NationStates Jolt Archive

For the first time since June 2001, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has hit the psychological 11,000 Mark.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181063,00.html
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/09/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/

Yay! Of course, that means it's still 6% below where it was at its highest point in 2000, but hey, give the Bush economy another five years and maybe he'll get it back above that level. Which would mean we were back where we were when Clinton was president.

As indicators go, the Dow is a pretty crappy picture of how the overall economy is doing, but it does signal one thing pretty accurately--corporate America is doing pretty well. That doesn't translate into much for most of the country, but it does mean that the people whith money to invest are doing pretty well.

I only say this because I want to make clear that when Bush says the economy is strong and the Democrats disagree, they're both right. It's strong for some and shitty for others.

Nazz, the economy didn't fall because of Bush and it didn't go up because of him or Clinton either.

The economy has almost 0 to do with the President. The Dow fell the past few years because it was adjusting for overvaluation of the market by idiots who drove it up by investing in crappy tech companies that had no real hope of making money. The growth in the 1990s was a fluke caused by people who invested without researching the companies they invested in. The fall the Dow and Nasdaq had was the adjustment to the real levels of what the market was worth.

Nazz, the economy didn't fall because of Bush and it didn't go up because of him or Clinton either.

The economy has almost 0 to do with the President. The Dow fell the past few years because it was adjusting for overvaluation of the market by idiots who drove it up by investing in crappy tech companies that had no real hope of making money. The growth in the 1990s was a fluke caused by people who invested without researching the companies they invested in. The fall the Dow and Nasdaq had was the adjustment to the real levels of what the market was worth.
*SCHMACK* If ever again you bring into question any of my excuses to at all dislike whomever happens to be in power, so help me God, IDF.....I will cut you.

It's just that.....I haven't anybody else to loathe.....:(

It could be that Corny just likes that number, 11,000.
Note that he didn't even ALLUDE to any pretense of it being good or bad, just where it is in a succession of dates in correlation to that number, and he really didn't even do much in that regard either.
As much fun as it is to humiliate him, i can't find a lot of anything to lead Corny around by the septum here.
I also give creedence to the liking-the-# theory because it appears sometimes that Corny has a significant and occlusive preoccupation with the idea of 100%.

EDIT: Uhm in clarification i can say this is one of the only posts i've EVER seen that isn't riddled with inaccuracy or blatant partisan illogic and vitriol.

11,000 is nice, but I prefer %4.9 for encouraging numbers.. that's a low unemployment number no matter how you interpret it.

While we're at how great Stock Exchanges are...the German Economy sucks, right? Teh Evil Socialism kills it, every American school child learns that.

Well, behold:
http://ifbic.infobolsanet.com/graficos/IFBgetchart.dll?GetChart?MV=I_DI&DATEINIT=20030125&DIF=0&U=1852&DATEEND=20060109&FRECUENCY=D1&HEIGHT=185&WIDTH=283&CHARTYPE=5&TH=Y&DI=001&LAN=DE&RT=1
http://ifbic.infobolsanet.com/graficos/IFBgetchart.dll?GetChart?MV=I_DI&DATEINIT=20050114&DIF=0&U=1851&DATEEND=20060109&FRECUENCY=D1&HEIGHT=185&WIDTH=283&CHARTYPE=5&TH=Y&DI=001&LAN=DE&RT=1

I might a killing plus a bit extra, just in the last six months.

where's all the wieners who were moaning about 'high' unemployent and a down market back in 01/02?

Chasing their latest political bandwagon I suppose.

Yay! Of course, that means it's still 6% below where it was at its highest point in 2000, but hey, give the Bush economy another five years and maybe he'll get it back above that level. Which would mean we were back where we were when Clinton was president.

Yeah, but at least this time it won't plunge 30 or 40% because it was ridiculously overvalued. Clinton knew what would happen, but there wasn't a thing he could've done about it. :(

I only say this because I want to make clear that when Bush says the economy is strong and the Democrats disagree, they're both right. It's strong for some and shitty for others.

It all depends on what you're doing. Financial services are doing great while manufacturing lags, for example.

Anyways, Dow 11,000 is a psychological landmark, nothing more. Hopefully, it will motivate more people to invest in the markets and drive prices upward. The markets have a lot going for them, and they have room to go higher.

While we're at how great Stock Exchanges are...the German Economy sucks, right? Teh Evil Socialism kills it, every American school child learns that.

Well, behold:
http://ifbic.infobolsanet.com/graficos/IFBgetchart.dll?GetChart?MV=I_DI&DATEINIT=20030125&DIF=0&U=1852&DATEEND=20060109&FRECUENCY=D1&HEIGHT=185&WIDTH=283&CHARTYPE=5&TH=Y&DI=001&LAN=DE&RT=1
http://ifbic.infobolsanet.com/graficos/IFBgetchart.dll?GetChart?MV=I_DI&DATEINIT=20050114&DIF=0&U=1851&DATEEND=20060109&FRECUENCY=D1&HEIGHT=185&WIDTH=283&CHARTYPE=5&TH=Y&DI=001&LAN=DE&RT=1.

Of course, the Dax is still 31% off of its record highs, but its performance is still very impressive. What's happening is profits are strong but interest rates aren't rising, which is causing a sustainable rally.

Yay, the ISEQ hits 7,500! Whoo hoo!

*Scoffs at lowly FTSE struggling at 5700*

Muahahahahaha.....

This 11,000 is legit. Remember when the Nasdaq was at 5,000? It really wasn't worth that much. Everyone just bought Yahoo at 500 so it drove it up. Why the hell was Yahoo that high? What do they do special to make them earn profitcs that justify such a price? The answer is nothing. It just showed how overvalued the market was and how dumb the investors were.

Of course, the Dax is still 31% off of its record highs...
Indeed...I'm looking forward to it. :D

11,000 is nice, but I prefer %4.9 for encouraging numbers.. that's a low unemployment number no matter how you interpret it.
Well, there is one way--the accurate way--that shows it's not such a great number. The reason it has fallen is not because of jobs created and people entering the job market. It's because people have taken themselves out of the job market because they can't find work. They don't get counted after a certain period of time elapses--they're still unemployed, but since they don't get benefits, they get shifted off the books. A better gauge of employment is to look at the percentage of employable work force that has a job, and last time I looked, that number was lower than it's been in decades--when the economy was the hottest under Clinton, it ran at about 67%. Last time I saw it, we were looking at about 64%. Now 3% may not sound like a lot, but extrapolate that out to over a hundred million workers and it's a sizable difference.

Look, the economy is working for some, just not for most.

Look, the economy is working for most, just not for some.
fixed

Look, the economy is working for some, just not for most.
The unemployment numbers and consumer confidence ratings tend to disagree with your liberal spin.

The unemployment numbers and consumer confidence ratings tend to disagree with your liberal spin.
Your ignorance of his qualification of the unemployment numbers and your ignorance of the seasonal nature of the quotes on "consumer confidence" tend to qualify your conservative spin.

fixed
Don't ever do that shit again. I don't change other people's quotes--don't do it to me. You want to debate me, fine, but what you just pulled is bullshit, motherfucker.

The unemployment numbers and consumer confidence ratings tend to disagree with your liberal spin.
"The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production... All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand."
Who's spinning what?

Don't ever do that shit again. I don't change other people's quotes--don't do it to me. You want to debate me, fine, but what you just pulled is bullshit, motherfucker.

Sorry you feel that way.

It happens all the time, though. I supposed I should've bolded the changed parts or something. People have really never felt that way about it.

Didn't know it was an "issue" for people here. Everywhere I've been it's just a "clever" way to make a point.

Whatever.

Well, there is one way--the accurate way--that shows it's not such a great number. The reason it has fallen is not because of jobs created and people entering the job market. It's because people have taken themselves out of the job market because they can't find work. They don't get counted after a certain period of time elapses--they're still unemployed, but since they don't get benefits, they get shifted off the books. A better gauge of employment is to look at the percentage of employable work force that has a job, and last time I looked, that number was lower than it's been in decades--when the economy was the hottest under Clinton, it ran at about 67%. Last time I saw it, we were looking at about 64%. Now 3% may not sound like a lot, but extrapolate that out to over a hundred million workers and it's a sizable difference.

No, actually labor participation is at 66%, which although is less than it was during the late 1990's is still decent; however, you also have to take in to account that more people are retiring now than they were in the past which will skew the numbers.

Employment-population is also lower, but still pretty good; it's at the same levels as we were during the peak of the 1980's boom, and is in an uptrend.

Change in employment in 2005: +2,646,000
Change in labor force in 2005: +1,980,000 (2004: 1,054,000)
Change in number unemployed:-665,000

So, some of the unemployment is due to labor force reduction, but this hasn't been the case during 2005; if you look at the statistics you will see that the number of unemployed due to reentry is up to 33% from 26% in 2004. Also, long-term unemployment has fallen along with discouraged workers.

What this means is that the labor force is growing and only a small amount of the decline in unemployment is due to people leaving the workforce, many of which are retirees. Hopefully, the uptrend in real earnings will continue in to 2006.

Don't ever do.. blah-blah-blah wank-wank-wank bullshit, motherfucker.


:P

Your ignorance of his qualification of the unemployment numbers and your ignorance of the seasonal nature of the quotes on "consumer confidence" tend to qualify your conservative spin.


Gawd that is a weak come back. It rates right up there with "oh yeah?" and "I know you are but what am I".

Look, the economy is working for some, just not for most.

I'd say it's a little more than 50%, since the middle class is alright epecially with home equity's rally and solid growth in salaried income and investment returns; the lower middle and lower class are pretty much poor to flat in terms of economic opportunity and income.

You also have to consider that for the DJIA to reach 11,000 now shows that certain other elements of the economy must be doing very well. After all, General Motors is still included in the average, and we all know how well they've been doing lately.

Dow finished above 11,000 again today :)

Gawd that is a weak come back. It rates right up there with "oh yeah?" and "I know you are but what am I".
Read the source, Polly.
*squawk!*

EDIT: Also, i'm aware this isn't an A-material post. It's not an A-material thread. Really, i don't see any reason to argue with the OP'r, WHICH I'VE ALREADY POINTED OUT.
So this is the material i've got to work with. That post and, even more banal, yours.
*baton*

fixed
I hope it's not too late to mention what an asshat you are. Asshat.

Ya know, if Presidents are so impotent with regard to the economy, then why is it that every President spends so much tax revenue forming, implementing and selling their economic policy? And why do Republicans waste their breath defending Bush's economic policies when they are, in the end, utterly ineffective at changing anything?

Hmmmm. . .

Everywhere I've been it's just a "clever" way to make a point.

Whatever.

Don't get out much, then? Or perhaps the bar on cleverness is a little low in your neck of the woods.

Whatever.

Well it is an economics thread so flaming is unavoidable... but lets stop with the personal attacks and play nice ok?