TheMadCap Posted February 5, 2006 Author Share Posted February 5, 2006 What most recent downward trend are you talking about? The one that started last week? 594835[/snapback] That's the one. I don't follow stocks very much, I am mearly speculating... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 That's the one. I don't follow stocks very much, I am mearly speculating... 594887[/snapback] Depending on which index you're looking at, the markets peaked either last Monday or Wednesday. Do you really think that 2-4 days really constitutes a trend? One things for sure, you truly are speculating. Everyone knew Greenspan was retiring for years now. Everyone knew the date he was retiring but they just started reacting on the eve of his retirement? Might the slide have to do with Google's disappointing earnings? How about the price of oil and the nutbag running Iran? Maybe the inverted yield curve? Maybe stocks just need a breather after the juggernaught they've been on since late October? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 and has been stagnant during bush's term, 594691[/snapback] Stagnant?? Funny, that chart you linked to looks anything but stagnant. I don't know how much Bush's tax cuts helped, but that sure is a dramtic and quick rise from a dramatic and quick descent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Stagnant?? Funny, that chart you linked to looks anything but stagnant. I don't know how much Bush's tax cuts helped, but that sure is a dramtic and quick rise from a dramatic and quick descent. 594925[/snapback] What do you think had a greater effect? Tax cuts or the Fed Fund rates dropping to 1%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 What do you think had a greater effect? Tax cuts or the Fed Fund rates dropping to 1%? 594932[/snapback] I think it's a combination of both. Money that's cheap and more plentiful. Also low rates with boatloads of equity for people to leverage. Lots of nice 30 year financed cars on the road lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Either way, the President and his economic policies (or lack thereof) have very little to do with the stock market. I would suspect the most recent downward trend would be due to Greenspan's retirement... 594799[/snapback] What!, What time warp were you in, yes there was a slight dip at the very last month of Clinton's last term, where by Republican rejiggling of statistics, they claim the Bush hadn't actually gotten into office at that point and a recession had started under Clinton, although not conceding Republican quibilling over a month or so, the actual stock market crash didn't happen till after 911, when Bush and been in office over 9 months, long enough for it to be his baby, reread your history and at least get your basic timeline facts straight! Even then, he didn't do much, there was a rebound and then a second dip well into his administration because of the lack of confidence in his economic policies, which lingers on today. Every time he opens his mouth about economics, consumer confidence falls, even when the jobs picture is doing well right now, bout time. And another thing, Clinton went through some short term down turns earlier in his administration intervening effectively by tightening the budget, using the line item veto, delaying implementing certain projects...to his parties own frustration...in order to keep inflation low and thus less incentive for the Fed to raise interest rate, while the business cycle worked through it. Bush has done neither and we have had to bear the full brunt of the business cycle and rate causing among other things the gap between rich and poor to widen at an accellerated rate. These greater disparities in income that will risk causing long run economic and political instability, ala the late 20s and 30s unless something is done. The trade deficit may do it anyway. STOP reading the Drudge Report as the Gospel, check his facts first. He makes up half the stuff he shovels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 What!, What time warp were you in, yes there was a slight dip at the very last month of Clinton's last term, where by Republican rejiggling of statistics, they claim the Bush hadn't actually gotten into office at that point and a recession had started under Clinton, although not conceding Republican quibilling over a month or so, the actual stock market crash didn't happen till after 911, when Bush and been in office over 9 months, long enough for it to be his baby, reread your history and at least get your basic timeline facts straight! 595912[/snapback] Talking about getting your basice timeline straight, the S&P 500 peaked on March 24 2000. That's 9 months before Bush took office. The primaries weren't over yet, let alone the general election. By the time Bush was sworn in, the S&P had dropped over 12%. Even then, he didn't do much, there was a rebound and then a second dip well into his administration because of the lack of confidence in his economic policies, which lingers on today. Every time he opens his mouth about economics, consumer confidence falls, even when the jobs picture is doing well right now, bout time. Oh, so you actually believe the President is responsible for stock market performance? And another thing, Clinton went through some short term down turns earlier in his administration intervening effectively by tightening the budget, using the line item veto, delaying implementing certain projects...to his parties own frustration...in order to keep inflation low and thus less incentive for the Fed to raise interest rate, while the business cycle worked through it. Bush has done neither and we have had to bear the full brunt of the business cycle and rate causing among other things the gap between rich and poor to widen at an accellerated rate. Did you get all that from the DNC home page? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted February 6, 2006 Author Share Posted February 6, 2006 What!, What time warp were you in, yes there was a slight dip at the very last month of Clinton's last term, where by Republican rejiggling of statistics, they claim the Bush hadn't actually gotten into office at that point and a recession had started under Clinton, although not conceding Republican quibilling over a month or so, the actual stock market crash didn't happen till after 911, when Bush and been in office over 9 months, long enough for it to be his baby, reread your history and at least get your basic timeline facts straight! Even then, he didn't do much, there was a rebound and then a second dip well into his administration because of the lack of confidence in his economic policies, which lingers on today. Every time he opens his mouth about economics, consumer confidence falls, even when the jobs picture is doing well right now, bout time. And another thing, Clinton went through some short term down turns earlier in his administration intervening effectively by tightening the budget, using the line item veto, delaying implementing certain projects...to his parties own frustration...in order to keep inflation low and thus less incentive for the Fed to raise interest rate, while the business cycle worked through it. Bush has done neither and we have had to bear the full brunt of the business cycle and rate causing among other things the gap between rich and poor to widen at an accellerated rate. These greater disparities in income that will risk causing long run economic and political instability, ala the late 20s and 30s unless something is done. The trade deficit may do it anyway. STOP reading the Drudge Report as the Gospel, check his facts first. He makes up half the stuff he shovels. 595912[/snapback] Dude, what the hell are you talking about? I made a very general statement and you start in with Clinton? Whatever.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Dude, what the hell are you talking about? I made a very general statement and you start in with Clinton? Whatever.... 596465[/snapback] Forget it. He's rolling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Whether or not a President's policy has ANYTHING to do with what the economy is, the fact remains that if the economy is good while he is in office, he will get credit for it being so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Whether or not a President's policy has ANYTHING to do with what the economy is, the fact remains that if the economy is good while he is in office, he will get credit for it being so. 596511[/snapback] Which goes back to the overly simplistic, yet sickeningly true statement: People are stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBill Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Which goes back to the overly simplistic, yet sickeningly true statement: People are stupid. 596573[/snapback] AD, this explains alot. I know you don't think that you are stupid. Going along with the statement you just made, one would have to infer that you aren't a "People", or human. Thanks for clearing that up. Many of your ealrier posts now make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 AD, this explains alot. I know you don't think that you are stupid. Going along with the statement you just made, one would have to infer that you aren't a "People", or human. Thanks for clearing that up. Many of your ealrier posts now make sense. 596591[/snapback] It's so cute, the way you follow Darin around like a yapping little puppy dog... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBill Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 It's so cute, the way you follow Darin around like a yapping little puppy dog... 596605[/snapback] For some pathological reason, arrogance, and numerous repititions of his classic, "lemmings", "all elected leaders are the same", all poltical parties and their adherents are stupid", and now his latest "people are stupid" (why target a specific group when you can indict the whole human race) just fascinate me. What fascinates me more is the number of right wingers on this board that think he is some sort of torch bearer, even though, to his credit, he repeatedly tells them he not a republican and agrees very little with that parties idealogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 For some pathological reason, arrogance, and numerous repititions of his classic, "lemmings", "all elected leaders are the same", all poltical parties and their adherents are stupid", and now his latest "people are stupid" (why target a specific group when you can indict the whole human race) just fascinate me. What fascinates me more is the number of right wingers on this board that think he is some sort of torch bearer, even though, to his credit, he repeatedly tells them he not a republican and agrees very little with that parties idealogy. 596615[/snapback] Did you ever stop to think that there are right-wing thinkers who exist OUTSIDE of the Republican party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 For some pathological reason, arrogance, and numerous repititions of his classic, "lemmings", "all elected leaders are the same", all poltical parties and their adherents are stupid", and now his latest "people are stupid" (why target a specific group when you can indict the whole human race) just fascinate me. What fascinates me more is the number of right wingers on this board that think he is some sort of torch bearer, even though, to his credit, he repeatedly tells them he not a republican and agrees very little with that parties idealogy. 596615[/snapback] But it's so cute, the way you chase him around the board with this non-sexual man crush... And people are stupid. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBill Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 But it's so cute, the way you chase him around the board with this non-sexual man crush... And people are stupid. What's your point? 596720[/snapback] Whatever. You're right, people are stupid, present company included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Whatever. You're right, people are stupid, present company included. 596732[/snapback] Well, I knew I was stupid already. I don't have a Ph.D., remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBill Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Well, I knew I was stupid already. I don't have a Ph.D., remember? 596739[/snapback] Of course I remember, I'm not stupid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 For some pathological reason, arrogance, and numerous repititions of his classic, "lemmings", "all elected leaders are the same", all poltical parties and their adherents are stupid", and now his latest "people are stupid" (why target a specific group when you can indict the whole human race) just fascinate me. What fascinates me more is the number of right wingers on this board that think he is some sort of torch bearer, even though, to his credit, he repeatedly tells them he not a republican and agrees very little with that parties idealogy. 596615[/snapback] Of course I remember, I'm not stupid! 596753[/snapback] Despite the fact that you didn't spell "political" correctly nor use the appropriate version of "party's", you mean? To say nothing of the abortion in the earliest post that you attempted to pass off as a coherant thought. Sheer genius, you are. At the end of the day, I was pointing to the fact that in general a person is smart but as the group increases in size the collective intelligence tends to invert - a fact that political parties and trial lawyers use to their advantage every day. It's not exactly a new one from me, but I don't expect you to be able to piece such things together by yourself. Don't let a little thing like fact get in the way of your vain attempt to analyze me though, you self professed "non-stupid" guy, you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts