The Stock Market

Message boards : Cafe SETI : The Stock Market
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Paul Zimmerman
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1440
Credit: 11
RAC: 0
United States
Message 99282 - Posted: 15 Apr 2005, 19:09:59 UTC

I remember all the talk about Bush's re-election supposedly giving the stock market a big boost.....

The market since re-election.

Oh well, ...... I guess it's just the same as all the talk about how Bush would be good for the market overall....

No great shakes there either, eh ?

Care to take on some more 'forced' risk ?
ID: 99282 · Report as offensive
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2940
Credit: 19,199,902
RAC: 11
United States
Message 99308 - Posted: 15 Apr 2005, 20:15:18 UTC

Looks like a good time to buy.

You obviously don't understand economics . . . oh, yeah, I forgot your mantra: everything is Bush's fault.
ID: 99308 · Report as offensive
Paul Zimmerman
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1440
Credit: 11
RAC: 0
United States
Message 99329 - Posted: 15 Apr 2005, 21:39:52 UTC
Last modified: 15 Apr 2005, 22:29:33 UTC

Call your broker if you like buying into a rising deficit, falling dollar and rising interest rates, tom.

Understanding economics will soon be made plain to you......

The market is not performing to the rhetoric.... none of the promised results are in evidence. Wages are down, jobs are down, the dollar is sinking, the deficit is growing, and interests rates are rising with no end in sight.

Again your reaction to information proving the non-performance of the current administration's promises is only to attempt to demean and 'demonize' someone providing that evidence....

.....as if it that will somehow negate or disprove the validity of the empirical evidence.

(curiously, the same activity that you so loftily accuse others of doing... you practice, yourself.... what's that tell you?)

Apologizing for Bush is getting to be pretty burdensome, I imagine...

The devil is always in the details.... and that's where the trouble lies with Bush's administration and it's apologists.

Aside from any partisan view, what are the details we know so far.

Are there any cases of major public policy sponsored by the Bush administration that "got the details right"?

Have any of the 'promises' been what was made of them?

I'm trying to recall just one. One single major policy of the Bush administration which did not turn out to involve either overblown estimates or downright coverups of the costs of policy implementation. One single policy issue that has not resulted in more problems than solutions.....

Perhaps you can cite some of them, tom? ....... think of just one?

The farm bill? Nope.... The corporate tax atrocity? Nope..... The Medicare drug bill? Nope..... WMD's? Uh, nope...... Iraqi reconstruction? Nope...... No Child Left Behind? No, again,.....

Bush's batting average on the important details is remarkably low. Seems in each of these cases, the rhetoric did not match the reality despite the pep rally push for popular support. In each case, retractions have been made and disclosures of deception have been proven....

Seems in each of these, as well as many more instances, the 'sales' job was not much more than a whitewash of the true costs.

Just like the Social Security circus today......

So what does your post offer? Do you attempt to justify Bush's goal?

Do you really understand the market and what that means to our economy?

There is no attempt to defend the market performance....

Just like your 'defense' of Bush on Social Security.

Do you attempt to try to convince anyone that a defined-benefit program is ill founded but a defined-contribution retirement program is not?

Do you tell people the type of program appropriate for the relatively rich, with ample other assets, is the type of program appropriate for a nationwide system covering the non-rich that is supposed to provide social insurance--a retirement income floor that you can count on no matter what?

Nope, you didn't do that, ....nor should you, because it's fatuous to try.

Same as trying to say, "" you just must not understand economy"" or, "" it looks like a good time to buy"" ...........Fatuous nonsense.....

Instead, all you do is attempt to deflect the discussion with your condescending bullshit and demeaning statements.....


ID: 99329 · Report as offensive
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2940
Credit: 19,199,902
RAC: 11
United States
Message 99384 - Posted: 16 Apr 2005, 0:18:17 UTC - in response to Message 99329.  

> Apologizing for Bush is getting to be pretty burdensome, I imagine...

I did nothing of the sort, I just pointed out your chronic bias.

> Instead, all you do is attempt to deflect the discussion with your
> condescending bullshit and demeaning statements.....

When the market was going up, did you post a thread giving Bush credit?

When the market goes up in the future, will you retract everything you just said?

Do you not hear you own "condescending bullshit" in response to my rather simple post, which said, in effect, that you don't understand economics. I stand by that statement and submit as proof your uninformed diatribe, and the maxim that what happens to the market in a few days is no indication of what it will do in the long term.

Have you been waiting since last November to make your claim that the economy is in the toilet (it's been going strong since then, until the last few sessions)? And all you did in your first post is claim that the pundits were wrong in saying the Bush election would have a positive impact. Well, it did have a positive impact for six months . . . and who are you to say it won't turn around now?
ID: 99384 · Report as offensive
Paul Zimmerman
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1440
Credit: 11
RAC: 0
United States
Message 99483 - Posted: 16 Apr 2005, 5:25:05 UTC
Last modified: 16 Apr 2005, 5:42:44 UTC

You make quite a few assertions about how good the economy is doing....

You also cast aspersions on me once again by saying I posted an 'uninformed' diatribe.... you were careful not to actually provide any counterpoint of your own, nothing at all to affirm your dismissal of what I posted.

It's notable you avoided answering if there was even one Bush policy issue which has proven to be any where near as promised. Instead you attempt to portray my questions as 'biased'..... do you mean there is no merit or veracity to what I said?

Maybe you can fix that in your next post.......

And perhaps you can expand on how swimmingly the economy is doing...... (and no, tom, you know as well as I, that I have been talking about this all along.... nothing 'new' on my part.... despite your weak attempt to discredit my post along those lines, that tactic can only be described as more of your inchoate bullshit.)

Perhaps instead you cite some examples to show how well we are doing? Show us how this new productivity has not resulted in any measureable new business investment and how that's actually good for the economy. Explain how this 'new' productivity has not created the jobs that were promised and how that's such a good thing for the economy. Maybe show us what demographic is benefitting from this great economy you claim.


Maybe you could 'inform' us, tom..... Give us some of your 'sage' perspective here. Maybe show that what I posted really is how you would care to portray it. You should be able to do that, right?

Can you address wages, and maybe explain why they are losing ground for the first time in a long time? Just touch on where we are, and maybe show that the projections for continued stagnation are wrong. What indicators do you know of that show wage growth is expected to recover and return to historical rates of increase?

Can you address long term bond investments for us? Maybe tell us why the indicators don't point to this great economy you claim? Show how the deficit and trade imbalance are expected to affect T-bill performance. Tell us what being long in the bond market is expected to do for us when we run 37 trillion some odd dollars in unfunded current accounts.

Maybe you could address the rising interest rates and what that will mean to all the folks with adjustable rate mortgages? Just touch on the big picture and explain why real estate investments are starting to slide and what rising interest rates will do to asset flow in that segment of the market. See if you can find us a reference that doesn't refer to the 'housing market bubble'.

Maybe you could talk about how eliminating the estate tax is expected to remove 7 trillion dollars in revenue in the next ten years, and show us how that's going to affect current accounts. You know, you can explain how revenue sharing will be reduced and how that's so good for all the state and local governments. Maybe touch on how everyone's state and local taxes will rise to meet those federal shortfalls, and how that's going to stimulate all the growth in the local economies.

Maybe you could explain for us why there are so many unfilled posts in the Treasury Dept. ? Surely someone so astute as yourself has a perfectly clear explanation of what John Snow is doing for us ...... besides giving pep rallies in high school gymnasiums, and whipping up the believers in the 60 days- 60 cities Social Security tour. Maybe explain where Bush gets his economic advisement these days, since it's not coming from the Treasury Dept. You're up on all that, right tom?


Maybe explain what the Bush administration is doing to reduce the deficit as they keep 'promising'. Just touch on the high points of that policy, eh? Show us what steps can be taken and what those steps will mean in terms of future growth.

This ought to be easy for you, tom.... since you know so much that I don't, eh?

I have faith you can do what no other economist seems to be able to do, you must have some inside info that just isn't being printed anywhere else..... you will cite your sources, won't you, tom? .....I'm sure you're not concerned with any of your information standing up to any scrutiny.




ID: 99483 · Report as offensive
N/A
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 01
Posts: 3718
Credit: 93,649
RAC: 0
Message 99484 - Posted: 16 Apr 2005, 5:27:14 UTC

Q: How do you know that you're in the Café?
A: You find more threads on topics that weren't worth reading the first time.
Q: How is that different from Numbers?
A: You find the same thread topic being posted five times in as many minutes.
ID: 99484 · Report as offensive
Paul Zimmerman
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1440
Credit: 11
RAC: 0
United States
Message 99489 - Posted: 16 Apr 2005, 5:46:40 UTC - in response to Message 99484.  

na,

If I were addressing only you, I wouldn't have had to repeat all the remedial material each time.
ID: 99489 · Report as offensive
N/A
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 01
Posts: 3718
Credit: 93,649
RAC: 0
Message 99490 - Posted: 16 Apr 2005, 5:54:49 UTC - in response to Message 99489.  

It wasn't aimed at you - or anyone else for that matter. It's a general observation.

(BTW & way OT: I contacted the .Mac staff - They're not sure what the story is with that user ID request you keep getting. It may be possible that IE has been compromised to that a 3rd party can gain access to a .Mac account. The short story is not to worry about it.)
ID: 99490 · Report as offensive
Paul Zimmerman
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1440
Credit: 11
RAC: 0
United States
Message 99502 - Posted: 16 Apr 2005, 6:18:40 UTC - in response to Message 99490.  
Last modified: 16 Apr 2005, 6:19:20 UTC

> The short story is not to worry about it.)
>

Easy for you to say...... I still can't load pages without continual attention to clearing the dang 'pop-ups'...

(thanks for the research, though .... I appreciate it.)
ID: 99502 · Report as offensive
N/A
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 01
Posts: 3718
Credit: 93,649
RAC: 0
Message 99505 - Posted: 16 Apr 2005, 6:21:20 UTC - in response to Message 99502.  

No prob.
ID: 99505 · Report as offensive
Paul Zimmerman
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1440
Credit: 11
RAC: 0
United States
Message 101927 - Posted: 20 Apr 2005, 20:35:48 UTC

``The news this morning about the CPI ... was not good news,'' said Michael Metz, chief investment strategist at Oppenheimer & Co. ``Meanwhile, the beige book came out and suggests that inflation is emerging as something of a problem.''

Core inflation has risen at a rate twice as high as predicted in the last month.

The tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the policy shifts in federal expenditures, and the loss of assistance to help state and local government finances have eroded the government's ability to stimulate labor.

The irony of pursuing this policy agenda while promising something else is lost on Bush and his supporters.

And the administration wants to continue with this agenda.

Can you say borrow and spend? ......right into the dirt?

Can you say loot the Treasury for fat cat tax cuts?

Did you see the Bush Energy plan? ....... Billions more in tax cuts for the corporations that are raking in record setting profits? Profits are no longer recognized as incentive..... no, Bush will provide incentives from the Treasury to boost those already record setting profits.

ID: 101927 · Report as offensive
Paul Zimmerman
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1440
Credit: 11
RAC: 0
United States
Message 102235 - Posted: 21 Apr 2005, 19:24:45 UTC



the National Center for Policy Analysis may or may not fit your definition of a completely unbiased view....

But if they have a view it's definately conservative.... a member of townhall.com,

If there's any question about townhall, they carry opinion pieces by Ann Coulter...

Here's the take on the economy..... see if their conclusions aren't all the same.
---------------------------------------------------------
Last week’s meltdown in the stock market, with major indexes falling three percent, is only the latest indication that the economy is in fragile condition. 

One is even starting to hear the first whispers of the “R” word (recession).
=================================

Who said, ....."It;s the economy, stupid."........ ?
ID: 102235 · Report as offensive
Profile Siran d'Vel'nahr
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 7379
Credit: 44,181,323
RAC: 238
United States
Message 102346 - Posted: 22 Apr 2005, 1:52:23 UTC - in response to Message 99282.  

> ....

Required reading.

L8R....

T'Khasi Time: Thursday, 21 April 2005 - 06:52 PM --700 (Pacific Standard Time)

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath
ID: 102346 · Report as offensive
Paul Zimmerman
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1440
Credit: 11
RAC: 0
United States
Message 102514 - Posted: 22 Apr 2005, 8:43:24 UTC

Imagine that.

Footnotes, references ..... and the conclusion ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The old adage that the market prefers Republicans is not evidenced. On the contrary, the evidence indicates a slightly, but not statistically significant, higher returns during Democratic administrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Federal Reserve Bank is probably one of them 'liberal' banks..... probably can't trust a thing they say.....
ID: 102514 · Report as offensive
Profile mikey
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Dec 99
Posts: 4215
Credit: 3,474,603
RAC: 0
United States
Message 102544 - Posted: 22 Apr 2005, 13:10:43 UTC - in response to Message 101927.  

> The tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the policy shifts in federal
> expenditures, and the loss of assistance to help state and local government
> finances have eroded the government's ability to stimulate labor.
> Can you say loot the Treasury for fat cat tax cuts?
> Did you see the Bush Energy plan? ....... Billions more in tax cuts for
> the corporations that are raking in record setting profits? Profits are no
> longer recognized as incentive..... no, Bush will provide incentives from the
> Treasury to boost those already record setting profits.
>
Paul can you tell me who owns the Companies that you invest in? I will tell you...the "wealthiest Americans"!
And who runs those same companies....again the "wealthiest Americans"!
Sooo if the "wealthiest Americans" get a tax break can't they then hire more people to work in those same companies?
And don't EVEN go and say that those jobs are going overseas!!!!
YOU AND I are the reason those jobs are going overseas!!!!!
YOU and I want, NO DEMAND, higher and higher returns on our investments from those same companies!!!! In order for a company to give higher and higher returns it MUST operate at a very high rate of profitablity. AND since labor costs are THE BIGGEST expense for a company, getting the same work done caheaper keep the profits high! You and I will make a product of minimum wage, for example, $5.35US per hour, BUT a person in India will do that SAME job for $0.35US per hour! That is 35 CENTS PER HOUR! NO DUH as to why jobs are going overseas! We Americans have become VERY used to our way of living and working and we want MORE! Will you go and work at McDonald's? for minimum wage? People that come from overseas will, it is a HUGE payraise from what they are used to making in thier home Countries!!!
WE ARE THE PROBLEM! YOU AND I!!! We want MORE and MORE and MORE and want to pay LESS and LESS for it!!!! When you shop do you ONLY buy American when it is available, NEITHER DO I!!! WE ARE THE PROBLEM!!!!

ID: 102544 · Report as offensive
Paul Zimmerman
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1440
Credit: 11
RAC: 0
United States
Message 102673 - Posted: 22 Apr 2005, 16:43:40 UTC - in response to Message 102544.  


> Paul can you tell me who owns the Companies that you invest in? I will tell
> you...the "wealthiest Americans"!
> And who runs those same companies....again the "wealthiest Americans"!
> Sooo if the "wealthiest Americans" get a tax break can't they then hire more
> people to work in those same companies?

They could have but as is known, they have not. That's why it's called a jobless recovery.


> And don't EVEN go and say that those jobs are going overseas!!!!

Why, do you think the manufacturing of tangible products is only smoke and mirrors?


> YOU AND I are the reason those jobs are going overseas!!!!!
> YOU and I want, NO DEMAND, higher and higher returns on our investments from
> those same companies!!!! In order for a company to give higher and higher
> returns it MUST operate at a very high rate of profitablity. AND since labor
> costs are THE BIGGEST expense for a company, getting the same work done
> caheaper keep the profits high! You and I will make a product of minimum wage,
> for example, $5.35US per hour, BUT a person in India will do that SAME job for
> $0.35US per hour! That is 35 CENTS PER HOUR! NO DUH as to why jobs are going
> overseas! We Americans have become VERY used to our way of living and working
> and we want MORE! Will you go and work at McDonald's? for minimum wage? People
> that come from overseas will, it is a HUGE payraise from what they are used to
> making in thier home Countries!!!
> WE ARE THE PROBLEM! YOU AND I!!! We want MORE and MORE and MORE and want to
> pay LESS and LESS for it!!!! When you shop do you ONLY buy American when it is
> available, NEITHER DO I!!! WE ARE THE PROBLEM!!!!

Two things.... the labor discrepancy has been in existance for a long time, nothing new in that.... what changed was laws that we had to protect American jobs and trade.

Free trade and globalization have that downside.... since tariffs cannot protect your industry from competition.

Another change was allowing companies to bring their profits back to the US untaxed. It used to make more sense for the companies to keep their plants here because we protected the jobs by taxing the overseas profits.... that's no longer a policy.

(Oh, and you assume incorrectly about my buying habits... )
ID: 102673 · Report as offensive
Paul Zimmerman
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1440
Credit: 11
RAC: 0
United States
Message 103000 - Posted: 23 Apr 2005, 16:39:33 UTC

[O]verruling the department on foreign exchange matters, traditionally the Treasury's domain, marked a new departure. It is not clear exactly who made the call on China....

Richard Medley, head of Medley Global Advisors, tells clients that there is no one dominant voice on economic policy.

Messrs Cheney, Card, Bolten and Rove, the key decision-makers, take the lead on different economic policy issues.

"There are loose rules on who determines what and who wants to be involved on a particular issue," he says.

The White House inner circle is widely acknowledged to consist of very smart people. But they are not economists and do not have financial market backgrounds. Some current and former administration officials worry that when the decisions are taken, there is often no economist in the room.


ID: 103000 · Report as offensive

Message boards : Cafe SETI : The Stock Market


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.