Whoever the next president is will inherit a recovering/growing economy. If it's Bush he'll complain that the Democrats are preventing it from growing faster. If it's a Demorcrat, he'll complain that Bush's policies are preventing it from growing faster. No matter what happens the economy will get better and both sides will try to lay blame or take credit. The economy will get better, not because some President "makes it so" but because people just get sick of bad times. It's people (the collection of all of us) that make or break the economy. It's how we react to situations <i>en mass</i> that caused good things or bad things to happen. Not some president's policies. The economy <i>is</i> in disarry but clearly Bush didn't make it so! 9/11 and corporate greed had way more to do with the length of this downturn then anything else. Not to mention that the economy was DUE for a downturn based on it's cyclical nature. A long time ago during Clinton's administration I said that the next president (Bush or Gore or whoever) would have a rotton economy because of the cycle. I can guarantee the next president will have a good economy. The good times almost always last longer then the "bad times". To give any president credit or blame for the economy is about as usefull as giving the same president credit for the weather.
Obviously the bad weather we had yesterday in Houston was the result of President Bush's failed energy policy. -glynch And to add to that, pResident Bush stole the election. -RocketmanTex I'm sick of your racist hypocrisy. Smirnoff Ice sucks. -pgabriel
Hey TJ!!! Any guesses what the PE for the SP 500 was at the start of the month? 33.23 with the historic average being closer to 15. Given our soft economic recovery, one could say that the market has already factored in a strong recovery. The corporate earnings rebound will eventually happen. Until then, the market should mark time, if not head south. BTW, the recent bounce in the stock market is pure speculation since it is not earnings driven. If the market does not see the expected earning recovery by next quarter, the market will likely take back this last speculation hiccup. I see a stock market with a very soft underbelly. Now is probably not a very good time for investors to get back into stocks. Investors should wait until the earnings recovery is in full swing or for the current speculation bubble to pop. Of course this has nothing to do with Bush's tax cut plan, disguised as an economic stimulus package. Tax cuts will be permanent and take place over years to come. The economic stimulus that the ecomony needs should be a short term plan.
I don't have to guess at this. I have the financial information that gives me the exact number. Based on FirstCall's consensus view, which is comprised of a survey of chief market strategists' estimates: S&P 500 2003 P/E 18.0x 2004 P/E 16.8x Get your facts straight before ever challenging me. GAME, SET, MATCH --- thanks for playing, rookie
Why do you people bother to answer this troll anymore? He has no interest in the democratic party other than to denigrate it for whatever gratification it provides him. Case closed, game set match, blah blah blah.
1. The most widely accepted price-to-earnings ratio is put out by FirstCall. This is the number the financial community looks towards. There is no debate surrounding this issue. 2. The forward-looking p/e ratio is the one to focus on, since equity values are based on the present value of future cash flows. Based on the number that you presented, I can only assume that you have a backwards-looking figure. Provide a link to verify. 3. Because you don't get 1. or 2. we are forced to disregard your market commentary.
FirstCall is a subscription service, so posting a link isn't possible. Anyone who reads this and works in finance could verify, however. Your S&P figure is backwards-looking. This is an irrelevant ratio.
Well, we could steer this back towards the topic that the troll originally posted, which is actually interesting, especially compared to the numerology of how the rich get richer (*yawn*). I honestly do think the democratic party is in bad shape. Seriously, if Pleberman becomes the candidate (yes, I know it's too early to tell, but he is way out in front), then we will honestly have two fairly conservative candidates running for president. I truly believe this would reflect the views of the electorate. As the average citizen becomes increasingly suburban, isolated, and conservative, this nation could easily continue becoming more politically conservative. Sorry to be so grim, lefty colleagues, but I believe we could be headed for the following. Technicalities and party semantics aside, the "democratic" party as we know it could actually be pushed to the sidelines; many liberal pillars could get pushed to the green fringe. The conservatives could split into two parties. One could be a MadMax and Mr. Clutch style of conservative politics (Powell-esque), while the other could be a T_J, johnheath, and Darth Vader style of conservative politics (Cheney-esque). This sort of morphing of parties (maybe one is renamed, maybe one splits, who cares which) is not without historical precedence. I am obviously not optimistic. There are those with much greater knowledge of political history here than myself, but before the 30's and 40's, didn't our nation have much lower rates of taxation and much, much less in the way of social services? Maybe we're now living through the decline of a small, humanist, idealistic bubble. Ahhhh, Monday!
Is this link helpful? I found it using google. http://www1.firstcall.com/commentary/market/commentary2.html?commentart|market|full report
I think B-bob made a good speculation on the future of political parties in america. And TJ, about the rain in Houston. If it's toxic, you actually can think Bush for grandfathering those lignite fueled pollution factories for his buddies in the energy industry here in Texas. The millions he got in campaign contributions for that doozy helped our dear leader buy an election.
What we should be thanking him for is saving us in electricity costs. Lignite is fueling plants at about $1.50 per million BTU, about one-third of the cost of a gas fired plant. Would you rather be paying 3 times your current electricity bill? I didn't think so.
Is this link helpful? I found it using google. http://www1.firstcall.com/commentary/market/commentary2.html?commentart|market|full report According to First Call the SP 500 PE i) for the preceding four quarters is 18.8 ii) for the next four quarters is 17.5 The backwarding value does not agree with SP's own number. The difference might be FC does not use a weighted average while SP does???
Nothing like saving a few bucks for the small cost of the air we breathe, but hey if it increases the value of thier stocks why not?
zzzzzzzzz err Nasdaq zzzzzzzzz Apple stock in the sh!ter zzzzzzzzz damn Windows boxes zzzzzzzzzzzz Billy Gates is the devillllllll zzzzzzzzzzzz oh wha wha?!! Oh sorry fell asleep with the Financial News on there, my apologies. To say that the Democratic party is in disarray: Accurate to say the least. To state that this will have much bearing in the 2004 November elections: Overstated. Even New Hampshire Primary numbers are historically insignificant. Early primary results compared with later Super Tuesday historically tell a story of who the favorite candidate WAS and who the up and comers are. In fact, 2000 was the closest to the actual in recent memory with Al Gore winning a slim margin over Bill Bradley and McCain getting nearly half the vote in a multi-candidate primary. Bush at the time correctly said that the loss was a "bump in the road" on the way to the White House. Bottom Line it's too early to tell for sure because all parties not in power tend to look like scattered morons at the very beginning of the election process. See Gary Bauer.
It is better to go hunting with a stick, than to throw poisoned salmon out while you sit back and watch the ensuing carnage, in this case the economy.
