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.
You missed a mild sarcasm. Yes, 1929 - that is why I said "followed by prolonged recovery". The reason why I have not based my retirement on stocks (although I have a bit in the market that I don't care if I lose - but I don't need to look at it for 20 years, so should be okay even if post-2022 ends up being equal to post-1929). Whatever. But I can't imagine drawing my monthly retirement income from a market investment.
... Whatever. But I can't imagine drawing my monthly retirement income from a market investment.
I agree.
The effect of the market crash, was so severe on my four grandparents, and on my parents. I dont think that spending forty years in a Russian gulag would have traumatized them any greater.
Decades later and in retrospect, we can confidently say that it was only a small blip in the economy, and recovery happened within 20 years. It makes a nice soundbite for a college classroom.
But, in the same universe, at the same time, there were also US citizens whose personal recovery took more than 40 years.
The effect of the market crash, was so severe on my four grandparents, and on my parents. I dont think that spending forty years in a Russian gulag would have traumatized them any greater.
Decades later and in retrospect, we can confidently say that it was only a small blip in the economy, and recovery happened within 20 years. It makes a nice soundbite for a college classroom.
But, in the same universe, at the same time, there were also US citizens whose personal recovery took more than 40 years.
Can we in fact say 1929 was only a small blip in the economy? Or something that is bound to cyclically repeat, with the substantial recovery taking 20 years again? Could the long and greatly expanding market run that happened in recent years be an anomaly that we won't see again in this century (ie, people posting here today may not see it again)?
Can we in fact say 1929 was only a small blip in the economy? Or something that is bound to cyclically repeat, with the substantial recovery taking 20 years again? Could the long and greatly expanding market run that happened in recent years be an anomaly that we won't see again in this century (ie, people posting here today may not see it again)?
You can say anything you wish to say.
My crystal ball has never been very accurate.
If you say that it was a small blip and it will never happen again, I believe you.
My family's experience was so harsh, that I can not honestly state it was a small blip.
Can we in fact say 1929 was only a small blip in the economy? Or something that is bound to cyclically repeat, with the substantial recovery taking 20 years again? Could the long and greatly expanding market run that happened in recent years be an anomaly that we won't see again in this century (ie, people posting here today may not see it again)?
The stock market recovered in 4-1/2 years in dollar terms and spending power in 1929 ….
Mark Hulbert, writing for "The New York Times," suggests that an investor could have fully recovered from the 1929 crash in four-and-one-half years. He bases his claim on the fact that deflation and inflation haven't been figured in to true stock values from the period, and the fact that dividends paid an average of 14 percent. In addition, he points out that the Dow is not the entire market, and that the broader market had some quick-recovery stocks in it.
Don’t forget , we look at real returns when we look at markets which are inflation adjusted ..
Well inflation fell 18% in the Great Depression so real returns are actually the reverse of what we typically see ..
If you say that it was a small blip and it will never happen again, I believe you.
My family's experience was so harsh, that I can not honestly state it was a small blip.
No , YOU said that 1929 was a small blip, and I questioned that. I don't think it was a small blip at all. It is THE reason for my lifelong reluctance to have stocks (though I do have some, but very little, and don't intend to touch them until I am past 80. Even after 80, they would be an extra - I do not count them towards ongoing retirement income, at any age).
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.
