Nice day in the stock market today...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

if you were short.

I thought that all of those people on CNBC said that this was a "new economy". A "new economy" where a 100 p/e was actually a bargain, because of the internet, and fiber optics, and all that productivity enhancing high-tech stuff.

LOL.

P.T. was as right as rain.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 12, 2001

Answers

Wasn't Abby declaring the stock market was back last week? (http://biz.yahoo.com/smart/010307/200103071pundwatc.html). Given her track record, why is she so frequently referred to as something like America's most distinguished financial analyst?

-- wondering (just@a.gigolo), March 13, 2001.

Don't worry. Bush will fix it.

LOL.

-- (bush@recession.now), March 13, 2001.


yeah Bush caused it!

LOL!

-- dum dum (clueless@democratic.convention), March 13, 2001.


yeah Bush caused it!

HUH? Please explain exactly how he caused it...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), March 13, 2001.


Bush didn't cause it. Klintooon did. You see, the incredible economic growth we saw during most of the last eight years was due entirely to the Republicans in Congress, because only Congress can affect the economy. However, when the economy began to slow in recent months, it was due to the DemonCrat President Klintoon, because as we all know, only the President can truly affect the economy. Now that we have a Republican President and the slowdown is continuing, we can see that only the previous President can affect the economy. If the economy improves within the next four years, then it will be because of our Republican President because, as we can plainly see, only the current President can affect the economy. Unless the Republicans still control Congress, in which we can see that only both the President and Congress can affect the economy.

I hope that helps.

-- (bush@economic.saviour), March 13, 2001.



Just a historical side note.

In 1929 Herbert Hoover was considered (on good grounds) to be one of the most competant presidents ever to assume that office. He was a gifted engineer and a rock-ribbed pragmatist. After WWI he had run a massive war relief and reconstruction program that everyone agreed was a marvel of efficiency. Compared to lightweights like Coolidge, Hoover was a heavy hitter.

When the Depression arrived, he did all the "right" things. He cut taxes. He encouraged optimism and confidence. He even committed the Republican heresy of starting some make-work public programs to put people back to work. (People wrongly identify FDR as the president who started federal welfare. He wasn't. It was Hoover who got that ball rolling.)

The point is, Hoover did everything "right" and still failed to halt the Depression. It got worse every year Hoover was in office. So, don't expect Bush to make much of a dent if the whole world goes into a tailspin. He won't.

In a lot of ways, Herbert Hoover was like Jimmy Carter. HH has a much worse reputation than he deserves. On the other hand, FDR and Reagan owe a lot of their popularity to their amazing ability to look and act cheerful all the time, no matter how bleak things really were. They made people feel better. Hoover and Carter thought what we wanted was ability, when what we really wanted was a ray of sunshine. I'm not sure if young Bush is up to that. I guess we'll see.

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), March 13, 2001.


Clinton is not to blame, and neither is Bush. This recession got started the same way all the others did in the last 50 years - sharply escalated energy prices. Clinton had nothing to do with the prosperity of the 90's (besides, that started during Bush Sr.'s tenure, not Clinton's) since that prosperity was fed by the growth of the 'new' technology markets, increasing productivity, and ridiculously low energy prices, and not by anthing Clinton did.

The energy prices have been spiking in the last year, the productivity growth has played itself out with computerization saturation, and the new markets don't attract the confidence of the past.

A nice smile will help, but like Roosevelt's WWII, we need more than Federal programs if things were to get bad.

-- throwing blame (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), March 13, 2001.


A nice smile will help, but like Roosevelt's WWII, we need more than Federal programs if things were to get bad.

What we need to do if things get really bad is to end ALL federal programs and let the people bring home 100% of their paycheck. That's what I would do if I was king. Even Social Security you ask? OF COURSE! Haa haa! Get a job as a movie ticket-taker old man, off the federal dole with you! And you, welfare lady, get those kids polishing apples! Lots of people sold apples during the last depression and did just fine, thank you very much!

BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 13, 2001.


To Miserable SOB: You are on somewhat on the right track about Hoover and his administration. But you tell only half the story, and it's the better half. There were the screw-ups too.

In 1930, Hoover signed into law the ill-advised Smoot-Hawley tariff, with the highest rates in US history. No, it did not cause the Depression, but it did its part to make it worse.

In 1931, Hoover and Congress became alarmed at the rising federal budget deficit. Even though it wasn't much, Congress raised income tax rates in that year, with unemployment already passing 12%! Needless to say it depressed the economy so much that with the lower tax base the deficit got worse.

And also in 1931 the Federal Reserve tightened monetary policy to raise interest rates. Why? Gold was flowing out of the US. I can't recall at the moment, but this brilliant move was probably urged by, or at least approved by, Hoover.

So both Hoover's administration and the vaunted New Deal had elements working fruitlessly at cross-purposes.

-- Unreel (cometo@tention.net), March 13, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ