Discussion:
Is the US stock market better off than Dec 2000?
(too old to reply)
fãhç
2004-03-01 23:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85

NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72

Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
Mark T. Evert
2004-03-02 00:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the market is
moving.
The Dude
2004-03-02 01:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the market is
moving.
Wrong, we hear moron after moron. Excuse me, Repug after Repug saying how
the economy is better than Clinton, better than we were 3 years ago
etc....lies! Although the repugs ignore the net job theory. The truth
escapes you.
Tempest
2004-03-02 01:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the market is
moving.
The real question is if the market today is in another bubble.

And by all measures, the answer is yes.
--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748
Mark T. Evert
2004-03-02 01:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the market is
moving.
The real question is if the market today is in another bubble.
And by all measures, the answer is yes.
There's a quote with a whole lot of data to back it up.....LOL. The
market usually looks ahead about 6 months or so.....and calamities such as
911 not withstanding it is historically a pretty accurate indicator.
Whereas the last market upswing included a lot of wild speculation about
unproven companies, this one is based mostly on hard data including GDP
growth, corporate profitibility and other positive economic indicators.

Of course in 2000 the market was in a serious downturn which continued
pretty much through 2002 notwithstanding the pertubation brought on by
911.
Post by Tempest
--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748
Gene
2004-03-02 03:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the
market is
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
The real question is if the market today is in another bubble.
And by all measures, the answer is yes.
There's a quote with a whole lot of data to back it up.....LOL. The
market usually looks ahead about 6 months or so.....and calamities
such as 911 not withstanding it is historically a pretty accurate
indicator. Whereas the last market upswing included a lot of wild
speculation about unproven companies, this one is based mostly on hard
data including GDP growth, corporate profitibility and other positive
economic indicators.
Of course in 2000 the market was in a serious downturn which continued
pretty much through 2002 notwithstanding the pertubation brought on
by 911.
Post by Tempest
--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748
That's funny, my sisters company is producing products and stacking
them on a lot just to keep folks employed - they have no orders to speak
of.
This month they started letting folks go.

Boeing will be laying off a ton of folks in St louis because the
defense department decided not to by the Comanche they contracted for.

New housing starts were down last month and soon existing home sales
will be also.

The refi money is about spent by now and folks living off their 401k's
after being un/underemployed will be gone.

The countries individual savings rate is at all time lows and
individual credit is up.

The tax cut that goes mostly to the wealthy will be used to buy CD's,
Bonds, and spent on luxuary items that employ few.

The market is not much different than roulette, it's based on
expectations and the herd instinct. For example, United is in bankruptcy
and the shares will be worthless in a few months when they emerge from
bankruptcy. Yet it gained over 300% in the last week. Does that mean
anything? Not a damned thing just folks spinning the wheel and placing a
bet. Amazon.com has yet to show a profit and it's flying high. Sound
stocks are just plodding along while all the high flyers are flying on
wings of glass. The coming fall will make 2000 look like a blip on the
screen

Bush is Hoover all over again. He's not only spending the money that
would have help the social security and medicare problems coming but he
has made it next to impossible to pay off the federal insurance on bank
accounts if a depression comes.

Bush is a common thief out to empty the coffers for him and his
buddies. Watch the spending and thieft accellerate as he gets closer to
lossing. He should be impeached and jailed for high treason and you folks
should be horse whipped for supporting him.
--
"Any man who works for a living and votes Republican is a fool"
Mark Neglay
2004-03-03 08:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the
market is
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
The real question is if the market today is in another bubble.
And by all measures, the answer is yes.
In other words, yes the market was diving and diving fast in 12/00,
and it is growing now, so it *must* be a bubble now or his ideology is
shot all to hell.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
There's a quote with a whole lot of data to back it up.....LOL. The
market usually looks ahead about 6 months or so.....and calamities
such as 911 not withstanding it is historically a pretty accurate
indicator. Whereas the last market upswing included a lot of wild
speculation about unproven companies, this one is based mostly on hard
data including GDP growth, corporate profitibility and other positive
economic indicators.
Of course in 2000 the market was in a serious downturn which continued
pretty much through 2002 notwithstanding the pertubation brought on
by 911.
Post by Tempest
--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748
That's funny, my sisters company is producing products and stacking
them on a lot just to keep folks employed - they have no orders to speak
of.
This month they started letting folks go.
The ISM manufacturing index is now above 60 and has been for 4 months.
My data only go back through about half of the Clinton
Administration, but this index of general trends in manufacturing was
*never* this high under Clinton as far as I can tell.

Note that any level above 50 indicates a growing manufacturing sector.
Anything below 50 indicates a manufacturing recession. The
manufacturing sector of the US economy was in recession starting in
1999 and remained there until Bush took office. Under Bush, it came
out of this recession.

Meanwhile, the Department of Commerce (see www.census.gov) releases
monthly data on new manufacturing orders. Much like the trend
reported by the ISM index, demand for manufactured goods was clearly
dropping through *all* of 2000. It bottomed out in June of 2001.
Shipments bottomed out in September, 2001. Since then both have been
clearly rising.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Boeing will be laying off a ton of folks in St louis because the
defense department decided not to by the Comanche they contracted for.
So it looks like this manufacturing growth is based on non-military
demand...
Post by Mark T. Evert
New housing starts were down last month and soon existing home sales
will be also.
The impending housing crash that was going to happen in 2001, then
2002, then 2003, has been rescheduled for 2004. Please stay tuned.
Post by Mark T. Evert
The refi money is about spent by now and folks living off their 401k's
after being un/underemployed will be gone.
The countries individual savings rate is at all time lows and
individual credit is up.
A trend that has spanned nearly every administration, including
Clinton's, for decades.
Post by Mark T. Evert
The tax cut that goes mostly to the wealthy will be used to buy CD's,
Bonds,
More investment capital...good.

Of course since *equities* (read: stocks, not bonds) have gained value
quite nicely for the past 16 months (nearly 50% growth on the S&P 500
in that time), it looks like money is going to the equities markets...
Post by Mark T. Evert
and spent on luxuary items that employ few.
The market is not much different than roulette, it's based on
expectations and the herd instinct.
Day trading is. Meanwhile, investing long term in equities is a
perfectly sound way to create a retirement fund, and usually the most
attractive option for the average American.
Post by Mark T. Evert
For example, United is in bankruptcy
and the shares will be worthless in a few months when they emerge from
bankruptcy. Yet it gained over 300% in the last week. Does that mean
anything? Not a damned thing just folks spinning the wheel and placing a
bet. Amazon.com has yet to show a profit and it's flying high.
Amazon.com is *not* flying high, it's down 30% from its October high
(NASDAQ up nearly 8% in that time period), and down 60% from its
December, 1999 high (DASDAQ down about 24% in the same time period).
Furthermore, Amazon.com was profitable last year.

The term "full of shit" comes to mind...
Post by Mark T. Evert
Sound
stocks are just plodding along
...Dow Jones (read: blue chips) up nearly as much as the S&P 500.
Post by Mark T. Evert
while all the high flyers are flying on
wings of glass. The coming fall will make 2000 look like a blip on the
screen
Bush is Hoover all over again.
The market crash started when Hoover was President. The bulk of the
resulting Depression occured while Roosevelt was President.

This market dive started when Clinton was President. The bulk of the
resulting recession occured while Bush was President.
Post by Mark T. Evert
He's not only spending the money that
would have help the social security and medicare problems coming but he
has made it next to impossible to pay off the federal insurance on bank
accounts if a depression comes.
You aren't a gold bug are you?
Post by Mark T. Evert
Bush is a common thief out to empty the coffers for him and his
buddies. Watch the spending and thieft accellerate as he gets closer to
lossing. He should be impeached and jailed for high treason and you folks
should be horse whipped for supporting him.
Isn't it funny how the liberals whine about conservatives allegedly
questioning their patriotism, and then question Bush's patriotism?

John Kerry is certainly the candidate for you nutcases.
fãhç
2004-03-02 05:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the
market is
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
The real question is if the market today is in another bubble.
And by all measures, the answer is yes.
There's a quote with a whole lot of data to back it up.....LOL. The
market usually looks ahead about 6 months or so.....and calamities such as
911 not withstanding it is historically a pretty accurate indicator.
Whereas the last market upswing included a lot of wild speculation about
unproven companies, this one is based mostly on hard data including GDP
growth, corporate profitibility and other positive economic indicators.
Of course in 2000 the market was in a serious downturn which continued
pretty much through 2002 notwithstanding the pertubation brought on by
911.
Oh really? The facts don't agree with your "analysis." As we see in this
chart of the Dow, it was on the rise through 1999, and roughly flat through
2000. You will note that the "serious downturn" you refer to did not happen
until mid 2002. That's long after 9/11/01, and well into the "Bush Economy."

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EDJI&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200

S&P 500, similar results:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200

Wilshire 5000, strike three:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200


I think you might want to consider the possibility that you are dead wrong.
Tempest
2004-03-02 15:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the
market is
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
The real question is if the market today is in another bubble.
And by all measures, the answer is yes.
There's a quote with a whole lot of data to back it up.....LOL. The
market usually looks ahead about 6 months or so.....and calamities such as
911 not withstanding it is historically a pretty accurate indicator.
Whereas the last market upswing included a lot of wild speculation about
unproven companies, this one is based mostly on hard data including GDP
growth, corporate profitibility and other positive economic indicators.
Of course in 2000 the market was in a serious downturn which continued
pretty much through 2002 notwithstanding the pertubation brought on by
911.
Oh really? The facts don't agree with your "analysis." As we see in this
chart of the Dow, it was on the rise through 1999, and roughly flat through
2000. You will note that the "serious downturn" you refer to did not happen
until mid 2002. That's long after 9/11/01, and well into the "Bush Economy."
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EDJI&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
I think you might want to consider the possibility that you are dead wrong.
A rightard admitting he's wrong?

You surely are the optimist of the group.
Mark T. Evert
2004-03-02 16:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the
market is
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
The real question is if the market today is in another bubble.
And by all measures, the answer is yes.
There's a quote with a whole lot of data to back it up.....LOL. The
market usually looks ahead about 6 months or so.....and calamities such as
911 not withstanding it is historically a pretty accurate indicator.
Whereas the last market upswing included a lot of wild speculation about
unproven companies, this one is based mostly on hard data including GDP
growth, corporate profitibility and other positive economic indicators.
Of course in 2000 the market was in a serious downturn which continued
pretty much through 2002 notwithstanding the pertubation brought on by
911.
Oh really? The facts don't agree with your "analysis." As we see in this
chart of the Dow, it was on the rise through 1999, and roughly flat through
2000. You will note that the "serious downturn" you refer to did not happen
until mid 2002. That's long after 9/11/01, and well into the "Bush Economy."
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EDJI&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
I think you might want to consider the possibility that you are dead wrong.
You conveniently left out NASDAQ (probably one of the most important
indicators of the tech fueled economy of the 90's which is where the
downturn had the most impact and which was in freefall for most of the year
2000 and where most of the "wild speculation" occurred. Because investors
are looking for more hard evidence of corporate success.....NASDAQ is still
not even half of it's peak.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^IXIC&t=5y
Post by Tempest
A rightard admitting he's wrong?
You surely are the optimist of the group.
fãhç
2004-03-03 02:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the
market is
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
The real question is if the market today is in another bubble.
And by all measures, the answer is yes.
There's a quote with a whole lot of data to back it up.....LOL. The
market usually looks ahead about 6 months or so.....and calamities
such as
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
911 not withstanding it is historically a pretty accurate indicator.
Whereas the last market upswing included a lot of wild speculation
about
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
unproven companies, this one is based mostly on hard data including
GDP
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
growth, corporate profitibility and other positive economic
indicators.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Of course in 2000 the market was in a serious downturn which continued
pretty much through 2002 notwithstanding the pertubation brought on
by
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
911.
Oh really? The facts don't agree with your "analysis." As we see in
this
Post by Mark T. Evert
chart of the Dow, it was on the rise through 1999, and roughly flat
through
Post by Mark T. Evert
2000. You will note that the "serious downturn" you refer to did not
happen
Post by Mark T. Evert
until mid 2002. That's long after 9/11/01, and well into the "Bush
Economy."
Post by Mark T. Evert
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EDJI&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
I think you might want to consider the possibility that you are dead
wrong.
You conveniently left out NASDAQ (probably one of the most important
indicators of the tech fueled economy of the 90's which is where the
downturn had the most impact and which was in freefall for most of the year
2000 and where most of the "wild speculation" occurred. Because investors
are looking for more hard evidence of corporate success.....NASDAQ is still
not even half of it's peak.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^IXIC&t=5y
May as well do that graph some justice with the MAs...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^IXIC&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200,m200

Still not much different than the other charts. NASDAQ is heavily tech
weighted and definitely not an indicator of the overall stock market. The
Wilshire 5000 index is a much broader indicator of what the entire market is
doing since it's a weighted index that includes all the stocks on the NYSE,
NASDAQ, and AMEX. Anyway you look at it, you are still wrong. The overall
stock market was flat in 2000 and didn't seriously dump until mid-2002.

Any stock screener will show you that at least half the US stocks out there
right now are overvalued and looking very similar to the NASDAQ bubble
conditions just before the burst, only this time it's not just tech, it's
everywhere.
Mark T. Evert
2004-03-03 03:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the
market is
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
The real question is if the market today is in another bubble.
And by all measures, the answer is yes.
There's a quote with a whole lot of data to back it up.....LOL.
The
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
market usually looks ahead about 6 months or so.....and calamities
such as
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
911 not withstanding it is historically a pretty accurate indicator.
Whereas the last market upswing included a lot of wild speculation
about
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
unproven companies, this one is based mostly on hard data including
GDP
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
growth, corporate profitibility and other positive economic
indicators.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Of course in 2000 the market was in a serious downturn which continued
pretty much through 2002 notwithstanding the pertubation brought on
by
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
911.
Oh really? The facts don't agree with your "analysis." As we see in
this
Post by Mark T. Evert
chart of the Dow, it was on the rise through 1999, and roughly flat
through
Post by Mark T. Evert
2000. You will note that the "serious downturn" you refer to did not
happen
Post by Mark T. Evert
until mid 2002. That's long after 9/11/01, and well into the "Bush
Economy."
Post by Mark T. Evert
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EDJI&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
I think you might want to consider the possibility that you are dead
wrong.
You conveniently left out NASDAQ (probably one of the most important
indicators of the tech fueled economy of the 90's which is where the
downturn had the most impact and which was in freefall for most of the year
2000 and where most of the "wild speculation" occurred. Because investors
are looking for more hard evidence of corporate success.....NASDAQ is still
not even half of it's peak.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^IXIC&t=5y
May as well do that graph some justice with the MAs...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^IXIC&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200,m200
Still not much different than the other charts. NASDAQ is heavily tech
weighted and definitely not an indicator of the overall stock market. The
Wilshire 5000 index is a much broader indicator of what the entire market is
doing since it's a weighted index that includes all the stocks on the NYSE,
NASDAQ, and AMEX. Anyway you look at it, you are still wrong. The overall
stock market was flat in 2000 and didn't seriously dump until mid-2002.
I wasn't going to say too much about your Moving Averages, but I think in
this case they distort the picture.....Your MA shows the NASDAQ gaining in
2000 when in fact it peaked and lost half it's value.....
Post by fãhç
Any stock screener will show you that at least half the US stocks out there
right now are overvalued and looking very similar to the NASDAQ bubble
conditions just before the burst, only this time it's not just tech, it's
everywhere.
That's an opinion......there are probably always stocks that are overvalued
and undervalued......
fãhç
2004-03-03 03:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction
the
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
market is
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
The real question is if the market today is in another bubble.
And by all measures, the answer is yes.
There's a quote with a whole lot of data to back it up.....LOL.
The
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
market usually looks ahead about 6 months or so.....and calamities
such as
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
911 not withstanding it is historically a pretty accurate
indicator.
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Whereas the last market upswing included a lot of wild speculation
about
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
unproven companies, this one is based mostly on hard data
including
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
GDP
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
growth, corporate profitibility and other positive economic
indicators.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Of course in 2000 the market was in a serious downturn which
continued
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
pretty much through 2002 notwithstanding the pertubation brought
on
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
by
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
911.
Oh really? The facts don't agree with your "analysis." As we see
in
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
this
Post by Mark T. Evert
chart of the Dow, it was on the rise through 1999, and roughly flat
through
Post by Mark T. Evert
2000. You will note that the "serious downturn" you refer to did
not
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
happen
Post by Mark T. Evert
until mid 2002. That's long after 9/11/01, and well into the "Bush
Economy."
Post by Mark T. Evert
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EDJI&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
I think you might want to consider the possibility that you are dead
wrong.
You conveniently left out NASDAQ (probably one of the most important
indicators of the tech fueled economy of the 90's which is where the
downturn had the most impact and which was in freefall for most of the
year
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
2000 and where most of the "wild speculation" occurred. Because
investors
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
are looking for more hard evidence of corporate success.....NASDAQ is
still
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
not even half of it's peak.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^IXIC&t=5y
May as well do that graph some justice with the MAs...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^IXIC&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200,m200
Still not much different than the other charts. NASDAQ is heavily tech
weighted and definitely not an indicator of the overall stock market. The
Wilshire 5000 index is a much broader indicator of what the entire market
is
Post by fãhç
doing since it's a weighted index that includes all the stocks on the
NYSE,
Post by fãhç
NASDAQ, and AMEX. Anyway you look at it, you are still wrong. The
overall
Post by fãhç
stock market was flat in 2000 and didn't seriously dump until mid-2002.
I wasn't going to say too much about your Moving Averages, but I think in
this case they distort the picture.....Your MA shows the NASDAQ gaining in
2000 when in fact it peaked and lost half it's value.....
Post by fãhç
Any stock screener will show you that at least half the US stocks out
there
Post by fãhç
right now are overvalued and looking very similar to the NASDAQ bubble
conditions just before the burst, only this time it's not just tech, it's
everywhere.
That's an opinion......there are probably always stocks that are overvalued
and undervalued......
It's a cold hard fact that half the stocks out there are overvalued right now.
And when such a high percentage is overvalued, you can expect trouble in the
near future.
Mark Neglay
2004-03-03 09:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the
market is
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
The real question is if the market today is in another bubble.
And by all measures, the answer is yes.
There's a quote with a whole lot of data to back it up.....LOL. The
market usually looks ahead about 6 months or so.....and calamities such as
911 not withstanding it is historically a pretty accurate indicator.
Whereas the last market upswing included a lot of wild speculation about
unproven companies, this one is based mostly on hard data including GDP
growth, corporate profitibility and other positive economic indicators.
Of course in 2000 the market was in a serious downturn which continued
pretty much through 2002 notwithstanding the pertubation brought on by
911.
Oh really? The facts don't agree with your "analysis." As we see in this
chart of the Dow, it was on the rise through 1999, and roughly flat through
2000.
The Dow Industrial index is one index of 30 industrial stocks. The
S&P 500 would be much more representative of the whole economy.
However even the Dow lost value in 2000, closing down about 5%.
Post by Mark T. Evert
You will note that the "serious downturn" you refer to did not happen
until mid 2002. That's long after 9/11/01, and well into the "Bush Economy."
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EDJI&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
The Dow lost 5%, holding value reasonably well, though an obvious
downturn from previous periods.
Post by Mark T. Evert
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
...dropped 10% in 2000 and quite a bit more from its peak in March,
2000.
Post by Mark T. Evert
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
I think you might want to consider the possibility that you are dead wrong.
The equities markets clearly turned southward in 2000, most notably in
March and April of 2000 when the CPI came out a bit inflationary and
investors began to worry that the party was over.

Also I do find it interesting that you chose to list the results for
the Dow and not the NASDAQ. One of the market's first reactions to
bad news is a flight to safety. Let me know if you need help with
that term. One of the first places the money goes during such a time
is out of growth stocks (See: NASDAQ, which *lost 50% of its value*
from March, 2000 trough December, 2000) and in to the blue chips (See:
Dow Jones).
Tempest
2004-03-02 15:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the
market is
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
The real question is if the market today is in another bubble.
And by all measures, the answer is yes.
There's a quote with a whole lot of data to back it up.....LOL.
Apparently you don't read the news.

This subject has been written about by economists for several months now.

Google is your friend.
Post by Mark T. Evert
The
market usually looks ahead about 6 months or so.....and calamities such as
911 not withstanding it is historically a pretty accurate indicator.
Whereas the last market upswing included a lot of wild speculation about
unproven companies, this one is based mostly on hard data including GDP
growth, corporate profitibility and other positive economic indicators.
That's not what the economists are saying.

Stocks are still grossly overvalued according to them.

Read up on it at Money Watch on CNN's web site, for example.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Of course in 2000 the market was in a serious downturn which continued
pretty much through 2002 notwithstanding the pertubation brought on by
911.
Look at the market for 2000, there was no serious downturn until 9/11.

Before 9/11 the market was stabilizing.
Mark T. Evert
2004-03-02 16:46:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the
market is
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
The real question is if the market today is in another bubble.
And by all measures, the answer is yes.
There's a quote with a whole lot of data to back it up.....LOL.
Apparently you don't read the news.
This subject has been written about by economists for several months now.
Google is your friend.
Post by Mark T. Evert
The
market usually looks ahead about 6 months or so.....and calamities such as
911 not withstanding it is historically a pretty accurate indicator.
Whereas the last market upswing included a lot of wild speculation about
unproven companies, this one is based mostly on hard data including GDP
growth, corporate profitibility and other positive economic indicators.
That's not what the economists are saying.
Stocks are still grossly overvalued according to them.
Read up on it at Money Watch on CNN's web site, for example.
So?....economists have different opinions and even agendas. Not all agree.
Post by Tempest
Post by Mark T. Evert
Of course in 2000 the market was in a serious downturn which continued
pretty much through 2002 notwithstanding the pertubation brought on by
911.
Look at the market for 2000, there was no serious downturn until 9/11.
Before 9/11 the market was stabilizing.
BVallely
2004-03-02 03:02:30 UTC
Permalink
<<
The real question is if the market today is in another bubble.

And by all measures, the answer is yes. >><

Really? What measures might that be?


"There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you
can love your country but despise your government."
Bill Clinton
Speaking at Michigan State University
Tempest
2004-03-02 15:35:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tempest
<<
The real question is if the market today is in another bubble.
And by all measures, the answer is yes. >><
Really? What measures might that be?
Google the subject.

You'll find many economists discussing this.
Mark Neglay
2004-03-03 20:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tempest
Post by Tempest
<<
The real question is if the market today is in another bubble.
And by all measures, the answer is yes. >><
Really? What measures might that be?
Google the subject.
You make an outrageous claim. You have no proof to support it. When
asked for proof, you tell others to go find *your* proof for you.

This has got to be one of the lamest retreats for someone losing an
argument...
Post by Tempest
You'll find many economists discussing this.
I'll find many economists discussing the merits of Marxism as well.
That proves nothing.

www.spglobal.com
Price Earnings Ratio of the S&P 500 as of 2/25/04: 18.24. Historical
averages for the S&P 500 PE ratio hover around 16. That means the S&P
500's PE ratio is just slightly above historical averages during a
*bull* market. To put this in perspective, the same PE ratio in 2001
was 29.55. During the later half of the 1990s this ratio reached
levels well above 30.
fãhç
2004-03-02 05:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the market is
moving.
That direction taken over the last three years appears to be a somewhat flat
line pointing downward!
Mark Neglay
2004-03-03 19:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the market is
moving.
That direction taken over the last three years appears to be a somewhat flat
line pointing downward!
The equities markets have been growing for 16 months.

Do you ever make a statement of fact that is *not* a lie?
fãhç
2004-03-03 20:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the market is
moving.
That direction taken over the last three years appears to be a somewhat flat
line pointing downward!
The equities markets have been growing for 16 months.
Do you ever make a statement of fact that is *not* a lie?
Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it, apologize for accusing me
of being a liar.
Republican Double Standard
2004-03-03 20:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction
the
market is
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
That direction taken over the last three years appears to be a
somewhat
flat
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
line pointing downward!
The equities markets have been growing for 16 months.
Do you ever make a statement of fact that is *not* a lie?
Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it, apologize for
accusing me of being a liar.
He understands not the difference between "16 months" and "three years."
--
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as
the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and
owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell’s autobiography,
My American Journey, p. 148)
Mark Neglay
2004-03-04 18:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction
the
market is
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
That direction taken over the last three years appears to be a
somewhat
flat
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
line pointing downward!
The equities markets have been growing for 16 months.
Do you ever make a statement of fact that is *not* a lie?
Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it, apologize for
accusing me of being a liar.
He understands not the difference between "16 months" and "three years."
Obviously neither of you understands what a "flat line pointing downward" means...
Republican Double Standard
2004-03-04 19:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction
the
market is
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
That direction taken over the last three years appears to be a
somewhat
flat
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
line pointing downward!
The equities markets have been growing for 16 months.
Do you ever make a statement of fact that is *not* a lie?
Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it, apologize for
accusing me of being a liar.
He understands not the difference between "16 months" and "three years."
Obviously neither of you understands what a "flat line pointing downward" means...
I think the issue whether you are looking at the entire curve over time,
a vector from start to end point or even a moving average. Certainly a
straight line vector from start to end would fit the "flat line pointing
downward" description. OTOH, holding up a period of less than a year and
a half as some sort of proof that a 3 year trend is invalid is, shall I
be kind?, just a little off the mark.
--
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as
the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and
owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell’s autobiography,
My American Journey, p. 148)
Mark Neglay
2004-03-05 02:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction
the
market is
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
That direction taken over the last three years appears to be a
somewhat
flat
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
line pointing downward!
The equities markets have been growing for 16 months.
Do you ever make a statement of fact that is *not* a lie?
Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it, apologize for
accusing me of being a liar.
He understands not the difference between "16 months" and "three years."
Obviously neither of you understands what a "flat line pointing downward" means...
I think the issue whether you are looking at the entire curve over time,
a vector from start to end point or even a moving average. Certainly a
straight line vector from start to end would fit the "flat line pointing
downward" description. OTOH, holding up a period of less than a year and
a half as some sort of proof that a 3 year trend is invalid is, shall I
be kind?, just a little off the mark.
What downward trend in the market? The one that clearly ended 16
months ago? This isn't a point you can wiggle around, RDS, its clear
fact: the major indexes have been growing, indicating market growth,
for well over a year. Trying to condemn the current health of the
market based on what it was doing 2 years ago is what is "off the
mark.

Using your logic I can claim that the market was just as strong as
ever in 2001 and 2002, since for the past 10 years, all of the indexes
have presented a strong upward trend. What kind of moronic logic is
that?
Republican Double Standard
2004-03-05 15:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the
direction the
market is
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
That direction taken over the last three years appears to be
a somewhat
flat
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
line pointing downward!
The equities markets have been growing for 16 months.
Do you ever make a statement of fact that is *not* a lie?
Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it, apologize
for accusing me of being a liar.
He understands not the difference between "16 months" and "three years."
Obviously neither of you understands what a "flat line pointing downward" means...
I think the issue whether you are looking at the entire curve over
time, a vector from start to end point or even a moving average.
Certainly a straight line vector from start to end would fit the
"flat line pointing downward" description. OTOH, holding up a period
of less than a year and a half as some sort of proof that a 3 year
trend is invalid is, shall I be kind?, just a little off the mark.
What downward trend in the market? The one that clearly ended 16
months ago? This isn't a point you can wiggle around, RDS, its clear
fact: the major indexes have been growing, indicating market growth,
for well over a year. Trying to condemn the current health of the
market based on what it was doing 2 years ago is what is "off the
mark.
You are picking an arbitrary date. That's fine, just admit that it's what
you are doing. If the DJIA loses 2000 points in the next 6 months, how
will you choose to demarkate the start and end points of trends then?
It's all abitrary. fahc chose Bush's inauguration and today. You chose an
end date 16 months ago.

BTW, I would be concerned about rapid growth over a short period of time.
That is usually indicative of speculative bubbles.
Post by Mark Neglay
Using your logic I can claim that the market was just as strong as
ever in 2001 and 2002, since for the past 10 years, all of the indexes
have presented a strong upward trend. What kind of moronic logic is
that?
It's perfectly fine logic as long as you are honest about how you make
your argument. No one has tried to use the absolute value of market
indices here - just the trends. Were market indices trending in the same
direction at the same pace in 2001 and 2002 as a decade earlier? I don't
think so. That is what makes your example illogical.
--
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as
the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and
owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell’s autobiography,
My American Journey, p. 148)
Mark Neglay
2004-03-06 18:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the
direction the
market is
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
That direction taken over the last three years appears to be
a somewhat
flat
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
line pointing downward!
The equities markets have been growing for 16 months.
Do you ever make a statement of fact that is *not* a lie?
Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it, apologize
for accusing me of being a liar.
He understands not the difference between "16 months" and "three years."
Obviously neither of you understands what a "flat line pointing
downward" means...
I think the issue whether you are looking at the entire curve over
time, a vector from start to end point or even a moving average.
Certainly a straight line vector from start to end would fit the
"flat line pointing downward" description. OTOH, holding up a period
of less than a year and a half as some sort of proof that a 3 year
trend is invalid is, shall I be kind?, just a little off the mark.
What downward trend in the market? The one that clearly ended 16
months ago? This isn't a point you can wiggle around, RDS, its clear
fact: the major indexes have been growing, indicating market growth,
for well over a year. Trying to condemn the current health of the
market based on what it was doing 2 years ago is what is "off the
mark.
You are picking an arbitrary date.
No, I am picking the date when the major indexes hit a trough. See
when the index stops going down and starts going up, the indicates a
turn-around in the market. I know that this can be confusing to you,
especially when it is so important to pretend that the indexes have
been dropping for he last 16 months. Likewise it is useful to pick
the date when the indexes hit a peak, as they did in March and April
of 2000, to mark the beginning of a bear market.
Post by Mark T. Evert
That's fine, just admit that it's what
you are doing. If the DJIA loses 2000 points in the next 6 months, how
will you choose to demarkate the start and end points of trends then?
If it is long enough then I would mark today as another peak date.
Post by Mark T. Evert
It's all abitrary. fahc chose Bush's inauguration and today. You chose an
end date 16 months ago.
Fahc does this out of convenience, clearly ignoring the fact that the
markets were heading downward throughout most of 2000. He also
chooses those indexes that lost the least value in 2000 and the most
thereafter, clearly ignoring the S&P and more importantly, the NASDAQ.

The bear market started in Q1 2000 and ended in Q4, 2002.
Post by Mark T. Evert
BTW, I would be concerned about rapid growth over a short period of time.
That is usually indicative of speculative bubbles.
It's also indicative of economic recovery.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
Using your logic I can claim that the market was just as strong as
ever in 2001 and 2002, since for the past 10 years, all of the indexes
have presented a strong upward trend. What kind of moronic logic is
that?
It's perfectly fine logic as long as you are honest about how you make
your argument. No one has tried to use the absolute value of market
indices here - just the trends. Were market indices trending in the same
direction at the same pace in 2001 and 2002 as a decade earlier?
...and were the indexes trending in the same direction in 2003 as they
were in 2000, 2001, and the first three months of 2002? Most
certainly not.
Post by Mark T. Evert
I don't
think so. That is what makes your example illogical.
What makes my example illogical is that I use the same reasoning you
and Fahc do. You completely ignore a clear trend that has occured for
well over a year because it is convenient.
Republican Double Standard
2004-03-06 19:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the
direction the
market is
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
That direction taken over the last three years appears to
be a somewhat
flat
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
line pointing downward!
The equities markets have been growing for 16 months.
Do you ever make a statement of fact that is *not* a lie?
Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it,
apologize for accusing me of being a liar.
He understands not the difference between "16 months" and "three years."
Obviously neither of you understands what a "flat line pointing
downward" means...
I think the issue whether you are looking at the entire curve over
time, a vector from start to end point or even a moving average.
Certainly a straight line vector from start to end would fit the
"flat line pointing downward" description. OTOH, holding up a
period of less than a year and a half as some sort of proof that a
3 year trend is invalid is, shall I be kind?, just a little off
the mark.
What downward trend in the market? The one that clearly ended 16
months ago? This isn't a point you can wiggle around, RDS, its
clear fact: the major indexes have been growing, indicating market
growth, for well over a year. Trying to condemn the current health
of the market based on what it was doing 2 years ago is what is
"off the mark.
You are picking an arbitrary date.
No, I am picking the date when the major indexes hit a trough. See
when the index stops going down and starts going up, the indicates a
turn-around in the market. I know that this can be confusing to you,
Nothing like a little ad hominem thrown in for good measure. Your date is
still arbitrary. Why not pick 9/21/01 if you want a good "trough"?
Post by Mark Neglay
especially when it is so important to pretend that the indexes have
been dropping for he last 16 months. Likewise it is useful to pick
It's only important to pretend when you are a republican. The rest of us
are OK with reality. Like the reality that as the major indices have
risen in the last 16 months, the p/e ratios have risen just as fast,
indicating that the current "bull market" has no financial underpinning
to it whatsoever.
Post by Mark Neglay
the date when the indexes hit a peak, as they did in March and April
of 2000, to mark the beginning of a bear market.
Indices. Learn the language. It would make you a tad more credible.
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Mark T. Evert
That's fine, just admit that it's what
you are doing. If the DJIA loses 2000 points in the next 6 months,
how will you choose to demarkate the start and end points of trends
then?
If it is long enough then I would mark today as another peak date.
Post by Mark T. Evert
It's all abitrary. fahc chose Bush's inauguration and today. You
chose an end date 16 months ago.
Fahc does this out of convenience, clearly ignoring the fact that the
As do you. At least the rest of us are honest about it.
Post by Mark Neglay
markets were heading downward throughout most of 2000. He also
chooses those indexes that lost the least value in 2000 and the most
thereafter, clearly ignoring the S&P and more importantly, the NASDAQ.
The "least value" in asbolute value or percentage?
Post by Mark Neglay
The bear market started in Q1 2000 and ended in Q4, 2002.
DJIA was 7286 on 10/9/02 and 7552 on 3/12/03. That doesn't sound the end
of a bear market to me. SPX went from 798 to 833 in that same time frame.
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Mark T. Evert
BTW, I would be concerned about rapid growth over a short period of
time. That is usually indicative of speculative bubbles.
It's also indicative of economic recovery.
Not hardly. The rapid growth from 10/1/98 to 1/10/00 hardly represented
economic "recovery" or even real growth.
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
Using your logic I can claim that the market was just as strong as
ever in 2001 and 2002, since for the past 10 years, all of the
indexes have presented a strong upward trend. What kind of moronic
logic is that?
It's perfectly fine logic as long as you are honest about how you
make your argument. No one has tried to use the absolute value of
market indices here - just the trends. Were market indices trending
in the same direction at the same pace in 2001 and 2002 as a decade
earlier?
...and were the indexes trending in the same direction in 2003 as they
were in 2000, 2001, and the first three months of 2002? Most
certainly not.
Actually, they were. Since summer 1999 all the major indices have been up
and down and up and down. Look at any chart over those years and you will
see upward and downward spikes throughout. Nothing like the steady growth
we saw from the end of '94 through summer 1998.
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Mark T. Evert
I don't
think so. That is what makes your example illogical.
What makes my example illogical is that I use the same reasoning you
and Fahc do. You completely ignore a clear trend that has occured for
well over a year because it is convenient.
No, what makes it illogical is that you use the same reasoning I did but
you denied using the same reasoning I did. Now you admit it. That makes
you a waffler or a hypocrite. Or worse. Tell me what that SPX p/e ratio
is again?
--
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as
the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and
owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell’s autobiography,
My American Journey, p. 148)
Mark Neglay
2004-03-06 23:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the
direction the
market is
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
That direction taken over the last three years appears to
be a somewhat
flat
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
line pointing downward!
The equities markets have been growing for 16 months.
Do you ever make a statement of fact that is *not* a lie?
Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it,
apologize for accusing me of being a liar.
He understands not the difference between "16 months" and "three years."
Obviously neither of you understands what a "flat line pointing
downward" means...
I think the issue whether you are looking at the entire curve over
time, a vector from start to end point or even a moving average.
Certainly a straight line vector from start to end would fit the
"flat line pointing downward" description. OTOH, holding up a
period of less than a year and a half as some sort of proof that a
3 year trend is invalid is, shall I be kind?, just a little off
the mark.
What downward trend in the market? The one that clearly ended 16
months ago? This isn't a point you can wiggle around, RDS, its
clear fact: the major indexes have been growing, indicating market
growth, for well over a year. Trying to condemn the current health
of the market based on what it was doing 2 years ago is what is
"off the mark.
You are picking an arbitrary date.
No, I am picking the date when the major indexes hit a trough. See
when the index stops going down and starts going up, the indicates a
turn-around in the market. I know that this can be confusing to you,
Nothing like a little ad hominem thrown in for good measure.
Obviously it must be confusing you as you still fail to understand the
point.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Your date is
still arbitrary.
My date is determined by mathematicsl fact. 777 is smaller than 1156
and the period of growth between 777 and 1156 is over a year long. We
are trying to identify market trends. Unless you are a day trader,
this means looking for trends over a several-month or several-year
period.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Why not pick 9/21/01 if you want a good "trough"?
The losses experience shortly after 9/11/01 were regained relatively
quickly and would not indicate a trend based on anything other than
the short-term repercussions of the terrorist attacks. As for
long-term repercussions of the attack, that is up for discussion.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
especially when it is so important to pretend that the indexes have
been dropping for he last 16 months. Likewise it is useful to pick
It's only important to pretend when you are a republican.
It's important to a Republican to pretend that the S&P has been
dropping the last 16 months? No I'm pretty sure that if a Republican
wished to deceive, he would try to claim that the S&P 500 has been
growing for 16 months.

Do you or do you not agree that the S&P 500 has been growing for the
last 16 months?

The rest of us
Post by Mark T. Evert
are OK with reality. Like the reality that as the major indices have
risen in the last 16 months, the p/e ratios have risen just as fast,
indicating that the current "bull market" has no financial underpinning
to it whatsoever.
Post by Mark Neglay
the date when the indexes hit a peak, as they did in March and April
of 2000, to mark the beginning of a bear market.
Indices. Learn the language. It would make you a tad more credible.
Here's CBS using my incorrect language. (See "Market indexes" at the
top)
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/markets/indexes.asp

Here's the morons at Morningstar using the term
http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/Indexes.html?hsection=idxcover

Dow Jones using the term:
http://www.djindexes.com/jsp/islamicMarket.jsp?sideMenu=true

Etrade:
https://us.etrade.com/e/t/markets/MarketIndices

Moneycentral/MSN/CNBC:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/market/leading.asp

Of course, feel free to write to all of these idiots and tell them
that they don't know how to talk the language. As for me, a
Registered Principal holding the Series 7, 24, and 66 as well as an
MBA, I think I'll trust my own instinct.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
That's fine, just admit that it's what
you are doing. If the DJIA loses 2000 points in the next 6 months,
how will you choose to demarkate the start and end points of trends
then?
If it is long enough then I would mark today as another peak date.
Post by Republican Double Standard
It's all abitrary. fahc chose Bush's inauguration and today. You
chose an end date 16 months ago.
Fahc does this out of convenience, clearly ignoring the fact that the
As do you. At least the rest of us are honest about it.
I choose the peaks and troughs that mark the beginning and end of
sustained periods of growth and loss in the indexes. A six month
period of loss would indicate more than a simple market correction or
jitters from a terrorist attack.

The 16 month period of growth was bolstered, if not triggered, by
growth in corporate earnings, not by day traders.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
markets were heading downward throughout most of 2000. He also
chooses those indexes that lost the least value in 2000 and the most
thereafter, clearly ignoring the S&P and more importantly, the NASDAQ.
The "least value" in asbolute value or percentage?
Percentages. The NASDAQ lost 40% of its value, year over year, in
2000. Meanwhile it lost 50% of its value from its high point in March
of 2000, when inflationary scares prompted investors to start moving
out of tech stocks and in to bonds and blue chips.

Once again, this is called a flight to safety and it tends to happen
when the market peaks (or anytime investors worry that stocks will be
generally losing value soon). Because money left growth companies and
went to bonds and blue chips, indexes such as the DOW didn't lose
nearly the value that the NASDAQ did.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
The bear market started in Q1 2000 and ended in Q4, 2002.
DJIA was 7286 on 10/9/02 and 7552 on 3/12/03.
So in other words the index was growing at nearly a 9% annual rate.
Post by Mark T. Evert
That doesn't sound the end
of a bear market to me. SPX went from 798 to 833 in that same time frame.
...closer to 11% annualized growth.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
BTW, I would be concerned about rapid growth over a short period of
time. That is usually indicative of speculative bubbles.
It's also indicative of economic recovery.
Not hardly. The rapid growth from 10/1/98 to 1/10/00 hardly represented
economic "recovery" or even real growth.
No, we were not in a period of economic recovery in the late 90's.
That has nothing to do with the recovery after the 2001 recession.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Using your logic I can claim that the market was just as strong as
ever in 2001 and 2002, since for the past 10 years, all of the
indexes have presented a strong upward trend. What kind of moronic
logic is that?
It's perfectly fine logic as long as you are honest about how you
make your argument. No one has tried to use the absolute value of
market indices here - just the trends. Were market indices trending
in the same direction at the same pace in 2001 and 2002 as a decade
earlier?
...and were the indexes trending in the same direction in 2003 as they
were in 2000, 2001, and the first three months of 2002? Most
certainly not.
Actually, they were. Since summer 1999 all the major indices have been up
and down and up and down. Look at any chart over those years and you will
see upward and downward spikes throughout. Nothing like the steady growth
we saw from the end of '94 through summer 1998.
So your point now is not that the markets have been losing value for
the past year and 4 months, but that the growth has been more volatile
in the wake of 2 wars, a major attack on the US, serious charges of
impropriety and outright fraud against major accounting firms and some
of the largest companies in the country.

That's nifty.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
I don't
think so. That is what makes your example illogical.
What makes my example illogical is that I use the same reasoning you
and Fahc do. You completely ignore a clear trend that has occured for
well over a year because it is convenient.
No, what makes it illogical is that you use the same reasoning I did
Yes, I used the same reasoning you did to make a completely idiotic
point. I did this to illustrate how idiotic your logic is. This is
called an analogy. Look it up if you need to.
Post by Mark T. Evert
but
you denied using the same reasoning I did.
I never denied using your reasoning. That's the whole point of the
example. I used your reasoning to make a dumb point. This means that
your reasoning is faulty.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Now you admit it. That makes
you a waffler or a hypocrite. Or worse. Tell me what that SPX p/e ratio
is again?
For 2004, a little over 18. This is lower than in the past. It was
nearly 30 in 2001.

My data come from Standard and Poor's and are based on actual
earnings, not reported earnings. Yours come from a news site where
the methodology used to calculate the number is not even made
available.
Mark Neglay
2004-03-04 18:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the
market is
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
That direction taken over the last three years appears to be a somewhat
flat
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
line pointing downward!
The equities markets have been growing for 16 months.
Do you ever make a statement of fact that is *not* a lie?
Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it, apologize for accusing me
of being a liar.
"A somewhat flat line pointing downward"? Are you kidding me? It's
not a line, its a curve, and it hit the trough of that curve in
October, 2002. It has been growing *very* rapidly for 16 months.

You are a liar. To make things worse, you are really bad at covering
up your lies.
fãhç
2004-03-04 20:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the
market is
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
That direction taken over the last three years appears to be a somewhat
flat
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
line pointing downward!
The equities markets have been growing for 16 months.
Do you ever make a statement of fact that is *not* a lie?
Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it, apologize for accusing me
of being a liar.
"A somewhat flat line pointing downward"? Are you kidding me? It's
not a line, its a curve, and it hit the trough of that curve in
October, 2002. It has been growing *very* rapidly for 16 months.
You are a liar. To make things worse, you are really bad at covering
up your lies.
You still don't get it. Others here understood it, but you just can't seem to
grasp it. Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it, apologize for
accusing me of being a liar.
Mark Neglay
2004-03-05 03:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the
market is
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
That direction taken over the last three years appears to be a
somewhat
flat
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
line pointing downward!
The equities markets have been growing for 16 months.
Do you ever make a statement of fact that is *not* a lie?
Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it, apologize for
accusing me
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
of being a liar.
"A somewhat flat line pointing downward"? Are you kidding me? It's
not a line, its a curve, and it hit the trough of that curve in
October, 2002. It has been growing *very* rapidly for 16 months.
You are a liar. To make things worse, you are really bad at covering
up your lies.
You still don't get it. Others here understood it, but you just can't seem to
grasp it. Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it, apologize for
accusing me of being a liar.
"That direction taken over the last three years appears to be a
somewhat flat line pointing downward!"

This is an obvious and unforgivable lie. A "V" shape does not
constitute a straight line. Apologize for your dishonesty and I may
stop referring to you as a liar.
fãhç
2004-03-05 03:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the
market is
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
That direction taken over the last three years appears to be a
somewhat
flat
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
line pointing downward!
The equities markets have been growing for 16 months.
Do you ever make a statement of fact that is *not* a lie?
Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it, apologize for
accusing me
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
of being a liar.
"A somewhat flat line pointing downward"? Are you kidding me? It's
not a line, its a curve, and it hit the trough of that curve in
October, 2002. It has been growing *very* rapidly for 16 months.
You are a liar. To make things worse, you are really bad at covering
up your lies.
You still don't get it. Others here understood it, but you just can't seem to
grasp it. Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it, apologize for
accusing me of being a liar.
"That direction taken over the last three years appears to be a
somewhat flat line pointing downward!"
This is an obvious and unforgivable lie. A "V" shape does not
constitute a straight line. Apologize for your dishonesty and I may
stop referring to you as a liar.
The only thing I would take back are the words "somewhat flat" but not in the
way you expect. To make it more clear to you I would amend my quote to be:

"That direction taken over the last three years appears to be a *nearly
horizontal* line pointing downward!"
Mark Neglay
2004-03-05 14:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction
the
market is
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
That direction taken over the last three years appears to be a
somewhat
flat
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
line pointing downward!
The equities markets have been growing for 16 months.
Do you ever make a statement of fact that is *not* a lie?
Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it, apologize for
accusing me
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
of being a liar.
"A somewhat flat line pointing downward"? Are you kidding me? It's
not a line, its a curve, and it hit the trough of that curve in
October, 2002. It has been growing *very* rapidly for 16 months.
You are a liar. To make things worse, you are really bad at covering
up your lies.
You still don't get it. Others here understood it, but you just can't
seem to
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
grasp it. Read what I wrote again, and when you understand it, apologize
for
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
accusing me of being a liar.
"That direction taken over the last three years appears to be a
somewhat flat line pointing downward!"
This is an obvious and unforgivable lie. A "V" shape does not
constitute a straight line. Apologize for your dishonesty and I may
stop referring to you as a liar.
The only thing I would take back are the words "somewhat flat" but not in the
"That direction taken over the last three years appears to be a *nearly
horizontal* line pointing downward!"
The next thing you need to do, liar, is to change the word "line". It
still will need work after that but it'll be closer to a non-lie.
TBone
2004-03-02 20:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the market is
moving.
Yes he is obviously presenting only 2 days out of more than three
years of market activity. Anyone who knows statistics, and by that I
mean the scientific principles of it, knows that this guy is obviously
trying to make a statement by only showing a partial picture.

For those of you moved by this read the book: Lying with statistics
fãhç
2004-03-03 02:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by TBone
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the market is
moving.
Yes he is obviously presenting only 2 days out of more than three
years of market activity. Anyone who knows statistics, and by that I
mean the scientific principles of it, knows that this guy is obviously
trying to make a statement by only showing a partial picture.
For those of you moved by this read the book: Lying with statistics
You want more data points? Here you go....
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EDJI&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^IXIC&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200

And still the fact of the matter is that the US stock market is not back up to
where it was at the end of 2000. The market didn't take a serious dump until
mid-2002, while into the "Bush economy" and well after the shock of 9/11.
Remember that next time Bush lies to you about the economy being in great
shape.
TBone
2004-03-04 14:03:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by fãhç
Post by TBone
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the market
is
Post by TBone
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
Yes he is obviously presenting only 2 days out of more than three
years of market activity. Anyone who knows statistics, and by that I
mean the scientific principles of it, knows that this guy is obviously
trying to make a statement by only showing a partial picture.
For those of you moved by this read the book: Lying with statistics
You want more data points? Here you go....
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EDJI&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^IXIC&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
And still the fact of the matter is that the US stock market is not back up to
where it was at the end of 2000. The market didn't take a serious dump until
mid-2002, while into the "Bush economy" and well after the shock of 9/11.
Remember that next time Bush lies to you about the economy being in great
shape.
That was a nice try. I especially like the "...next time Bush
lies..." part.

Let's clear something up. Bush did not sign the Economic Growth and
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 into law until June 2003. As
everyone knows this is the center piece of the Bush economy.

Two points about that:

1. Look at your graph again. When did the market take an upturn?
Mid-2003. To refresh your memory, that's when the Economic Growth and
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was signed into law, ie made
effective.

2. Notice that it is called the "Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001". My emphasis in on '2001'. Now maybe if
the Democrats did not fight the EGTRRA for two years we would be
further along in economic recovery.

The mid 2002 drop that you point out:

Do you really think that after 9/11 that the effects were just
immediate and everything would bounce back? It took the US economy
more than five years to see all the effects and recover from Pearl
Harbor.

At that point in 2002, Bush was still trying to drag the Democrats
kicking and screaming into the light to sign the EGRTRA, we were still
running under the economic policies of Presidents past. The type of
economic policies that ushered in the dot-com burst of 2000 and
unprecedented corporate fraud like Enron, Tyco, WorldCom.

But you aren't hear to tell that story are you? You're just hear to
show a few graphs and not tell why they reflect what they reflect.
Read Lying with Statistics.
fãhç
2004-03-04 20:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by TBone
Post by fãhç
Post by TBone
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the market
is
Post by TBone
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
Yes he is obviously presenting only 2 days out of more than three
years of market activity. Anyone who knows statistics, and by that I
mean the scientific principles of it, knows that this guy is obviously
trying to make a statement by only showing a partial picture.
For those of you moved by this read the book: Lying with statistics
You want more data points? Here you go....
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EDJI&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^IXIC&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
And still the fact of the matter is that the US stock market is not back up to
where it was at the end of 2000. The market didn't take a serious dump until
mid-2002, while into the "Bush economy" and well after the shock of 9/11.
Remember that next time Bush lies to you about the economy being in great
shape.
That was a nice try. I especially like the "...next time Bush
lies..." part.
Let's clear something up. Bush did not sign the Economic Growth and
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 into law until June 2003. As
everyone knows this is the center piece of the Bush economy.
1. Look at your graph again. When did the market take an upturn?
Mid-2003. To refresh your memory, that's when the Economic Growth and
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was signed into law, ie made
effective.
2. Notice that it is called the "Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001". My emphasis in on '2001'. Now maybe if
the Democrats did not fight the EGTRRA for two years we would be
further along in economic recovery.
Do you really think that after 9/11 that the effects were just
immediate and everything would bounce back? It took the US economy
more than five years to see all the effects and recover from Pearl
Harbor.
At that point in 2002, Bush was still trying to drag the Democrats
kicking and screaming into the light to sign the EGRTRA, we were still
running under the economic policies of Presidents past. The type of
economic policies that ushered in the dot-com burst of 2000 and
unprecedented corporate fraud like Enron, Tyco, WorldCom.
But you aren't hear to tell that story are you? You're just hear to
show a few graphs and not tell why they reflect what they reflect.
Read Lying with Statistics.
Yawn. Excuses, excuses. Number one, the EGTRRA was the second act of the
"Bush Economy" or don't you remember that retroactive tax refund you got in
2001 after Bush got into office (which helped a little to erase the surplus
and send us on our way to deficit spending). Do you fault the Democrats for
trying to bring some sanity to the economic policy instead of the record high
deficit spending we now have? What happened to the "balanced budget"
Republicans of the past? Now they've transforming into "borrow and spend...a
lot" Republicans. Number two, "economic policies of presidents past?" Let's
not forget that Congress has been under GOP control for the last 7 years.
That GOP Congress fought tooth-and-nail against all of Clinton's policies,
economic or otherwise. In fact they overrode one of Clinton's vetoes on a
bill that ended up *reducing* corporate accountability, opening the doors to
scams like Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, et. al. Number three, the facts are out
there, Bush canceled many of Clinton's counter-terrorism projects because the
GOP had been ranting endlessly that Clinton was "obsessed" with terrorism. He
let the US's guard down. 9/11 was preventable, and it's economy results are
all part of the "Bush Economy." So attempting to blame the bad economy on
something out of Bush's hands simply is not going to work. Number four, the
p/e ratio of most stocks is a at or above where they were at when everyone was
screaming about a bubble getting ready to burst back in 2000. So why is it
that now you are pointing at the stock market and claiming Bush's policies are
improving the economy? Why aren't your screaming about a bubble getting ready
to burst? Bush's economic policies have all been aimed at short term gains,
not long term stability.
TBone
2004-03-07 04:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by TBone
Post by fãhç
Post by TBone
Post by Mark T. Evert
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
And your point is? The difference of course is the direction the
market
is
Post by TBone
Post by fãhç
Post by TBone
Post by Mark T. Evert
moving.
Yes he is obviously presenting only 2 days out of more than three
years of market activity. Anyone who knows statistics, and by that I
mean the scientific principles of it, knows that this guy is obviously
trying to make a statement by only showing a partial picture.
For those of you moved by this read the book: Lying with statistics
You want more data points? Here you go....
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EDJI&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^IXIC&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
And still the fact of the matter is that the US stock market is not back
up to
Post by TBone
Post by fãhç
where it was at the end of 2000. The market didn't take a serious dump
until
Post by TBone
Post by fãhç
mid-2002, while into the "Bush economy" and well after the shock of 9/11.
Remember that next time Bush lies to you about the economy being in great
shape.
That was a nice try. I especially like the "...next time Bush
lies..." part.
Let's clear something up. Bush did not sign the Economic Growth and
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 into law until June 2003. As
everyone knows this is the center piece of the Bush economy.
1. Look at your graph again. When did the market take an upturn?
Mid-2003. To refresh your memory, that's when the Economic Growth and
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was signed into law, ie made
effective.
2. Notice that it is called the "Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001". My emphasis in on '2001'. Now maybe if
the Democrats did not fight the EGTRRA for two years we would be
further along in economic recovery.
Do you really think that after 9/11 that the effects were just
immediate and everything would bounce back? It took the US economy
more than five years to see all the effects and recover from Pearl
Harbor.
At that point in 2002, Bush was still trying to drag the Democrats
kicking and screaming into the light to sign the EGRTRA, we were still
running under the economic policies of Presidents past. The type of
economic policies that ushered in the dot-com burst of 2000 and
unprecedented corporate fraud like Enron, Tyco, WorldCom.
But you aren't hear to tell that story are you? You're just hear to
show a few graphs and not tell why they reflect what they reflect.
Read Lying with Statistics.
Yawn. Excuses, excuses. Number one, the EGTRRA was the second act of the
"Bush Economy" or don't you remember that retroactive tax refund you got in
2001 after Bush got into office (which helped a little to erase the surplus
and send us on our way to deficit spending). Do you fault the Democrats for
trying to bring some sanity to the economic policy instead of the record high
deficit spending we now have?
EGTRRA is still the center piece of the Bush plan. All this talk of
deficit and surplus.

It seems to me that Democrats only view the economy as being "good"
when the goverment has a "surplus" of the people's money. Republicans
view the economy as being good when the PEOPLE have a surplus of their
own money.
Post by Mark T. Evert
What happened to the "balanced budget"
Republicans of the past? Now they've transforming into "borrow and spend...a
lot" Republicans.
The country is at war, at no time during war will you find a balanced
budget.
Post by Mark T. Evert
Number two, "economic policies of presidents past?" Let's
not forget that Congress has been under GOP control for the last 7 years.
That GOP Congress fought tooth-and-nail against all of Clinton's policies,
economic or otherwise.
So let me get this straight. When you were trying to establish that
the economy was great during Clinton's presidency it was solely
because of Clinton. Now that we've established that the recession
started during Clinton's presidency you are switching to saying it was
because Republicans controlled the House and Senate. So which is it?
Who was responsible for the economy during the Clinton presidency the
Executive branch or the Legislative branch? Talk about excuses,
you're pulling a flap-jack Kerry over hear.
Post by Mark T. Evert
In fact they overrode one of Clinton's vetoes on a
bill that ended up *reducing* corporate accountability, opening the doors to
scams like Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, et. al.
What legislation?
Post by Mark T. Evert
Number three, the facts are out
there, Bush canceled many of Clinton's counter-terrorism projects because the
GOP had been ranting endlessly that Clinton was "obsessed" with terrorism. He
let the US's guard down.
Clinton's attempts at counter-terroism were half-assed at best. There
were more terrorist attacks on US interests during Clinton's
presidency than any other president.

Clinton did try (on occasion) to capture terrorist such as Bin Laden
(and failed I might add). His preference, however, was to indict
terrorist in US courts in absentia, big friggin deal, meanwhile
they're sinking US Naval ships.

Bush's couter-terrorism plan is obviously better. How many terrorist
did Clinton capture or kill? Bush? The answer is obvious.
Post by Mark T. Evert
9/11 was preventable,
Yes it was prevenable. Alot could have been prevented if Clinton had
acted when the Sudanese government contacted Clinton, gave him exact
location where Bin Laden was staying, and gave him the greenlight to
use military force to go in and get Bin Laden. Clinton refused. So
much for being obsessed with counter-terrorism, the only thing he was
obsessed with was cigars, fat chicks and seedy real estate scams.
Post by Mark T. Evert
and it's economy results are
all part of the "Bush Economy." So attempting to blame the bad economy on
something out of Bush's hands simply is not going to work.
It's not a matter of what "works" it is a matter of what are the
facts. Was it FDRs fault when the economy went down after Pearl
Harbor?
Post by Mark T. Evert
Number four, the
p/e ratio of most stocks is a at or above where they were at when everyone was
screaming about a bubble getting ready to burst back in 2000. So why is it
that now you are pointing at the stock market and claiming Bush's policies are
improving the economy? Why aren't your screaming about a bubble getting ready
to burst?
Why were you not pointing at the 2000 bubble? Why have you tried to
deny that the market is improving only to retract and say it is going
up but only to "bubble and pop" when did not in 1999-2000?
Post by Mark T. Evert
Bush's economic policies have all been aimed at short term gains,
not long term stability.
Better than an economic policy aiimed at sucking people dry with taxes
only to stuff the pockets of bureaucrats.

so which of your bogus statements are you going to 180 on now?

Corey
2004-03-02 02:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Corey Says-

Just keep your money out of the market as I become well off. Last year + 43%
this year + 5% so far. Heh heh! Democrat Chicken Littles. end.
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
Tempest
2004-03-02 04:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Corey
Corey Says-
Just keep your money out of the market as I become well off. Last year + 43%
this year + 5% so far. Heh heh! Democrat Chicken Littles. end.
Another "big lie" advocate.

If you're going to lie, at least make the lie believable.

43%. *snicker*
Post by Corey
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748
Corey
2004-03-02 23:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tempest
Post by Corey
Corey Says-
Just keep your money out of the market as I become well off. Last year + 43%
this year + 5% so far. Heh heh! Democrat Chicken Littles. end.
Another "big lie" advocate.
If you're going to lie, at least make the lie believable.
43%. *snicker*
Corey Says-

To give you a clue of what's actually going on.

1 go to this site.
http://www.vanguard.com/VGApp/hnw/PersonalHome

2 now scroll down to My Fund Watch List.

Click on Total Stock Market Indexed Investment.

You should then be able to realize that it has went up 31.35% for the last
year.

That is a non managed index fund that simply buys every single stock on the
stock market. end.
fãhç
2004-03-03 02:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Corey
Post by Tempest
Post by Corey
Corey Says-
Just keep your money out of the market as I become well off. Last year +
43%
Post by Tempest
Post by Corey
this year + 5% so far. Heh heh! Democrat Chicken Littles. end.
Another "big lie" advocate.
If you're going to lie, at least make the lie believable.
43%. *snicker*
Corey Says-
To give you a clue of what's actually going on.
1 go to this site.
http://www.vanguard.com/VGApp/hnw/PersonalHome
2 now scroll down to My Fund Watch List.
Click on Total Stock Market Indexed Investment.
You should then be able to realize that it has went up 31.35% for the last
year.
That is a non managed index fund that simply buys every single stock on the
stock market. end.
Not so fast there buckaroo...
3 Year Return = -2.59%
5 Year return = 0.48%

That 31.35% doesn't do anyone any good if they've been invested in that fund
over more than a year. Even that positive 5 year return is less than
inflation.
Corey
2004-03-03 04:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by fãhç
Post by Corey
Post by Tempest
Post by Corey
Corey Says-
Just keep your money out of the market as I become well off. Last year +
43%
Post by Tempest
Post by Corey
this year + 5% so far. Heh heh! Democrat Chicken Littles. end.
Another "big lie" advocate.
If you're going to lie, at least make the lie believable.
43%. *snicker*
Corey Says-
To give you a clue of what's actually going on.
1 go to this site.
http://www.vanguard.com/VGApp/hnw/PersonalHome
2 now scroll down to My Fund Watch List.
Click on Total Stock Market Indexed Investment.
You should then be able to realize that it has went up 31.35% for the last
year.
That is a non managed index fund that simply buys every single stock on
the
Post by fãhç
Post by Corey
stock market. end.
Not so fast there buckaroo...
3 Year Return = -2.59%
5 Year return = 0.48%
That 31.35% doesn't do anyone any good if they've been invested in that fund
over more than a year. Even that positive 5 year return is less than
inflation.
Corey Says-

Exactly! I wasn't in the stock market when it began its free fall in the
last year of Clintons Presidency. I jumped out just in time. We had entered
a Mega Bear market.

Reality is a cruel mistress for the ignorant Democrat.
fãhç
2004-03-03 06:46:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Corey
Post by fãhç
Post by Corey
Post by Tempest
Post by Corey
Corey Says-
Just keep your money out of the market as I become well off. Last
year +
Post by fãhç
Post by Corey
43%
Post by Tempest
Post by Corey
this year + 5% so far. Heh heh! Democrat Chicken Littles. end.
Another "big lie" advocate.
If you're going to lie, at least make the lie believable.
43%. *snicker*
Corey Says-
To give you a clue of what's actually going on.
1 go to this site.
http://www.vanguard.com/VGApp/hnw/PersonalHome
2 now scroll down to My Fund Watch List.
Click on Total Stock Market Indexed Investment.
You should then be able to realize that it has went up 31.35% for the
last
Post by fãhç
Post by Corey
year.
That is a non managed index fund that simply buys every single stock on
the
Post by fãhç
Post by Corey
stock market. end.
Not so fast there buckaroo...
3 Year Return = -2.59%
5 Year return = 0.48%
That 31.35% doesn't do anyone any good if they've been invested in that
fund
Post by fãhç
over more than a year. Even that positive 5 year return is less than
inflation.
Corey Says-
Exactly! I wasn't in the stock market when it began its free fall in the
last year of Clintons Presidency.
The facts disagree with your timing. You need to look at those charts again.
The market didn't take a serious dump until the second half of 2002. I wonder
if the market will managed to get back to it's Dec. 2000 level before the
elections. Right now it's look like it's going to take a dump again soon.
Too bad the Bush Economy is such a miserable failure.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EDJI&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
Mark Neglay
2004-03-03 20:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Corey
Post by Corey
Post by fãhç
Post by Corey
Post by Tempest
Post by Corey
Corey Says-
Just keep your money out of the market as I become well off. Last
year +
43%
Post by Corey
Post by fãhç
Post by Corey
Post by Tempest
Post by Corey
this year + 5% so far. Heh heh! Democrat Chicken Littles. end.
Another "big lie" advocate.
If you're going to lie, at least make the lie believable.
43%. *snicker*
Corey Says-
To give you a clue of what's actually going on.
1 go to this site.
http://www.vanguard.com/VGApp/hnw/PersonalHome
2 now scroll down to My Fund Watch List.
Click on Total Stock Market Indexed Investment.
You should then be able to realize that it has went up 31.35% for the
last
Post by Corey
Post by fãhç
Post by Corey
year.
That is a non managed index fund that simply buys every single stock on
the
Post by Corey
Post by fãhç
Post by Corey
stock market. end.
Not so fast there buckaroo...
3 Year Return = -2.59%
5 Year return = 0.48%
That 31.35% doesn't do anyone any good if they've been invested in that
fund
Post by Corey
Post by fãhç
over more than a year. Even that positive 5 year return is less than
inflation.
Corey Says-
Exactly! I wasn't in the stock market when it began its free fall in the
last year of Clintons Presidency.
The facts disagree with your timing. You need to look at those charts again.
The market didn't take a serious dump until the second half of 2002.
S&P 500 at its peak in Q1, 2000: 1527
S&P 500 on July 1st, 2002, during which time you claim the market was
fairly steady and had not taken a serious downturn: 968

A 37% drop is not serious to you it seems.

Now let's compare this 37% drop when the market was "fairly" steady to
what happened in the second half of 2002.

S&P 500 on July 1st, 2002: 968
S&P 500 at the end of 2002: 880 (9% drop from 7/1/02)

Now let's see here. A drop in the market of 37% happened when things
were "pretty steady"...according to you. Meanwhile, when you claim
the "serious dump happened", in ths second half of 2002, the S&P 500
dropped 9%.

9% is a serious drop...
37% is fairly steady...

Uh huh.
Post by Corey
I wonder
if the market will managed to get back to it's Dec. 2000 level before the
elections. Right now it's look like it's going to take a dump again soon.
Too bad the Bush Economy is such a miserable failure.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EDJI&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
Well the Dow is already there...
The Dow Jones was at 10,788 on the last day of December, 2000.
It closed yesterday at 10,591, nearly the same price.

As for the S&P 500, which of the "big three" is the best indicator for
the overall market, it is still down about 13% from its value at the
end of 2000. At the pace that this index has been growing, (38% over
the past 12 months), it won't be very long...
fãhç
2004-03-03 20:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
I wonder
if the market will managed to get back to it's Dec. 2000 level before the
elections. Right now it's look like it's going to take a dump again soon.
Too bad the Bush Economy is such a miserable failure.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EDJI&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
Well the Dow is already there...
The Dow Jones was at 10,788 on the last day of December, 2000.
It closed yesterday at 10,591, nearly the same price.
As for the S&P 500, which of the "big three" is the best indicator for
the overall market, it is still down about 13% from its value at the
end of 2000. At the pace that this index has been growing, (38% over
the past 12 months), it won't be very long...
That's what Bush has been saying for the last three years. He better hope to
hell the markets are at least equal to the end of 2000 come election time.
But even then the question remains, what has been gained over the last three
years. The answer is still, nothing.
Mark Neglay
2004-03-04 18:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by fãhç
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
I wonder
if the market will managed to get back to it's Dec. 2000 level before the
elections. Right now it's look like it's going to take a dump again soon.
Too bad the Bush Economy is such a miserable failure.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EDJI&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=5y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200
Well the Dow is already there...
The Dow Jones was at 10,788 on the last day of December, 2000.
It closed yesterday at 10,591, nearly the same price.
As for the S&P 500, which of the "big three" is the best indicator for
the overall market, it is still down about 13% from its value at the
end of 2000. At the pace that this index has been growing, (38% over
the past 12 months), it won't be very long...
That's what Bush has been saying for the last three years.
Quote him.
Republican Double Standard
2004-03-03 20:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Neglay
Well the Dow is already there...
The Dow Jones was at 10,788 on the last day of December, 2000.
It closed yesterday at 10,591, nearly the same price.
As for the S&P 500, which of the "big three" is the best indicator for
the overall market, it is still down about 13% from its value at the
end of 2000. At the pace that this index has been growing, (38% over
the past 12 months), it won't be very long...
Yet it's interesting to note that conservatives in general and Bush in
particular were all screaming about the stock bubble back then but seem
to think there is a rock-solid foundation today. The SPX p/e ratio today
is 30. It peaked at 35 in July of 1999 but averaged 30 during the
"Clinton bubble". In september 1995 it was only 17 having fallen from a
peak of 25 in May 1992. Why was a p/e of 30 a "bubble ready to burst" in
2000 but is a "solid foundation" today?
--
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as
the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and
owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell’s autobiography,
My American Journey, p. 148)
Tempest
2004-03-04 01:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Well the Dow is already there...
The Dow Jones was at 10,788 on the last day of December, 2000.
It closed yesterday at 10,591, nearly the same price.
As for the S&P 500, which of the "big three" is the best indicator for
the overall market, it is still down about 13% from its value at the
end of 2000. At the pace that this index has been growing, (38% over
the past 12 months), it won't be very long...
Yet it's interesting to note that conservatives in general and Bush in
particular were all screaming about the stock bubble back then but seem
to think there is a rock-solid foundation today. The SPX p/e ratio today
is 30. It peaked at 35 in July of 1999 but averaged 30 during the
"Clinton bubble". In september 1995 it was only 17 having fallen from a
peak of 25 in May 1992. Why was a p/e of 30 a "bubble ready to burst" in
2000 but is a "solid foundation" today?
Because now a Repug is in office.

It's just more of that famous rightwing hypocrisy.
--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748
Republican Double Standard
2004-03-04 17:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tempest
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Well the Dow is already there...
The Dow Jones was at 10,788 on the last day of December, 2000.
It closed yesterday at 10,591, nearly the same price.
As for the S&P 500, which of the "big three" is the best indicator for
the overall market, it is still down about 13% from its value at the
end of 2000. At the pace that this index has been growing, (38% over
the past 12 months), it won't be very long...
Yet it's interesting to note that conservatives in general and Bush in
particular were all screaming about the stock bubble back then but seem
to think there is a rock-solid foundation today. The SPX p/e ratio today
is 30. It peaked at 35 in July of 1999 but averaged 30 during the
"Clinton bubble". In september 1995 it was only 17 having fallen from a
peak of 25 in May 1992. Why was a p/e of 30 a "bubble ready to burst" in
2000 but is a "solid foundation" today?
Because now a Repug is in office.
It's just more of that famous rightwing hypocrisy.
To be fair, there was an enormous tech bubble. I believe the NASD100 p/e
ratio was over 100 in late 1998. Still, that only represented 100 stocks
out of 3000(?). The tech bubble burst but there is no reason why that
should have had the tremendous ripple effect that it did. Well, other
than Bush's horrible fiscal policies.
--
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as
the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and
owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell’s autobiography,
My American Journey, p. 148)
Mark Neglay
2004-03-04 18:21:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Well the Dow is already there...
The Dow Jones was at 10,788 on the last day of December, 2000.
It closed yesterday at 10,591, nearly the same price.
As for the S&P 500, which of the "big three" is the best indicator for
the overall market, it is still down about 13% from its value at the
end of 2000. At the pace that this index has been growing, (38% over
the past 12 months), it won't be very long...
Yet it's interesting to note that conservatives in general and Bush in
particular were all screaming about the stock bubble back then but seem
to think there is a rock-solid foundation today. The SPX p/e ratio today
is 30.
As of last month, according to SP Global itself, the PE ratio of the
S&P 500 was 18. Either you are ignorant or a liar. In either case
you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Post by Republican Double Standard
It peaked at 35 in July of 1999 but averaged 30 during the
"Clinton bubble". In september 1995 it was only 17 having fallen from a
peak of 25 in May 1992. Why was a p/e of 30 a "bubble ready to burst" in
2000 but is a "solid foundation" today?
Well first you can stop operating under false pretense, that might
clear up some of your confusion.
Republican Double Standard
2004-03-04 19:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Well the Dow is already there...
The Dow Jones was at 10,788 on the last day of December, 2000.
It closed yesterday at 10,591, nearly the same price.
As for the S&P 500, which of the "big three" is the best indicator
for the overall market, it is still down about 13% from its value
at the end of 2000. At the pace that this index has been growing,
(38% over the past 12 months), it won't be very long...
Yet it's interesting to note that conservatives in general and Bush
in particular were all screaming about the stock bubble back then but
seem to think there is a rock-solid foundation today. The SPX p/e
ratio today is 30.
As of last month, according to SP Global itself, the PE ratio of the
S&P 500 was 18. Either you are ignorant or a liar. In either case
you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=spx&sid=0
&o_symb=spx

"P/E Ratio: 29.90"

Thank you for playing.
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
It peaked at 35 in July of 1999 but averaged 30 during the
"Clinton bubble". In september 1995 it was only 17 having fallen from
a peak of 25 in May 1992. Why was a p/e of 30 a "bubble ready to
burst" in 2000 but is a "solid foundation" today?
Well first you can stop operating under false pretense, that might
clear up some of your confusion.
ROTFLMAO.
--
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as
the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and
owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell’s autobiography,
My American Journey, p. 148)
Mark Neglay
2004-03-05 02:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Well the Dow is already there...
The Dow Jones was at 10,788 on the last day of December, 2000.
It closed yesterday at 10,591, nearly the same price.
As for the S&P 500, which of the "big three" is the best indicator
for the overall market, it is still down about 13% from its value
at the end of 2000. At the pace that this index has been growing,
(38% over the past 12 months), it won't be very long...
Yet it's interesting to note that conservatives in general and Bush
in particular were all screaming about the stock bubble back then but
seem to think there is a rock-solid foundation today. The SPX p/e
ratio today is 30.
As of last month, according to SP Global itself, the PE ratio of the
S&P 500 was 18. Either you are ignorant or a liar. In either case
you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=spx&sid=0
&o_symb=spx
"P/E Ratio: 29.90"
Thank you for playing.
Standard and Poor's, (that's what S&P stands for--let me know if you
have trouble keeping up), says you are wrong:

http://www2.standardandpoors.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=sp/Page/IndicesIndexPg&l=ENG&b=4&f=1&s=6&ig=48&i=56&r=1&fd=EquityEarnings&xcd=500
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
It peaked at 35 in July of 1999 but averaged 30 during the
"Clinton bubble". In september 1995 it was only 17 having fallen from
a peak of 25 in May 1992. Why was a p/e of 30 a "bubble ready to
burst" in 2000 but is a "solid foundation" today?
Well first you can stop operating under false pretense, that might
clear up some of your confusion.
ROTFLMAO.
Try looking at updated or more accurate data and you won't make this
mistake in the future.
fãhç
2004-03-05 03:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Well the Dow is already there...
The Dow Jones was at 10,788 on the last day of December, 2000.
It closed yesterday at 10,591, nearly the same price.
As for the S&P 500, which of the "big three" is the best indicator
for the overall market, it is still down about 13% from its value
at the end of 2000. At the pace that this index has been growing,
(38% over the past 12 months), it won't be very long...
Yet it's interesting to note that conservatives in general and Bush
in particular were all screaming about the stock bubble back then but
seem to think there is a rock-solid foundation today. The SPX p/e
ratio today is 30.
As of last month, according to SP Global itself, the PE ratio of the
S&P 500 was 18. Either you are ignorant or a liar. In either case
you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=spx&sid=0
&o_symb=spx
"P/E Ratio: 29.90"
Thank you for playing.
Standard and Poor's, (that's what S&P stands for--let me know if you
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=sp/Page/IndicesIndexPg&l=ENG&b=4&f=1&s=6&ig=48&i=56&r=1&fd=EquityEarnings&xcd=500
Okay, from the S&P web site you referenced, which S&P 500 Price to Earnings
Ratio (that's what P/E ratio stands for--let me know if you have trouble
keeping up) do you like best...

Date P/E
3/31/2004(est.) 22.50
2/27/2004 23.33
3/3/2004(reported) 32.15

As a general rule any P/E ratio over 15 is considered overvalued unless there
is some really strong evidence there is fantastic earnings growth in the near
future. Since this is an average P/E ratio of 500 stocks, I sincerely doubt
that the majority of those stocks all have great near term earnings potential.

Can you say "bubble?"
Republican Double Standard
2004-03-05 15:12:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Well the Dow is already there...
The Dow Jones was at 10,788 on the last day of December, 2000.
It closed yesterday at 10,591, nearly the same price.
As for the S&P 500, which of the "big three" is the best
indicator for the overall market, it is still down about 13%
from its value at the end of 2000. At the pace that this
index has been growing, (38% over the past 12 months), it
won't be very long...
Yet it's interesting to note that conservatives in general and
Bush in particular were all screaming about the stock bubble
back then but seem to think there is a rock-solid foundation
today. The SPX p/e ratio today is 30.
As of last month, according to SP Global itself, the PE ratio of
the S&P 500 was 18. Either you are ignorant or a liar. In
either case you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=spx&
sid=0 &o_symb=spx
"P/E Ratio: 29.90"
Thank you for playing.
Standard and Poor's, (that's what S&P stands for--let me know if you
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=sp/Pa
ge/IndicesIndexPg&l=ENG&b=4&f=1&s=6&ig=48&i=56&r=1&fd=EquityEarnings&xc
d=500
Okay, from the S&P web site you referenced, which S&P 500 Price to
Earnings Ratio (that's what P/E ratio stands for--let me know if you
have trouble keeping up) do you like best...
Date P/E
3/31/2004(est.) 22.50
2/27/2004 23.33
3/3/2004(reported) 32.15
As a general rule any P/E ratio over 15 is considered overvalued
unless there is some really strong evidence there is fantastic
earnings growth in the near future. Since this is an average P/E
ratio of 500 stocks, I sincerely doubt that the majority of those
stocks all have great near term earnings potential.
Can you say "bubble?"
Over the last three months, the SPX p/e ratio has been between 28 and 30.
It was 30 at the height of the "Clinton bubble."
--
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as
the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and
owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell’s autobiography,
My American Journey, p. 148)
Mark Neglay
2004-03-05 16:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Well the Dow is already there...
The Dow Jones was at 10,788 on the last day of December, 2000.
It closed yesterday at 10,591, nearly the same price.
As for the S&P 500, which of the "big three" is the best indicator
for the overall market, it is still down about 13% from its value
at the end of 2000. At the pace that this index has been growing,
(38% over the past 12 months), it won't be very long...
Yet it's interesting to note that conservatives in general and Bush
in particular were all screaming about the stock bubble back then but
seem to think there is a rock-solid foundation today. The SPX p/e
ratio today is 30.
As of last month, according to SP Global itself, the PE ratio of the
S&P 500 was 18. Either you are ignorant or a liar. In either case
you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=spx&sid=0
&o_symb=spx
"P/E Ratio: 29.90"
Thank you for playing.
Standard and Poor's, (that's what S&P stands for--let me know if you
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=sp/Page/IndicesIndexPg&l=ENG&b=4&f=1&s=6&ig=48&i=56&r=1&fd=EquityEarnings&xcd=500
Okay, from the S&P web site you referenced, which S&P 500 Price to Earnings
Ratio (that's what P/E ratio stands for--let me know if you have trouble
keeping up) do you like best...
Date P/E
3/31/2004(est.) 22.50
2/27/2004 23.33
3/3/2004(reported) 32.15
These are "as reported" numbers, which tend to be higher than
operating P/E. However you will also note that over the past 15
years, this ratio averaged 23.51, not 15. Somehow the markets did
relatively well for 15 years. Apparently we have had a 14 year long
bubble?
Republican Double Standard
2004-03-05 15:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Well the Dow is already there...
The Dow Jones was at 10,788 on the last day of December, 2000.
It closed yesterday at 10,591, nearly the same price.
As for the S&P 500, which of the "big three" is the best
indicator for the overall market, it is still down about 13%
from its value at the end of 2000. At the pace that this index
has been growing, (38% over the past 12 months), it won't be
very long...
Yet it's interesting to note that conservatives in general and
Bush in particular were all screaming about the stock bubble back
then but seem to think there is a rock-solid foundation today. The
SPX p/e ratio today is 30.
As of last month, according to SP Global itself, the PE ratio of
the S&P 500 was 18. Either you are ignorant or a liar. In either
case you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=spx&si
d=0 &o_symb=spx
"P/E Ratio: 29.90"
Thank you for playing.
Standard and Poor's, (that's what S&P stands for--let me know if you
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=sp/Pa
ge/IndicesIndexPg&l=ENG&b=4&f=1&s=6&ig=48&i=56&r=1&fd=EquityEarnings&xc
d=500
I clicked it. What am I supposed to be seeing? All I see is this:

&P Earnings
Standard & Poor's Core Earnings
For additional information, including the S&P 500 Core Market Study and
Technical Bulletin, please see Standard & Poor's Core Earnings Technical
Bulletin.

S&P 500 Earnings and Estimate Report, including Divisors and Aggregates,
Core Breakdown, and Dividends, click here

S&P 500 Historical Average Price to Earnings Ratio

S&P Operating Earnings and Estimates by Economic Sector, click here


Clicking the "S&P 500 Historical Average Price to Earnings Ratio" link
gives me an XL table that is only updated through March 2003. It's now
March 2004. Maybe you missed the news.

Try this one:
http://marketwatch.nytimes.com/custom/nyt-com/html-usmarkets-quote.asp?
sid=3377

Notice that p/e ratio of 29.92? I mean, is it really this hard for you?
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
It peaked at 35 in July of 1999 but averaged 30 during the
"Clinton bubble". In september 1995 it was only 17 having fallen
from a peak of 25 in May 1992. Why was a p/e of 30 a "bubble ready
to burst" in 2000 but is a "solid foundation" today?
Well first you can stop operating under false pretense, that might
clear up some of your confusion.
ROTFLMAO.
Try looking at updated or more accurate data and you won't make this
mistake in the future.
God you are a piece of work. You show me year-old data and claim it's
updated? Maybe you are just looking at last year's calendar by mistake.
It's 2004. Try and keep up.
--
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as
the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and
owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell’s autobiography,
My American Journey, p. 148)
Mark Neglay
2004-03-06 19:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Well the Dow is already there...
The Dow Jones was at 10,788 on the last day of December, 2000.
It closed yesterday at 10,591, nearly the same price.
As for the S&P 500, which of the "big three" is the best
indicator for the overall market, it is still down about 13%
from its value at the end of 2000. At the pace that this index
has been growing, (38% over the past 12 months), it won't be
very long...
Yet it's interesting to note that conservatives in general and
Bush in particular were all screaming about the stock bubble back
then but seem to think there is a rock-solid foundation today. The
SPX p/e ratio today is 30.
As of last month, according to SP Global itself, the PE ratio of
the S&P 500 was 18. Either you are ignorant or a liar. In either
case you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=spx&si
d=0 &o_symb=spx
"P/E Ratio: 29.90"
Thank you for playing.
Standard and Poor's, (that's what S&P stands for--let me know if you
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=sp/Pa
ge/IndicesIndexPg&l=ENG&b=4&f=1&s=6&ig=48&i=56&r=1&fd=EquityEarnings&xc
d=500
&P Earnings
Standard & Poor's Core Earnings
For additional information, including the S&P 500 Core Market Study and
Technical Bulletin, please see Standard & Poor's Core Earnings Technical
Bulletin.
S&P 500 Earnings and Estimate Report, including Divisors and Aggregates,
Core Breakdown, and Dividends, click here
S&P 500 Historical Average Price to Earnings Ratio
S&P Operating Earnings and Estimates by Economic Sector, click here
Clicking the "S&P 500 Historical Average Price to Earnings Ratio" link
gives me an XL table that is only updated through March 2003.
Imagine that. You click on the link for historical data and you get
historical data.
Post by Republican Double Standard
It's now
March 2004.
Try one of the other links, the ones that don't say "historical" data.
Post by Republican Double Standard
Maybe you missed the news.
http://marketwatch.nytimes.com/custom/nyt-com/html-usmarkets-quote.asp?
sid=3377
Notice that p/e ratio of 29.92? I mean, is it really this hard for you?
When researching information about the Standard and Poor's 500 Index,
I will take my data from Standard and Poor's, thank you.
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Republican Double Standard
It peaked at 35 in July of 1999 but averaged 30 during the
"Clinton bubble". In september 1995 it was only 17 having fallen
from a peak of 25 in May 1992. Why was a p/e of 30 a "bubble ready
to burst" in 2000 but is a "solid foundation" today?
Well first you can stop operating under false pretense, that might
clear up some of your confusion.
ROTFLMAO.
Try looking at updated or more accurate data and you won't make this
mistake in the future.
God you are a piece of work. You show me year-old data and claim it's
updated?
I showed you a link with several options so that if you do not have
Microsoft Excel, or if you wish to look at the data in different
formats, you have that option. I didn't realize that this would so
thoroughly confuse you.
Post by Republican Double Standard
Maybe you are just looking at last year's calendar by mistake.
It's 2004. Try and keep up.
The S&P 500 Price-Earnings ratio is much lower now than it was a year
ago. If I were looking at last year's data, which is probably what
the New York Times is doing, I would be providing *higher* P/E ratios,
not *lower* PE ratios. Try to keep up.
fãhç
2004-03-03 02:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Corey
Post by Tempest
Post by Corey
Corey Says-
Just keep your money out of the market as I become well off. Last year +
43%
Post by Tempest
Post by Corey
this year + 5% so far. Heh heh! Democrat Chicken Littles. end.
Another "big lie" advocate.
If you're going to lie, at least make the lie believable.
43%. *snicker*
Corey Says-
To give you a clue of what's actually going on.
Here's a chart of what the NAV of that index fund is really doing over the
last 5 years (which doesn't include any fee or taxes)....
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=VTSMX&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200&a=&c=VTSMX

As we can see, it is DOWN about 5% over the last 5 years.
Tempest
2004-03-03 16:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by fãhç
Post by Corey
Post by Tempest
Post by Corey
Corey Says-
Just keep your money out of the market as I become well off. Last year +
43%
Post by Corey
Post by Tempest
Post by Corey
this year + 5% so far. Heh heh! Democrat Chicken Littles. end.
Another "big lie" advocate.
If you're going to lie, at least make the lie believable.
43%. *snicker*
Corey Says-
To give you a clue of what's actually going on.
Here's a chart of what the NAV of that index fund is really doing over the
last 5 years (which doesn't include any fee or taxes)....
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=VTSMX&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200&a=&c=VTSMX
As we can see, it is DOWN about 5% over the last 5 years.
You didn't really expect him to know what he was talking about, did you? ;)
Corey
2004-03-03 23:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tempest
Post by fãhç
Post by Corey
Post by Tempest
Post by Corey
Corey Says-
Just keep your money out of the market as I become well off. Last year +
43%
Post by Corey
Post by Tempest
Post by Corey
this year + 5% so far. Heh heh! Democrat Chicken Littles. end.
Another "big lie" advocate.
If you're going to lie, at least make the lie believable.
43%. *snicker*
Corey Says-
To give you a clue of what's actually going on.
Here's a chart of what the NAV of that index fund is really doing over the
last 5 years (which doesn't include any fee or taxes)....
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=VTSMX&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200&a=&c=VTSMX
Post by Tempest
Post by fãhç
As we can see, it is DOWN about 5% over the last 5 years.
You didn't really expect him to know what he was talking about, did you? ;)
Corey Says-

True, only if you had the misfortune to have ridden the market to the
bottom. I on the other hand, I jumped out at the top! I then entered the
market last may! How sweet it is for me! I have almost doubled my money!

Understand yet? end.
fãhç
2004-03-04 01:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Corey
Post by Tempest
Post by fãhç
Post by Corey
Post by Tempest
Post by Corey
Corey Says-
Just keep your money out of the market as I become well off. Last
year +
Post by Tempest
Post by fãhç
43%
Post by Corey
Post by Tempest
Post by Corey
this year + 5% so far. Heh heh! Democrat Chicken Littles. end.
Another "big lie" advocate.
If you're going to lie, at least make the lie believable.
43%. *snicker*
Corey Says-
To give you a clue of what's actually going on.
Here's a chart of what the NAV of that index fund is really doing over
the
Post by Tempest
Post by fãhç
last 5 years (which doesn't include any fee or taxes)....
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=VTSMX&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=e200&a=&c=VTSMX
Post by Tempest
Post by fãhç
As we can see, it is DOWN about 5% over the last 5 years.
You didn't really expect him to know what he was talking about, did you?
;)
Corey Says-
True, only if you had the misfortune to have ridden the market to the
bottom. I on the other hand, I jumped out at the top! I then entered the
market last may! How sweet it is for me! I have almost doubled my money!
Understand yet? end.
Typical RepubliCON thinking. Only concerned about their own personal gain.
It makes no difference to the neo-cons if there are mass layoffs, jobs being
sent overseas, bankruptcies, stocks taking a nosedive. As long as they can
still make a profit off the misfortunes of others, all is good.
sheila
2004-03-02 04:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
How many times have you posted this meaningless crap here?!?

The market goes up, it goes down, the savy investor makes money in
both directions.

Do you think that it might be possible for your pea brain to think of something new?

Probably not
fãhç
2004-03-02 05:30:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by sheila
Post by fãhç
Dow
Dec 29 2000 10,787.99
Mar 1 2004 10,678.14
change....... -109.85
NASDAQ
Dec 29 2000 2,470.52
Mar 1 2004 2,057.80
change...... -412.72
Wilshire 5000 (index of over 6,000 US stocks)
Dec 29 2000 12,175.90
Mar 1 2004 11,289.48
change...... -886.42
How many times have you posted this meaningless crap here?!?
This is the third time in as many months, and the numbers are STILL negative.

I asked you last time you complained and insulted me to post what was in your
stock portfolio so we could all be amazed by your shear investing genius. You
never replied. I put the challenge to you again.
King Pineapple
2004-03-02 21:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Drooling Leftist Turnip " f�h�" <%e%i%f%s@%f%d.kr> wrote in message news:3ZP0c.10158$***@fed1read06...

Care to tell us WHY the arbitrary "date" you picked of December 2000 is
supposed to be "relevant"?



--
"We were caught napping"-Clinton "Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, on $1.80
per gallon heating oil
fãhç
2004-03-03 02:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by King Pineapple
Care to tell us WHY the arbitrary "date" you picked of December 2000 is
supposed to be "relevant"?
Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000. If you what a
not-so-pretty picture showing more dates, you can look at this chart comparing
the Wilshire 5000 to itself so you can see the change as a percentage.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=,e200&a=&c=^TMW

AS we can see the most serious part of the dump in the economy took place in
the last half of 2002. Well into the "Bush economy" and well after the shock
of 9/11/01.
King Pineapple
2004-03-03 02:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
Care to tell us WHY the arbitrary "date" you picked of December 2000 is
supposed to be "relevant"?
Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000.
LOL. Answer my question.


--
Just so you can be prepared for it: Bush is toast"
DNC Laughingstock John LaVoy, July 11, 2002
fãhç
2004-03-03 03:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by King Pineapple
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
Care to tell us WHY the arbitrary "date" you picked of December 2000 is
supposed to be "relevant"?
Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000.
LOL. Answer my question.
Hmmm, must be a malfunction in your news reader. I did answer the question.
Only you seemed to had clipped it out and ignored it. Perhaps you didn't get
the answer you had hoped for. Why do you just go ahead and answer the
question yourself, since you seem to be chomping at the bit with a strawman
fallacy.

Here is that answer for you again, sorry if it's not what you expected....

Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000. If you what a
not-so-pretty picture showing more dates, you can look at this chart comparing
the Wilshire 5000 to itself so you can see the change as a percentage.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=,e200&a=&c=^TMW

As we can see the most serious part of the dump in the economy took place in
the last half of 2002. Well into the "Bush economy" and well after the shock
of 9/11/01.
King Pineapple
2004-03-03 16:11:56 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:06:58 -0800, " college kid fãhç"
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
Care to tell us WHY the arbitrary "date" you picked of December 2000 is
supposed to be "relevant"?
Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000.
LOL. Answer my question.
Hmmm, must be a malfunction in your news reader. I did answer the question.
Only you seemed to had clipped it out and ignored it. Perhaps you didn't get
the answer you had hoped for. Why do you just go ahead and answer the
question yourself, since you seem to be chomping at the bit with a strawman
fallacy.
Here is that answer for you again, sorry if it's not what you expected....
Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000. If you what a
not-so-pretty picture showing more dates, you can look at this chart comparing
the Wilshire 5000 to itself so you can see the change as a percentage.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=,e200&a=&c=^TMW
As we can see the most serious part of the dump in the economy took place in
the last half of 2002. Well into the "Bush economy" and well after the shock
of 9/11/01.
LOL
What I meant was...answer my question the way I want it answered. Not
with facts.
LOL
Dumb college kid.


read it and weep kid......

This man Craig, "King Pineapple" has over 8,000 posts to various
newsgroups on the UseNet.
Most are *his* cynical attacks against others.
This man's whole existence is thread-to-thread petty carping about his
self-righteousness compared to his perception that everyone else is
dumb.
He is a serial kook, who likes to change headers in threads, slander
other posters, and generally cause disruption.
Just thought you'd like to know, before you mistakenly think you were
actually discussing politics with someone. He likes to 'play' people.
If all this seems insane take heart. He'll killfile you in a
heartbeat when he gets cornered thus saving himself from hearing the
truth.
Want to have some more fun ? Do a Google (Deja) search of Piney's
email address, and in a separate field include the word ' killfile '.
That's where this man will dump you when he can't beat you in a
political arguement. Also, enter the email address and also the words
' spell ' , or ' spelled ' . Watch your monitor light up like a
Pachinko Parlor ~!














=





I'll shut down each and every attempt to "steal" my name
immediately.
I know how to complain to the abuse people,
and how to send them the exact headers to trace
this stuff.
So far, I have a 100% success rate on stopping
these clowns.
And most of them know it.
Won't work, so save your time.
---------King Pineapple
Big Foot
2004-03-03 17:02:04 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 08:11:56 -0800, King Pineapple
Post by King Pineapple
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:06:58 -0800, " college kid fãhç"
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
Care to tell us WHY the arbitrary "date" you picked of December 2000 is
supposed to be "relevant"?
Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000.
LOL. Answer my question.
Hmmm, must be a malfunction in your news reader. I did answer the question.
Only you seemed to had clipped it out and ignored it. Perhaps you didn't get
the answer you had hoped for. Why do you just go ahead and answer the
question yourself, since you seem to be chomping at the bit with a strawman
fallacy.
Here is that answer for you again, sorry if it's not what you expected....
Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000. If you what a
not-so-pretty picture showing more dates, you can look at this chart comparing
the Wilshire 5000 to itself so you can see the change as a percentage.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=,e200&a=&c=^TMW
As we can see the most serious part of the dump in the economy took place in
the last half of 2002. Well into the "Bush economy" and well after the shock
of 9/11/01.
LOL
What I meant was...answer my question the way I want it answered. Not
with facts.
LOL
Dumb college kid.
read it and weep kid......
This man Craig, "King Pineapple" has over 8,000 posts to various
newsgroups on the UseNet.
Most are *his* cynical attacks against others.
This man's whole existence is thread-to-thread petty carping about his
self-righteousness compared to his perception that everyone else is
dumb.
He is a serial kook, who likes to change headers in threads, slander
other posters, and generally cause disruption.
Just thought you'd like to know, before you mistakenly think you were
actually discussing politics with someone. He likes to 'play' people.
If all this seems insane take heart. He'll killfile you in a
heartbeat when he gets cornered thus saving himself from hearing the
truth.
Want to have some more fun ? Do a Google (Deja) search of Piney's
email address, and in a separate field include the word ' killfile '.
That's where this man will dump you when he can't beat you in a
political arguement. Also, enter the email address and also the words
' spell ' , or ' spelled ' . Watch your monitor light up like a
Pachinko Parlor ~!
You are completely nuts.
Post by King Pineapple
=
I'll shut down each and every attempt to "steal" my name
immediately.
I know how to complain to the abuse people,
and how to send them the exact headers to trace
this stuff.
So far, I have a 100% success rate on stopping
these clowns.
And most of them know it.
Won't work, so save your time.
---------King Pineapple
fãhç
2004-03-03 20:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Foot
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 08:11:56 -0800, King Pineapple
You are completely nuts.
There is a pseudo-King Pineapple that posts crazy schizophrenic stuff in the
real KP's name. This is one of those cases. But both KP's are nuts.
King Pineapple
2004-03-04 17:11:34 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 12:21:34 -0800, "turniping drool fãhç"
Post by fãhç
Post by Big Foot
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 08:11:56 -0800, King Pineapple
You are completely nuts.
There is a pseudo-King Pineapple that posts crazy schizophrenic stuff in the
real KP's name. This is one of those cases. But both KP's are nuts.
Sorry to burst your bubble kid, we are one and the same.
This sure gets me a lot of attention doesn't it?
If you don't like it Kill file "King Pineapple"
see if I care.





























,


I'll shut down each and every attempt to "steal" my name
immediately.
I know how to complain to the abuse people,
and how to send them the exact headers to trace
this stuff.
So far, I have a 100% success rate on stopping
these clowns.
And most of them know it.
Won't work, so save your time.
---------King Pineapple
fãhç
2004-03-04 20:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by King Pineapple
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 12:21:34 -0800, "turniping drool fãhç"
Post by fãhç
There is a pseudo-King Pineapple that posts crazy schizophrenic stuff in
the real KP's name. This is one of those cases. But both KP's are nuts.
Sorry to burst your bubble kid, we are one and the same.
This sure gets me a lot of attention doesn't it?
If you don't like it Kill file "King Pineapple"
see if I care.
LOL! Oh Pseudo-Piney, you are so funny. Well, at least funnier than the real
KP, which isn't saying much.
Post by King Pineapple
I'll shut down each and every attempt to "steal" my name
immediately.
I know how to complain to the abuse people,
and how to send them the exact headers to trace
this stuff.
So far, I have a 100% success rate on stopping
these clowns.
And most of them know it.
Won't work, so save your time.
---------King Pineapple
Sample King Pineapple headers:
From: "King Pineapple" <***@earthlink.net>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.58.85.205 (Manchester, MA)
X-Complaints-To: ***@earthlink.net

Sample Pseudo-King Pineapple headers:
From: King Pineapple <***@earflink.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
Organization: bitter inc
Reply-To: ***@troll.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-307.newsdawg.com (Cary, NC)
Tempest
2004-03-04 00:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Foot
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 08:11:56 -0800, King Pineapple
Post by King Pineapple
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:06:58 -0800, " college kid fãhç"
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
Care to tell us WHY the arbitrary "date" you picked of December 2000 is
supposed to be "relevant"?
Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000.
LOL. Answer my question.
Hmmm, must be a malfunction in your news reader. I did answer the question.
Only you seemed to had clipped it out and ignored it. Perhaps you didn't get
the answer you had hoped for. Why do you just go ahead and answer the
question yourself, since you seem to be chomping at the bit with a strawman
fallacy.
Here is that answer for you again, sorry if it's not what you expected....
Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000. If you what a
not-so-pretty picture showing more dates, you can look at this chart comparing
the Wilshire 5000 to itself so you can see the change as a percentage.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=,e200&a=&c=^TMW
As we can see the most serious part of the dump in the economy took place in
the last half of 2002. Well into the "Bush economy" and well after the shock
of 9/11/01.
LOL
What I meant was...answer my question the way I want it answered. Not
with facts.
LOL
Dumb college kid.
read it and weep kid......
This man Craig, "King Pineapple" has over 8,000 posts to various
newsgroups on the UseNet.
Most are *his* cynical attacks against others.
This man's whole existence is thread-to-thread petty carping about his
self-righteousness compared to his perception that everyone else is
dumb.
He is a serial kook, who likes to change headers in threads, slander
other posters, and generally cause disruption.
Just thought you'd like to know, before you mistakenly think you were
actually discussing politics with someone. He likes to 'play' people.
If all this seems insane take heart. He'll killfile you in a
heartbeat when he gets cornered thus saving himself from hearing the
truth.
Want to have some more fun ? Do a Google (Deja) search of Piney's
email address, and in a separate field include the word ' killfile '.
That's where this man will dump you when he can't beat you in a
political arguement. Also, enter the email address and also the words
' spell ' , or ' spelled ' . Watch your monitor light up like a
Pachinko Parlor ~!
You are completely nuts.
Doesn't take long to figure out, does it?
Post by Big Foot
Post by King Pineapple
=
I'll shut down each and every attempt to "steal" my name
immediately.
I know how to complain to the abuse people,
and how to send them the exact headers to trace
this stuff.
So far, I have a 100% success rate on stopping
these clowns.
And most of them know it.
Won't work, so save your time.
---------King Pineapple
--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748
fãhç
2004-03-03 20:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by King Pineapple
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:06:58 -0800, " college kid fãhç"
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
Care to tell us WHY the arbitrary "date" you picked of December 2000 is
supposed to be "relevant"?
Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000.
LOL. Answer my question.
Hmmm, must be a malfunction in your news reader. I did answer the question.
Only you seemed to had clipped it out and ignored it. Perhaps you didn't get
the answer you had hoped for. Why do you just go ahead and answer the
question yourself, since you seem to be chomping at the bit with a strawman
fallacy.
Here is that answer for you again, sorry if it's not what you expected....
Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000. If you what a
not-so-pretty picture showing more dates, you can look at this chart comparing
the Wilshire 5000 to itself so you can see the change as a percentage.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=,e200&a=&c=^TMW
As we can see the most serious part of the dump in the economy took place in
the last half of 2002. Well into the "Bush economy" and well after the shock
of 9/11/01.
LOL
What I meant was...answer my question the way I want it answered.
Sorry, I can't answer it the way you want. I can only answer it with the
facts.

You never really grew out of being a screaming little brat throwing temper
tantrums when you don't get your way.

Kind Pineapple = 3 year old in a middle aged body.
Mark Neglay
2004-03-03 20:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
Care to tell us WHY the arbitrary "date" you picked of December 2000 is
supposed to be "relevant"?
Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000.
LOL. Answer my question.
Hmmm, must be a malfunction in your news reader. I did answer the question.
Only you seemed to had clipped it out and ignored it. Perhaps you didn't get
the answer you had hoped for. Why do you just go ahead and answer the
question yourself, since you seem to be chomping at the bit with a strawman
fallacy.
Here is that answer for you again, sorry if it's not what you expected....
Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000. If you what a
not-so-pretty picture showing more dates, you can look at this chart comparing
the Wilshire 5000 to itself so you can see the change as a percentage.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=,e200&a=&c=^TMW
As we can see the most serious part of the dump in the economy took place in
the last half of 2002. Well into the "Bush economy" and well after the shock
of 9/11/01.
Yes we all know that a dump of 9% in the last half of 2002 is a much
more serious drop than the 37% it lost from its peak until mid-2002.
Polybius
2004-03-03 20:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Carumba! I must have gotten some bad onions the other day, or maybe one
of those suspected illegal aliens working in the fast food joints I
frequent hadn't bothered to wash his hands after using the toilet
(again) and infecting me with something. Anyway, as I was lying in bed I
thought I heard small voices from the walls of my house. "We're just
here to work," said one tiny voice. "We're just looking for a better
life for our families," said another. I got out of bed and turned the
lights on. I went to the wall where I thought I heard the voices and saw
a bunch of termites eating the wood of my house. Good grief!

Now, in truth, the termites were just doing what termites do. They were
just working for their families. Termites are apparently very family
oriented. They are not evil or wrong in any sort of cosmic sense, but
what they naturally do just happens to be harmful to me. Good for them
is bad for me. Either I, as the kind and compassionate person that I am,
let them destroy my house, which would be good for them, or I get rid of
them, which would be good for me.

Well, to make a long story short, I got rid of the termites, but not
before some politicians wanted to give them driver's licenses, free
medical care and a free education in hope of getting their votes. And,
of course, I heard the usual sob-sisters sniffing that I was a
right-winger and a hater. "Yeah, I've got your right-wing right here,
Marxist Mary."

Now I have another problem. Yesterday, I heard even smaller voices
saying the same things as the termites. "We just want to work and have
better lives for ourselves and our children," said a multitude of tiny
voices. I looked and looked, but couldn't find the source of the voices.
Then I sneezed, and I threw up, and I felt very sick. Good grief! It was
the flu virus talking to me. I probably got it from one of those
criminals at the fast food joint. So, now I'm supposed to die because
the flu virus wants to have a better life in my body? The heck with
that. That kind of thinking might work for some of those mentally
defective doe-eyed neurotics running around the U.S.A who are screwing
up our country, but I'm not checking out without a fight.

This is my body, my house, my country. I don't want anything of mine
invaded by those who, by their very presence, will harm these things. I
wasn't put on this earth to be the passive host of anything that will
harm me. And, I just don't give a damn if it's termites, a virus, or
illegal alien humans who are just trying make better lives for
themselves. They have no right to harm me. I don't care if they love
their families. I don't care if they just want to work. I just don't
care. Their intent doesn't matter to me a bit. What I'm concerned about
is the effect of their presence on our economy, our culture and our nation.

Yammer...yammer...,of course they all want better lives for themselves
and their families! So what? Cockroaches, flies and dung beetles all
want a better life. The AIDS virus wants a better life. It's nature's
way to have all living things seek a better life. All living things want
to be comfortable. Flat worms in a Petri dish will move to an area of
the dish where they feel more comfortable. Germs will move to bodies
where they feel more comfortable.

It never ends. Some people don't move to other areas because they work
hard and build the place where they live into a place that is
comfortable. The American people have done just that. We've made our
place comfortable, for us. Now, other humans who are too stupid or too
lazy or too imcompetent to make their own places comfortable, figure
that they can illegally cross over our borders and take from us all the
comfort that we've built. What the heck are we, the universal hosts for
anything and everything that can crawl into our bodies, our homes and
our nation? Is that our purpose in life? Is that why we Americans exist?
I don't think so.
fãhç
2004-03-03 20:58:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
Care to tell us WHY the arbitrary "date" you picked of December 2000 is
supposed to be "relevant"?
Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000.
LOL. Answer my question.
Hmmm, must be a malfunction in your news reader. I did answer the question.
Only you seemed to had clipped it out and ignored it. Perhaps you didn't get
the answer you had hoped for. Why do you just go ahead and answer the
question yourself, since you seem to be chomping at the bit with a strawman
fallacy.
Here is that answer for you again, sorry if it's not what you expected....
Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000. If you what a
not-so-pretty picture showing more dates, you can look at this chart comparing
the Wilshire 5000 to itself so you can see the change as a percentage.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=,e200&a=&c=^TMW
As we can see the most serious part of the dump in the economy took place in
the last half of 2002. Well into the "Bush economy" and well after the shock
of 9/11/01.
Yes we all know that a dump of 9% in the last half of 2002 is a much
more serious drop than the 37% it lost from its peak until mid-2002.
Look at that chart again. The Wilshire 5000 tracks the returns of practically
all publicly traded, US headquartered stocks that trade on the major
exchanges. It is a great indicator of how the entire market is doing, not
just 30 stocks here or 500 stocks there like other indexes.

As we can see from the chart at the link above, by the start of the fourth
quarter in 2002, stock had dumped a full 20% for 2002, and a 30% dump from the
time Bush was sworn in. For the year of 2000, it had gone down around 10%,
but on average was still up 10% from the year before.

The fact remains that the stock market has gained nothing since the end of the
last administration. In the four year of his administration, Bush is still
claiming the bad economy is not his fault, that it is all Clinton's fault.
How long do we have to wait before Bush accepts responsibility for the
economy?
Republican Double Standard
2004-03-03 21:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by King Pineapple
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
Care to tell us WHY the arbitrary "date" you picked of
December 2000
is
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
Post by fãhç
Post by King Pineapple
supposed to be "relevant"?
Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000.
LOL. Answer my question.
Hmmm, must be a malfunction in your news reader. I did answer the
question.
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
Only you seemed to had clipped it out and ignored it. Perhaps you
didn't
get
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
the answer you had hoped for. Why do you just go ahead and answer
the question yourself, since you seem to be chomping at the bit
with a
strawman
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
fallacy.
Here is that answer for you again, sorry if it's not what you expected....
Last day the stock market was open in the year 2000. If you what a
not-so-pretty picture showing more dates, you can look at this
chart
comparing
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
the Wilshire 5000 to itself so you can see the change as a
percentage.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=^TMW&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=,e200&a=&c=
^TMW
As we can see the most serious part of the dump in the economy took
place
in
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
the last half of 2002. Well into the "Bush economy" and well after
the
shock
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fãhç
of 9/11/01.
Yes we all know that a dump of 9% in the last half of 2002 is a much
more serious drop than the 37% it lost from its peak until mid-2002.
Look at that chart again. The Wilshire 5000 tracks the returns of
practically all publicly traded, US headquartered stocks that trade on
the major exchanges. It is a great indicator of how the entire market
is doing, not just 30 stocks here or 500 stocks there like other
indexes.
As we can see from the chart at the link above, by the start of the
fourth quarter in 2002, stock had dumped a full 20% for 2002, and a
30% dump from the time Bush was sworn in. For the year of 2000, it
had gone down around 10%, but on average was still up 10% from the
year before.
The fact remains that the stock market has gained nothing since the
end of the last administration. In the four year of his
administration, Bush is still claiming the bad economy is not his
fault, that it is all Clinton's fault. How long do we have to wait
before Bush accepts responsibility for the economy?
He never will. His father is still blaming Carter.
--
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as
the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and
owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell’s autobiography,
My American Journey, p. 148)
Mark Neglay
2004-03-06 20:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by fãhç
As we can see from the chart at the link above, by the start of the fourth
quarter in 2002, stock had dumped a full 20% for 2002, and a 30% dump from the
time Bush was sworn in.
Yep, the market was not doing so well in 2001 and 2002. Of course,
year to date, the Wilshire 5000 is up 45%...but don't let that get in
the way. Keep arguing that since stock values were dropping in most
of 2002, they have not been growing for the past 16 months. Ignore
all that nasty data and cease your year-by-year analysis in 2002.
Post by fãhç
For the year of 2000, it had gone down around 10%,
...even more if we pick our start date as the date the market turned
south.
Post by fãhç
but on average was still up 10% from the year before.
That means that in 1999 the Wilshire 5000 was growing. In 2000 it was
shrinking. Trends here are not difficult to spot. The market began
tanking in the year 2000 and it stopped tanking in 2002.
Post by fãhç
The fact remains that the stock market has gained nothing since the end of the
last administration.
You are back to the original point--that the indexes are lower now
than they were in the past--and once again ignoring the point that the
momentum has clearly reversed. You can't argue with the later because
it is obviously true.

Furthermore I gather that you believe that a market bubble popped when
the market did tank, correct? All those "dot-bombs" going out of
business and all that, correct? Clearly a correction was in order no
matter who was President, and now the indexes are growing with much
more reasonable earnings numbers.

If you wish to blame market movements on Presidents--if you believe
that the President waves a magic wand and makes the market grow or
shrink--then President Clinton created a bear market and Bush turned
the bear market around in 2002.

Of course I do not believe that the President has such power.
Post by fãhç
In the four year of his administration, Bush is still
claiming the bad economy is not his fault
The economy is not "bad". The economy is growing at a fast pace, with
dropping unemployment, a rising market, etc... Two things make you
believe that the economy is "bad". Number one, you dislike President
Bush and wish to see him out of office. Badmouthing the economy helps
you to that end. Number two, probably for a number of reasons,
employment indicators (though improving for the last 6 months or so),
have lagged behind other indicators.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...