Dow sets all-time high (1 Viewer)

[Navy Pride]

I wonder how Liberals and Democrats will talk this down...:roll:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/03/markets/markets_0405/index.htm?cnn=yes


Blue-chip indicator manages highest close ever, taking out a 6-1/2-year-old record; falling oil is the catalyst.
By Alexandra Twin, CNNMoney.com senior writer
October 3 2006: 4:16 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Dow Jones industrial average closed at its highest level ever Tuesday, and also made a new trading high, knocking out records from more than 6-1/2 years ago, thanks to a nearly 4 percent slide in oil prices.

 

[ProudAmerican]

its that DAMNED Bush economy again.

:mrgreen:

 

[Iriemon]

What is the point you're trying to make here? That this represents some great achievement by Bush?

 

[Navy Pride]

What is the point you're trying to make here? That this represents some great achievement by Bush?

Well when the stock market is down the left blames him so since its at a all time high he should rightly get the credit.........

 

[TheNextEra]

Forclosures on houses are up 18% since last year, and are expected to hit a 40-year high by this time next year. Yep sounds like the economy is just BOOMING.........for the rich of course.

Yep, the rich are doing good, go rich people!

http://www.prweb.com/releases/foreclosures/increasing/prweb443724.htm

 

[Iriemon]

Well when the stock market is down the left blames him so since its at a all time high he should rightly get the credit.........

Well, OK, after 5 1/2 years the stock market finally claws back to where it was the year before Bush became president. Way-to-go Bush!

And if you are going to give presidents credit for stock market performance, that means the Dow only has about another 30,000 points or so to go and then he'll be approaching the same ballpark of performance as Clinton.

 

[ProudAmerican]

clearly its only Bushes doing when the market tanks.

 

[Iriemon]

clearly its only Bushes doing when the market tanks.

I personally don't blame Bush for the market correction in 00-01, I don't think I ever have, the only time I have discussed it is in response to threads like these. Many factors other than a President's policies affect stock markets. The only thing I might speculate that has had an effect is the concern generated by uncontrolled amassing of debt. While not totally unfounded as a proposition, I admit it is just speculation.

 

[Captain America]

As it becomes more appearant that the big spenders in Washington day's are counted, I expect to see even more good things from Wall Street.

(Just kidding....my foil hat is on a bit tight tonight folks. :mrgreen: )

I just hope it lasts until Jan '07 so I can roll-over my profits into my ING funds.

 

[Indy]

I will be the first one to admit that I am by no means an expert in the stock market (just look at my etrade performance! LOL) but from what I gather the stock market should match or beat the general trend of inflation, am I right? Basically meaning that if the DOW was say 1000 (just a number to throw out) then after a year it should at least match inflation? So shouldn't the DOW hit an all time high every year? Forgive me but where is the accomplishment? That's like saying that the average salary of americans is at an all time high this year, well yeah, shouldn't it be at an all time high EVERY year? Otherwise people are just getting poorer right? I understand that there are fluctuations in the market but they should average out over the long term so shouldn't we ALWAYS see a general rise in the market and thus resulting in an all time high quite often?

Of course since my post failed to contain any partisan references I'm sure NP will go ahead and help me out with that by calling me a liberal and say I'm just dismissing Bush's achievement. But... doesn't this just mean that he's doing his job, and isn't really that much of an achievment?

 

[Iriemon]

I will be the first one to admit that I am by no means an expert in the stock market (just look at my etrade performance! LOL) but from what I gather the stock market should match or beat the general trend of inflation, am I right? Basically meaning that if the DOW was say 1000 (just a number to throw out) then after a year it should at least match inflation? So shouldn't the DOW hit an all time high every year? Forgive me but where is the accomplishment? That's like saying that the average salary of americans is at an all time high this year, well yeah, shouldn't it be at an all time high EVERY year? Otherwise people are just getting poorer right? I understand that there are fluctuations in the market but they should average out over the long term so shouldn't we ALWAYS see a general rise in the market and thus resulting in an all time high quite often?

Of course since my post failed to contain any partisan references I'm sure NP will go ahead and help me out with that by calling me a liberal and say I'm just dismissing Bush's achievement. But... doesn't this just mean that he's doing his job, and isn't really that much of an achievment?

Since 1926, the S&P has average 10-11%, beating inflation and every other investment an individual can make. That is not to say it is the best investment in any given year or years -- certainly the housing market has been stronger the last 3-4 years. But over time the stock market is the winner. But with that performance comes volatility -- the market can go up 40% in one year and down 20% the next, because psychology (ie fear and gred) plays a huge role in how it does.

I expect the market to have a pretty good run the next few years, the housing market had its go and will cool off, and people will start looking for other options. Corporate profits have been soaring the last couple years, and stock prices relative to profits (P/E) are *way* better than they were a few years ago. But that is just speculation on my part.

But I personally wouldn't lodge a lot of blame on Bush for the market performance whether you think it has been good or bad (and even since '02, it has been just OK, even having finally got back up to its previous high), though nor would I give him a lot of credit, though.

 

[Iriemon]

As it becomes more appearant that the big spenders in Washington day's are counted, I expect to see even more good things from Wall Street.

(Just kidding....my foil hat is on a bit tight tonight folks. :mrgreen: )

I just hope it lasts until Jan '07 so I can roll-over my profits into my ING funds.

I think we are due for a bit of a bull market, but who the hell knows about these things? I'm a buy and holder.

 

[Indy]

Since 1926, the S&P has average 10-11%, beating inflation and every other investment an individual can make. That is not to say it is the best investment in any given year or years -- certainly the housing market has been stronger the last 3-4 years. But over time the stock market is the winner. But with that performance comes volatility -- the market can go up 40% in one year and down 20% the next, because psychology (ie fear and gred) plays a huge role in how it does.

I expect the market to have a pretty good run the next few years, the housing market had its go and will cool off, and people will start looking for other options. Corporate profits have been soaring the last couple years, and stock prices relative to profits (P/E) are *way* better than they were a few years ago. But that is just speculation on my part.

But I personally wouldn't lodge a lot of blame on Bush for the market performance whether you think it has been good or bad (and even since '02, it has been just OK, even having finally got back up to its previous high), though nor would I give him a lot of credit, though.

Putting Bush and whoever controlls congress aside, if the S&P has an average growth of 10% or so then shouldn't we see an average high just about every year or so, allowing for market fluctuations? So... isn't this just a pointless marker to say that it hit an all time high?

 

[Stinger]

Forclosures on houses are up 18% since last year, and are expected to hit a 40-year high by this time next year. Yep sounds like the economy is just BOOMING.........for the rich of course.

Yep, the rich are doing good, go rich people!

http://www.prweb.com/releases/foreclosures/increasing/prweb443724.htm

Bad decissions by homeowners and builders, interest only loans and ballon notes are coming due. People got greedy and now some are paying for it. Nothing to do with the economy itself.

 

[TheNextEra]

Bad decissions by homeowners and builders, interest only loans and ballon notes are coming due. People got greedy and now some are paying for it. Nothing to do with the economy itself.

Add into that people are at an all-time-low on their savings, working extra jobs, etc. It adds up to exactly what I said. The economy is booming for the rich and declining for the majority of the middle-class and poor.

Go RICH!

 

[Iriemon]

Putting Bush and whoever controlls congress aside, if the S&P has an average growth of 10% or so then shouldn't we see an average high just about every year or so, allowing for market fluctuations? So... isn't this just a pointless marker to say that it hit an all time high?

It is an average so it doesn't go up every year. Folks overspeculated in the stock markets, particularly tech companies, in the late 1990s. In the 00s there was an correction. That is the history of the markets, bear and bull, boom and bust.

But yeah, it is pointless to say that since it is at an all time high that reflects something particularly positive about the Bush Administration.

 

[Stinger]

Add into that people are at an all-time-low on their savings, working extra jobs, etc. It adds up to exactly what I said. The economy is booming for the rich and declining for the majority of the middle-class and poor.

Go RICH!

My wife and I drove around a couple of weekends ago. The prices are just outrageous and driven my realtors convincing people to set high prices and people to accept them using "creative financing". And now they are in trouble. Listing prices are coming down now and unfortuniately for some the bank is calling telling them thier ballon payment is coming due.

But's it's not the economy, just bad decissions.

 

[Stinger]

But yeah, it is pointless to say that since it is at an all time high that reflects something particularly positive about the Bush Administration.

:rofl but if it was down I bet you'd be trying to find some negatives.

They cut taxes on incomes and investments and got out of the way, that is a positive. The deficits are falling, the economy is growing, revenues are in coming in and hitting records.

What is the Democrat plan if they take congress?

 

[Iriemon]

:rofl but if it was down I bet you'd be trying to find some negatives.

:rofl I'll take that bet! The Dow has been "down" until yesterday, show the post I wrote where I blamed it on Bush.

They cut taxes on incomes and investments and got out of the way, that is a positive.

And you point is that that is the reason for the market's performance?

Then let's compare then how stocks did in the 90s without those deficit producing tax cuts. If you're claiming tax cuts are a driving force in market performance, the market did *far* better without them, and we should get rid of them.

The deficits are falling, the economy is growing, revenues are in coming in and hitting records.

What is the Democrat plan if they take congress?

Hopefully stop putting the nation another $1/2 trillion in debt every single year.

 

[Goobieman]

Forclosures on houses are up 18% since last year,

On its own, this is meaningless.
If there were 5 last year and 6 this year that's "up 20%!!"

But, since you seem to think this means something, I have to ask:
How many forcelosures were there last year, and what % of mortgrages does that number represent?

Yep, the rich are doing good, go rich people!

Jealous, much?
If you arent doing well in this economy, its certainly not Bush's fault.

 

[Stinger]

:rofl I'll take that bet! The Dow has been "down" until yesterday, show the post I wrote where I blamed it on Bush.

If I have the time.

And you point is that that is the reason for the market's performance?

THE reason, no. A contibutor, yes.

Then let's compare then how stocks did in the 90s without those deficit producing tax cuts. If you're claiming tax cuts are a driving force in market performance, the market did *far* better without them, and we should get rid of them.

So then let's increase taxes to around 90% and watch the market boom?

But we've already been through that, the tax rates alone do not control the market performance, they are an influencer. And the historical data does support the notion that lower taxes influence the economy therefore the market in a postive direction.


If you are claiming high captial gains taxes help the market I'd like to see an authoritative source which supports that assertion.

 

[Iriemon]

If I have the time.

THE reason, no. A contibutor, yes.

The contributed a hell of lot better they way they were in the 90s.

So then let's increase taxes to around 90% and watch the market boom?

Or let's drop taxes to 0% and see what happens.

But we've already been through that, the tax rates alone do not control the market performance, they are an influencer. And the historical data does support the notion that lower taxes influence the economy therefore the market in a postive direction.

I've never seen that historical data. If anything the historical data show that lower taxes influence the economy negatively.

If you are claiming high captial gains taxes help the market I'd like to see an authoritative source which supports that assertion.

It didn't hurt it in the '90s, did it? Dow Jones tripled with those "high" capital gains taxes from '93-2000. What's its done since they were cut?

 

[Iriemon]

So then let's increase taxes to around 90% and watch the market boom?
.

Actually taxes were around 90% in the 50s and the Dow more than tripled. So maybe that is not a bad idea.