Specialist activity as they make a market here and there. From where I sit there is not a lot of confidence in the future economic strength out say six to eighteen months. This to me simply means that what is going on now does not give the warm and fuzzies to those who make a living or are "experts" in the field. I am an expert in one field and it is somewhat related (Accounting) but, not close enough to get into the minds of the folks who are economists. When I read what you've posted I get confirmation on my thoughts. What I don't understand is; What is it that the Bush administration knows that eludes me so completely. They wouldn't publish a contra intuitive philosophy that garners the comments and analysis presented in your posts and elsewhere, would they?
If my understanding regarding the Stock Market is accurate then what ever moves Bush et. al. make it should be reflected in the market timely and then, in time, in the key economic indicators. I seem to remember that the market has immediate reaction to election results and all sorts of world happinings so it does reflect expectations.
Finally, I know that there are not many economists about that support what Bush proposes but not to worry everyone here in this thread can take a stand in support of the administration's position. It would be an interesting dialog, I think. Perhaps a dialog on a piece of the package would be easier or a program and what may be the affect and on who, if enacted.
An observation: If you dig the hole deep enough eventually the dirt will fall up into your face. Oops don't handle it. I say, don't be sorry be aware. If what is posted on this thread makes sense at least consider it, argue against it, but, don't just pass it off as so much part line poo poo. If it don't stand a reasoned test it will fall on its own weakness.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Blah, blah, blah.

I don't care what "economic experts" you present, they all have their slant and their agenda. The economy will roll on regardless of who is in office. It will ebb and flow. The economy rises and falls in cycles and there's not really anything that anybody can do to change it. If we had all gotten together and decided that Clinton was the best leader the world has ever seen (as many Democrats seem to think) and elected him for a 3rd term we'd still be in a recession. The tech bubble has burst. This was inevitable.

I'm almost disappointed that Gore didn't win. If he did, we'd have seen the recession occur under a Democrat after years of growth under a Democrat. Then maybe people would see that Democrats are not the answer to the problems of the world. Or not. People are stupid.
Click to expand...
Well, you're "people" too. So I gotta agree with you there.

It's clear you don't read the posts directed at you and set yourself up at the ultimate "expert". Your credibility is already in ruins unless you start backing up what you say with more than your personal analysis and "smart" answers.

And this topic DOES belong in OT. 😛



 
The reason I've only posted smartass remarks thus far is because it's all this thread deserved. This was not an economic thread, it started as a Bush bashing thread and never got past that. I'll post something a bit more complete now, just in the fear that somebody might actually take BOBDNs word as gospel truth.

Let's take a walk through history.

Carter - DJIA starts in the high 900s, and after several years of recession ends up about where it begins.

Reagan - The stock market began a healthy increase, from 1000 to over 2500 (under the evil Republican Reagan no less) until Black Monday. That crash is still somewhat of a mystery, though I'm sure envy merchants such as you would love to pin the blame completely on Reagan.

Bush I - The stock market began to recover quickly, and under the first Bush the market went from the low 2000s to mid 3000s. This means that under 12 years of oppression by evil Republicans, the stock market went from ~1000 to ~3400. That's ~240% growth.


Clinton - DJIA started around 3400. By two years into his first term, the DJIA wasn't even over 4000. Now, according to you, everything in this down economy is attributable to Bush and we're two years into his term. This means that as soon as Bush came into office, his policies started affecting the economy. Yet Clinton, the Democratic poster boy for sound fiscal policy, wasn't able to affect the economy until two years into his term. Wait a second, sounds like a double standard. Yes it is. If presidential policy were able to shape the economy in the way you claim Bush has, then Clinton the economic wunderkind should have had far more impact.

We'll look a little further into things under Clinton. The Dow really started to take off in 95. According to you and other graduates of the Sour Grapes School of Economics, this was due to Clinton and his sheer economic genius. If you look at the DJIA starting in about 94-95, and compare it to the numbers of technology stocks, you'll notice that the DJIA really started to take off at almost exactly the same time as the technology stocks. The news was full of stories about overnight millionaires, and Ma and Pa Kettle got excited and dumped their life savings into it. Stock prices rocketed out of control. Unscrupulous brokers saw this and took advantage of it. (If you want to blame anyone for the current state of retirement funds, look to fund managers and brokers, not the president.)

The DJIA topped out in late 2000. If Clinton was such a prodigy, why did it top out? Why didn't the economy continue up? Could it be? Yep, the tech bubble burst. People realized that they had invested in companies that couldn't make a buck to save their lives. People pulled out of the stock market, and things started heading downhill.

Bush II - Inherited a market that was already falling. 9/11 accelerated it. The war and Bush's Axis of Evil speech has taken it's toll on the stock market, but I see no need for Chicken Little, errrr, BOBDN to start worrying. I think if Bush makes a habit of invading small countries over the next couple of years, it could cause a problem. But I think it's a little early to start bemoaning the fate of the US. Things will likely level out very soon, and we'll end up right where we should be.

Do yourself a favor. Get yourself a chart of the DJIA for the past twenty years, and erase the years 1995-2003, the years of the tech stock boom. Extrapolate the data starting around 1994, and you'll see that we're right about where we should be currently. If the economy continues to drop like a rock, then you can bash Bush II all you want. But right now we're still in recovery from an overvalued market. Couple that with the war and you have yourself a recipe for a sharp downturn in the market. But it's nothing long lasting that we won't recover from.

I'm no Bush fan, but I don't have the same hate for him that you do. You're so emotionally tied up in the last election and how Bush "stole it" that you can't even see facts.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
The reason I've only posted smartass remarks thus far is because it's all this thread deserved. This was not an economic thread, it started as a Bush bashing thread and never got past that. I'll post something a bit more complete now, just in the fear that somebody might actually take BOBDNs word as gospel truth.

Let's take a walk through history.

Carter - DJIA starts in the high 900s, and after several years of recession ends up about where it begins.

Reagan - The stock market began a healthy increase, from 1000 to over 2500 (under the evil Republican Reagan no less) until Black Monday. That crash is still somewhat of a mystery, though I'm sure envy merchants such as you would love to pin the blame completely on Reagan.

Bush I - The stock market began to recover quickly, and under the first Bush the market went from the low 2000s to mid 3000s. This means that under 12 years of oppression by evil Republicans, the stock market went from ~1000 to ~3400. That's ~240% growth.


Clinton - DJIA started around 3400. By two years into his first term, the DJIA wasn't even over 4000. Now, according to you, everything in this down economy is attributable to Bush and we're two years into his term. This means that as soon as Bush came into office, his policies started affecting the economy. Yet Clinton, the Democratic poster boy for sound fiscal policy, wasn't able to affect the economy until two years into his term. Wait a second, sounds like a double standard. Yes it is. If presidential policy were able to shape the economy in the way you claim Bush has, then Clinton the economic wunderkind should have had far more impact.

We'll look a little further into things under Clinton. The Dow really started to take off in 95. According to you and other graduates of the Sour Grapes School of Economics, this was due to Clinton and his sheer economic genius. If you look at the DJIA starting in about 94-95, and compare it to the numbers of technology stocks, you'll notice that the DJIA really started to take off at almost exactly the same time as the technology stocks. The news was full of stories about overnight millionaires, and Ma and Pa Kettle got excited and dumped their life savings into it. Stock prices rocketed out of control. Unscrupulous brokers saw this and took advantage of it. (If you want to blame anyone for the current state of retirement funds, look to fund managers and brokers, not the president.)

The DJIA topped out in late 2000. If Clinton was such a prodigy, why did it top out? Why didn't the economy continue up? Could it be? Yep, the tech bubble burst. People realized that they had invested in companies that couldn't make a buck to save their lives. People pulled out of the stock market, and things started heading downhill.

Bush II - Inherited a market that was already falling. 9/11 accelerated it. The war and Bush's Axis of Evil speech has taken it's toll on the stock market, but I see no need for Chicken Little, errrr, BOBDN to start worrying. I think if Bush makes a habit of invading small countries over the next couple of years, it could cause a problem. But I think it's a little early to start bemoaning the fate of the US. Things will likely level out very soon, and we'll end up right where we should be.

Do yourself a favor. Get yourself a chart of the DJIA for the past twenty years, and erase the years 1995-2003, the years of the tech stock boom. Extrapolate the data starting around 1994, and you'll see that we're right about where we should be currently. If the economy continues to drop like a rock, then you can bash Bush II all you want. But right now we're still in recovery from an overvalued market. Couple that with the war and you have yourself a recipe for a sharp downturn in the market. But it's nothing long lasting that we won't recover from.

I'm no Bush fan, but I don't have the same hate for him that you do. You're so emotionally tied up in the last election and how Bush "stole it" that you can't even see facts.
Click to expand...

Hahaha! BOBDORK is pwned! :gift:

Ahem. This thread is silly, it's not going anywhere. Everyone get's a :clock: out.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
The reason I've only posted smartass remarks thus far is because it's all this thread deserved. This was not an economic thread, it started as a Bush bashing thread and never got past that. I'll post something a bit more complete now, just in the fear that somebody might actually take BOBDNs word as gospel truth.

Let's take a walk through history.

Carter - DJIA starts in the high 900s, and after several years of recession ends up about where it begins.

Reagan - The stock market began a healthy increase, from 1000 to over 2500 (under the evil Republican Reagan no less) until Black Monday. That crash is still somewhat of a mystery, though I'm sure envy merchants such as you would love to pin the blame completely on Reagan.

Bush I - The stock market began to recover quickly, and under the first Bush the market went from the low 2000s to mid 3000s. This means that under 12 years of oppression by evil Republicans, the stock market went from ~1000 to ~3400. That's ~240% growth.


Clinton - DJIA started around 3400. By two years into his first term, the DJIA wasn't even over 4000. Now, according to you, everything in this down economy is attributable to Bush and we're two years into his term. This means that as soon as Bush came into office, his policies started affecting the economy. Yet Clinton, the Democratic poster boy for sound fiscal policy, wasn't able to affect the economy until two years into his term. Wait a second, sounds like a double standard. Yes it is. If presidential policy were able to shape the economy in the way you claim Bush has, then Clinton the economic wunderkind should have had far more impact.

We'll look a little further into things under Clinton. The Dow really started to take off in 95. According to you and other graduates of the Sour Grapes School of Economics, this was due to Clinton and his sheer economic genius. If you look at the DJIA starting in about 94-95, and compare it to the numbers of technology stocks, you'll notice that the DJIA really started to take off at almost exactly the same time as the technology stocks. The news was full of stories about overnight millionaires, and Ma and Pa Kettle got excited and dumped their life savings into it. Stock prices rocketed out of control. Unscrupulous brokers saw this and took advantage of it. (If you want to blame anyone for the current state of retirement funds, look to fund managers and brokers, not the president.)

The DJIA topped out in late 2000. If Clinton was such a prodigy, why did it top out? Why didn't the economy continue up? Could it be? Yep, the tech bubble burst. People realized that they had invested in companies that couldn't make a buck to save their lives. People pulled out of the stock market, and things started heading downhill.

Bush II - Inherited a market that was already falling. 9/11 accelerated it. The war and Bush's Axis of Evil speech has taken it's toll on the stock market, but I see no need for Chicken Little, errrr, BOBDN to start worrying. I think if Bush makes a habit of invading small countries over the next couple of years, it could cause a problem. But I think it's a little early to start bemoaning the fate of the US. Things will likely level out very soon, and we'll end up right where we should be.

Do yourself a favor. Get yourself a chart of the DJIA for the past twenty years, and erase the years 1995-2003, the years of the tech stock boom. Extrapolate the data starting around 1994, and you'll see that we're right about where we should be currently. If the economy continues to drop like a rock, then you can bash Bush II all you want. But right now we're still in recovery from an overvalued market. Couple that with the war and you have yourself a recipe for a sharp downturn in the market. But it's nothing long lasting that we won't recover from.

I'm no Bush fan, but I don't have the same hate for him that you do. You're so emotionally tied up in the last election and how Bush "stole it" that you can't even see facts.
Click to expand...

May I again point out the quote above is YOUR version of history. If you could PLEASE post something, anything to support you version (as I have posted to support mine) then your post would be more than just your version of events.

And I did post the last 20 years of the DOW. Take a look at the posts I made. You'll find it. It proves my point and disproves yours.

No wonder you dismiss the facts I post. You haven't even been reading them. You only interested in posting your opinion as fact without any basis. Your version is only your version. Post something to support it as I have or you are what I have suspected you are all along. Just another brainwashed conservative partisan.

I'm trying to undestand people like you and your support for people like Bush but I can't because you make no sense. The only explanantion is you're all rich and benefiting from Bush's policies. Are you?
 
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: BoberFett
The reason I've only posted smartass remarks thus far is because it's all this thread deserved. This was not an economic thread, it started as a Bush bashing thread and never got past that. I'll post something a bit more complete now, just in the fear that somebody might actually take BOBDNs word as gospel truth.

Let's take a walk through history.

Carter - DJIA starts in the high 900s, and after several years of recession ends up about where it begins.

Reagan - The stock market began a healthy increase, from 1000 to over 2500 (under the evil Republican Reagan no less) until Black Monday. That crash is still somewhat of a mystery, though I'm sure envy merchants such as you would love to pin the blame completely on Reagan.

Bush I - The stock market began to recover quickly, and under the first Bush the market went from the low 2000s to mid 3000s. This means that under 12 years of oppression by evil Republicans, the stock market went from ~1000 to ~3400. That's ~240% growth.


Clinton - DJIA started around 3400. By two years into his first term, the DJIA wasn't even over 4000. Now, according to you, everything in this down economy is attributable to Bush and we're two years into his term. This means that as soon as Bush came into office, his policies started affecting the economy. Yet Clinton, the Democratic poster boy for sound fiscal policy, wasn't able to affect the economy until two years into his term. Wait a second, sounds like a double standard. Yes it is. If presidential policy were able to shape the economy in the way you claim Bush has, then Clinton the economic wunderkind should have had far more impact.

We'll look a little further into things under Clinton. The Dow really started to take off in 95. According to you and other graduates of the Sour Grapes School of Economics, this was due to Clinton and his sheer economic genius. If you look at the DJIA starting in about 94-95, and compare it to the numbers of technology stocks, you'll notice that the DJIA really started to take off at almost exactly the same time as the technology stocks. The news was full of stories about overnight millionaires, and Ma and Pa Kettle got excited and dumped their life savings into it. Stock prices rocketed out of control. Unscrupulous brokers saw this and took advantage of it. (If you want to blame anyone for the current state of retirement funds, look to fund managers and brokers, not the president.)

The DJIA topped out in late 2000. If Clinton was such a prodigy, why did it top out? Why didn't the economy continue up? Could it be? Yep, the tech bubble burst. People realized that they had invested in companies that couldn't make a buck to save their lives. People pulled out of the stock market, and things started heading downhill.

Bush II - Inherited a market that was already falling. 9/11 accelerated it. The war and Bush's Axis of Evil speech has taken it's toll on the stock market, but I see no need for Chicken Little, errrr, BOBDN to start worrying. I think if Bush makes a habit of invading small countries over the next couple of years, it could cause a problem. But I think it's a little early to start bemoaning the fate of the US. Things will likely level out very soon, and we'll end up right where we should be.

Do yourself a favor. Get yourself a chart of the DJIA for the past twenty years, and erase the years 1995-2003, the years of the tech stock boom. Extrapolate the data starting around 1994, and you'll see that we're right about where we should be currently. If the economy continues to drop like a rock, then you can bash Bush II all you want. But right now we're still in recovery from an overvalued market. Couple that with the war and you have yourself a recipe for a sharp downturn in the market. But it's nothing long lasting that we won't recover from.

I'm no Bush fan, but I don't have the same hate for him that you do. You're so emotionally tied up in the last election and how Bush "stole it" that you can't even see facts.
Click to expand...

Hahaha! BOBDORK is pwned! :gift:

Ahem. This thread is silly, it's not going anywhere. Everyone get's a :clock: out.
Click to expand...

What the hell is pwned?

SagaLore, you're worse than BoberFett. Not only do you fail to post any factual evidence to support your ideas, but lacking even your own ideas you mindlessly parrot the unsubstantiated drivel of BoberFett.

Can the blind lead the blind without both falling into the ditch?

 
Originally posted by: BOBDN
What the hell is pwned?

SagaLore, you're worse than BoberFett. Not only do you fail to post any factual evidence to support your ideas, but lacking even your own ideas you mindlessly parrot the unsubstantiated drivel of BoberFett.

Can the blind lead the blind without both falling into the ditch?
Click to expand...

So when I do post facts it's unsubstantiated drivel, yet your "facts" are truth written in stone? You're the king of Democratic fan boys. Tell you what go find a dozen more articles that can tell you how to think. You obviously can't think for yourself.
 
Originally posted by: HJD1
http://www,djindexes.com/jsp/industrialAverages.jsp?sidemenu=true.htm[/L]

If I typed this correctly and did what I'm spose to do to get it here then this is a good link for to see all sorts of history regards the dow.
The dow is a good indicator but, S&P is broader but I guess either is good enough for insight into the confidence level and its affect on stock valuation. Assuming you agree with that notion.
Click to expand...

Would someone be so kind as to tell me how to post a link like you all do so someone need only click on it to go there. I cant seem to find info in the help menu. I'd appreciate it.

 
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Hey genius. The market and economy tanked in spring of 2000. Who was in office then??? It wasn't Bush.
Click to expand...

Thank for recognizing my genius.

The recession began in Q1 2001 according to the Fed. An administration with a viable economic plan would have been able to reverse the downturn by now. Bush's plan is not viable. He is catering to the contributors who paid for his campaign. The latest economic data for March, 2003. Industrial output down. Jobs down. Spending down. Consumer confidence down.

Even with the aid of Greenspan and 12 inrterest rate cuts in one year Bush can't get the economy back on track.
Bush is an economic failure. A foreign policy failure. An environmental failure.
Little wonder you support him.

The market tanked in spring of 2000? It wasn't Bush?

U.S. Dow Jones Industrial Average Stock Index Monthly Values (Last Trading Day of Month)

Here are the numbers from 1/2000 through 2/2003.
Care to revise your statement, Aceshigh?

**Bunch of figures removed**
Click to expand...

Apparently the DJIA was good enough for BOBDNs argument back a few pages back, so it sure as hell is good enough for me to use now. He just chose to only look a few years back. I simply looked further back and didn't base my argument on the last few years of data, which display a drop due mainly to the tech boom and bust.
 
Quote

Apparently the DJIA was good enough for BOBDNs argument back a few pages back, so it sure as hell is good enough for me to use now. He just chose to only look a few years back. I simply looked further back and didn't base my argument on the last few years of data, which display a drop due mainly to the tech boom and bust.[/quote]

Thanks for your link.

It is the trend that has the most meaning regards the confidence reflected in the Dow averages. The blips here and there are corrections, quarter end sells by portfolio managers, etc. and etc. If the key indicators down the road a bit from a trend change support the trend change then the market will continue the trend until it reaches equalibrium - a confidence level supported by the economic stimulus input by the government, the fed or other world events that may have caused the trend to start.
Black Monday was simply program sales where when certain held assets hit a mark an automatic sell order was generated. The system never anticapated a drop that could cause auto sell orders to be placed. It is fixed now.

The debate, I think is or use to be or ought to be focused on where we are today and what is the affect of effecting proposed Governmental law to remedy (assumes they agree a remedy is needed) it. If they propose a tax cut that all "experts" opine is not appropriate then they must not believe we are in a economic situation that the "experts" say we're in.
 
All I can say is it must be nice to have as much free time as BOBDN and HJD1 seem to have to be drafting up all of this lengthy propoganda.
 
Apparently the DJIA was good enough for BOBDNs argument back a few pages back, so it sure as hell is good enough for me to use now. He just chose to only look a few years back. I simply looked further back and didn't base my argument on the last few years of data, which display a drop due mainly to the tech boom and bust.
Click to expand...

I posted January 2000 through February 2003 to illustrate the drop in the DOW occured in Q1, 2001. I also posted the link (same one you posted, wonder where you got it) for anyone who wanted to look back further.

Your conclusion is? Bush comes into office, DOW goes bust.
 
Originally posted by: bozack
All I can say is it must be nice to have as much free time as BOBDN and HJD1 seem to have to be drafting up all of this lengthy propoganda.
Click to expand...

Hey bozack, you're here too.

And I might add it doesn't take some of us as long as it would take you.

P.S. I post links to economic data to back up my posts. You post propaganda.
 
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Apparently the DJIA was good enough for BOBDNs argument back a few pages back, so it sure as hell is good enough for me to use now. He just chose to only look a few years back. I simply looked further back and didn't base my argument on the last few years of data, which display a drop due mainly to the tech boom and bust.
Click to expand...

I posted January 2000 through February 2003 to illustrate the drop in the DOW occured in Q1, 2001. I also posted the link (same one you posted, wonder where you got it) for anyone who wanted to look back further.

Your conclusion is? Bush comes into office, DOW goes bust.
Click to expand...

No, my conclusion is, it would have happened even if Gore had been elected. So the Bush bashing is unwarranted. As much of a mumbling doofus as he is, he isn't to blame for the state of the economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top