Rob's Lobs

[IIC]

First of all I'd stop subsidies to morons like you, but that's another issue altogether.

Yes it is...Thanks to the WORST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME...Franklin Roosevelt...He took Hoover's bungled plan and made it much worse...You could take a lesson from Reagan's "Supply Side Economics"...If the market is not there...then forget it IMO...I'm flexible...No Corn...Then I can live w/o it...No Rice...Who cares???...I'll admit...Hoover didn't do a good job...But Roosevelt's AAA was akin to communism as this country has gotten...JFK and FDR were the 2 worst President's this country has ever known.

[IIC]

I'd be the biggest hyprocrite on the forum if I chastized Tatnic for his calling Lye a moron. I have spoken out in that fashion probably more than anyone here. When I do that it doesn't seem all that bad when I'm writing in, usually in the heat of anger, but Lye's post was almost a week old and in reading Tatnic's reply to that post it made me see what a jerk I have been at times with the stuff that I have posted in arguments with other forum members. I'm trying to be better at curbing my antagonistic and derogatory comments to anyone regardless of the point I am trying to make. I don't see the need for the use of some terminology. It only propogates the negative aspects of the disagreement. Disagree to the fullest but I for one am going to try my best to keep it above board with the use of certain derogatory terminology.
Billy, I have to agree with you. I have been self-employed my entire life except for a few very short periods early on after the Army. I have always paid my dues, taxes, and contributions in the way the gov't. specified. I have done everything they have asked of me as a serviceman, businessman, and taxpayer. I can honestly say that I have never got a thing back in return except for my freedom to work my ass off trying to make a living. Doug's post the other day regarding the letter by someone living in Iowa that wanted to change his status and become an illegal alien hit the nail on the head. The politicians are to blame for whatever subsidies farmers or anyone else gets because they are buying votes by doing so. It is not Lye's or any other hard working farmers fault. If Lye didn't take it they would give it to some other illegal alien or anyone else whose vote was up for sale. It is a tragic situation and is adding to the demise of this great country of ours.
Getting back to the original point. I cannot agree with Tatnic's use of the moron term with Lye. It will only further a negative situation.

I'm the first one to say that Tatnic or anyone else here has the right to voice their opinion...But I will say that...
IMO ...there is not a whole lot of political opinion here that is based on fact

[skiracer]

I'm the first one to say that Tatnic or anyone else here has the right to voice their opinion...But I will say that...
IMO ...there is not a whole lot of political opinion here that is based on fact

Disagreement is normal and should be welcomed. It's the other stuff that I don't see the need for. I don't think Lye's post used anything like that and except for it's sarcasm wasn't as derogatory as calling someone a moron. I know Lye and have had dealings with him aside from this forum and I know for a fact that he is a hard working businessman and is definitely not a moron. Opinionated yes but aren't we all.

[IIC]

Disagreement is normal and should be welcomed. It's the other stuff that I don't see the need for. I don't think Lye's post used anything like that and except for it's sarcasm wasn't as derogatory as calling someone a moron. I know Lye and have had dealings with him aside from this forum and I know for a fact that he is a hard working businessman and is definitely not a moron. Opinionated yes but aren't we all.

I wasn't talking about Lye...I was talking about Tatnic

[skiracer]

I wasn't talking about Lye...I was talking about Tatnic

I think Tatnic is as well informed as any of us and presents his arguements just as good as any of us. I wasn't talking about the content as much as the approach in this instance.

[IIC]

I think Tatnic is as well informed as any of us and presents his arguements just as good as any of us. I wasn't talking about the content as much as the approach in this instance.

I have no personal problem w/ Tatnic...And I have no personal problem with Sundial...One is Liberal and one is Conservative...As I posted before...I am pretty much MIDDLE OF THE ROAD politically...With a few Conservative leanings I suppose.

But from my experience...Diehard Liberals tend to "MAKE UP FACTS" and they tend to FORGET the failings of their idols...But that is just my take...Right or wrong...That's just my opinion.

[Rob]

Economy

As far as I'm concerned the economy is running on fumes...When the industrials weaken we tank.
I see nothing strong in the economy right now...

Let me see if I can provide a little info on the plus side ...

The DJIA high of 11,750.28 on 1/14/2000, if you base it on 2007 dollars, would be 14,012.21, about 5.6% higher than Firday's close.

That was a bubble.

There are a number of strengths in today's economy, as shown in
this article by Larry Kudlow. Though written a few months ago, it's still applicable.

The GDP growth has slowed a little but is still growing. That's not a problem. In fact sometimes slower growth is what you want, so as not spur inflation and higher interest rates.



The S&P 500 P/E is currently 18.31, which, as you can see from this chart, is about half what it was at the beginning of 2000 and near the lows for the past decade. I view the divergence of the declining P/E ratio and the increasing price as a good, healthy one.



For these reasons I tend to agree more with the correction scenario than a crash scenario, and I do not agree with the "running on fumes" characterization.

That being said, if the Democrats win the White House in 2008 and retain control of both the congress and senate, a very anti-business climate will ensue, and you'd be better off cashing out all your stocks and buying government bonds.

[skiracer]

Let me see if I can provide a little info on the plus side ...

The DJIA high of 11,750.28 on 1/14/2000, if you base it on 2007 dollars, would be 14,012.21, about 5.6% higher than Firday's close.

That was a bubble.

There are a number of strengths in today's economy, as shown in
this article by Larry Kudlow. Though written a few months ago, it's still applicable.

The GDP growth has slowed a little but is still growing. That's not a problem. In fact sometimes slower growth is what you want, so as not spur inflation and higher interest rates.



The S&P 500 P/E is currently 18.31, which, as you can see from this chart, is about half what it was at the beginning of 2000 and near the lows for the past decade. I view the divergence of the declining P/E ratio and the increasing price as a good, healthy one.



For these reasons I tend to agree more with the correction scenario than a crash scenario, and I do not agree with the "running on fumes" characterization.

That being said, if the Democrats win the White House in 2008 and retain control of both the congress and senate, a very anti-business climate will ensue, and you'd be better off cashing out all your stocks and buying government bonds.

Factual and very nicely presented Rob. When anyone backs up their arguement with factual representation it makes it that much more meaningful and understandable. Good work and I would agree with your take on it.

[IIC]

Maybe I'm confused...If the DOW equates to being 5.6% lower than it was 7 years ago...How is that good news?

Maybe I'm using the term "Crash" a bit loosely...Perhaps "Correction" is a better term....I can envision a 500 point correction on the Naz Comp.

At this point I don't see any front runners as far as who will be President...But if the democrats win why do you think that would be bad for the markets?...I believe we went thru this exercise 3 or 4 years ago years ago: http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal...003-11-20.html


EDIT...Here is a more recent article: http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/arti...ureinvest/3022

[Tatnic]

That being said, if the Democrats win the White House in 2008 and retain control of both the congress and senate, a very anti-business climate will ensue, and you'd be better off cashing out all your stocks and buying government bonds.

I would expect something that clueless from the fat farmer. Let me explain.

So far during dumbya's term the SP500 is basically flat year over year (0.4% annual rate of return). During Clinton's 8 year stay the SP500 annual rate of return was 16%. If anyone was dumb enough to follow your advise here's how they would have fared:

$1,000 invested per Rob's logic would be worth $1,515 now, assuming that during the clinton years you had the money in bonds or similar paying 5%, and then you stuck that cash into the SP500 during dumbya's error.

But investing with the democrats would be worth $4,447 or almost 3 times as much. That's 16% over 8 years and then during dumbya's term you'd have the money in bonds or similar paying 5%.

That's a difference of almost 200%....trust me, that's a big difference.

[Rob]

If the DOW equates to being 5.6% lower than it was 7 years ago...How is that good news?

Because in 2,000 it was a bubble, and now there is more substance behind the recent increases. The earnings of the S&P 500 are about twice what they were 7 years ago.

But if the democrats win why do you think that would be bad for the markets?

I said if the Democrats control the White House and both houses of congress, it would bring about an anti-business environment The reason I said that is because the Democrat party today is being driven by the far left, which seeks to socialize everything and redistribute the wealth of the nation with exorbitant taxes. It's just my opinion, which I happen to think is right. If anyone chooses to disagree, that's their prerogative, but I don't care to get into an arguement over it.

Here's a chart I created. Anyone is free to draw their own conclusions.



(Note: you may have to click a 2nd time on the chart that opens to see it without any distortion.)

[IIC]

Nice chart...But I can't draw any conclusions from it.

You won't catch me voting for Hillary or Barry...But, although both sides always talk it up...I don't really think it matters a whole lot who wins.

Yes, earnings yields are higher on the SP than in 2000...But nowhere near as high as they were in the '70's when the market really stunk:

http://www.investmenttools.com/equities/fundamentals/s___p_500_earnings_yield.htm

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/spearn.htm

.

[Rob]

You won't catch me voting for Hillary or Barry...

Nor me, but who the heck is Barry?

But, although both sides always talk it up...I don't really think it matters a whole lot who wins.

If you think health care is expensive now, wait till you see how much it costs when it's "free."

Yes, earnings yields are higher on the SP than in 2000...But nowhere near as high as they were in the '70's when the market really stunk

Regardless of the yields (do you buy stocks for the dividends?) the bottom line earnings are what stand to take a hit in a heavy taxation environment.

The Bush administration, while having stimulated growth through tax cuts, has an abysmal record of big spending, even without the war on terrorists. In that regard the modern Republican party is too far left, but the modern Democratic party is so far left they've gone over the edge.

As far as Clinton goes, he had the benefit of "the peace dividend," thanks to the policies of ol' Dutch, which were met with resistance by the Dems at every turn. He also benefitted by the meat of the first Internet-age tech boom (a large factor in the 2000 bubble, by the way), as well as a House and Senate both controlled by Republicans for the final 75% of his administration.

Of course there's no way to know what would have happened if Carter had won in 1980 or Mondale in 1984. If Dukakis had won in 1988, would Kuwait now be part of Iraq? Who knows? If Gore had won in 2000 (which he didn't, as multiple Florida recounts showed) or Kerry in 2004, would the Dow be over 13,000 today? Who knows? It seems to me the economic outlook might be best when one party controls the White House and the opposing party controls both houses in congress.

It's just my opinion that any move toward further socialization is bad for the economy, as nearly a century of world history shows.

[Tatnic]

Disagreement is normal and should be welcomed. It's the other stuff that I don't see the need for. I don't think Lye's post used anything like that and except for it's sarcasm wasn't as derogatory as calling someone a moron. I know Lye and have had dealings with him aside from this forum and I know for a fact that he is a hard working businessman and is definitely not a moron. Opinionated yes but aren't we all.

My point was, for those of you that are intellectually challenged, is that Lye is a moron because he can't read and comprehend. I logically come to that conclusion after his idiotic post. I already know that he's a light weight when it comes to the stock market, a dolt who's advise is laughable, but he's a heavy weight when it comes to moronic posts. Lye, go back and read (or have your son read it for you) my post about "crank" and how it can dissappear over night and tell me where I said anywhere in that post that crank is here in the country, killing our red state boys and girls, because of farmers. Any time you put stupid words in my mouth I will shove them down your fat stomach.

[peanuts]

Let me see if I can provide a little info on the plus side ...

The DJIA high of 11,750.28 on 1/14/2000, if you base it on 2007 dollars, would be 14,012.21, about 5.6% higher than Firday's close.

The GDP growth has slowed a little but is still growing. That's not a problem. In fact sometimes slower growth is what you want, so as not spur inflation and higher interest rates.

The S&P 500 P/E is currently 18.31, which, as you can see from this chart, is about half what it was at the beginning of 2000 and near the lows for the past decade. I view the divergence of the declining P/E ratio and the increasing price as a good, healthy one.

Because in 2000, it was a bubble, and now there is more substance behind the recent increases. The earnings of the S&P 500 are about twice what they were 7 years ago.

Here's a chart I created. Anyone is free to draw their own conclusions.

Two of the best posts I read this morning. Thanks, Rob. No sense in arguing today when you can just point and laugh in a few years at those that think differently.