[Grovenet] Another anti-science Republican screed ? ? ? ?

[Katie Allnutt]

The huge redistribution of wealth away from the middle class and  
toward the top 5% has indeed been quite remarkable over both of those  
time periods. Out of sorts is a good way to put it.

Katie

On Feb 26, 2009, at 10:56 PM, Steven wrote:

> I picked 1946 because the chart I had only went back to 1929 and I  
> wanted to
> get away from that abnormality of the average. For a period of  
> 1946, things
> looked quite average.
> Do you think that the stock market run up of the 90s or the RE run  
> up of
> this century are normal?
> Pick any parameter and you'll see we've been out of sorts the last  
> decade
> and a half.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]On
> Behalf Of Katie Allnutt
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 9:24 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Another anti-science Republican screed ? ? ? ?
>
> Well said David.
> And I would argue that picking arbitrary dates like the 1946 stock
> market was not just random and neither was 7% a year.
> If you define the Dow Jones average as the stock market and take its
> value on Nov 13 1929 at 198.6 (the bottom shortly after black Monday)
> and compound it at 7% per year for 79 years you would get a stock
> market value for today of over 41,620.  What does that make 14000?
> Not a bubble.
> If you take the Dow Jones two and a half years later at another low
> point then it does make 14000 look like a bubble. And if you take it
> from a few years before that it does not look like a bubble again.
>
> So yes, if you do the math you can prove the point either way
> depending on how you define your starting point. And how you define
> the stock market.
> And I've heard that some say the stock market averages 10%
> historically which changes all the numbers more (but still 'proves
> the point' using 1946 S&P 500 and the  1932 Dow Jones) so that is
> probably why they picked that year.
>
> Who says that the economy is measured by the stock market?
> Employment rates might be a more accurate way to gauge how the
> average person is doing or median household income adjusted for
> inflation. The stock market is skewed (hmm that could have an r in it
> and still be the same couldn't it.....) toward measuring the economy
> of the wealthy more than the economy rest of us.
>
> Katie
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2009, at 6:25 PM, David Morelli wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Steven wrote:
>>
>>> Ever done the math? Some say that the stock market historically
>>> goes up 7% a year.
>>> 7% per year from 1946 puts the dow at 7400. What was the 14000
>>> number? A bubble.
>>> Who says the economy had to be that up?
>>>
>>
>> We have the habit of confusing the symptom with the disease.  A
>> temperature of 104 indicates a serious problem, lowering the body
>> temperature may prevent other damage but it doesn't address the
>> cause.  The 50% drop in the stock market indicates a problem,
>> restoring the old stock prices may return security to investors but
>> it doesn't address the problems in the economy.
>>
>> David
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet