Why is the Stock Market Collapsing over last two months?

[Secretariat]

I see the market is down another 200 down today. Way below pre-election totals now. So much for that booming economy W promised us. it's almost impossible to find a profitable stock except Exxon-Mobil and I refuse to support their continued gouging.

W has shown he can't handle a business, now he's proven he can't budget a government. The fiscal incompetence of this man is unbeleivable.

[PaceAdvantage]

How long have you been waiting for a correction in the market to make that post? 4 years almost? LOL

Take a gander at a two year chart of the S&P and then get back to me.

Collapse? We're still in a solid uptrend!! LOL

If it drops below the August 2004 low, then I'll talk turkey with ya. Until then, your writings are very premature....

[hurrikane]

Actually most of ExxonMobil's profits are not from CONUS gas.

PA,
prices drop to that level....buy like hell.!!!!!

[ljb]

I don't understand this market. Perhaps we should check with Faux infotainment. They had said prior to the last election "the market is falling because folks think Kerry is going to win." Perhaps now they will tell is it is falling because Kerry didn't lose by enough. :D :D :D
Pa,
Run a chart since Bush first took office.

[lsbets]

Sec - I've asked you this before, can you show us some PROOF that the oil companies are gouging the consumer, or do you not care about proof because high gas prices are good for your agenda?

[Secretariat]

Sec - I've asked you this before, can you show us some PROOF that the oil companies are gouging the consumer, or do you not care about proof because high gas prices are good for your agenda?

Yes, and I posted a link from the California Energy Commission verifying a quadrupling of profits. Maybe quadrupling doesn't qualfiy as gouging to you, it does to me.

btw..I asked you before, but never got a reply. What is the cost of gas in Iraq presently?


And PA, I suppose you call the Nasdaq down 10% for the year a booming economy. And with these masssive deficits even Bush can't cut taxes anymore to stimulate the economy, and Greenspan can't lower interest rates or inflation will explode which it probably is going to do anyway, even though they hide energy costs from the core. Do you read Businessweek or just WH briefings - everyone is selling.

[ljb]

lsbets,
I have repeatedly asked anyone on this board to explain to me how the oil companies increased their profits by 30 to 40 percent last year with no sign of innovative process changes or extreme cost cutting measures. I guess we will both have to just ponder.
But that put aside, what really worries me about all this mess. (stock market crash, oil price surge, decrease in actual wages, increase in living expenses etc. ) and worst of all Bush's declining approval rating. What really worries me is: If things don't turn around soon the neo-cons are going to have to start another WAR!
You heard it here first.

[lsbets]

Hey guys - you need to put your heads together, have profits quadrupled or gone up 30-40%. Basic econimcs and business knowledge says you don't need to do anything special to increase profits when you sell a commodity and the market price moves higher, but you guys aren't interested in that, you are only interested in trying to make Bush look bad. Some people have attempted to have a serious discussion of the issues, but you two are way beyond thinking about anything, like Tom said - Blinkers On.

[Lefty]

Nice post, lsbets. These guys don't understand SUPPLY AND DEMAND!

[Secretariat]

Hey guys - you need to put your heads together, have profits quadrupled or gone up 30-40%. Basic econimcs and business knowledge says you don't need to do anything special to increase profits when you sell a commodity and the market price moves higher, but you guys aren't interested in that, you are only interested in trying to make Bush look bad. Some people have attempted to have a serious discussion of the issues, but you two are way beyond thinking about anything, like Tom said - Blinkers On.

Well, obviously you didn't read my previous links. LBJ is talking about annual profits. I'm talking about the spike that occurred during a particular period of time as tracked by the California Energy Commission per your request for proof. Hence, I posted a state govt. agency tracking it, and LBJ posted market results. And as to "trying to make bush look bad", we don't need to do that he's doing a bang up job in that regard himself. Actually Isbets, do you really want to know what the gas profits are for the oil companies? Check for yourself. Do you really want to know what the California energy Commission reported -- see for yourself. I doubt you will check, preferring to trust big oil, and the Pres. and VP which is simply a part of their family.

Perhaps, you guys should take the blinkers OFF.

[lsbets]

Sec, let me explain how things normally work - you make the accusation, you need to provide the proof. You do plenty of accusing and no proving, but we're used to that from you.

[Tom]

Since I put Sec on IGNORE, I have not noticed any change in the level of proof or facts he posts! :bang: :lol: :sleeping:

[Secretariat]

Sec, let me explain how things normally work - you make the accusation, you need to provide the proof. You do plenty of accusing and no proving, but we're used to that from you.

Problem is Isbets, we put up the proof, we give links. You either just chose not to read them, or not to accept them as proof. You don't have to beleive the California Energy Commission. You don't even have to beleive the basic stock reports which are publicly available showing XOM profits up 40%. That is your perogative. You choose to beleive two oilmen in the WH. Oilmen who by the way refuse to even release the attendees at their Energy Meetings, but that is the great thing about America. You can beleive without questioning or researching on your own. Maybe this is what W means by faith. Just trust him.

[Secretariat]

btw..Isbets, it took all of a minute to find 39% profits FOR ONE QUARTER for Exxon Mobil as reported by the fair and balanced network FOX-NEWS.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C127423%2C00.html

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey Sec....what do you think the shareholders in Exxon would think if they found out the company wasn't doing everything it could to be as profitable as possible? This goes for ANY publicly traded company.....

[lsbets]

Sec you don't read anything that anyone posts other than those you agree with, do you? So profits are up - WHY? That is where the proof of gouging would be. Tell me why. You want to accuse and you want to insult, that's fine, you're too juvenile to have any kind of a meaningful discussion with. I'm not trying to defend anyone, I'm asking a question and your only answer is "You want to believe the oil guys and their buddies in the WH" You really are brainwashed. Its easier getting my 3 year old to listen than to get you to give a meaningful response. Again, I do not doubt that profits are up - why are profits up? I keep asking you guys that, and you have no interest in the reasons why. Several members of this board have posted thoughtful, insightful answers, it really is a shame that you can't bring yourself to do that. I'm not choosing to believe anyone, I'm asking questions. I thought you might actually be intersted in finding out answers, but obviously you are not.

So, I will ask the same question again since you love to do research, why are the profits up at the oil companies? Do they price based on the same margins as when oil was $20 a barrel, or have the margins increased/decreased? I seriously doubt you will bother to post a real answer. Here's another question for you. What determines the price of gasoline? Give some answers for a change instead of rhetoric.

[lsbets]

Sec,

Maybe this will help point you in the right direction to try and find an answer:

[lsbets]

Now, the numbers behind the graph - all industries are at 6.3%, with oil at 6.9%. Autos, one of the largest pieces of our economy are at 1.4%. If oil companies profit margins are suddenly at 12%, then you probably have a point.

Now, what determines the price of gas? Here is another picture:

So, 51% of the price of gas comes from the price of crude. American oil companies only supply about 15% of the world's crude oil. OPEC supplies about 40% of it. The other 45% comes from other nations, including Canada and Russia (I don't believe either one is a member of OPEC).

[Lefty]

PA, don'tcha know in the liberal world that business is not supposed to make money; it's all supposed to go to the employees and consumers!

[ljb]

PA, don'tcha know in the liberal world that business is not supposed to make money; it's all supposed to go to the employees and consumers!
Another misconception by the neocons. Who told you this ? Fess up now, was it Rush or Hannity? Or perhaps it was shown as late breaking news on Faux infotainment?
:lol:

[ljb]

Sec,

Maybe this will help point you in the right direction to try and find an answer:
ls, nice graph. I have felt for years that the banks were crooks. Charging the interest they do for loans and paying the minimal amount to depositers.
The others on the graph can also be explained - expected?
My concern however, is not with how much profit any industry makes. My concern is with the fact that the oil industry increased it's profits by 30 to 40 percent during these trying times. Keep in mind that for most of us gas is a commodity of neccesity (as is pharmacetucals for some of us but that's another story).

[lsbets]

Okay, ljb, for some dumb reason, I'll bite. Yes, profits have gone up 30-40%, but if there has not been any appreciable increase in profit margins, than profits have gone up simply because the price of oil has gone up. Just as profits will go down when the price of oil goes down. If the price ever gets to $20 a barrel again, will you be saying we should keep gas prices high because the oil companies employ a lot of people and need the extra profit to avoid layoffs? As I said, as hate the high price of gas as much or more than anyone else, but it does not appear to be due to gouging on anyone's part, at least if you use the definition of gouging that most would learn in economincs 101. But, it makes for good, populist rhetoric, so who cares where the truth might lie, right?

[Kreed]

The Downs alway mean more than the Ups ... Uncertainty + Poor Data.
Bad Retail Sales for sure + Shaky consumer Sentiment = UNCERTAINTY.
Forget good figs from Citigroup, Watchovia & GE ... them plus many financial
firms are scoring big & they ALWAYS will. But that's NOT everday people.
Is it possible for our economy to tank? YES, but even then so many people
and firms have so much reserve that it won't threaten them "Ever."
Yeah, IBM & SUN Micro tanked, so what. To me, that's just a Yawn; but crap
retail sales, rising import debt, lousy export figs, poor job growth, AND, to me,
an administration that's obsessed with Tax Cuts & SS .... I think we are
in a BAD position NOT because the Dow is down ~6% from '04, but because
WHO CAN DIVINE WHAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL DO? It does NOT
listen to any independent economists or accountants or scientists, but just
keeps on talking Faith initiatives etc. BTW, recall when Microsoft Finally paid
out its First-Time Dividend just months ago? How many here think THAT ALONE by pouring BILLIONS into the USA economy accounted for a PEAK upturn? hehe .... I really hope we get someone who works for the average guy & his needs --SOON.

[Tom]

lsbets....great information. Facts are to liberals as garlic is to Dracula!


BTW, I thought all the libs were so cranky becasue the economy was so bad.....isn't making profits a sign of a GOOD economy? Sounds like they want the economy to improve but no one make any money off it! Duh?:bang:

[ljb]

Okay, ljb, for some dumb reason, I'll bite. Yes, profits have gone up 30-40%, but if there has not been any appreciable increase in profit margins, than profits have gone up simply because the price of oil has gone up. Just as profits will go down when the price of oil goes down. If the price ever gets to $20 a barrel again, will you be saying we should keep gas prices high because the oil companies employ a lot of people and need the extra profit to avoid layoffs? As I said, as hate the high price of gas as much or more than anyone else, but it does not appear to be due to gouging on anyone's part, at least if you use the definition of gouging that most would learn in economincs 101. But, it makes for good, populist rhetoric, so who cares where the truth might lie, right?
ls,
I am not sure what the definition of gouging in economincs 101 is. I will look it up when I finish this board session. But my thoughts are: The American Petroleum Industry took advantage of the current state of the world oil market to increase their profits. That is, when oil went up, say a dollar a barrel the industry passed this increase on to their customers. A fair and just adjustment imho. However they also added an additional dollar to the price to the consumers for an increase in their profit. This imho is what I call gouging. I would expect consumer prices to drop as oil prices drop. I do not know about prices in Texas but in Michigan prices will jump 20 cents a gallon at the slightest tremor in the crude oil market and then they trickle back down at a penny every day or so. They also have a habit of raising prices on thursdays around here by 20 cents or so and trickle back down for a week or two. I think this is also a gouging tactic, but we accept it ?

[ljb]

Ok,
I just did a little searching on the web and could find nothing that indicated price gouging by the oil industry. I therefore take back all my accusations of gouging by the American Petroleum Industry. It seems what is actually taking place is: the industry is taking advantage of current conditions to maximize their profits. An acceptable business practice in our market economy. Some may consider this unethical but I leave that for others to decide.
As consumers our only options are to consume less or just grin and bear it.
I do fill up on Thursday mornings if I plan on doing a lot of driving in the coming week.

[Lefty]

lbj, unlike you I can think for myself. I've been around longer than Rush and Hannity and all the rest. Just glad they're arpound to now get out to the general public what i've known since i've been a young man.

What's the misconception? You say it's gouging I say it's supply and deman and business has a right to a profit. Did you know any business' first obligation is to its stockholders?

[Lefty]

lbj, congrats. This is the most fair and balanced thing you've ever posted. Confess now, you have been peeking at Fox News maybe just a wee bit? Anyway, commend you on the "take back." That's impressive!

But what's really taking place is supply and demand.

[Buckeye]

I'd say it's the President's fault.

Happy?

[Kreed]

Yeah sure, just like the Supply & Demand that took place in California for
Electricity. Oh no, that's wrong: didn't that phony paper electric company
create shortages & excessive "Demand?" Now let's see, if you S&D guys are
right then WE can expect ONLY higher gas prices & maybe if there's any
disruption in supply, then H I G H prices, maybe even a dreaded $5/Gal?
But if all this is true, then BUSH is still to blame, even more so: since
WALL ST and many, many economists have Predicted this starting with great
frequency about 1.5 years ago!! If only Bush would read & put down that
Ipod.

[Suff]

I'd say it's the President's fault.

Happy?


Cute.

But we have other Conservatives inisisting the President has changed the National Dialogue to Morals and Personal repsonsibilty. So if Con's are going to insist that he that raised the morality and personal responsibilty for 300 Million people... Then manipulation of a tiny thing like a few hundred stocks would be a mornings work for SuperBush.

[Buckeye]

If it was THAT clear to you :) then you got it, right?

Moving forward, how can we capitalize on this President if you don't mind?

Thanks in advance.

Predictability comes before the cart, the horse and the egg.

You're a horseplayer, so I know you know about the future.

[Lefty]

Kreed, Bush is to blame for the industilization of China and India? You working on Wall St or Walled-In St.?

[ljb]

lbj, congrats. This is the most fair and balanced thing you've ever posted. Confess now, you have been peeking at Fox News maybe just a wee bit? Anyway, commend you on the "take back." That's impressive!

But what's really taking place is supply and demand.
Lefty, I take a peek at Faux infotainment when I can't get reruns of the Brady Bunch. You know, something light and nonsensical .
Supply and Demand has to do with prices. We are talking about Profits.

[kenwoodallpromos]

A dip usually is followed by a surge. Always dips around tax day.

[Kreed]

April Showers bring May Flowers, or, Sell in May & Go Away.

[Lefty]

lbj, duh, prices and profits go together don'tcha think. I know you think business shouldn't make profits but guess what? Their first responsibilty is to their stockholders and that's economics 101.

[Secretariat]

Kendall,

I hope you're right, but this began in February, not just recently.

Lefty,

It is one thing for the gas and oil industry to be profitable, but remember they are heavily subsidized already by the government. if they're going to keep reorting 30-40% profits each quarter, and Isbets whether you agree to the FOX-News article or not, they are, then cut their tax breaks.

As to the gouging collusion issue, the definition of gouging is an abuse of the market to garnish higher profits. Fortunately, there are some with integrity in Congress not accepting carte blanche GW's and hence the oil industries reasons for the obscene profits.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/politics/print_041405_politics_oil.html

[ljb]

lbj, duh, prices and profits go together don'tcha think. I know you think business shouldn't make profits but guess what? Their first responsibilty is to their stockholders and that's economics 101.
Based on your duh statement, I guess McDonalds original 15 cent hamburger would result in bankruptcy.
As far as me thinking business shouldn't make profits, must have been something you saw on Faux infotainment cause it ain't true. (Faux = fake, get it?) :D :D :D
I accept your statement that they have consumers as a secondary responsibility. I am not sure if this is the "Christian" thing to do during these trying times but, I will leave that up to others to decide.

[Lefty]

lbj, at the time McDonalds made money selling those 15c hamburgers but they don't sell them today for that do they? So you have a very flawed analogy. The "Christan" thing to do for any business is make profits for their investors because they are morally and legally required to do their utmost to do so.

[ljb]

lbj, at the time McDonalds made money selling those 15c hamburgers but they don't sell them today for that do they? So you have a very flawed analogy. The "Christan" thing to do for any business is make profits for their investors because they are morally and legally required to do their utmost to do so.
Well Lefty sounds contradictory first you say prices and profits go together and then you side step the fact that the lowest priced burger joint made much profit.
I guess your version of "Christian" behaviour holds profits above the well being of those less fortunate ones that struggle to feed their family already and now have to contend with exceedingly high gas prices. Some would call that greed, but then greed is not "Christian" or is it?

[Suff]

If it was THAT clear to you :) then you got it, right?

Moving forward, how can we capitalize on this President if you don't mind?

.

The single biggest advantage GWB has is a Vice-president with no further poltical aspirations. No VP with Presidential Hopes would have signed on for a 2nd term knowing in advance that Bush would put his hands on the third rail. And more.

Although, I sense some dissent in the Congress because those guys and gals need to run for reelection. And its Frist's Job, and Delay's Job to convince the republican political animals in the Senate & House that the Party has the surplus capital to take the Hits they'll take, by furthering the HARD RIGHT.....at the expense of losing moderates in the Voting Booths.

I think Bush could, and should take a more candid stand, on the accomplishments and errors he's made to date. Thereby, giving us the chance to build on the success's, and open the door to new directions on the errors.

Of course, I have concerns about the Solvency of SSI. And I Think Bush is in a unique posistion to address this issue, while not risking his, or his VP's poltical future. Tax Reform, and I mean a complete overhaul, should be higher up on the agenda (imho). It should have taken preference over bankruptcy reform. Because ultimately, whoever forwards tax reform, to the level it requires, will be committing political suicide. And not neccassarily from the Voting Public. Perhaps even more so, from corporations (who do not pay thier fair share), and the Washington Insiders who thrive of the Revenue generation system in place. IRS, GAO, CBO and so forth.

[Lefty]

lbj, your argument is specious; look it up. When those hamburgers were 15cents how much was gas? I remember when I was 16 it being about 19 CENTS. At that time there was plenty of supply of both burgers and gas to meet the demand. Have you noticed burgers are no longer 15cents? Are the hamburger joints gouging us too?
Why bring christianity into this? Are you an atheist or one of the secularists that are responsible for bringing dn the moral values in this country? If companies didn't make a profit there would be a lot more needy people. Corporations donate mucho dollars to chatity, not to mention employing people. No profits no charity. Get out of your liberal fantasy world. Utopia is a myth. Supply and demand is a valid and real economic concept!

[ljb]

lbj, your argument is specious; look it up. When those hamburgers were 15cents how much was gas? I remember when I was 16 it being about 19 CENTS. At that time there was plenty of supply of both burgers and gas to meet the demand. Have you noticed burgers are no longer 15cents? Are the hamburger joints gouging us too?
Why bring christianity into this? Are you an atheist or one of the secularists that are responsible for bringing dn the moral values in this country? If companies didn't make a profit there would be a lot more needy people. Corporations donate mucho dollars to chatity, not to mention employing people. No profits no charity. Get out of your liberal fantasy world. Utopia is a myth. Supply and demand is a valid and real economic concept!
Lefty,
You are totally confused you said profit relates to prices or profit = prices. When Mac's burgers were 15 cents most other resturants charged 25 to 35 cents. Christian behaviour has to do with companies maximizing their profits at the expense of many who are struggling to survive in this nasty Republican economy. What does your note have to do with reality? Oh never mind, you are a faux fan reality is optional.

[Lefty]

lbj, do not try to transfer your economic confusion to me. Your analagy is flawed yet you persist like you could possibly steamroll me. Hamburgers were not in short supply. o McDonalds did it with volume. The gas wars of my youth dealt with temp. losses and volume. Gas is in short supply. It is supply and demand. Take an economics course and get over yourself.

[ljb]

And the fact that American refinerys are restricting their output has nothing to do with supply.

[lsbets]

ljb - you bring up a good point about refining capacity. How many refineries have been built in the U.S. over the last 5, 10 and 20 years? What percentage of capacity are our refineries currently working at? If our refineries are working at or near full capacity and not many new ones have been built recently, why is that?

[Lefty]

lsbets, I think you know and was wondering if lbj knows, but I assure you he doesn't. He doesn't seem to get the real news especially when it's about the obstructionism of his lib pals in Washington and in various movements. So you might just as well give him the answer.

[ljb]

lsbets, I think you know and was wondering if lbj knows, but I assure you he doesn't. He doesn't seem to get the real news especially when it's about the obstructionism of his lib pals in Washington and in various movements. So you might just as well give him the answer.

Lefty,
Are you accusing lsbets of trolling on this board?
Last I heard the American oil producing companies had closed 24 refineries in the last ? years. No need to build more refineries when profits are already being maximized with current output. Environmental restrictions also have something to do with building refinieries however, they have the sites available where they shut down refineries.
There was a link on one of these threads concerning refineries restricting output.

[lsbets]

ljb - I was just asking a question, you seem to alternate between wanting to find answers and just wanting to spout rhetoric. I'll get around to looking the info up myself, but I thought you might be interested in some help trying to find answers to some questions that one of your points brought up. I don't know how many refineries have closed in the past or why. Could be cost control (there's some of the efficiencies you've been looking for), could have been environmental concerns, could have been lack of use. I don't know. Also, environmental restrictions could also prohibit the reopening of some of the closed refineries, I'm not sure, but it would be interesting to look up.

[Suff]

Europes & Asia's Markets were all down overnight. Tokyo Stock Exchange was down 3%!! Overnight.Nikkei 225 10,938.44 - 432.25

I was pretty skitish at the opening bell this morning. But it appears to be holding on..

DJIA 10,083.89 - 3.62

Nasdaq 1,915.88 + 7.73

S&P 500 1,146.46 + 3.84

Forbes 40 2,093.71 + 4.53

Russell 2000 584.76 + 3.98

10-Yr Treasury 4.25% -0.019

FTSE 100 4,827.10 - 64.50

Nikkei 225 10,938.44 - 432.25

Some nice earnings from Eli Lily and Bank Of America.... tempered by cautious forecasts... but enough to beathe some life into the equity market.

1:30 update of the Floor

BRIEFING.COM] Stocks continue to trade at improved levels although the recent recovery effort seems to have stalled... Minimizing gains in technology, however, have been large declines in Software (-0.5%), primarily from two names... While further consolidation in the space has provided a floor of support for most stocks in the group, shares of Adobe (ADBE 55.27 -5.39) - which has finally announced plans to acquire Macromedia (MACR 37.11 +3.66) after years of speculation surrounding a potential combination - have sold off, even though it expects Q2 earnings and revenues to be at the upper end of its previous estimates... Check Point Software (CHKP 21.46 -0.34), the other disappointment in the group, has fallen as lower than expected Q1 revenues have offset its $0.01 earnings surprise

[ljb]

ljb - I was just asking a question, you seem to alternate between wanting to find answers and just wanting to spout rhetoric. I'll get around to looking the info up myself, but I thought you might be interested in some help trying to find answers to some questions that one of your points brought up. I don't know how many refineries have closed in the past or why. Could be cost control (there's some of the efficiencies you've been looking for), could have been environmental concerns, could have been lack of use. I don't know. Also, environmental restrictions could also prohibit the reopening of some of the closed refineries, I'm not sure, but it would be interesting to look up.
lsbets,
I understand you were asking a question. My reply was to Lefty who sort of butted in with his take on the matter. I have replied with the little bit I know about it. I heard 24 refineries closed in the last 30 to 40 years. Now we have also had a consolidation of producers in that time. This may be a case of just buying out the competition and shutting them down. To me, all this is beyound our control. I have just posted some thoughts/theroys on what is going on in the oil industry. We could debate it ad infintium but the fact is we are paying record prices for gas while the American petroleum producers make record profits.

[Lefty]

lbj, i didn't butt in. We've been going at this for awhile now. Anyway, when we needed the refineries the so called environmentalists stopped it; especially in CA. It they are now closing refineries and raising prices it's because we're not getting the supply we were once getting because of the industrialization of India and China. The only way we can now increase the supply is to drill in the good iold U.S.A. Of course, the libs wanta stop that too but continue to win about energy costs.

[PaceAdvantage]

I see the market is down another 200 down today. Way below pre-election totals now. So much for that booming economy W promised us. it's almost impossible to find a profitable stock except Exxon-Mobil and I refuse to support their continued gouging.

W has shown he can't handle a business, now he's proven he can't budget a government. The fiscal incompetence of this man is unbeleivable.


How's the market been since you posted this Sec? This post by you was made only a mere 8 months ago....have you checked out a chart of the S&P since?

Have to call you out on this one. Can't wait to hear your explanation.

[JustRalph]

I see the market is down another 200 down today. Way below pre-election totals now. So much for that booming economy W promised us. it's almost impossible to find a profitable stock except Exxon-Mobil and I refuse to support their continued gouging.

W has shown he can't handle a business, now he's proven he can't budget a government. The fiscal incompetence of this man is unbeleivable.

Only one year after his re-election too................ amazing how full of shit this guy is...........

[lsbets]

PA - you will have the await the official response as a querry is sent to DU on how to respond. I would guess it has something to do with "tax cuts for the wealthy, energy costs, and health care costs - who cares about the stock market, of course the rich guys are getting richer, but everyone else is on the verge of being homeless." Its not like you're looking for an answer from someone who is unpredictable.

[Bobby]

I think the stock market run up has a lot to do with people cashing out in the real estate markets. Lotta uncertainity. And going with cheaper, more affordable homes. And investing the extra cash. Thats what Im doing.

Everyone says the RE market is fine. home sales up . .. dadada, and so forth. But the markets can't sustain increased growth in the prices of homes. Its just too expensive and when it gets like that something has to give sometime . . . .And you can rest assured these big companies ain't gonna be giving raises so you can live in THE ESTATES OF . . .

So prices of homes start decreasing at some point . . .

[PaceAdvantage]

But wait....Sec originally posted, essentially, that bad stock market = Bush's fault.


Now you're saying good stock market <> Bush's credit? I don't understand the logic.

[Secretariat]

But wait....Sec originally posted, essentially, that bad stock market = Bush's fault.


Now you're saying good stock market <> Bush's credit? I don't understand the logic.

The Stock market is NOT good under GW. In fact, it's abysmal. I hope you don't bet based on cyclical trends.

Here's GW's performance.

When GW took office this was the level of the Dow and Nasdaq:

Dow Inauguration Day 2001 = 10587.59
Dow Today = 10856.

An increase of 268.41 over 5 years. This is a 2.5% increase over 5 years or an increase of 0.5% a year.This growth is dramatically BELOW inflation rate. SO, if you invested in a DOW index fund when GW took office, your moeny would be worth a helluva lot LESS money today. Thank God, your pension wasn't tied to that, or our Soc. Security. Simple Treasury Bonds dramtically improved upon that perfomance.

Nasdaq inauguration Day 2001 = 2770.38
Nasdaq Today = 2260.76

A loss of 509.62 on the index. This is an 18.40 LOSS over 5 years or a loss per year of 3.6%. This is without even factoring in loss due to inflation (or broker fees for that matter). This is an embarassment. imagine if your pension or Soc. Security had been tied to a Nasdaq index when GW took office. You'd have lost 18.4% of your money (again disregarding inflation). Wow, the track take is better at many tracks.

No, PA, I'm saying GW deserves all the credit for the stock market performance since his inauguration. All of it. This despite his mortaging our children's future with trax cuts to "spur" the economy, and fostering disatrous deficits which even Greenspan are our biggest danger for the future.
I'm happy the market is performing better. It helps my portfolio. With rising interest rates, part of the market rise is on the hopes with Greenspan leaving that the fed may done raising rates. It's speculative and is contingent on inflation which is contingent to some extent on rising energy costs.

Anyway, I'm glad you like a return of 0.5% a year or a -3.6% loss a year. may as well, put your money in a CD than take those pitiful rates.

[DJofSD]

Boy, I'm so glad that I can now understand the underpinnings of the US economic engine. It's all driven by Bush. Funny thing though, there was an economy before he took office and I expect there will be one after he leaves office. Just how long do we get to blame Bush for all the bad news? Until a democrat gets into office?

[PaceAdvantage]

Damn Sec, you are truly an ass. You post here that the stock market is "collapsing", but from the moment you hit the SUBMIT REPLY button on that fateful TAX day in April, the market has done nothing but GO UP, and you STILL can't admit that you were obviously wrong.

Whatever. Should I expect that your credibility is any better than your market timing?

Please, I beg of you, when you feel that the market is collapsing again, PLEASE POST. I will then know to gather whatever free cash I have and GO LONG SPY.

:lol:

[Secretariat]

Damn Sec, you are truly an ass. You post here that the stock market is "collapsing", but from the moment you hit the SUBMIT REPLY button on that fateful TAX day in April, the market has done nothing but GO UP, and you STILL can't admit that you were obviously wrong.

Whatever. Should I expect that your credibility is any better than your market timing?

Please, I beg of you, when you feel that the market is collapsing again, PLEASE POST. I will then know to gather whatever free cash I have and GO LONG SPY.

:lol:

Wrong? I post the entire performance on the market under GW, and you give me a cyclical performance.

I repeat:

"Anyway, I'm glad you like a return of 0.5% a year or a -3.6% loss a year. may as well, put your money in a CD than take those pitiful rates."

That is a fact. From GW's inauguration to yesterday (which was slighly higher than today) your return on the DOW as an index was +0.5% per year (btw..not adjusted for inflation) and the Nasdaq was a -3.6% loss per year. How in the world do you call this an economic boom, a flat market, record deficits, poverty figures up? I don't get it. The DOW goes up 500 points and you beleive we are in boom times. You must be a day trader.

[JustRalph]

Sec, you obviously don't understand that people move their money in and out of the market. And through different markets and stocks..............if you are going to just let it sit there.........might as well be in a CD

[PaceAdvantage]

I see the market is down another 200 down today. Way below pre-election totals now. So much for that booming economy W promised us. it's almost impossible to find a profitable stock except Exxon-Mobil and I refuse to support their continued gouging.

W has shown he can't handle a business, now he's proven he can't budget a government. The fiscal incompetence of this man is unbeleivable.


Read your initial post again Sec. Your post back then, and your weak replies right now, don't add up. Just admit that you were wrong on the thoughts you posted on APRIL 15, 2005. Don't spin it into an entirely new dimension.

And be sure to check the chart of the S&P since April 15, 2005....thanks....

[Secretariat]

Sec, you obviously don't understand that people move their money in and out of the market. And through different markets and stocks..............if you are going to just let it sit there.........might as well be in a CD

I'm not measuring my ability or a broker's ability to decide when to pull out of the market during a downward trend. I'm looking at the market's performance while GW has been in office, and it's abysmal. Go back and compare to Clinton's performance when in office. He doesn't need to make those excuses. You could have just let it sit there, and made a bundle of money. With this Pres, you're losing to inflation if you're in the Dow and losing a LOT if in the Nasdaq long. PA likes to reference cyclical trends and thats OK for short term traders and if you're smart enough to make the right calls, but it doesn't measure the health of the market over a Presidency. The man has more excuses than TO.

PA wants me to admit I'm wrong even after I post the facts of his Presidency based on a quote I put up in April that the market was trending downward - 200 points in a day I believe Now, because we've had a correction upward the last few months, he beleives we are in a booming economy. We're still flat and there are significant fears of inflation, and rising interest rates. Gold is being heavily invested in currently and it usually during these kinds of times becasue equities (other than energy) are suspect. Despite massive give aways to the wealthy, we are still in a flat economy as the market from Jan .2001 to today shows. No PA, I'm not wrong.