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.
It was. It was a Socialist illusion. It wasn't because of market fundamentals.
It was a reversion to the mean. The stock market was undervalued in early 2009. It took 4 years after that just to get back to the level it was in August 2000.
So, Essentially the stock market went nowhere for 12 1/2 years (August 2000-March 2013).
Of course you can believe whatever you choose to read, but QE is essentially implemented to lower interest rates and increase the money supply. Not sure who you think benefits from the likes, but it isn't mostly the little people whom socialists typically believe they are advocating for. Right? Wouldn't hurt to review the definition of socialism while we're at it I think...
I think this might be the first time I've heard of the stock market being any sort of socialist anything!
Good one!
Market fundamental #1: investors put their money where they feel they will get the best ROI over time.
It's that plain and simple and not commonly described in any sort of socialist context...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
It was a reversion to the mean. The stock market was undervalued in early 2009. It took 4 years after that just to get back to the level it was in August 2000.
So, Essentially the stock market went nowhere for 12 1/2 years (August 2000-March 2013).
How is it right that those who saved should have to get nothing to bail out those who were in debt? How is that not socialism? One group bailing out another?
Of course you can believe whatever you choose to read, but QE is essentially implemented to lower interest rates and increase the money supply. Not sure who you think benefits from the likes, but it isn't mostly the little people whom socialists typically believe they are advocating for. Right? Wouldn't hurt to review the definition of socialism while we're at it I think...
It is not I that needs to understand the definition and you clearly explain why. Socialism is not a program designed to only go in one direction even though generally that is what we see. Taking from anyone to give to another is socialism. Up, down, it doesn't matter.
It is not I that needs to understand the definition and you clearly explain why. Socialism is not a program designed to only go in one direction even though generally that is what we see. Taking from anyone to give to another is socialism. Up, down, it doesn't matter.
No PK, not right. Not at all...
Socialism is not the taking of money from the poor and giving it to the rich. It's not up or down. It surely does matter if you are really going to be using these terms correctly.
If it’s socialism, it’s socialism for the rich (specifically bankers). The freshly printed money went to private banks to loan out at interest. It didn’t go to poor people.
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.
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.
