Dow extends record run

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see what the big hoopla is. This is not even close to record Dow high when adjusted for inflation.
http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/dowinflation.jpg
Anyways, this is not going to save the GOP, no matter how much CNBC or FOX wishes it will because one of the reasons companies are making record profits are that they are cutting wages and benefits for their workers, or hiking up prices, or sending their jobs overseas. This is not a tide that lifts all boats like it was during Clinton, so it won't help Bush. Republicans are toast.

Seems to me you were one of the liberals (among many) screaming every time someone mentioned that gas prices were nowhere near record highs when adjusted for inflation.

Once again your hypocrisy and political agenda are transparent.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see what the big hoopla is. This is not even close to record Dow high when adjusted for inflation.
http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/dowinflation.jpg
Anyways, this is not going to save the GOP, no matter how much CNBC or FOX wishes it will because one of the reasons companies are making record profits are that they are cutting wages and benefits for their workers, or hiking up prices, or sending their jobs overseas. This is not a tide that lifts all boats like it was during Clinton, so it won't help Bush. Republicans are toast.

Yes a nice record high followed by the air being let of the bubble. Should adjust for inflation at the top of the bubble(11,700) or from the bottom when all the air was let out(7500). I think most reasonable can agree 11,700 was nothing more than irrational exuberance at the time.

The market has had very good growth since it hit bottom.

I think that's a reasonable point, though it presumes today's valuation is immune from the "irrational exhuberance" effect. One can always argue subjectively that stock prices are over- or under-valued. In any case, it remains factually deceptive to claim the Dow "high" proves the economy is booming, not only because it isn't truly a high when adjusted for inflation, but also because the Dow isn't a particularly good metric for measuring the overall economy. It's great that the Dow is up, but it's only a narrow window into a complex subject.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see what the big hoopla is. This is not even close to record Dow high when adjusted for inflation.
http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/dowinflation.jpg
Anyways, this is not going to save the GOP, no matter how much CNBC or FOX wishes it will because one of the reasons companies are making record profits are that they are cutting wages and benefits for their workers, or hiking up prices, or sending their jobs overseas. This is not a tide that lifts all boats like it was during Clinton, so it won't help Bush. Republicans are toast.

Seems to me you were one of the liberals (among many) screaming every time someone mentioned that gas prices were nowhere near record highs when adjusted for inflation.

Once again your hypocrisy and political agenda are transparent.

So we can now make up what people said and then call them hypocrites based on that? Sweet

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see what the big hoopla is. This is not even close to record Dow high when adjusted for inflation.
http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/dowinflation.jpg
Anyways, this is not going to save the GOP, no matter how much CNBC or FOX wishes it will because one of the reasons companies are making record profits are that they are cutting wages and benefits for their workers, or hiking up prices, or sending their jobs overseas. This is not a tide that lifts all boats like it was during Clinton, so it won't help Bush. Republicans are toast.

Yes a nice record high followed by the air being let of the bubble. Should adjust for inflation at the top of the bubble(11,700) or from the bottom when all the air was let out(7500). I think most reasonable can agree 11,700 was nothing more than irrational exuberance at the time.

The market has had very good growth since it hit bottom.

I think that's a reasonable point, though it assumes today's valuation is immune from the "irrational exhuberance" effect. One can always argue subjectively that stock prices are over- or under-valued. In any case, it remains factually deceptive to claim the Dow "high" proves the economy is booming, not only because it isn't truly a high when adjusted for inflation, but also because the Dow isn't a particularly good metric for measuring the overall economy. It's great that the Dow is up, but it's only a narrow window into a complex subject.

Well profits are up and the economy has beeing going at a pretty good clip for the past several years. Overall the economy is in pretty good shape. But actually the folks at the DOW had not tinkered with the index, we would have passed the the old a bit sooner than we did. Either way, things are still looking up.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: maluckey
Nothing says roaring like record governmental revenues. Deficit is being paid down substantially faster than expected. Unemployment is very low, interest rates are low, and despite 12 million souls evading taxation (and killing Social Security), everything is booming. Imagine if those freeloaders actually PAID TAXES like the rest of us...

I think you need a reality check. Government revenues reach new record highs almost every year because of inflation and a normal economic growth. You don't "pay down" deficits, you pay down debt. The federal debt continues to skyrocket. Unemployment statistics are artificially low, ignoring the millions of people who have been forced to accept part-time or lower-quality, lower-paying jobs, and those who were employed, would like to work again, but have given up on actually finding employment. Interest rates are hardly low, though they're not bad. Finally, while it's great that the Dow is up, wages remain stagnant, meaning this "recovery" is real for investors, not so real for working stiffs.

**BUZZZZ** Wrong, sorry, thank you for playing.

Let me know how that crow tastes, mkay?

Go to the link below and turn to page 26 and there you will see that revenue hit a peak in 2000 (Tech Bubble) and went down in 2001 and even lower in 2002 and 2003.

Yawn. Did you read you own link? Federal revenue hit a new record 41 out of 45 years -- 91% of the time -- from 1955 until 2000, through good economies and bad. In 2000, the economy went to pot ... and Bush cut taxes. The result? An unprecedented four-year string of lower revenues, finally ending in 2005.

If anything, this suggests your bleating about tax cuts increasing federal revenue is pure partisan propaganda. It certainly isn't supported by the actual data. I'll agree it doesn't prove reduced revenues were caused by George's tax loans -- correlation does not prove causation -- but it's absolutely delusional to look at the data and continue to claim they increased revenue.

If you look at page 28 you will also see that in 1998, 1999 and 2000 government revenue was at 20% of GDP, the ONLY time it has been that high since World War 2. Under Bush it has been restored to its traditional (post WW 2) 17-18% of GDP. (Edit: 40 year average is 18.2% of GDP so right now we are below that, while under Clinton we were 2-3% higher.)

More misdirection. So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with the effect of tax cuts on revenue.

Since you stumbled into it, however, let's take a little broader look at the data instead of cherry-picking stats you want to spin. We'll note, for example, that federal outlays exceeded 20% of GDP every year from 1975 through 1996, peaking under Reagan with six straight years above 22% ('81 - '86). That's right, excluding WWII, your god Ronnie was the worst offender ever when it comes to big government.

Outlays finally dropped back below 20% in 1997, and coupled with higher taxes, actually balanced the federal budget in 1998 for the first time in 28 years. The three years you're whining about are three years of balanced budgets. That's not a coincidence. (See, one of the things they don't seem to teach in Republican accounting classes is that balancing one's budget requires revenue greater than outlays. Go figure. But please dont tell them. It will crush their delusions of being the party of fiscal responsibility.)

BTW: The estimated federal deficit for FY 2006 was $260 billion as of a month ago, that is down from the estimate of $423 billion when the FY budget was created. That means we trimmed $160 billion off the expected deficit in ONE year, damn good deal. $260 billion is also lower than FY 2005's $318 billion, we ARE moving in the right direction on deficits, lets hope it stays that way.

Unfortunately, the last time I checked, those deficit numbers are pure smoke and mirrors since they exclude Bush's self-declared off-budget expenses like Iraq and Katrina. I also constantly get a chuckle out of the Bush faithful desperately stretching to give Bush credit for finally reducing the deficits he created. Can you lower the bar any more?

If we keep up triming the deficit at this rate then we should balance the budget in 2008, before Bush leaves office.

Yet the data you linked shows deficit projections every year through the end of the chart in 2011. They also assume a 38% increase in the GDP over the next six years. Seems a bit optimistic to me, but we can hope.

We ALL need to keep our eyes on this and make sure the people in DC don't start to spend like crazy again.

Historical tables on page 26

Yep, that's why we need the Democrats to take at least one house of Congress this year. We need the gridlock to keep spending in check.

For the record, here's one of the posts Sir ProfJohn is so desperately avoiding. Nope, not a single fact or figure in it ( :roll: ), all taken from the link he provided. ROFL.

 

[ProfJohn]

Bowfinger, this is the 3rd? time you have posted this response. What do you want me to respond too?

You said "Government revenues reach new record highs almost every year because of inflation and a normal economic growth" and I showed that we had 4 straight years where revenue did NOT reach record highs, clearly your statement is shaky at best.
From 1955 to 2005 we have had 8 years with out record highs, which means that 1 out of every 6 years has NOT had a record, so much for your "almost every year" comment.

For the record, the capital-gains taxes took effect in 2004 and since then we have seen two years of incredible revenue growth.

You made another "smoke and mirrors" comment about off-budget expenses and all that. Since you know so much about off budget spending post a nice link showing how much money we are spending off budget.

And then you made a comment about projecting deficits till 2011. Which I have already stated that I oppose. IF we control spending we can balance the budget before then.

Proof that FY 2000 was an anomaly.
Year-- Revenue--- increase over previous year. Starting with Clinton's first year in office.
1993 1154 trillion 63 billion
1994 1258 trillion 104 billion
1995 1351 trillion 93 billion
1996 1453 trillion 102 billion
1997 1579 trillion 126 billion
1998 1721 trillion 142 billion
1999 1827 trillion 106 billion
2000 2025 trillion 198 billion

So in the for Clinton's entire 8 years in office we averaged an increase in revenue of $116 billion per year, and then all of a sudden we see a nearly $200 billion increase in revenue, a $73 billion greater increase than his second best year. Clearly 2000 was an anomaly.

I am very happy to report that tax collections for the past two years have increased by $521 billion making the last two years the highest tax collecting years in US history-even after adjusting for inflation. And both years showed very large increases, so this is not a one year wonder ala 2000.

Looks like the tax cuts are working good now huh?
Oh and you'll love these FACTS
According to IRS data, the top 1 percent paid about 36.89 percent and the top 5 percent paid 57.13 percent of federal personal income taxes in 2004 (the most recent data available).

By comparison, in 1999 the top 1 percent paid 36.18 percent and the top 5 percent paid 55.45 percent of federal personal income taxes.

Look at that, under Bush the rich are paying a larger percentage of all income taxes, how nice of them

BTW: In 2003 the top 5% paid 54.36% of all income taxes, and yet they only earned 31.18% of income. So they are pay WELL more than their "fair share" The top 50% earn 86% of all income in this country, and yet hey pay 96% of income taxes. That means the bottom HALF of the country only pay 3.5% of taxes. I would say the tax system is pretty fair in this way.

Read some great stats on the economy here US deficit cut in half

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So in the for Clinton's entire 8 years in office we averaged an increase in revenue of $116 billion per year, and then all of a sudden we see a nearly $200 billion increase in revenue, a $73 billion greater increase than his second best year.

Do you have anything else other than it's all Clinton's fault???

Do you know who the President has been since 2001?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So in the for Clinton's entire 8 years in office we averaged an increase in revenue of $116 billion per year, and then all of a sudden we see a nearly $200 billion increase in revenue, a $73 billion greater increase than his second best year.

Do you have anything else other than it's all Clinton's fault???

Do you know who the President has been since 2001?

Dave, I didn't blame Clinton for anything. I was showing that 2000 was an anomaly compared the rest of Clinton's term. (I don?t think the tech bubble was his fault either, just like the housing bubble is not Bush?s fault. Neither of them enacted policies that encouraged such things.)

I believe that Clinton deserves some credit for having a good economy (as much credit as a President gets for that) and he and congress deserve credit for balancing the budget.

There is more to my life than blaming Clinton.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So in the for Clinton's entire 8 years in office we averaged an increase in revenue of $116 billion per year, and then all of a sudden we see a nearly $200 billion increase in revenue, a $73 billion greater increase than his second best year.

Do you have anything else other than it's all Clinton's fault???

Do you know who the President has been since 2001?

Dave, I didn't blame Clinton for anything. I was showing that 2000 was an anomaly compared the rest of Clinton's term. (I don?t think the tech bubble was his fault either, just like the housing bubble is not Bush?s fault. Neither of them enacted policies that encouraged such things.)

I believe that Clinton deserves some credit for having a good economy (as much credit as a President gets for that) and he and congress deserve credit for balancing the budget.

There is more to my life than blaming Clinton.

Of course you don't hold the Bush Regime accountable for giving away money like candy and then taking the lollipop away from the Sheeple after they've sunk themselves way over their heads.

 

[maluckey]

Of course you don't hold the Bush Regime accountable for giving away money like candy and then taking the lollipop away from the Sheeple after they've sunk themselves way over their heads

Why should someone get a free ride just because they lack self-discipline? The govt. SHOULD expect people to not go into debt then write it off under chapter 7 (which I assume you were speaking of). Responsibility includes paying back the borrowed money.

Of course you are leading the conversation back to deficit because you haven't listened to what's in the thread re: deficit and debt to income ratio. If the feds can maintain under 40 percent ratio, with their "...giving away money like candy...", then so should you be able to do the same.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So in the for Clinton's entire 8 years in office we averaged an increase in revenue of $116 billion per year, and then all of a sudden we see a nearly $200 billion increase in revenue, a $73 billion greater increase than his second best year.

Do you have anything else other than it's all Clinton's fault???

Do you know who the President has been since 2001?

Dave, I didn't blame Clinton for anything. I was showing that 2000 was an anomaly compared the rest of Clinton's term. (I don?t think the tech bubble was his fault either, just like the housing bubble is not Bush?s fault. Neither of them enacted policies that encouraged such things.)

I believe that Clinton deserves some credit for having a good economy (as much credit as a President gets for that) and he and congress deserve credit for balancing the budget.

There is more to my life than blaming Clinton.

Of course you don't hold the Bush Regime accountable for giving away money like candy and then taking the lollipop away from the Sheeple after they've sunk themselves way over their heads.

Do you have anything else other than it's all Bush's fault???

 

[WhipperSnapper]

My guess is that the businesses are raking in nice profits by essentially looting the Middle Class. As they lay off the American Middle Class and employ foreigners for much lower wages while maintaining prices, they can earn larger profits. Of course, this can't go on forever since eventually the Middle Class will run out of credit, but it will be a fun ride for a while.

Coming soon...Third World America...brought to you by the economic force of Global Labor Wage Arbitrage and population explosion.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bowfinger, this is the 3rd? time you have posted this response. What do you want me to respond too?

Your errors and false statements about my posts, perhaps with an explanation of why you continue to parrot talking points that have been shown false.

You said "Government revenues reach new record highs almost every year because of inflation and a normal economic growth" and I showed that we had 4 straight years where revenue did NOT reach record highs, clearly your statement is shaky at best.
From 1955 to 2005 we have had 8 years with out record highs, which means that 1 out of every 6 years has NOT had a record, so much for your "almost every year" comment.

Seriously? Are you really going to use such blatantly cherry-picked data to sell this bovine excrement? Wow.

As I've already pointed out, the Bush revenue record is a glaring anomaly. He is the only president in at least the last 50 years to NOT have record revenues more years than not. Clinton had record revenues eight of eight years. G.H.W. Bush was four for four, Reagan had record revenue seven of eight, Carter four of four, etc. Until G.W. Bush, we had record tax revenues 41 out of 45 years, 91% of the time. Bush's four straight years without record revenue is a freak, a testament to his failed tax policies.

Bottom line, you were wrong. Show the integrity to admit it and we can move on.

For the record, the capital-gains taxes took effect in 2004 and since then we have seen two years of incredible revenue growth.

We've also seen growth in sunspot activity, hurricanes, and Bush's disapproval rating. Correlation does NOT demonstrate causation.

You made another "smoke and mirrors" comment about off-budget expenses and all that. Since you know so much about off budget spending post a nice link showing how much money we are spending off budget.

Yeah, you probably missed that on your right-wing blogs. Google is your friend (or it was given in one of the other threads here).

And then you made a comment about projecting deficits till 2011. Which I have already stated that I oppose. IF we control spending we can balance the budget before then.

Yes, that's in response to your claim that, "We ARE moving in the right direction on deficits." I simply pointed out that your wishful thinking isn't supported by your own data which projects continuing deficits.

Proof that FY 2000 was an anomaly.
Year-- Revenue--- increase over previous year. Starting with Clinton's first year in office.
1993 1154 trillion 63 billion
1994 1258 trillion 104 billion
1995 1351 trillion 93 billion
1996 1453 trillion 102 billion
1997 1579 trillion 126 billion
1998 1721 trillion 142 billion
1999 1827 trillion 106 billion
2000 2025 trillion 198 billion

So in the for Clinton's entire 8 years in office we averaged an increase in revenue of $116 billion per year, and then all of a sudden we see a nearly $200 billion increase in revenue, a $73 billion greater increase than his second best year. Clearly 2000 was an anomaly.

I am very happy to report that tax collections for the past two years have increased by $521 billion making the last two years the highest tax collecting years in US history-even after adjusting for inflation. And both years showed very large increases, so this is not a one year wonder ala 2000.

Looks like the tax cuts are working good now huh?

More misdirection through cherry-picking data and superficial, partisan analysis. The simple fact, again from the data you linked, is Bush dug us into a revenue hole in his first four years, finally beginning to recover in 2005. Assuming we take the 2006 projected increase as fact, the net increase in revenue for Bush is only $260 billion after six years, an average of less than $43.4B per year, only 37% of Clinton's $116.8B average.

Even more telling is your hypocritcal dismissal of Clinton's largest increase, "nearly $200 billion", as an anomaly, while suggesting Bush's $273.6 billion one-year jump is proof his tax loans are working. By your own standards, I guess that proves that Clinton's tax increases worked almost three times better, $117 billion per year vs. Bush's paltry $43 billion. Right?

Oh and you'll love these FACTS
According to IRS data, the top 1 percent paid about 36.89 percent and the top 5 percent paid 57.13 percent of federal personal income taxes in 2004 (the most recent data available).

By comparison, in 1999 the top 1 percent paid 36.18 percent and the top 5 percent paid 55.45 percent of federal personal income taxes.

Look at that, under Bush the rich are paying a larger percentage of all income taxes, how nice of them

And if you bother to look at the whole story, you'll learn that their incomes increased even more than their taxes. They paid more because they got more ... much more.

BTW: In 2003 the top 5% paid 54.36% of all income taxes, and yet they only earned 31.18% of income. So they are pay WELL more than their "fair share" The top 50% earn 86% of all income in this country, and yet hey pay 96% of income taxes. That means the bottom HALF of the country only pay 3.5% of taxes. I would say the tax system is pretty fair in this way. ...

Yes, that's called progressive taxation. Why don't you give us the same breakdown for the top 25%, top 10%, top 1%, top 0.1%, and top 0.01%. You'll note the percentage paid at the very top actually drops compared to much of the middle and upper-middle class. Then add in FICA withholding and watch the tax rate shift even further in favor of the wealthy elite. The simple fact is that thanks in large part to Bush's tax loans, the have's are getting more and more and are paying proportionately less and less.

Finally, here's one more part of my post that you ignored again:

• Since you stumbled into it, however, let's take a little broader look at the data instead of cherry-picking stats you want to spin. We'll note, for example, that federal outlays exceeded 20% of GDP every year from 1975 through 1996, peaking under Reagan with six straight years above 22% ('81 - '86). That's right, excluding WWII, your god Ronnie was the worst offender ever when it comes to big government.
  
  Outlays finally dropped back below 20% in 1997, and coupled with higher taxes, actually balanced the federal budget in 1998 for the first time in 28 years. The three years you're whining about are three years of balanced budgets. That's not a coincidence. (See, one of the things they don't seem to teach in Republican accounting classes is that balancing one's budget requires revenue greater than outlays. Go figure. But please dont tell them. It will crush their delusions of being the party of fiscal responsibility.)

I don't expect any particular response to this. I simply like pointing out that Reagan was the biggest spender of them all. It's a neat little fact to keep in one's pocket when the faithful drone on about big-spending Democrats. It also nicely demonstrates why Clinton had a balanced budget while Reagan and Bush didn't: increased revenues and reduced spending.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
also because the Dow isn't a particularly good metric for measuring the overall economy. It's great that the Dow is up, but it's only a narrow window into a complex subject.

The S&P 500 is also at 5 1/2 year highs, you know.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
My guess is that the businesses are raking in nice profits by essentially looting the Middle Class. As they lay off the American Middle Class and employ foreigners for much lower wages while maintaining prices, they can earn larger profits. Of course, this can't go on forever since eventually the Middle Class will run out of credit, but it will be a fun ride for a while.

Coming soon...Third World America...brought to you by the economic force of Global Labor Wage Arbitrage and population explosion.

This deserves it's own thread:

10-18-2006 CNN Lou Dobbs - The war on the middle class

KANSAS CITY, Missouri - "War on the Middle Class" is the title of my new book and our special report on CNN. Wednesday we broadcast live from the front lines of this all-out war, and we talked to American families facing the tough issues that are all but being ignored by our elected officials in Washington. Our middle class is the largest group of people in the country, but they are also the least represented in our nation's capital.

looked forward to hearing from people like Mary in Louisiana, who wrote our broadcast to tell us, "The two parties in power really don't represent me any longer and haven't for quite some time. I write letters to my representatives almost daily, and only occasionally do I get a reply. It's obvious that I don't matter to these people. It's definitely time for a voter revolution in this country."

Bob in Louisiana is also fed up with our leaders in Washington, and I suspect he has more than a little company. Bob wrote: "What ever happened to the concept in which politicians were elected to do the will of the people? Regardless of what the polls show the American people want done, it seems our brilliant elected officials always find a way to do just the opposite. What part of 'of the people, by the people, and for the people' don't they understand?"

It seems the best way to ensure prosperity in this country is to run for office, said B.L. in Michigan: "I wish like our members of Congress, I could supposedly work 80 days out of the year, vacation the rest of the year and still get a substantial raise, health benefits and a nice retirement package. If they had to eke out a living like most of us Americans, they might decide to cater to their constituents rather than the lobbyists and big corporations."

Congress has passed too many laws over the past few years contrary to the interests of the citizens they represent. One has to look no further than the bankruptcy bill, which was all but written by the credit card companies.

Sean in North Carolina responded to my bringing up this issue by saying, "Lou, while I appreciate your support of an increase in the minimum wage, isn't it about time we institute a maximum wage in this country? Corporate America must be getting hernias by now from hauling away all the loot. When is enough enough?"

Daniel in Florida says, "I think the Senate pay should be directly related to the average pay of the middle class. If we go down, they go down, too."

What about the parents of our brave men and women in uniform fighting to preserve our values and freedoms? Paula in Texas said, "Lou, can you tell me why I should not be outraged to find out that my son and his fellow military personnel are receiving the lowest 2.2 percent pay raise for their efforts in Iraq, and yet the grand ol' body in Congress passes a hidden expense of $20 million for a 2007 Victory party for the successes in Afghanistan and Iraq? Now that is just an outrage. My son just returned from Iraq and I pray he doesn't have to go back. He might miss the party."

Finally, James in Idaho is thinking the unthinkable: "The middle class is a purposeful construct, a buffer keeping the poor from the throats of the rich. The continued destruction of the middle class will result in class warfare, social strife, social revolution in our country, if the trend is not reversed.

 

[maluckey]

Kinda part of the above topic by Dave...

Florida is sinking fast by letting in ill-skilled, low educated undocumented migrants. You save a few dollars on oranges, but you lose the middle class. the public burden from undocumenteds is rising quickly. Georgia is flooded as well. In each case that a state gets the flood of undocumented workers, you get the crime and poverty that go along with it. Is twenty cents more per pound worth elimination of the middle class. Look to Mexico, China or Bolivia for your answer.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
also because the Dow isn't a particularly good metric for measuring the overall economy. It's great that the Dow is up, but it's only a narrow window into a complex subject.

The S&P 500 is also at 5 1/2 year highs, you know.

Not sure if you're trying to make a joke or just missed the point, but to be clear, the stock market isn't a particularly good metric for measuring the overall economy. It is but one of many indicators one must evaluate.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
also because the Dow isn't a particularly good metric for measuring the overall economy. It's great that the Dow is up, but it's only a narrow window into a complex subject.

The S&P 500 is also at 5 1/2 year highs, you know.

Not sure if you're trying to make a joke or just missed the point, but to be clear, the stock market isn't a particularly good metric for measuring the overall economy. It is but one of many indicators one must evaluate.

So please share with us your list of measurements.

Stock market=good
unemployment=good
"real" household income=rising
economic growth=19 consecutive quarters
GDP growth= 3.5% over the past year
Gas prices WAY down
tax revenue WAY up
Home ownership peaked at 69% in 2004, and was at 68.9% in 2005 (never exceeded 67.8% under Clinton) 3 million more people owned their own home in 2005 than in 2000.

So what are we missing? Based on everything above the economy looks damn good.
Please, I want to know what metrics you think we should be looking at. (And back up your claims with data, not just statements that can't be researched.)

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
also because the Dow isn't a particularly good metric for measuring the overall economy. It's great that the Dow is up, but it's only a narrow window into a complex subject.

The S&P 500 is also at 5 1/2 year highs, you know.

Not sure if you're trying to make a joke or just missed the point, but to be clear, the stock market isn't a particularly good metric for measuring the overall economy. It is but one of many indicators one must evaluate.

The Dow is a much more narrow indicator as it only covers 30 companies, while the S&P covers 500 over a much wider sample of industries. Somebody mentioned earlier in this thread that the Dow wasn't a good indicator because it was so narrow, but the S&P is also at high levels.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So please share with us your list of measurements.

Stock market=good
unemployment=good
"real" household income=rising
economic growth=19 consecutive quarters
GDP growth= 3.5% over the past year
Gas prices WAY down
tax revenue WAY up
Home ownership peaked at 69% in 2004, and was at 68.9% in 2005 (never exceeded 67.8% under Clinton) 3 million more people owned their own home in 2005 than in 2000.

So what are we missing? Based on everything above the economy looks damn good.
Please, I want to know what metrics you think we should be looking at. (And back up your claims with data, not just statements that can't be researched.)

You and your buddies are not in the "Middle Class" so you have no idea what you are talking about.

10-23-2006 "The economy adds up well on paper," but much of the middle-class is struggling

President George W. Bush has touted the creation of 6.6 million jobs since 2003 and an overall economy that has been growing for nearly five years.

Critics counter that the number of jobs created is relatively paltry counting from 2001 and that incomes for most people have been stagnant despite tax cuts whose benefits were skewed to the wealthy.

Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial in Chicago, said the economy faces an unusual "bifurcation" with a new class of wealthy people getting the majority of the benefits of growth.

"The economy adds up well on paper," Swonk said, but much of the middle-class is struggling.

"People are working harder for the same pay, so it's not hard to understand dissatisfaction with the economy."

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
also because the Dow isn't a particularly good metric for measuring the overall economy. It's great that the Dow is up, but it's only a narrow window into a complex subject.

The S&P 500 is also at 5 1/2 year highs, you know.

Not sure if you're trying to make a joke or just missed the point, but to be clear, the stock market isn't a particularly good metric for measuring the overall economy. It is but one of many indicators one must evaluate.

So please share with us your list of measurements.

Stock market=good
unemployment=good
"real" household income=rising
economic growth=19 consecutive quarters
GDP growth= 3.5% over the past year
Gas prices WAY down
tax revenue WAY up
Home ownership peaked at 69% in 2004, and was at 68.9% in 2005 (never exceeded 67.8% under Clinton) 3 million more people owned their own home in 2005 than in 2000.

So what are we missing? Based on everything above the economy looks damn good.
Please, I want to know what metrics you think we should be looking at.

I assume you're pretending to refute something I said. Care to point out exactly what it was (using actual quotes, not some bogus straw man)?

(And back up your claims with data, not just statements that can't be researched.)

So you can run away again? That seems to be your M.O., make up stuff, then run away when we refute you with factual data.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
also because the Dow isn't a particularly good metric for measuring the overall economy. It's great that the Dow is up, but it's only a narrow window into a complex subject.

The S&P 500 is also at 5 1/2 year highs, you know.

Not sure if you're trying to make a joke or just missed the point, but to be clear, the stock market isn't a particularly good metric for measuring the overall economy. It is but one of many indicators one must evaluate.

So please share with us your list of measurements.

Stock market=good
unemployment=good
"real" household income=rising
economic growth=19 consecutive quarters
GDP growth= 3.5% over the past year
Gas prices WAY down
tax revenue WAY up
Home ownership peaked at 69% in 2004, and was at 68.9% in 2005 (never exceeded 67.8% under Clinton) 3 million more people owned their own home in 2005 than in 2000.

So what are we missing? Based on everything above the economy looks damn good.
Please, I want to know what metrics you think we should be looking at.

I assume you're pretending to refute something I said. Care to point out exactly what it was (using actual quotes, not some bogus straw man)?

(And back up your claims with data, not just statements that can't be researched.)

So you can run away again? That seems to be your M.O., make up stuff, then run away when we refute you with factual data.

You stated that the market wasn't a very good measure of the economy, and that there are many other indicators you need to account for.

He listed many other indicators, all of which point to a strong and growing economy.

What am I missing?

 

[Pabster]

Another day, another record close. :thumbsup:

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Another day, another record close. :thumbsup:

 

[Craig234]

Congrats to the top 10% of Americans, who own nearly 90% of all directly held stock and over 75% of all stock whether direct or indirectly owned. Their ability to own a greater and greater share of the wealth in our society continues to increase at the rest of Americans' expense.