Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Sneed your better the that. The stock market goes up and down all the time based of goverment policies. Thats also a nice graph but I notice they left off 7 yrs of Bush's time in office and why does it cut off 6 months of Obama's.

The stock market is irrational and reactionary on a day-to-day basis. But over the course of multiple years, no government policy can have any kind of prevailing effect. The data shows what the data shows my friend.

As for your note on the selective sampling used in those graphs you're right, any time you're looking at a 1-2 year period of stock market returns, you're not getting a large enough sample to conclude anything meaningful.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

The stock market is irrational and reactionary on a day-to-day basis. But over the course of multiple years, no government policy can have any kind of prevailing effect. The data shows what the data shows my friend.

As for your note on the selective sampling used in those graphs you're right, any time you're looking at a 1-2 year period of stock market returns, you're not getting a large enough sample to conclude anything meaningful.

We do agree that the stock market can be irrational and reactionary on a day-to-day basis. You don't think that the decisions over the past year or more to bail out the banks, car companies, etc... did not have a long term affect on the stock market?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

We do agree that the stock market can be irrational and reactionary on a day-to-day basis. You don't think that the decisions over the past year or more to bail out the banks, car companies, etc... did not have a long term affect on the stock market?

First, on auto bail-outs, no I don't think that has any meaningful long-term impact on the performance of American companies. In the end that only affected a few companies, a drop in the bucket compared to the stock market overall.

One could make the argument that without bailing out the banks, we would have entered a gigantic depression due to frozen lending. That particular bailout action had to be taken, or businesses nationwide would have lost the access to capital and hence lost the ability to invest and grow their businesses. Our whole economy could have ground to a halt.

Now, one could also say that the bank bailout caused us to drive up our national debt, which pushes down the value of the dollar, which makes our imports more expensive, which costs American companies over the long run. So maybe the bank bailout affected the stock market outlook, taking it from a 6.75% expected return to a 6.5%. That would be a reasonable assertion.

But nothing an administration does can cause stocks to gain ground during one period of time vs lose ground during another. Policies, especially those of the Fed, can swing stocks maybe 1% up or down, but as you know the stock market makes much larger swings from week to week and year to year than just 1% here and there. Economic conditions are what drive the ups and downs of the stock market.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

First, on auto bail-outs, no I don't think that has any meaningful long-term impact on the performance of American companies. In the end that only affected a few companies, a drop in the bucket compared to the stock market overall.

One could make the argument that without bailing out the banks, we would have entered a gigantic depression due to frozen lending. That particular bailout action had to be taken, or businesses nationwide would have lost the access to capital and hence lost the ability to invest and grow their businesses. Our whole economy could have ground to a halt.

Now, one could also say that the bank bailout caused us to drive up our national debt, which pushes down the value of the dollar, which makes our imports more expensive, which costs American companies over the long run. So maybe the bank bailout affected the stock market outlook, taking it from a 6.75% expected return to a 6.5%. That would be a reasonable assertion.

But nothing an administration does can cause stocks to gain ground during one period of time vs lose ground during another. Policies, especially those of the Fed, can swing stocks maybe 1% up or down, but as you know the stock market makes much larger swings from week to week and year to year than just 1% here and there. Economic conditions are what drive the ups and downs of the stock market.

We pretty much agree on this I was just syaing goverment policy does impact the stock market but should have been clear on how much impact.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

We pretty much agree on this I was just syaing goverment policy does impact the stock market but should have been clear on how much impact.

Fair enough. I definitely shouldn't be absolute in my statements. It can have some effect for sure, just not nearly enough to justify drawing conclusions from those ridiculous graphs posted earlier in the thread.

[Trample the Elderly]

Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far

They can cook the books anyway they want. It's probably worse than that. I say get off the books. Even during a depression booze still sells. Come up with a good blend and watch out for the revenue man.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far

They can cook the books anyway they want. It's probably worse than that. I say get off the books. Even during a depression booze still sells. Come up with a good blend and watch out for the revenue man.

Sometimes I think you should be banned for the sole reason that you add nothing productive to the discussion.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Sometimes I think you should be banned for the sole reason that you add nothing productive to the discussion.

That's a little strong , no ? Acounting fraud , cooking the books did happen at Fannie Mae , The Fannie Mae debacle was brought to you by the vast bipartisan conspiracy. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine .New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com . We need football soon , the sooner we spank Philly/cowturds and the g-strings ... the better !

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Sometimes I think you should be banned for the sole reason that you add nothing productive to the discussion.

What's productive about discussing an unemployment rate? Posting opinions about who's at fault doesn't change the fact that they're still unemployed.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

What's productive about discussing an unemployment rate? Posting opinions about who's at fault doesn't change the fact that they're still unemployed.

I think what he's trying to say is that you're not a product of intelligent design.