Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 You're celebrating the fact that the DOW's at a new high. I pointed out that it took 6 years to do that. I am happy that it finally did, especially for my pension. I am unhappy though that it took so long to get back to this point. You inferred I blame Bush. However, I've never disagreed with the fact that presidents have very little control over the economy. Sorry I pushed the Clinton button... 795013[/snapback] Yeah. Because stock markets should always go up and hit consecutive new highs. They should never, ever, ever go down. You really don't understand market economics, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Yeah. Because stock markets should always go up and hit consecutive new highs. They should never, ever, ever go down. You really don't understand market economics, do you? 795278[/snapback] Coming from the guy who thinks the administration controls monetary policy. It's quite a stretch to go from my statement that "it took 6 years to break the previous high," to I must believe stock prices should always go up. I'm getting used to people stretching my statements though. The obvious inference from my statement is that the down turn in the Dow must have been pretty severe, and the resultant recovery a long, slow process. But maybe that's too complicated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Coming from the guy who thinks the administration controls monetary policy. It's quite a stretch to go from my statement that "it took 6 years to break the previous high," to I must believe stock prices should always go up. I'm getting used to people stretching my statements though. The obvious inference from my statement is that the down turn in the Dow must have been pretty severe, and the resultant recovery a long, slow process. But maybe that's too complicated... 795341[/snapback] Going from the biggest market crash since the depression back to even in less than 7 years is a long slow process? Not only do you not understand market economics, you don't know market history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 Not that I'm too cynical, but doesn't a new record mean the Dow is up about.1% since 2000. 795201[/snapback] It's up in a huge way in the last decade. Unfortunately, some of the growth in the first half of those ten years wasn't real. Just ask the people who invested money in pets.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Coming from the guy who thinks the administration controls monetary policy. It's quite a stretch to go from my statement that "it took 6 years to break the previous high," to I must believe stock prices should always go up. I'm getting used to people stretching my statements though. The obvious inference from my statement is that the down turn in the Dow must have been pretty severe, and the resultant recovery a long, slow process. But maybe that's too complicated... 795341[/snapback] I remember from March 2000 to November 2000 (under Clinton) the Nasdaq dropping from 5000 to 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 It's up in a huge way in the last decade. Unfortunately, some of the growth in the first half of those ten years wasn't real. Just ask the people who invested money in pets.com. 795435[/snapback] I think that this is an acceptable break of the Corrolary to Godwin's Rule in invoking Clinton's name - Over time, you will learn that it's obvious that a stock market euphoria stoked by overvalued technology prices was far more legitimate than a stock market euphoria stoked by overvalued real estate prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Going from the biggest market crash since the depression back to even in less than 7 years is a long slow process? Not only do you not understand market economics, you don't know market history. 795377[/snapback] How are you defining the crash? The bear market that lasted for 2+ years (and, yes it began in Clinton's last year)? Or the initial drop in 2000? In percentage terms, one of the largest "crashes" over the past 40 years was in October 1987. But, hey, what do I know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I remember from March 2000 to November 2000 (under Clinton) the Nasdaq dropping from 5000 to 2000. 795439[/snapback] And the Dow dropped some 2000 points. Your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 It's up in a huge way in the last decade. Unfortunately, some of the growth in the first half of those ten years wasn't real. Just ask the people who invested money in pets.com. 795435[/snapback] How much is a 2006 $ worth vs. a 1996 $? I guess it is all like having a football team - the winning team is never as good as they look, and the losing team is never as bad as they look. If presidents and congresses are going to be talked about in terms of economics, I would have to say that I preferred the surplusses created by the Democratic President and the Republican congress to the ones with the Republican President and Republican Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 This is fantastic news! The Dow has grown 0% since the previous high in 2000--under Clinton!!!! 795481[/snapback] And the Dow dropped some 2000 points. Your point? 795481[/snapback] I'm not political, but... On the one hand, you complain that the market has gone up 0% with the Republicans in charge. (Therefore, Republicans = Bad) On the other other hand, you're not complaining when the market tanked in 2000 in the great tech crash with the Democrats in charge (Therefore, Democrats = Good) You can't have it both ways. If numbers are the true indicator that you suggest, then Clinton is worse then Bush (for the NASDAQ falling the way it did). If numbers are not the true indicator, then why are you stating above that Clinton had a "record high" stock market in 2000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I'm not political, but... On the one hand, you complain that the market has gone up 0% with the Republicans in charge. (Therefore, Republicans = Bad) On the other other hand, you're not complaining when the market tanked in 2000 in the great tech crash with the Democrats in charge (Therefore, Democrats = Good) You can't have it both ways. If numbers are the true indicator that you suggest, then Clinton is worse then Bush (for the NASDAQ falling the way it did). If numbers are not the true indicator, then why are you stating above that Clinton had a "record high" stock market in 2000? 795532[/snapback] Thank you for putting words in my mouth. I stated that the previous high was in 2000, and mentioned that Clinton was president then. I did not state the market went up 0% with republicans in charge. I said the market's gained 0% since the previous peak in 2000 (In fact, the market has gone up since Bush took office, because as we all know it started its fall before he took office). Then, panties got twisted, and you guys all inferred I said "Bush bad." Now your telling me I'm saying "democrats good." Yes, there was a long bear market for much of Bush's first term, and many things happened to extend it--not the least of which was the accounting scandals. The bear ended in 2003, and the market's done pretty well since then. As KD said, only if you were foolish enough not to invest while it was down, did you experience the 0%. By the way, how do you know I wasn't complaining when the market began its decline in 2000 (under Clinton)? Oh, and I'm not political either.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 You can't have it both ways. If numbers are the true indicator that you suggest, then Clinton is worse then Bush (for the NASDAQ falling the way it did). If numbers are not the true indicator, then why are you stating above that Clinton had a "record high" stock market in 2000? 795532[/snapback] Normal people can't have it both ways. He's an economist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 You're celebrating the fact that the DOW's at a new high. I pointed out that it took 6 years to do that. I am happy that it finally did, especially for my pension. I am unhappy though that it took so long to get back to this point. You inferred I blame Bush. However, I've never disagreed with the fact that presidents have very little control over the economy. Sorry I pushed the Clinton button... 795013[/snapback] Oh, the irony in this. Who's zoomin' who? DING! Can you say HotPocket [republican flavor] ready... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchescannonballs Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Simply more proof that President Bush's fiscal stewardship is paying giant dividands for America. The tax cuts worked. He will probably be remembered as one of the best presidents in American history. He reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Simply more proof that President Bush's fiscal stewardship is paying giant dividands for America. The tax cuts worked. He will probably be remembered as one of the best presidents in American history. He reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt 807772[/snapback] This is a joke, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Simply more proof that President Bush's fiscal stewardship is paying giant dividands for America. The tax cuts worked. He will probably be remembered as one of the best presidents in American history. He reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt 807772[/snapback] Rich? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts