Crossed a major milestone despite the debt and a war. Whats keeping the DOW strong?
Nice... didnt the rates just drop?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
thatKmarion wrote:
Nice... didnt the rates just drop?
housing (until that bubble implodes)
the defense sector
oil LOL
Despite the debt and the war? Debt + war = big spending. Big spending = strong economy.smtt686 wrote:
Crossed a major milestone despite the debt and a war. Whats keeping the DOW strong?
Not always.
Its the Chinese who keep buying dollars so that their exports won't tank when the dollar collapses. Americans prosper cause their exports are still strong and their currency inflated, but its artificial so at some point it will lead to an economic crisis for the US...and the rest of the world since the US is the world's economic engine.smtt686 wrote:
Crossed a major milestone despite the debt and a war. Whats keeping the DOW strong?
War spending is not reinvested into the masses. This has to do more with low interest rates. Which is has more to do with the weak dollar and slowed inflation. Take a look around the globe and you will see rates going up everywhere else to deal with inflation.chittydog wrote:
Despite the debt and the war? Debt + war = big spending. Big spending = strong economy.smtt686 wrote:
Crossed a major milestone despite the debt and a war. Whats keeping the DOW strong?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Resists temptation to post picture of house of cards.
ps, please vote for ATG:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=71405
ps, please vote for ATG:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=71405
The main reason is the weak dollar. A weak dollar means its cheaper for foreign investor to invest in America and also makes america exports more competitve and boosts turisms, two things the make american economy stronger.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Technically it is, due to the multiplier effect. Basically, when the government spends money, this is given to a company who pay workers and invest in other areas, they they reinvest this and so on. For example, from say 10 billion dollars, 40 billion could have been spent, due to the fact that it's spent multiple times.Kmarion wrote:
War spending is not reinvested into the masses. This has to do more with low interest rates. Which is has more to do with the weak dollar and slowed inflation. Take a look around the globe and you will see rates going up everywhere else to deal with inflation.chittydog wrote:
Despite the debt and the war? Debt + war = big spending. Big spending = strong economy.smtt686 wrote:
Crossed a major milestone despite the debt and a war. Whats keeping the DOW strong?
As far as I have known stock market indices only ever impact significantly on ordinary people when there is a massive crash. I don't see them as particularly relevant measures of the general economic well-being of the common man.
I am surprised how the U.S. bashers (CP, Bub, Serge etc.) are amazingly quiet on this issue.
A few weeks ago, world markets took a major hit, and within minutes, Cameron had a nice long post about the demise of our economy!
A few weeks ago, world markets took a major hit, and within minutes, Cameron had a nice long post about the demise of our economy!
It sure isn't hurting my 401k retirement plan.CameronPoe wrote:
As far as I have known stock market indices only ever impact significantly on ordinary people when there is a massive crash. I don't see them as particularly relevant measures of the general economic well-being of the common man.
I love oil company stock . . . and my employer is matching 6% of what I contribute.JG1567JG wrote:
It sure isn't hurting my 401k retirement plan.
If that isn't good enough, then look at unemployment. It's down to 4.4% with 180,000 new jobs last month. That might help the "little guy".
The military generates massive employment across multiple markets from suppliers to research in technology and medical fields. the war does bolster the economy but it is usually ballanced out by the negative effects it has on the rest of the world markets. Supply and demand. Durring war time demand is up and the supply has to keep pace. It just ensures that the government is spending more than they take in. Bigger deficit.Kmarion wrote:
War spending is not reinvested into the masses. This has to do more with low interest rates. Which is has more to do with the weak dollar and slowed inflation. Take a look around the globe and you will see rates going up everywhere else to deal with inflation.chittydog wrote:
Despite the debt and the war? Debt + war = big spending. Big spending = strong economy.smtt686 wrote:
Crossed a major milestone despite the debt and a war. Whats keeping the DOW strong?
Ordinary people work for business which is directly impacted by the market.. Job growth.. higher salaries.. etc.. etc. But your right, usually people only feel the need to shed light on negative economic news. If a companies stock dips it generally means cut backs to compensate for the lack of investment (resumed profitably, restructure). A consistently strong market indicates more job security for us common folk. The stock market as a economic indicator is debated often, this is just my assessment.CameronPoe wrote:
As far as I have known stock market indices only ever impact significantly on ordinary people when there is a massive crash. I don't see them as particularly relevant measures of the general economic well-being of the common man.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
modern economy is based on confidence in the economy. once you stop trusting the banks/stock market/government, everything collapses. in the end most of what we own has no real value:
1) bank account: a number on a computer system
2) cash: pieces of paper
3) ownership of realestate: a piece of paper which is only as valid as your government's ability to defend that piece of paper...or your own abilty to defend it if there's anarchy.
4) stocks: Enron FTW
5) gold/diamonds: its all relative. with no buyers its practically worthless. what are you going to do with it.
6) cars, furniture stuff..etc: its yours till someone steals it.
that's why, as far as we have evolved its really all about one thing: power. this comes from force or the ability to project force so as to deter others.
luckily civilization has evolved beyond these things...but that in a nutshell is human nature.
1) bank account: a number on a computer system
2) cash: pieces of paper
3) ownership of realestate: a piece of paper which is only as valid as your government's ability to defend that piece of paper...or your own abilty to defend it if there's anarchy.
4) stocks: Enron FTW
5) gold/diamonds: its all relative. with no buyers its practically worthless. what are you going to do with it.
6) cars, furniture stuff..etc: its yours till someone steals it.
that's why, as far as we have evolved its really all about one thing: power. this comes from force or the ability to project force so as to deter others.
luckily civilization has evolved beyond these things...but that in a nutshell is human nature.
You see the problem I have with it being a 'good economic indicator' is that a lot of the firms whose stocks are ballooning are ones that have outsourced all of their jobs to dirt cheap developing countries, thereby damaging the domestic economy for the good of their own balance sheet. The only benefit the ordinary man might see from these types of firms are through the corporate tax they pay.Kmarion wrote:
Ordinary people work for business which is directly impacted by the market.. Job growth.. higher salaries.. etc.. etc. But your right, usually people only feel the need to shed light on negative economic news. If a companies stock dips it generally means cut backs to compensate for the lack of investment (resumed profitably, restructure). A consistently strong market indicates more job security for us common folk. The stock market as a economic indicator is debated often, this is just my assessment.CameronPoe wrote:
As far as I have known stock market indices only ever impact significantly on ordinary people when there is a massive crash. I don't see them as particularly relevant measures of the general economic well-being of the common man.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-04-25 14:17:39)
Or if they can buy shares in the companies ...if they have enough cash.CameronPoe wrote:
You see the problem I have with it being a 'good economic indicator' is that a lot of the firms whose stocks are ballooning are ones that have outsourced all of their jobs to dirt cheap developing countries, thereby damaging the domestic economy for the good of their own balance sheet. The only benefit the ordinary man might see from these types of firms are through the corporate tax they pay.Kmarion wrote:
Ordinary people work for business which is directly impacted by the market.. Job growth.. higher salaries.. etc.. etc. But your right, usually people only feel the need to shed light on negative economic news. If a companies stock dips it generally means cut backs to compensate for the lack of investment (resumed profitably, restructure). A consistently strong market indicates more job security for us common folk. The stock market as a economic indicator is debated often, this is just my assessment.CameronPoe wrote:
As far as I have known stock market indices only ever impact significantly on ordinary people when there is a massive crash. I don't see them as particularly relevant measures of the general economic well-being of the common man.
They are saying that the reason for the recent high close today is higher than expected profits.. I suppose I'll have to investigate the companies in particular that are responsible for the "gains". You are right though, management has allot to do with it. Today it seems that any news that is not bad, is good..lolCameronPoe wrote:
You see the problem I have with it being a 'good economic indicator' is that a lot of the firms whose stocks are ballooning are ones that have outsourced all of their jobs to dirt cheap developing countries, thereby damaging the domestic economy for the good of their own balance sheet. The only benefit the ordinary man might see from these types of firms are through the corporate tax they pay.Kmarion wrote:
Ordinary people work for business which is directly impacted by the market.. Job growth.. higher salaries.. etc.. etc. But your right, usually people only feel the need to shed light on negative economic news. If a companies stock dips it generally means cut backs to compensate for the lack of investment (resumed profitably, restructure). A consistently strong market indicates more job security for us common folk. The stock market as a economic indicator is debated often, this is just my assessment.CameronPoe wrote:
As far as I have known stock market indices only ever impact significantly on ordinary people when there is a massive crash. I don't see them as particularly relevant measures of the general economic well-being of the common man.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Fairly accurate assessment. There is a weak indirect relationship between the stock market and the economy, but it is so obscure analysis is only realistically possible in hindsight. Most changes in the stock market are irrelevant when looking for an accurate assessment of economic strength.CameronPoe wrote:
As far as I have known stock market indices only ever impact significantly on ordinary people when there is a massive crash. I don't see them as particularly relevant measures of the general economic well-being of the common man.
If you listen to the news regarding the stock market you'd know that whenever the market is up it is "a sign that the economy is strong, profits are up, and the economy still has some steam", but whenever the market is down it must just be that "profit reports are lagging, or the market is just slow right now, but surely everything is AOK". Wallstreet is a giant circus.Kmarion wrote:
They are saying that the reason for the recent high close today is higher than expected profits.. I suppose I'll have to investigate the companies in particular that are responsible for the "gains". You are right though, management has allot to do with it. Today it seems that any news that is not bad, is good..lolCameronPoe wrote:
You see the problem I have with it being a 'good economic indicator' is that a lot of the firms whose stocks are ballooning are ones that have outsourced all of their jobs to dirt cheap developing countries, thereby damaging the domestic economy for the good of their own balance sheet. The only benefit the ordinary man might see from these types of firms are through the corporate tax they pay.Kmarion wrote:
Ordinary people work for business which is directly impacted by the market.. Job growth.. higher salaries.. etc.. etc. But your right, usually people only feel the need to shed light on negative economic news. If a companies stock dips it generally means cut backs to compensate for the lack of investment (resumed profitably, restructure). A consistently strong market indicates more job security for us common folk. The stock market as a economic indicator is debated often, this is just my assessment.
yea poor po ... never to realize his dreams. Oh well move over Khrushchev, one last hold out headed yours.smtt686 wrote:
I am surprised how the U.S. bashers (CP, Bub, Serge etc.) are amazingly quiet on this issue.
A few weeks ago, world markets took a major hit, and within minutes, Cameron had a nice long post about the demise of our economy!
I seem to remember some other pitiful sole Predicting the End for the USA when Italy sold of its Silver investments or some dam thing, let me see if I can find that. The worst thing you can do to a Liberal is read back their quote from days gone by. They never want to be responsible for any long term memories.
Responsibility , or lack there of is the key.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-05-06 12:49:12)
Damn good post... +1superfly_cox wrote:
modern economy is based on confidence in the economy. once you stop trusting the banks/stock market/government, everything collapses. in the end most of what we own has no real value:
1) bank account: a number on a computer system
2) cash: pieces of paper
3) ownership of realestate: a piece of paper which is only as valid as your government's ability to defend that piece of paper...or your own abilty to defend it if there's anarchy.
4) stocks: Enron FTW
5) gold/diamonds: its all relative. with no buyers its practically worthless. what are you going to do with it.
6) cars, furniture stuff..etc: its yours till someone steals it.
that's why, as far as we have evolved its really all about one thing: power. this comes from force or the ability to project force so as to deter others.
luckily civilization has evolved beyond these things...but that in a nutshell is human nature.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-05-06 17:44:49)
By the same token, the stock market is kind of a bad thing for so much to rest on. While it is true that it indirectly is connected to most people, the volatility of the market itself is what makes it so dangerous for things like 401ks. For example, remember what happened to all those people who had invested in Enron?Kmarion wrote:
Ordinary people work for business which is directly impacted by the market.. Job growth.. higher salaries.. etc.. etc. But your right, usually people only feel the need to shed light on negative economic news. If a companies stock dips it generally means cut backs to compensate for the lack of investment (resumed profitably, restructure). A consistently strong market indicates more job security for us common folk. The stock market as a economic indicator is debated often, this is just my assessment.CameronPoe wrote:
As far as I have known stock market indices only ever impact significantly on ordinary people when there is a massive crash. I don't see them as particularly relevant measures of the general economic well-being of the common man.
Overall, real estate and CDs are much more reliable investments than stocks.