U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-03-2009, 08:02 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,536,220 times
Reputation: 9363

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050 View Post
When Bush was still President ... the market kept sinking like a led ballon.
Thats not even close to being factual.
Under Republican Congress

You see most of that increase near the right.. thats under Bush.. The fall didnt start until Democrats took over Congress

Under a Democratic Congress
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-03-2009, 08:20 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,319 posts, read 7,865,551 times
Reputation: 3376
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Ask me if I care, do you see the Title of the TOPIC? I compared my return to the DJIA to show how unimportant it is and how poorly its actually doing. Which actually disputes how upset I am...
Comparing your PERSONAL portfolio to the DJIA is comparing Apples and Oranges.

You have the entire universe of stocks to choose, while the DJIA only has 30 selected large-cap companies.

DJIA companies do not typically double in value within a month. They are lucky if they rise even 5% in any given month. And they could easily fall 5% the next month, and then rise back again.

You can buy any one of thousands of companies at any time, and sell it at any time.

You can pick from small-caps, IPO's, foreign, basically anything you want.

And you can buy when it is low, and sell when it is high.

DJIA maintains the same set of large-cap U.S. companies for months at a time, and often years.

The DJIA doesn't get to choose when to buy ... they simply add a different large-cap whenever it becomes necessary to drop a company that no longer meets the qualifications for being in the Dow.

So comparing your portfolio to the DJIA is a worthless comparison, and I think you did it simply to BRAG. No other reason.

The DJIA has risen around 30% since it's March low, and that is a huge rise for the DJIA!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 08:26 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,536,220 times
Reputation: 9363
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050 View Post
Comparing your PERSONAL portfolio to the DJIA is comparing Apples and Oranges.

You have the entire universe of stocks to choose, while the DJIA only has 30 selected large-cap companies.

DJIA companies do not typically double in value within a month. They are lucky if they rise even 5% in any given month. And they could easily fall 5% the next month, and then rise back again.

You can buy any one of thousands of companies at any time, and sell it at any time.

DJIA maintains the same companies for months at a time, and often years.

So comparing your portfolio to the DJIA is a worthless comparison, and I think you did it simply to BRAG. No other reason.
Comparing my portfolio to the DJIA disputes that I'm "very upset" I didnt make the claim, I simply disputed it with facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050 View Post
The DJIA has risen around 30% since it's March low, and that is a huge rise for the DJIA!
It sure is, I'm simply pointing out that making a claim that the DJIA recovery = an economic recovery is false hope because of to many other variables..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 08:39 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,319 posts, read 7,865,551 times
Reputation: 3376
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Comparing my portfolio to the DJIA disputes that I'm "very upset" I didnt make the claim, I simply disputed it with facts. Btw, if you look at my chart you can confirm my argument that stocks run in cycles even during a monthly term, primarily during the middle of the month, (i.e. when I'm always up).. Many think stocks run beginning of the month to the end but they dont, they run middle of the month to the middle of the next.

It sure is, I'm simply pointing out that making a claim that the DJIA recovery = an economic recovery is false hope because of to many other variables..
I believe the subject original post of "right wingers upset" is because the right doesn't like the fact that Obama is actually improving our economy.

But you seem to want to relate it to your "personal" portfolio whenever given the chance.

How many other people do you see bragging in this thread like you?

Apparently you are the only happy one.

The rest of the right wingers seem to be as "pissed off" as usual!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Minnysoda
8,639 posts, read 8,540,795 times
Reputation: 5185
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050 View Post
I believe the subject original post of "right wingers upset" is because the right doesn't like the fact that Obama is actually improving our economy.

But you seem to want to relate it to your "personal" portfolio whenever given the chance.

How many other people do you see bragging in this thread like you?

Apparently you are the only happy one.

The rest of the right wingers seem to be as "pissed off" as usual!
Really
Worse-than-expected economic data thwarts rally - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Worsethanexpected-economic-apf-15432049.html?sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode - broken link)=

Economic data disappoint, indicate slow recovery - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Economic-data-disappoint-apf-15430626.html?sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode - broken link)=

Wall Street dives on falling oil, recovery worry - Yahoo! Finance (http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/090603/business_us_markets_stocks.html?.v=17 - broken link)


Unemployment Numbers
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 09:08 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,872 posts, read 22,800,537 times
Reputation: 7186
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Wrong, people buy stocks on rumors and speculation, they sell on facts and reports.
They also sell on FEAR - not just on facts and reports, but also on uncertainty. The market never likes the unknown. The fear and panic that took place back in September - partially as a result of Bush's "deer in the headlights" demeanor that indicated that he didn't have a clue - was a DIRECT result of FEAR - not so much on the facts and reports but on the
concern about the uncertainty of just how bad the crises really was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Again yes, but not the economy. If it was an indicator of the economy then explain to me why many of the companies on the DJIA are doing worse than they did last year but their stocks are going up? (answer, because they are doing better than expected, but worse, again, they were sold off because of rumors that they will do bad, they are being bought back when reports indicate that the companies are not doing as bad as previously anticipated, but this does not mean the economy is good)
Who said the economy was GOOD?
Aren't you simply restating what we've been saying all along - that things are going better than expected? It's amazing how you can first argue one thing, then turn around and argue nearly the exact opposite. Are you dizzy yet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
That all depends on what analysis were expecting. Often times laying off employees cause a stock value to increase (note the DJIA for example) because it means companies have lower liabilities and thereby can increase profitability for the stock holders.
UNBELIEVABLE!
Didn't I just say that very thing (only to have you disagree) - that business owners laid people off BECAUSE their stock price had dropped and they were trying to get the stock price back up by cutting costs? You remember - back in post #272 where I had said:

"The public panic late last year was a direct result of the market collapse in September - which in turn lead to businesses making job cuts in effort to get their stock price back up, and to people cutting back on their spending because they saw their personal wealth (ie their investments and 401K balances) shrivel up. The market was both an indicator and an impact on the overall economy - and as the markets have trended up and people have seen their personal wealth increase, their optimism has risen and that will bring about (over time) and increase in spending."

and you then replied:

"You have it backwards, the public panicked and the market collapsed BECAUSE companies were cutting jobs and losing money due to a lapse of consumer spending.

The market follows the economy, it doesnt lead, and even though the market is going up now, its only because it was oversold in September."

And now your turn right around and admit "Often times laying off employees cause a stock value to increase (note the DJIA for example) because it means companies have lower liabilities and thereby can increase profitability for the stock holders."

What do you do, say whatever happens to come into your head with no thought of having a consistent point of view? What do you think the impact of all those layoff is going to be? Don't you think all those companies laying off people because the CEO are trying to boost the stock price is going to have a ripple effect on the overall economy?

You keep making the assertion that that the economy affects the market but the market doesn't affect the economy but then turn right around an mention a prime example of how the market DOES affect the economy! WTF!!!!

The fact of the matter is it's not an "either or" situation, the market is both an indicator and an impact on the overall economy - you essentially agreed with that yourself when you mentioned that (once again I repeat what YOU wrote): "Often times laying off employees cause a stock value to increase (note the DJIA for example) because it means companies have lower liabilities and thereby can increase profitability for the stock holders"

Those are YOUR WORDS.
YOURS.
And just a few posts after you claimed that wasn't the case.
Make up your mind dude.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Here you are correct, however in order to have spendable income, i.e. to improve the economy, money needs to come out of the stock market to become spent, which of course causes a downward pressure on the stock. See my previous thread where I discussed this.
Another failure of critical thinking. You think people ONLY spend money that they pull from the market - that people don't have OTHER resources to draw on????? What about simply spending more that might otherwise simply hold on to in their checking/savings accounts? What about charging it? (not that I'm recommending that approach - but it IS something people do). The market isn't the ONLY source of spendable income. Get real!

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 09:16 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,536,220 times
Reputation: 9363
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050 View Post
I believe the subject original post of "right wingers upset" is because the right doesn't like the fact that Obama is actually improving our economy.

But you seem to want to relate it to your "personal" portfolio whenever given the chance.

How many other people do you see bragging in this thread like you?

Apparently you are the only happy one.

The rest of the right wingers seem to be as "pissed off" as usual!
Yeah, the rest of the right wingers are pissed off because the DJIA is improving.. how in gods name can that possibly be true? Think about it, Tell me why on gods earth ANYONE would be "pissed off" at the stock market rising?

Whats amazing is that liberals try to link the DJIA increasing to an improved economy when NOT ONE economic indicator is improving..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 09:54 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,536,220 times
Reputation: 9363
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
They also sell on FEAR - not just on facts and reports, but also on uncertainty. The market never likes the unknown.
Absolutely, and the market sure in the hell didnt like the "fear" of a new administration who talked non stop about taxing the profits, regulating the industry, limiting freedom and even taxing trades, all proposals that are circulating. The longer time goes on and the people realise that their fears were unfounded (and they were), the more people will re-enter the market. Will this re-entering of the market cause the market to increase, absolutely, but this also means that bonds and other investment avenues decrease. There is only so much money to invest, to put it into the market, it needs to be pulled from somewhere else
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
The fear and panic that took place back in September - partially as a result of Bush's "deer in the headlights" demeanor that indicated that he didn't have a clue - was a DIRECT result of FEAR - not so much on the facts and reports but on the
concern about the uncertainty of just how bad the crises really was.
Agreed, Bush helped cause the downfall with his, "have to act now, the economy is in danger, the world is falling apart, we need this bill passed," reaction. As you stated yes, fear caused the market to fall, but I contend the market was way oversold due to this and what we are seeing is a recovery in the market, unrelated to the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Aren't you simply restating what we've been saying all along - that things are going better than expected? It's amazing how you can first argue one thing, then turn around and argue nearly the exact opposite. Are you dizzy yet?
Where did I claim things were not improving? I've constantly claimed that they are improving. I've always said they would improve because its a cycle. Presidents can only artificially inflate the rise which causes a bubble, or cause a delay in recoveries followed by a surge, they cant create a true recovery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Didn't I just say that very thing (only to have you disagree) - that business owners laid people off BECAUSE their stock price had dropped and they were trying to get the stock price back up by cutting costs?
Business do not lay people off BECAUSE their stocks drop in value, they lay people off because their business profit/loss statements require it, the side affect is that the stock price increases. To a company, the stock value is meaningless, they've already sold the stock, they've already received the funds, if a stock is selling for $1, or $100, it doesnt matter to the company until it comes time to issue new stock or time for the employees to cash in their own stock. This doesnt mean that companies ignore the stock price, they often want it higher to improve the bookable networth of the company, so they can sell more stock and raise more capital, but they dont directly lay people off for the purpose of increasing the stock price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
What do you do, say whatever happens to come into your head with no thought of having a consistent point of view? What do you think the impact of all those layoff is going to be? Don't you think all those companies laying off people because the CEO are trying to boost the stock price is going to have a ripple effect on the overall economy?
The fact that companies are laying people off, per your claim "to boost the stock price", would mean that the higher the DJIA is, the worse the economy is because it would equate a higher stock price to higher unemployment. This simply is not the case. The fact is the higher the stock price is equates to higher profitability for a company, be that through cutting employment, modernization, investing, expansions, lower lease rates, writting off of capital expenses etc. Yes, laying off individuals can equate to higher stock prices but that is not the direct reason for doing it, the direct reason is to substain profits which then raise the stock values. For example, using your argument that laying off people = higher stock prices, GM could lay everyone off (in fact they are) and the stock would rise, we all know thats not the situation. At some point basic employment levels need to be maintained, example retail stores cant lay off sales staff without expecting to see a drop in the price of the stock because it would mean a drop in sales, i.e. profits. Overall, I have never heard of a company laying people off to increase the stock price, they lay people off to increase profits, which then increase the stock price..
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
You keep making the assertion that that the economy affects the market but the market doesn't affect the economy but then turn right around an mention a prime example of how the market DOES affect the economy! WTF!!!!
Laying people off does not positively affect the economy, it might affect the individual stock if this in turn increases the profits, but laying people off hurts the economy because you have less people employed, less disposable income, and less people able to buy other items needed to pump money into other public companies. Tell me how possibly, laying people off to increase a stock price, would = a better economy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
The fact of the matter is it's not an "either or" situation, the market is both an indicator and an impact on the overall economy - you essentially agreed with that yourself when you mentioned that (once again I repeat what YOU wrote): "Often times laying off employees cause a stock value to increase (note the DJIA for example) because it means companies have lower liabilities and thereby can increase profitability for the stock holders"
Thats true, it is not an either or situation, but you still have it backwards. Usually when a company hiring employees, its due to a a good economy because it increases the cash flow into the economy but a company laying off employees = a good company bottom line which equates to an increased stock value but usually is harmful to the economy because it means less money to go into the economy due to less people working.

You dont get a good economy by increasing unemployment, even if the end result is an increased stock market. True the stock market investors now have the money to spend but they have to be willing to cash out their stock to spend it. A higher stock market means that people have decided to put money into an investment instead of spending it into the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Another failure of critical thinking. You think people ONLY spend money that they pull from the market - that people don't have OTHER resources to draw on?????
People need to either be employed to spend money, or they need to have investment income. Its the only two ways of "making" money. (excluding things like inheritance because it means that previously it was made).. If they are being laid off, they arent able to spend money, if they are receiving investment income, then yes, they actually need to pull it from the market in order to spend it. Just like a stock trader needs to pull their money from one stock to buy another, they also need to pull it from the market (or borrow against it) in order to put money into the economy. Thats the only options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
What about simply spending more that might otherwise simply hold on to in their checking/savings accounts? What about charging it? (not that I'm recommending that approach - but it IS something people do). The market isn't the ONLY source of spendable income. Get real!
Um, in order to pull money from their checking/savings, they actually need to make the money to begin with. You cant skip that step and then claim that they havent earned it previously. Charging it, same idea, you can only charge so much, once you've maxed out your cards, you either need to earn enough to pay off your cards, or cash out your investments to do so. Failure to do one of these stops your ability to put money into the economy. In fact failure to pay your cards withdraws money from the economy because the banks that issued you credit have to cover for it, and then stockholders pickup the tab. Someones paying for it, the fact that your putting it on a card doesnt change the fact that the consumer has to either earn it or invest for it, and to do that, you need to have an income.

Last edited by pghquest; 06-03-2009 at 10:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 10:04 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,872 posts, read 22,800,537 times
Reputation: 7186
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Whats amazing is that liberals try to link the DJIA increasing to an improved economy when NOT ONE economic indicator is improving..
Really?
That's not what it says here:

The Conference Board’s Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) moved up 1.0% after a string of monthly declines between October 2008 and March 2009.

Index of Leading Indicators Signals Improving Economic Conditions

or here:

"Nearly three quarters of the ten components of the leading index increased last month with the largest contributions coming from higher stock prices, improved consumer expectations and a more positively sloped interest rate yield curve."

U.S. Leading Indicators Improve Sharply To The Highest Level Since November (http://www.haver.com/COMMENT/090521c.htm - broken link)

Or here:

"he Conference Board LEI for the U.S. rose sharply in April, the first increase in seven months, and the strengths among its components exceeded the weaknesses for the first time in one and a half years. Stock prices, the interest rate spread, consumer expectations, initial unemployment claims, the average workweek, and supplier deliveries all contributed positively to the index this month, more than offsetting the negative contributions from real money supply and building permits."

http://www.conference-board.org/econ...tput.cfm?cid=1



Ken

Last edited by LordBalfor; 06-03-2009 at 10:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 10:14 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,536,220 times
Reputation: 9363
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
The Conference Board’s Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) moved up 1.0% after a string of monthly declines between October 2008 and March 2009.
A 1% increase is hardly surprising, or any reason to celebrate, especially considering that we're at a negative 3.6% for the quarter. This is similar to celebrating a rise in the DJIA for 1 day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
"Nearly three quarters of the ten components of the leading index increased last month with the largest contributions coming from higher stock prices, improved consumer expectations and a more positively sloped interest rate yield curve."
Your second link confirms what I said previously, that things were not as bad for "the economy" as previously thought, most of it was fear, and also confirms that we are following a normal business cycle. Heck, the link is about the "Business Cycle Indicator"

U.S. Leading Indicators Improve Sharply To The Highest Level Since November

But from you link, in November, it was this high, remind me again how awful the economy was in November, and then tell me why its different this time..

Dont misunderstand me, the economy will recover, primarily because consumer confidence is improving, and its consumer confidence, (i.e. fear or lack of fear) which causes an economic fall or recovery. Its not due to Washington but an average business cycle that fell further than it should have primarily due to fear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:57 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top