Dow Soaring

[Nbadan]

Dow soars to new closing high of 11,727


Specialist Joseph Demartino monitor the screen as he works his post on the trading floor at the New York Stock Exchange short time before the closing bell Tuesday, Oct. 3, 2006. The Dow Jones industrial average surged past its all-time trading high of 11,750.28 Tuesday, taking yet another step in its recovery from seven years of market turmoil. (AP Photo/David Karp)

NEW YORK - The Dow Jones industrial average finally reached new heights Tuesday, extending Wall Street's seven-year recovery with a record closing level after climbing into uncharted territory in trading earlier in the day.

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/)

Clinton 274 new closing highs
Bush 1

All hail the Bush economy!

:elephant

[clambake]

i'm so proud!!!! He finally hit a homerun from third base.

[RandomGuy]

aw pshaw. There is still money to be made from direct dividend reinvestment companies.

Larger Mature companies. If their stock is flat due to a flat economy, all the well.

My Merck stock has actually done pretty well.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The dow is a crude measure of the entire country's financial stability.

[RandomGuy]

The dow is a crude measure of the entire country's financial stability.

Correct.

Crudely put it has stagnated for the last 5-6 years, heh.

[Yonivore]

It's almost like we have a strong economy or something. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061004/D8KI1F401.html)

This is important:


The Dow's record-setting day on Tuesday wiped out records that had stood since Jan. 14, 2004. The broader market indicators are still lagging as they try to recover from the turmoil that began with the dot-com bust early in the decade.
That's right, for all you Clintonistas out there, let's not forget the previous high in the Clinton Administration was fueled largely by absurd speculation and overinvestment in phatantasmal dot-com ventures. This current mark is much more realistic -- indeed, given the markets' skittishness, price levels are probably held lower than they might be in other periods of history.

Brit Hume said he thought there'd be more celebrating if the broader S&P index broke a record. Well, the S&P is a ways away from that, but it's moving in the right direction too:


Those indexes rose sharply Wednesday along with the Dow. The Standard & Poor's 500 index was up 16.11, or 1.20 percent, at 1,350.22 and the Nasdaq composite index rose 47.30, or 2.11 percent, to 2,290.95.
On Cavuto, analysts seemed to have a consensus opinion that 12,000 was easy, 13,000 was likely, and 14,000 was not entirely out of the question.

And, again: this is all a much more realistic level than occurred under Clinton. How many times did Greenspan have to say that an "irrational exuberance" was pushing stock prices ridiculously above their objective values?

[boutons_]

Clinton oversaw the longest uninterrputed peace-time expansion of the US economy since 1945. A key component of that expansion was the very aggressive paying down of the federal (Repug expanded) debt at the beginning his first term, saving many billions in Federal interest payments

If Clinton is allowed merit for that, the dubya isn't allowed any credit for any economic gains in his term. However, we can pin the explosion of Federal deficits and trade imbalances directly on the Repugs.

Yoni, a dishhonest motherfucker, wants only credit for dubya, and nothing but discredit for Clinton. :lol

[scott]

That's right, for all you Clintonistas out there, let's not forget the previous high in the Clinton Administration was fueled largely by absurd speculation and overinvestment in phatantasmal dot-com ventures.

Which dot-com boom/bust companies were included in the Dow when it set records in the 90s?

[Zunni]

Did "absurd speculation" fuel the growth of the Dow from 3500 to 11500 under the Clinton administration? Congrats, Busheviks: you have now brought the econony back to Clintonian levels.

[Yonivore]

Did "absurd speculation" fuel the growth of the Dow from 3500 to 11500 under the Clinton administration? Congrats, Busheviks: you have now brought the econony back to Clintonian levels.
And then some!

This, after 9/11 and an inherited recession.

[johnsmith]

Clinton oversaw the longest uninterrputed peace-time expansion of the US economy since 1945. A key component of that expansion was the very aggressive paying down of the federal (Repug expanded) debt at the beginning his first term, saving many billions in Federal interest payments

If Clinton is allowed merit for that, the dubya isn't allowed any credit for any economic gains in his term. However, we can pin the explosion of Federal deficits and trade imbalances directly on the Repugs.

Yoni, a dishhonest motherfucker, wants only credit for dubya, and nothing but discredit for Clinton. :lol


First of all, your jokes aren't funny so quit adding the laughing smiley face. Second, that's the same fucking thing you do just opposite. Jesus Christ, how do you sleep at night?

[Phenomanul]

I would like to think the business leaders themselves are responsible for gains in their own companies...

[Yonivore]

I would like to think the business leaders themselves are responsible for gains in their own companies...
The government and the laws they pass and the policies they pursue create the environment in which business either thrives or wilts (or, in the case of the 90's pretends to thrive while headed for disaster).

[JoeChalupa]

Presidents take credit when they can and blame thier predecessor when necessary.

[Ocotillo]

Brit Hume says........ :lol

[scott]

Which dot-com boom/bust companies were included in the Dow when it set records in the 90s?

?

[Zunni]

The government and the laws they pass and the policies they pursue create the environment in which business either thrives or wilts (or, in the case of the 90's pretends to thrive while headed for disaster).
3500---------------------------------------------------------->11500
1992------------------Clintonomics---------------------------->2001


11500------------------------------------------>11800
2001-----------------Bushonomics-------------->2006

[Yonivore]

?
A rising tide lifts all boats. Unwarranted enthusiasm in dot.coms caused all indexes to rise.

What happened to the DOW when the bubble burst?

[scott]

A rising tide lifts all boats. Unwarranted enthusiasm in dot.coms caused all indexes to rise.

What happened to the DOW when the bubble burst?

What bubble, the dot.com bubble? The Dow held its value fairly well is what happened. The NASDAQ peaked on 3/10/00 at 5,133. On that day, the Dow's intraday high was 10,212. By the end of year, the Nasdaq had lost over 50% of its value to close at 2,470. The Dow, on the other hand, actually gained value to close the year at 10,788.

In 2001, the Nasdaq had given away another 20% of the value it opened the year with, and the Dow was down about 6% on the year. It wasn't until the summer of 2002 when the Dow took a significant turn downward. I suppose you'll tell me this was just a late reaction to the dot.com bubble? Quick, pull up all your favorite blogs and find a retort.

[boutons_]

"A rising tide lifts all boats."

as laffable as the laffer curve.

stock market rises only help stock holders, and the stock market is rigged anyway, an unlevel playing field gamed by the rich

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

What's laffable is Democraps trying to poke fun at the Dow hitting an all time high.

Personally, my stock portfolio and 401k are giving you the finger right now :lol But keep rolling out the partisan rhetoric, I guess I would too if my party based its platform on handouts from government.

In the meantime, I'm banking from playing the market. C ya!

[smeagol]

Which dot-com boom/bust companies were included in the Dow when it set records in the 90s?
None.

But you have some companies that were connected to the dot.com companies in a certain way such as Intel, HP and Microsoft, as well as banks such as Citi and JPMorgan, who's share price had a big dot.com component given the money they were making from those companies with their private equity arms (money which evaporated after the year 2000).

The Dow did not suffer as much as the S&P and the NASDAQ, but it did lose 35% of it's value between it's peak and Sept of 2002. Some of it is attributed to the whole "crash effect" when the dot.com bubble bursted.

[smeagol]

stock market rises only help stock holders, and the stock market is rigged anyway, an unlevel playing field gamed by the rich
:lol :lol :lol

Dude, you are dumb!

[scott]

The Dow lost value because the economy turned south. The economy didn't turn south because the stock market went down, as some people like to believe. The market is a reflection of economic conditions, not the other way around.

[Clandestino]

"A rising tide lifts all boats."

as laffable as the laffer curve.

stock market rises only help stock holders, and the stock market is rigged anyway, an unlevel playing field gamed by the rich

many working people have 401(k)s. so they benefit too. also, ANYONE can be in the market. ANYONE. all it takes is 50 a month to invest in many mutual funds. if joe schmo chooses have cable at 100 a month instead of investing 100 a month, then it is his problem...

[Zunni]

3500---------------------------------------------------------->11500
1992------------------Clintonomics---------------------------->2001


11500------------------------------------------>11800
2001-----------------Bushonomics-------------->2006
::crickets::

[Clandestino]

hey cricket boy. those are good numbers. and how bush actually helped the poor people. the past 5 years the poor man bought the same investments he was buying before, but at cheaper prices. great job BUSH!

[Zunni]

Yeah, because poor people are SO invested in the stock market when they can't afford fucking food and clothing. Dunce.

[Clandestino]

many people who are considered poor have 401ks. and like i said above.. ANYONE can afford to save money and invest in mutual funds...ANYONE... people who don't are idiots..

[Zunni]

many people who are considered poor have 401ks.

I stopped reading right there.
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Poor people can't afford food.

[Clandestino]

poor people can't afford food, but they can afford beer, cigarettes, lottery tickets and bingo right? and of course cable tv...

[Zunni]

poor people can't afford food, but they can afford beer, cigarettes, lottery tickets and bingo right? and of course cable tv...
And apparently thousands of shares of Berkshire Hathaway... :lol :lol :lol

[Clandestino]

i guess you think a person is poor because of other people's actions and not their own choices...

[smeagol]

Poor people can't afford food.

Depends on your definition of poor.

Without knowing, I would risk to say that the % of people who can't afford food, in this country, is pretty low.

Many so called poor people can afford to invest money in the market.

[smeagol]

The Dow lost value because the economy turned south. The economy didn't turn south because the stock market went down, as some people like to believe. The market is a reflection of economic conditions, not the other way around.

Even though people always say that the markets anticipate things like downturns in the economy, the gigantic shock caused by the dot.com crash in 2000 and 2001, were one of the causes of the downturn in the economy in 2001 and 2002.

[scott]

Even though people always say that the markets anticipate things like downturns in the economy, the gigantic shock caused by the dot.com crash in 2000 and 2001, were one of the causes of the downturn in the economy in 2001 and 2002.

Try again.

[MannyIsGod]

many working people have 401(k)s. so they benefit too. also, ANYONE can be in the market. ANYONE. all it takes is 50 a month to invest in many mutual funds. if joe schmo chooses have cable at 100 a month instead of investing 100 a month, then it is his problem...Pretty damn true.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

i like nbadan's new avatar

But what exactly is it? The red bit could be an elephant, and it looks like the elephant is pleasuring the chick with her hands in the air..?

What I want to know is which day in October is the correction coming? Isn't this traditionally "correction month"?

[smeagol]

Try again.
So the dot.com frenzy helps the economy grow at above average rates in the mid to late 90s but has absolutely nothing to do with the recession in 2001/2002?

[smeagol]

And apparently thousands of shares of Berkshire Hathaway... :lol :lol :lol
No, but they can buy some Ford shares. They are pretty damn cheap.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

i guess you think a person is poor because of other people's actions and not their own choices...

Actually, poor people are generally poor because they were born into poverty and were unable to escape from it. Socio-economic class mobility is one of the great myths of our time.

Of course, some people escape the choices of their parents, but most are trapped by the poverty cycle. The lucky ones who do usually had parents who emphasised education as the means to escape poverty, and made sacrifices to ensure a good education for their children. You see this all the time in immigrant communities.

"Lack of education, or human capital, is thought to be one of the biggest causes of the poverty cycle. Education in a modern knowledge-based economy is one of the conditions to achieving economic growth, as it increases skill. A maximised education would require devoted time and energy, or extra-curricular reading. Children who are from poor families and have to work cannot maximise their education, even if the education is free. It would also require a conducive and hygienic environment, which is often not available to the poverty-stricken. This is even worse in countries such as India where public education in many areas is not available for free due to budget constraints. Tertiary education is often not free. These theorists believe that children often will not be able to break out of poverty because their reduced skillset reduces their potential income. With no means to provide a conducive educational environment for their own children, the cycle begins again."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_cycle (note - some of this article is incomplete and needs references, but I am posting it just to give anyone who doesn't understand it a general idea of how the poverty cycle operates)

Whoever said that everyone could put food on their table:

"Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year 2002, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.7 % in 2001 to 11.1 % in 2002, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.3 % to 3.5 %. This report, based on data from the December 2002 food security survey, provides statistics on the food security of U.S. households, as well as on how much they spent for food and the extent to which food-insecure households participated in Federal and community food assistance programs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

However, I will agree that people make choices, and a lot of people's choices tend towards instant gratification (alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, etc) and not future planning (investment for education, etc).

[smeagol]

Actually, poor people are generally poor because they were born into poverty and were unable to escape from it. Socio-economic class mobility is one of the great myths of our time.

Of course, some people escape the choices of their parents, but most are trapped by the poverty cycle. The lucky ones who do usually had parents who emphasised education as the means to escape poverty, and made sacrifices to ensure a good education for their children. You see this all the time in immigrant communities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_cycle (note - some of this article is incomplete and needs references, but I am posting it just to give anyone who doesn't understand it a general idea of how the poverty cycle operates)

Whoever said that everyone could put food on their table:

"Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year 2002, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.7 % in 2001 to 11.1 % in 2002, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.3 % to 3.5 %. This report, based on data from the December 2002 food security survey, provides statistics on the food security of U.S. households, as well as on how much they spent for food and the extent to which food-insecure households participated in Federal and community food assistance programs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

However, I will agree that people make choices, and a lot of people's choices tend towards instant gratification (alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, etc) and not future planning (investment for education, etc).

And I thought all Aussies were like Crock Dundee :lol

J/K man! You are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters in the political forum. I agree with what you just said.

By the way: I've been twice "down under" and your country is fucking beautiful!

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Cheers. You'll find I am a moderate and rationalist lefty, and I prefer to stalk kangaroos. ;)

I'm not interested in name calling (unless I'm really pissed off and have had a bad day), and I'm not interested in rabid ideology - ideology just seems to get in the way of real change for the better. I AM interested in addressing the root causes of our social, economic and environmental malaise with real solutions that people can use in their everyday lives.

Yup, Australia is "the lucky country". We live in a quiet part of the world with the best access to just about everything you can imagine. Unfortunately, our current government is tearing down a lot of the great institutions my parents' generation fought for, but what can you do?

[smeagol]

Yup, Australia is "the lucky country". We live in a quiet part of the world with the best access to just about everything you can imagine. Unfortunately, our current government is tearing down a lot of the great institutions my parents' generation fought for, but what can you do?
And on top of that, you rule at playing rugby, the best sport in the world!

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Nup, Aussie Rules Football is far better. Ever seen it? Fastest, most skillful, and most brutal game in the world. 36 players on a field that's roughly 200x150m. As a 'ball fan I never thought I'd say it, but Aussie Rules is my favourite game in the world.

And right now our national rugby team is in a bit of dip, but they have a rich history of success.

[smeagol]

Nup, Aussie Rules Football is far better. Ever seen it? Fastest, most skillful, and most brutal game in the world. 36 players on a field that's roughly 200x150m. As a 'ball fan I never thought I'd say it, but Aussie Rules is my favourite game in the world.

And right now our national rugby team is in a bit of dip, but they have a rich history of success.
I've seen Aussie rules but I grew up playing rugby. Rugby is awesome!. We finally beat your Wallabies in 1987 for the first time. I was at the stadium!

But we digress . . . I hope the NASDAQ and the S&P continue climbing, I've got some QQQQ and SPY in my portfolio.

[scott]

So the dot.com frenzy helps the economy grow at above average rates in the mid to late 90s but has absolutely nothing to do with the recession in 2001/2002?

The dot.com frenzy didn't fuel the economy's growth either. "The economy" is not measured by the NASDAQ's performance. GDP growth during the 90s was real, not some imaginary pipedream brought to you by drkoop.com. The recession in 2001/2002 was driven by economic cyclicity, a restrictive monetary policy, a series of major corporate scandals and a major terrorist attack.

I wouldn't say that the dot.com fizzle didn't have anything to do with the recession, but it wasn't the cause nor is it high up on the list of causes. Stock markets are a reflection of the economy's performance, not the other way around.

[smeagol]

The dot.com frenzy didn't fuel the economy's growth either.

I did not say fuel as in "the only cause". I said helped. There is no question that all that venture capital + money from private equity helped the economy grow in the early 90s.



"The economy" is not measured by the NASDAQ's performance.


I never said it is.



GDP growth during the 90s was real, not some imaginary pipedream brought to you by drkoop.com.


Not all dot.com companies were pipe dreams. Some are still around, healthy as any other "real economy" company. Moreover, the dot.com frenzy cannot be simply measured by what happened to theman.com or drkoop.com. It also helped other companies grow, most of which were in the "bricks and mortars" side of the economy. HP, Texas Industries, Dell, JPM, Citi just to name a few. These companies expanded, hired employees like crazy and paid better salaries . . . bottom line, helped expand the economy.




The recession in 2001/2002 was driven by economic cyclicity, a restrictive monetary policy, a series of major corporate scandals and a major terrorist attack.


I agree with the first two and the last, but corporate scandals? I'm pretty sure the money that was lost in the dot.com debacle far exceeds that which was lost by the corporate scandals.

Furthermore, what is the difference between saying that the economy suffered from the dot.com bubble bursting (smeagol) than saying the economy suffered from the Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia and Tyco scandals (Scott)



I wouldn't say that the dot.com fizzle didn't have anything to do with the recession, but it wasn't the cause nor is it high up on the list of causes.


Then we sort of agree becuase i did not say it was the cause, but that it simply helped the economy go into recession, together with many of the reasons you've already stated above.