Even more Economic Good News: Dow Jones up 28% since January

[namvet]

Just in time for the holiday season..

Dow at 8150 in late January

Up to 10460 today!

The Dow is up 49% since the passing of the stimulus in February!

it's Bush's fault !!

 

[NYcarbineer]

How'd NASDAQ make out under Bubba?

It went from about 690 to about 2700. That's in the ballpark of QUADRUPLING.

Do your own research next time (probably before you post would be a good idea).

It was over 5,000 at one time, and you know it.

I was working in San Jose during and after the crash...It wasn't pretty.

But please, carry on with your bubble boy with a (D) worship and vilification if he has that (R)....It's amusing, in a rather pathetic way.

You asked.

Hey look at the bright side. Most people want to charge you for an education.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How'd NASDAQ make out under Bubba?

It went from about 690 to about 2700. That's in the ballpark of QUADRUPLING.

Do your own research next time (probably before you post would be a good idea).

I enjoy the arrogance of dufuses like NYcarbuncle:

But, still, a second look seems indicated:

Beginning-to-end comparisons of anything, particularly of the ups and downs of the stock market, can be extremely deceptive, because such simplistic comparisons ignore what went on during the time between the beginning and the end. In fact, the stock market's performance was downright pathetic under Clinton-Gore and the democrat congress' economic policies, and the markets only delivered those large returns after the republican congress took office in January, 1995. In the first two years of the Clinton/Gore administration, with a democrat Congress and pursuing anti-growth democrat economic policies, the DJIA rose from 3310.00 to 3843.90. That's an anemic 7.76% compounded annual return. The OTC was even worse: rising from 696.34 to 755.20, a pathetic 4.14% compounded annual return.

In the first two years after the republicans gained control of the Congress, the DJIA rose from 3843.90 to 6813.10. That's a 33.1% average annual return. The OTC performance was even better: rising from 755.20 to 1379.85, a 35.2% average annual return. In the second two year period of the republican controlled Congress, the DJIA rose another 37.36%, from 6813.10 to 9358.80, an average annual return of 17.2%. And in the second two year period of the republican controlled Congress, the OTC rose 81.61%, from 1379.85 to 2505.89, an average annual return of 34.8%.

To summarize: the average annual stock market return (compounded annual rate of increase):

Dow Jones Industrial Average: under Clinton/Gore: 7.8%; under the republican controlled Congress: 25%.

NASDAQ (OTC): under Clinton/Gore: 4.1%; under the republican controlled Congress: 35%.

Stock Market Bull Clinton -- (analysis by Kim Weissman, October 22, 2000).

Nice verbal photoshop, Lardbelly.

 

[Zander]

Just what America needs!! A SANTA CLAUS RALLY!! WOO HOO!!

The classic Santa Claus rally has two clear markers. First, and obviously, is to have an up market (check). Second is to do it on light volume (check). Meaning there really is no new information to support the move. It's just the "merriness" of the season that makes it hard to feel negative. So stocks drift higher. Fra la, la, la, la….la, la, la, la.


I remain bearish......

 

[Liability]

It went from about 690 to about 2700. That's in the ballpark of QUADRUPLING.

Do your own research next time (probably before you post would be a good idea).

I enjoy the arrogance of dufuses like NYcarbuncle:

But, still, a second look seems indicated:

Beginning-to-end comparisons of anything, particularly of the ups and downs of the stock market, can be extremely deceptive, because such simplistic comparisons ignore what went on during the time between the beginning and the end. In fact, the stock market's performance was downright pathetic under Clinton-Gore and the democrat congress' economic policies, and the markets only delivered those large returns after the republican congress took office in January, 1995. In the first two years of the Clinton/Gore administration, with a democrat Congress and pursuing anti-growth democrat economic policies, the DJIA rose from 3310.00 to 3843.90. That's an anemic 7.76% compounded annual return. The OTC was even worse: rising from 696.34 to 755.20, a pathetic 4.14% compounded annual return.

In the first two years after the republicans gained control of the Congress, the DJIA rose from 3843.90 to 6813.10. That's a 33.1% average annual return. The OTC performance was even better: rising from 755.20 to 1379.85, a 35.2% average annual return. In the second two year period of the republican controlled Congress, the DJIA rose another 37.36%, from 6813.10 to 9358.80, an average annual return of 17.2%. And in the second two year period of the republican controlled Congress, the OTC rose 81.61%, from 1379.85 to 2505.89, an average annual return of 34.8%.

To summarize: the average annual stock market return (compounded annual rate of increase):

Dow Jones Industrial Average: under Clinton/Gore: 7.8%; under the republican controlled Congress: 25%.

NASDAQ (OTC): under Clinton/Gore: 4.1%; under the republican controlled Congress: 35%.

Stock Market Bull Clinton -- (analysis by Kim Weissman, October 22, 2000).

Nice verbal photoshop, Lardbelly.

NYCarbuncle doesn't have the foggiest notion of the meaning of words.

But go ahead and string some together randomly when you have no valid rejoinder, Carbuncle. It's ok. We understand.

 

[Liability]

It went from about 690 to about 2700. That's in the ballpark of QUADRUPLING.

Do your own research next time (probably before you post would be a good idea).

I enjoy the arrogance of dufuses like NYcarbuncle:

But, still, a second look seems indicated:

Beginning-to-end comparisons of anything, particularly of the ups and downs of the stock market, can be extremely deceptive, because such simplistic comparisons ignore what went on during the time between the beginning and the end. In fact, the stock market's performance was downright pathetic under Clinton-Gore and the democrat congress' economic policies, and the markets only delivered those large returns after the republican congress took office in January, 1995. In the first two years of the Clinton/Gore administration, with a democrat Congress and pursuing anti-growth democrat economic policies, the DJIA rose from 3310.00 to 3843.90. That's an anemic 7.76% compounded annual return. The OTC was even worse: rising from 696.34 to 755.20, a pathetic 4.14% compounded annual return.

In the first two years after the republicans gained control of the Congress, the DJIA rose from 3843.90 to 6813.10. That's a 33.1% average annual return. The OTC performance was even better: rising from 755.20 to 1379.85, a 35.2% average annual return. In the second two year period of the republican controlled Congress, the DJIA rose another 37.36%, from 6813.10 to 9358.80, an average annual return of 17.2%. And in the second two year period of the republican controlled Congress, the OTC rose 81.61%, from 1379.85 to 2505.89, an average annual return of 34.8%.

To summarize: the average annual stock market return (compounded annual rate of increase):

Dow Jones Industrial Average: under Clinton/Gore: 7.8%; under the republican controlled Congress: 25%.

NASDAQ (OTC): under Clinton/Gore: 4.1%; under the republican controlled Congress: 35%.

Stock Market Bull Clinton -- (analysis by Kim Weissman, October 22, 2000).

People put too much emphasis on politics when discussing the market. The fundamentals of the market are far more reliant on monetary policy and the underlying institutions of the economy and the country rather than who is running the country.

There is some truth in that. But of course, it is also true that the monetary policy is VERY influenced by who (and what) is in power. And the underlying institutions are now being more directly manipulated than ever before.

President Obama and the utterly reckless Congress are menaces to the economic welfare of the United States.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How'd NASDAQ make out under Bubba?

It went from about 690 to about 2700. That's in the ballpark of QUADRUPLING.

Do your own research next time (probably before you post would be a good idea).

I enjoy the arrogance of dufuses like NYcarbuncle:

But, still, a second look seems indicated:

Beginning-to-end comparisons of anything, particularly of the ups and downs of the stock market, can be extremely deceptive, because such simplistic comparisons ignore what went on during the time between the beginning and the end. In fact, the stock market's performance was downright pathetic under Clinton-Gore and the democrat congress' economic policies, and the markets only delivered those large returns after the republican congress took office in January, 1995. In the first two years of the Clinton/Gore administration, with a democrat Congress and pursuing anti-growth democrat economic policies, the DJIA rose from 3310.00 to 3843.90. That's an anemic 7.76% compounded annual return. The OTC was even worse: rising from 696.34 to 755.20, a pathetic 4.14% compounded annual return.

In the first two years after the republicans gained control of the Congress, the DJIA rose from 3843.90 to 6813.10. That's a 33.1% average annual return. The OTC performance was even better: rising from 755.20 to 1379.85, a 35.2% average annual return. In the second two year period of the republican controlled Congress, the DJIA rose another 37.36%, from 6813.10 to 9358.80, an average annual return of 17.2%. And in the second two year period of the republican controlled Congress, the OTC rose 81.61%, from 1379.85 to 2505.89, an average annual return of 34.8%.

To summarize: the average annual stock market return (compounded annual rate of increase):

Dow Jones Industrial Average: under Clinton/Gore: 7.8%; under the republican controlled Congress: 25%.

NASDAQ (OTC): under Clinton/Gore: 4.1%; under the republican controlled Congress: 35%.

Stock Market Bull Clinton -- (analysis by Kim Weissman, October 22, 2000).

By Lardbelly logic then the entire credit for the bull market during Reagan goes to the Democratic Congress.

 

[rightwinger]

Just trying to cheer some people up with some good economic news before Christmas.

Amazing the number of vicious attacks when you try to point out that everything is not gloom and doom

 

[Liability]

It went from about 690 to about 2700. That's in the ballpark of QUADRUPLING.

Do your own research next time (probably before you post would be a good idea).

I enjoy the arrogance of dufuses like NYcarbuncle:

But, still, a second look seems indicated:

Beginning-to-end comparisons of anything, particularly of the ups and downs of the stock market, can be extremely deceptive, because such simplistic comparisons ignore what went on during the time between the beginning and the end. In fact, the stock market's performance was downright pathetic under Clinton-Gore and the democrat congress' economic policies, and the markets only delivered those large returns after the republican congress took office in January, 1995. In the first two years of the Clinton/Gore administration, with a democrat Congress and pursuing anti-growth democrat economic policies, the DJIA rose from 3310.00 to 3843.90. That's an anemic 7.76% compounded annual return. The OTC was even worse: rising from 696.34 to 755.20, a pathetic 4.14% compounded annual return.

In the first two years after the republicans gained control of the Congress, the DJIA rose from 3843.90 to 6813.10. That's a 33.1% average annual return. The OTC performance was even better: rising from 755.20 to 1379.85, a 35.2% average annual return. In the second two year period of the republican controlled Congress, the DJIA rose another 37.36%, from 6813.10 to 9358.80, an average annual return of 17.2%. And in the second two year period of the republican controlled Congress, the OTC rose 81.61%, from 1379.85 to 2505.89, an average annual return of 34.8%.

To summarize: the average annual stock market return (compounded annual rate of increase):

Dow Jones Industrial Average: under Clinton/Gore: 7.8%; under the republican controlled Congress: 25%.

NASDAQ (OTC): under Clinton/Gore: 4.1%; under the republican controlled Congress: 35%.

Stock Market Bull Clinton -- (analysis by Kim Weissman, October 22, 2000).

By Lardbelly logic then the entire credit for the bull market during Reagan goes to the Democratic Congress.

No. Don't be silly. For holding their dumbass toes to the fire, certainly President Reagan deserves some credit.

The point is that YOU would never give him due credit.

In short, dishonest hacks like you only give a President full credit for what superficially appears to be economic good news when the President is a Democratic.

Back to your dishonest hackery, now, carbuncle.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I enjoy the arrogance of dufuses like NYcarbuncle:

But, still, a second look seems indicated:

Stock Market Bull Clinton -- (analysis by Kim Weissman, October 22, 2000).

By Lardbelly logic then the entire credit for the bull market during Reagan goes to the Democratic Congress.

No. Don't be silly. For holding their dumbass toes to the fire, certainly President Reagan deserves some credit.

The point is that YOU would never give him due credit.

In short, dishonest hacks like you only give a President full credit for what superficially appears to be economic good news when the President is a Democratic.

Back to your dishonest hackery, now, carbuncle.

It was your lame premise, Lard'. Live with it.

 

[Liability]

By Lardbelly logic then the entire credit for the bull market during Reagan goes to the Democratic Congress.

No. Don't be silly. For holding their dumbass toes to the fire, certainly President Reagan deserves some credit.

The point is that YOU would never give him due credit.

In short, dishonest hacks like you only give a President full credit for what superficially appears to be economic good news when the President is a Democratic.

Back to your dishonest hackery, now, carbuncle.

It was your lame premise, Lard'. Live with it.

Carbuncle, you were just wrong, again, as usual. Live with that.

 

[Paulie]

I enjoy the arrogance of dufuses like NYcarbuncle:

But, still, a second look seems indicated:

Stock Market Bull Clinton -- (analysis by Kim Weissman, October 22, 2000).

People put too much emphasis on politics when discussing the market. The fundamentals of the market are far more reliant on monetary policy and the underlying institutions of the economy and the country rather than who is running the country.

There is some truth in that. But of course, it is also true that the monetary policy is VERY influenced by who (and what) is in power. And the underlying institutions are now being more directly manipulated than ever before.

President Obama and the utterly reckless Congress are menaces to the economic welfare of the United States.

Smart money can earn gains in any kind of political environment. Who has control typically doesn't change the ability to gain SOMEWHERE within the market.

 

[Liability]

People put too much emphasis on politics when discussing the market. The fundamentals of the market are far more reliant on monetary policy and the underlying institutions of the economy and the country rather than who is running the country.

There is some truth in that. But of course, it is also true that the monetary policy is VERY influenced by who (and what) is in power. And the underlying institutions are now being more directly manipulated than ever before.

President Obama and the utterly reckless Congress are menaces to the economic welfare of the United States.

Smart money can earn gains in any kind of political environment. Who has control typically doesn't change the ability to gain SOMEWHERE within the market.

A completely irrelevant point to the present conversation.

We are not discussing whether or not some people can make money even in a downturn, etc.

We have been discussing the nature of who and what is responsible, overall, for the entire economy.

 

[uscitizen]

People put too much emphasis on politics when discussing the market. The fundamentals of the market are far more reliant on monetary policy and the underlying institutions of the economy and the country rather than who is running the country.

There is some truth in that. But of course, it is also true that the monetary policy is VERY influenced by who (and what) is in power. And the underlying institutions are now being more directly manipulated than ever before.

President Obama and the utterly reckless Congress are menaces to the economic welfare of the United States.

Smart money can earn gains in any kind of political environment. Who has control typically doesn't change the ability to gain SOMEWHERE within the market.

Yep you can even make money gambling that it will all fall apart.

This however does not help the people of the USA.
But then they should all have gambled that it would fall apart as well?

 

[Yurt]

I think these threads are so valuable. Not that I think we are economically "out of the woods" - nope, we got a long row to hoe imho. But it is absolutely HILARIOUS to watch the spastic, sputtering rush by the hyper-partisan spin-hacks trying to yank absolutely anything they can out of their collective butts to make sure NO ONE questions the deep dark plight we are in and can NEVER hope to emerge from unless we elect someone THEY like.

Absolutely hilarious.

um....that was exactly the platform obama ran on

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Unfortunately the Corporate Bankers and Wall Street Fat Cats seem to be the only ones benefiting from these sad Bailouts and Stimulus Packages. I always caution people that just because Wall Street is getting richer doesn't mean that Main Street is. One thing is for sure,this administration is gong to tell everyone the Recession is over and everything is just great whether it's true or not. This will be especially true the closer we get to the elections in 2010. If they're saying the Recession is over and everything is just great then i'm just going to assume that the Recession is definitely not over and everything is far from being great. Hey that's how i see it anyway.

 

[Toro]

People put too much emphasis on politics when discussing the market. The fundamentals of the market are far more reliant on monetary policy and the underlying institutions of the economy and the country rather than who is running the country.

There is some truth in that. But of course, it is also true that the monetary policy is VERY influenced by who (and what) is in power. And the underlying institutions are now being more directly manipulated than ever before.

President Obama and the utterly reckless Congress are menaces to the economic welfare of the United States.

Smart money can earn gains in any kind of political environment. Who has control typically doesn't change the ability to gain SOMEWHERE within the market.

Well, and the simple fact is that politics plays less of a role than most people imagine, or at least most political people imagine. Markets have generally done better under Democrats than Republicans. That doesn't mean that Democrats are better for the market necessarily, but it does mean that Republicans aren't necessarily better for the market.

As you can see, the economy has chugged along pretty well no matter who was in power and the policies they enacted, for the most part.

That does not mean that bad policies will not harm the economy, but it does mean that the economy is far more resilient than most political people believe. The American people are enormously dynamic, and American institutions are extremely sound. Raising or cutting taxes, or raising or cutting government spending doesn't change this.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The same dunces who destroyed our Economy are still in charge of the Economy. Nothing has changed. No one has been held accountable. In fact many of these dunces have received pay-raises for their astounding incompetence & corruption. Now these same dunces are claiming that the Recession is over and everything is just great. Why the h*ll should we believe them? They have been wrong about so much in the past so i see no reason to put any faith in their claims. Now Ben Bernanke is even being called a "Genius" by many on the Left. It's funny they never lavished such praise on him before,so why now? No one has been held accountable for this tragic economic collapse and that's the sad reality. So be very wary when these people tell you that everything is just rosy. They are likely lying to you.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Americans have recovered more than $4 trillion to their retirement accounts, IRA's, 401k's, college tuition investment accounts, etc ...

These are not fat cats. They are average everyday Americans.

But imho POTUS always gets more credit than deserved when the economy is going good and more blame than is deserved when the economy is going bad. For the most part, there are forces far bigger than POTUS or Congress at work driving the economy.

But during a crisis - a failure to react can be devastating. Bush and Obama BOTH did what any other president (since Hoover) would have done. Good for BOTH of them.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Ben Bernanke a "Genius?" Possibly the biggest lie ever told to the American People in History. He's such a "Genius" yet he didn't see this historical economic collapse coming? He's hardly a "Genius" in my opinion. He simply raped the American Tax Payer and gave all the cash to his Corporate buddies. Nothing "Genius" about that to me. So now we're supposed to believe everything Ben Bernanke tells us ay? Why should we? He's been so wrong so many times in the past? I see no reason to follow him around like a lost sheep. It's all just a very sad Socialist scam in the end.