But only as a pre-emptive defense of the arument that posting facts even when they are negative means you want the U.S. to lose. You provided no evidence for the attacks that liberals are happy when the US fails, supports the terrorists, Saddam, or are unpatriotic. You have added zero evidence to that which is the real reason of this thread.
You are the one who claimed 2% inflation. Just under 12% return minus four years worth of inflation at 2 points is just under four percent return for a total of less than 1% per year. I just checked my bank and I can do better on any time deposit (CD) 90 days or over, so I would say that this return blows goats.
No - there are no distinct sides. I only have one "side" (if you want to call it that), and that is my side. My side may not always be correct, but I (hopefully) maintain a capability to adjust as needed. I am not disagreeing with you in this regard. Simply, I do not agree with the absoluteness implied when you state "this side" or "that side". One can agree (or disagree) with both. Or maintain an entirely different viewpoint. And I don't think you intended to say it this way. I'm sure you agree with me. Nevertheless, I felt compelled to illuminate the issue... If I had a nickel for every time I heard the "7AM" excuse.
The reading comprehension teachers at Rice and whatever high school you attended need to be fired. I was accepting the white flag that you threw up in your previous post.
Texxx, Since FB quoted you and I (stupidly) read it: 1) I don't read your posts. Sorry that I missed your moment of glory, but I'm not willing to wade through 300 meaningless posts in the hopes of stumbling on the one time you actually [*gasp*] engaged in debate. 2) Lumping me in your "liberal-side" hate fest simply proves my point.
andy -- You do realize that the Dow is an index based on 30 equities. Do you believe that is an accurate measure of the economy? 30 stocks? Do you think that measure is superior to the low inflation, low interest rates, high real GDP growth, strong corporate earnings or high asset values that we've seen? Honestly, you simply don't know what you are talking about when it comes to any financial or economic topic. Your history of posting proves that very well. To call you an economic amateur would frankly be too generous. That said, if I want advice on where to find an ounce of kind bud or how to live out of the back of a VW microbus, you will be the first person I call.
He's clueless. He doesn't even realize how to calculate real rates of return and that CD rates don't account for inflation. He's just embarrassing himself at this point.
Oh Myopic One, The DJIA is the most widely reported barometer for the stock market. Are you suggesting that The Street is confused about such matters? I eagerly await to be baked in the utter brilliance of your response.
You are the one embarrassing yourself. Even after accounting for your 2% inflation figure, a one year CD returns 2.15% (4.15% is the rate from my bank minus your 2%), which is nearly three times as much as the .86% return that was calculated earlier in the thread. Your education (or lack thereof) is showing.
You do realize that the economy is a little more robust than simply the publicly traded firms in its universe. To help you out, here is some data. Estimated number of public companies in the US: 3,000 Estimated number of private companies in the US: 25,000,000 So you are telling me that a tiny slice of the publicly traded firms, which represent a miniscule slice of all firms, is the end-all-be-all measuring stick for the economy? I think not. You sir, just got OWNED
Professor Kind Bud, If we are measuring historical results, why are you using your bank's current CD rate? BONG'D
It was your brother that claimed that the .86% was a rate of return that was "not too bad." Obviously the DOW is not an overall measure of the economy, but I never argued that it was. You REALLY need to find a good remedial reading teacher. There is a good one at the college where I work, I would be happy to recommend her. Those are wonderful measures of how the richest among us are doing, to be sure. However, consumer spending is flat, real wages are down, and the CPI (which doesn't even include energy prices) is at 2.3%. That does not bode well for the average consumer and as such, while the economy is certainly moving along in a pretty average way for the rich, the rest of us are feeling the pinch from lowered wages, inflation, and rising energy costs. But you certainly don't care about anyone below the 30% tax brackets, so these measures of the economy just don't matter for you. And somehow even this "economic amateur" is able to easily rebuff your silly arguments with less than five minutes of research. No wonder you run away from any kind of substantive debate with me. I could point you to a few students where I work who I suspect could hook you up (we have a workstudy who plays in a reggae band and I bet he could get what you so obviously need) if I didn't think you would be setting up a drug bust. And, though I considered it for the mobile bedroom possibilities, I have never owned a VW bus. I live in a very nice house in Clear Lake with my wife, sons, dogs and the cat and suspect I have a far more fulfilling life than you will ever be able to enjoy. Now go on back to Treasures and buy a woman who can lick your wounds for you.
Moon, I found it to be very convenient for you to pick the four year return on the DOW as your benchmark. You do realize that the recovery didn't really happen well after 9/11, and that would make the three year's number more interesting. And if you look at DOW on Nov 15, 2002, its at 8500. So go from 8500 to 10600 sure looks a lot better than your number, shouldn't that show the growth in the past three years? See you can make the number fit any position. Personally, I think using stock indexes (particular only using one index) to demonstrate the health of the economy is just dumb. There are just so many other variables in play. BTW, did you know the fix income/bond market is much bigger than the equity/stock market?
