Dear rightie investors - you missed it

[DontBeStupid]

So Bush was right about partially privatizing Social Security.

Darn

Nope.

If we had when Bush wanted to, we would be in an even worse situation with regards to SS.

Wait, are you sure?

It's sounds like you're a fucking clueless retard.

Do you want to double check that and get back to us?

Sure. I double checked.

Bush was talking privatizing in mid-2004 when the Dow was at about 10,300. Had his plan become law, we younger workers would have had our money put into a fund tied to the Dow and would have gotten a 27% return over 7.5 years, or 3.5% per year. That's if the fund was the most conservative you could have gone and you were lucky enough to not have any banking stock (unlikely) and not be exposed to anything related to real estate, also highly unlikely.

Of course, that would have also meant we weren't paying in to SS. Bush's plan was expected to add $2T to our debt over 10 years, so right now we'd have an additional $1.5T in debt.

More debt and mediocre returns. We dodged a bullet.

 

[Dick Tuck]

DJIA near record highs.

You missed the rebound.

FACT:
Had you put all your money in the Dow Jones Industrial Average when Oabama took office, you'd be up 66% PLUS DIVIDENDS by now (annual return around 17% PLUS dividends)


So SHUT THE FUCK UP

Hey, moron, you can't put any money in the DJIA... it's not a fund.

Secondly, even if it were, what idiot would put all of his money in any one thing?

God you're dumb.

There are dozens of mutual funds tied to either the Dow or S&P, you could also buy futures contracts on these indexes. You really didn't know that? Who's the moron?

 

[Dr.House]

Liberals applauding the 1% getting richer...

Whoda thunk...

 

[The T]

Liberals applauding the 1% getting richer...

Whoda thunk...

Liberals in the realm of duplicity?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

DJIA near record highs.

You missed the rebound.

FACT:
Had you put all your money in the Dow Jones Industrial Average when Oabama took office, you'd be up 66% PLUS DIVIDENDS by now (annual return around 17% PLUS dividends)


So SHUT THE FUCK UP

Hey, moron, you can't put any money in the DJIA... it's not a fund.

Secondly, even if it were, what idiot would put all of his money in any one thing?

God you're dumb.

There are dozens of mutual funds tied to either the Dow or S&P, you could also buy futures contracts on these indexes. You really didn't know that? Who's the moron?

You are... tell ya what, call Edward Jones Monday morning and tell them you want to invest in the DJIA... enjoy the laughter.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I bought silver and watched increases of 500 percent.

Then you didn't buy it when Obama took office. If you had your gains would have been around 200%.

Bought it in near the end of January 2009 when it was 10 an ounce. Sold 25 percent of my holdings when it hit 49.86 an ounce last year.

That's a 400% increase.

Good timing, your gains would have been down to 200% if you had held on.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

DJIA near record highs.

You missed the rebound.

FACT:
Had you put all your money in the Dow Jones Industrial Average when Oabama took office, you'd be up 66% PLUS DIVIDENDS by now (annual return around 17% PLUS dividends)


So SHUT THE FUCK UP

According to those as yerself and others on the left? Wall Street was just this side of Satan...(And of OWS)?

What gives? Are they suddenly angels? Why the dupicity?

According to "those as yerself" ?

Sorry but I never made such a claim.

And the fact in the OP remains factual.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

DJIA near record highs.

You missed the rebound.

FACT:
Had you put all your money in the Dow Jones Industrial Average when Oabama took office, you'd be up 66% PLUS DIVIDENDS by now (annual return around 17% PLUS dividends)


So SHUT THE FUCK UP

According to those as yerself and others on the left? Wall Street was just this side of Satan...(And of OWS)?

What gives? Are they suddenly angels? Why the dupicity?

Yeah, for some odd reason the stock market didn't matter then.

Please show me where I said that.

Thanks.

 

[Full-Auto]

You gotta wonder if the left has any sense at all or they are fueled by hatred. Six months ago they were cheering the OWS rabble and condemning corporations, wall street and the stock market. Today they think Barry might get a boost in the polls and all of a sudden they are in love with capitalism.

It's a smokescreen. I'd dare say that alot of the 'leftists' on these boards are paid partisan hacks.

Conservatives seem to have this idea that Democrats aren't interested in making money. They couldn't be more wrong. Democrats are very interested in making money, they just want to make sure money is not being made by ripping off people.

Thats laughable on its face, Given what this admin has done and how democrats have acted in the past admins.

For the avg guy thats true with any party.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You gotta wonder if the left has any sense at all or they are fueled by hatred. Six months ago they were cheering the OWS rabble and condemning corporations, wall street and the stock market. Today they think Barry might get a boost in the polls and all of a sudden they are in love with capitalism.

I never condemned the stock market.

Why do you people insist on arguing against a strawman OWS poster's views instead of my own? I guess its easier for you?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Since you're knowledgeable on the topic maybe you can explain why - in the past 50 years - the market does so much better under Democrats

Seriously - I'd really like to know. I don't think I've heard anyone really give a good explanation (other than dems good reps bad which doesn't quite do it for me). Surely there must be key differences in policy.

That's a good question. Nobody really knows but here are a few possibilities and other salient points.

1. The Democrats really are better for the the economy. Personally, I don't believe this.

2. The stock market has actually done best with a Democrat President and a Republican Congress. The next best has been a Republican President with a Democrat Congress. Third is a Democrat President / Democrat Congress. Last is a Republican President / Republican Congress.

3. Much of the data is skewed by the Depression. Take out 1928-1932 and the data looks different. (I'm looking further back than 50 years.)

4. Democrats are irresponsible over the long run but good over the short run. Contrary to what many believe - and almost all Republicans it seems - deficits are actually good for the market over the short run. There is strong empirical evidence of this conducted by Ken Fisher. Fisher found that markets tend to expand quite significantly when budget deficits are increasing, and do worse when budgets deficits are contracting. This may not be true in any given year, but it has held over decades, and perhaps more interestingly, across many countries.

5. Likewise, there is an old saying that "Democrats are elected to create inflation and Republicans are elected to get rid of it." In an inflationary environment, stocks tend to rise in nominal terms. In a deflationary environment, stocks tend to fall in nominal terms. Government expansion is inflationary whereas government contraction is deflationary. Democrats generally want more government and Republicans want less.

6. The market is a discounting mechanism, and discounts forthcoming elections incorrectly. A typical reaction in the stock market is for the market to react up to the event, then reverse course when it occurs. It used to be that when casino operators opened a new casino in Las Vegas, the stock of the company would run up until the casino would open, then the stock price would sell off. Likewise, the stock price of Apple tends to run up in front of a new product launch - iPad, iPhone, etc. - then when it hits the market, it tends to sell off or at least move sideways. (See how the stock of Apple has behaved over the past month, and watch it now that the new iPad has launched. I bet you the stock price will either be the same or lower over the next month or two.) Similarly, Democrats are often perceived to be bad for business, so the market may sell off before the election if a Dem is expected to win. But once the election has occurred, investors realize that the Democrats weren't as bad as feared and the stock market rallies. Conversely, Republicans are seen as good for business, so if a Republican is likely to win election, the market rallies in front of the election, only to sell off after it happens. In both scenarios, especially if it is a change of parties, if there is a Republican President and the WH is going to change, the market will sell off on the Republican's watch, skewing the market returns to the downside for the Republican President. Likewise, when there is a Dem in the WH, and a Republican likely to be elected, the market rallying into election will occur on the Democrat's watch, even though it is rising because of an expected Republican win. IOW, the Republicans always lose in these scenarios and the Democrats always wins.

On point 5 - it would be interesting to see the same sort of analysis done with inflation adjusted values.

On point 6 - One might also argue that Democrats tend to win because the economy is tanking - while Republicans tend to win when its doing well. Case in point - the economy started to tank long before it was clear Obama would be the victor! - I think you've confused cause and effect - the bad economy (and hence dropping stock market) helped Obama to win.

 

[Toro]

Nope.

If we had when Bush wanted to, we would be in an even worse situation with regards to SS.

Wait, are you sure?

It's sounds like you're a fucking clueless retard.

Do you want to double check that and get back to us?

Sure. I double checked.

Bush was talking privatizing in mid-2004 when the Dow was at about 10,300. Had his plan become law, we younger workers would have had our money put into a fund tied to the Dow and would have gotten a 27% return over 7.5 years, or 3.5% per year. That's if the fund was the most conservative you could have gone and you were lucky enough to not have any banking stock (unlikely) and not be exposed to anything related to real estate, also highly unlikely.

Of course, that would have also meant we weren't paying in to SS. Bush's plan was expected to add $2T to our debt over 10 years, so right now we'd have an additional $1.5T in debt.

More debt and mediocre returns. We dodged a bullet.

What matters on a year to year basis is irrelevant. What matters is what happens over long periods of time.

At current rates, with no changes, in 30 years, SS will only be able to pay out 3/4 of what is promised, and that doesn't include the payroll tax cuts which the administration has been passing, weakening SS even further. That's why Bush's plan would have required more Treasury debt. It would have replaced the unfunded liabilities within the SS system. The net indebtedness of the United States (Treasury debt + SS liabilities) wouldn't have changed (I believe) since it would have been swapping out form of debt for another.

The Social Security system should be privatized and run like a real pension fund with individuals given the option of investing in their own accounts. That would make SS not only solvent but dramatically over-funded in a heartbeat. Or, people could be given a tax cut.

The math is simple. Over long periods of time, stocks have earned 10%, corporate bonds 6% and government debt 4%. Today, SS is invested in nonmarketable government obligations, i.e. government debt which cannot be traded. It earns, in aggregate, less than 4%. But let's say it earns 4%. A typical pension plan earns about 8% over time. $100 million invested at 4% compounded is worth $460 million in 50 years. $100 million invested at 8% compounded is worth $4.6 billion in 50 years.

SS is bizarre. It's asset allocation is 100% US debt. It is the only pension scheme like that in the US that I am aware of. Other countries such as Canada and Norway are run like real pension plans. SS is an archaic anachronism that should be changed.

 

[Toro]

On point 5 - it would be interesting to see the same sort of analysis done with inflation adjusted values.

On point 6 - One might also argue that Democrats tend to win because the economy is tanking - while Republicans tend to win when its doing well. Case in point - the economy started to tank long before it was clear Obama would be the victor! - I think you've confused cause and effect - the bad economy (and hence dropping stock market) helped Obama to win.

I don't think the proclivity of the electorate to choose one party or the other is dependent upon where we are in the business cycle. Instead, incumbent parties tend to lose when the economy is doing badly and win the economy is doing well. This is true pretty much everywhere, except perhaps in one party democracies such as Japan.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Dems are championing rising inequality and corporatism.

Are you kidding me?

Is that a serious question? You honestly don't see that both the Rs and Ds are owned by corporations?

Why do you call yourself InTheMiddle when you are very clearly a shill for the left?

Yes, I see that. But if you noticed, I was responding to a one sided criticism.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

On point 5 - it would be interesting to see the same sort of analysis done with inflation adjusted values.

On point 6 - One might also argue that Democrats tend to win because the economy is tanking - while Republicans tend to win when its doing well. Case in point - the economy started to tank long before it was clear Obama would be the victor! - I think you've confused cause and effect - the bad economy (and hence dropping stock market) helped Obama to win.

I don't think the proclivity of the electorate to choose one party or the other is dependent upon where we are in the business cycle. Instead, incumbent parties tend to lose when the economy is doing badly and win the economy is doing well. This is true pretty much everywhere, except perhaps in one party democracies such as Japan.

That statement did not apply to FDR though, did it?