Down goes the Dow

K5 wrote:

The fact that Agip was selling the premise that only 5.5 weeks of gains in the Dow were wiped out -- not 10 weeks (a period 80% longer than the period he notes) speaks for itself. It is a cherry picked date used to prop up a false premise. You are doing the same. Look at your language. I am "insisting" on a what -- the truth? Then you throw in comment on the S&P and last year's bull market that have nothing at all to do with the established fact the Agip was cherry picking a date to prop up his argument.

You are also cherry picking a date (both of which are equally factual) to argue against his point. Your choice of date is not more true than his choice of date. His point is that "the recent downturn in the markets has wiped out a small portion of the huge gains made in the past year". Whether it is 5.5 weeks of gains or 10 weeks of gains is immaterial in the context of an enormous bull run predating both dates, and you are being pedantic rather than offering any substance or insight to the debate. I'm not even sure what you are attempting to argue, for that matter.

Dumb is spot on here. k5 is being pedantic in an effort to try to score points. Obviously both dates are meaningful.

agip wrote:

Dumb is spot on here. k5 is being pedantic in an effort to try to score points. Obviously both dates are meaningful.

Yet you only mentioned the later, cherry-picked date that sold your self serving agenda.

If by pedantic you mean using the truth to expose your deception, then I am guilty as charged.

[quote]dumb wrote:

[quote]K5 wrote:

"You are also cherry picking a date (both of which are equally factual) to argue against his point."

No. The point he was making is that all gains from a certain date were wiped out. He set the premise, not me. He just used a deceptive date. The fact -- and it is a fact -- is that all gains since mid November were gone by close on Friday. If all gains since 2010 were gone, that would matter, not all gains from a much later date if that were also true. You do not understand the term cherry picking.

"you are being pedantic rather than offering any substance or insight to the debate"

Again pedantic? Is that you Agip? Or is pedantic the word of the week from the pretentious handbook?

Could somebody explain, in the simplest of terms, WHY the aggregate market indexes should always rise over the long term?

And once that is accomplished, can anybody explain WHY that rate of increase should be expected to be greater than the ACTUAL rate of inflation?

K5 wrote:

If by pedantic you mean using the truth to expose your deception, then I am guilty as charged.

No, by pedantic I mean "excessively fixated on precision or detail at the expense of meritorious argument".

dumb wrote:

K5 wrote:

If by pedantic you mean using the truth to expose your deception, then I am guilty as charged.

No, by pedantic I mean "excessively fixated on precision or detail at the expense of meritorious argument".

Maybe you ought to look up the word 'sarcasm". My God you are slow

The "miracle" of the marketplace.

More accurately called Bullsh*t

K5 wrote:

dumb wrote:

No, by pedantic I mean "excessively fixated on precision or detail at the expense of meritorious argument".

Maybe you ought to look up the word 'sarcasm". My God you are slow

Right, I will do that, because I definitely failed to grasp your rhetorical device and wasn't at all responding with false literality to reiterate my opinion that your constant mincing and tangential derailing adds nothing to this forum.

Not a runner, yet wrote:

Could somebody explain, in the simplest of terms, WHY the aggregate market indexes should always rise over the long term?

And once that is accomplished, can anybody explain WHY that rate of increase should be expected to be greater than the ACTUAL rate of inflation?

there is no reason that the stock market should always rise over the long term nominally or in real terms. None.

But

Over time, this has always happened.

Some people tink that the excellent returns for stocks in the 20c will not be repeated - that it was an era of very cheap energy, low fruit tech improvements and globalization.

So if you own stocks, you are assuming that the past will repeat itself - that human ingenuity will overcome the problems of a finite world and add value to the sum of inputs.

Stocks for the long run is based on a reading of history, not math.

Let me add some clarity then

The Dow reached just about 14,000 in late 2007.

It then toppled.

It again reached 14,000 in February 2013.

If it were to fall to 14,000 again, Agip could claim without lying that the gains since Feb 2013 had been lost. But it would be only a partial truth and hence deceptive and misleading.

In fact, all gains since late 2007 would be gone. A much more accurate description

This is the type of discussion that I value.

I had a lot in the market, and got out at the end of last year, as 27% gain over the past year made me nervous, as it is unreasonable in a portfolio that was effectively equivalent to an index fund.

These are the kinds of issues that I think about when deciding whether or not to be in the market, in a general way--as opposed to in a specific way, with a specific stock about which I believe I know something.

Can you guys pick up on what agip has said, I will be content to be a fly on the wall. Why would the past 20th century history he described not continue well into the 21st century, with the rise of the third world, especially Africa, and the continued evolution of cheap energy? There appears to be a lot of still low-hanging fruit in many fields of endeavour, at least to me.

just to add to the point,

the main reason for the housing bubble and burst is relevant here -

I believe that at no time (at least since WW2), had national home prices fell. There had been regional falls, but nationally, never. So banks based their risk models on that fact. Banks loaned out money to anyone who asked...because banks said to themselves 'well, even if they can't pay back the loan...we'll get the house. And since housing prices had never declined nationally, we'd be happy to own the house."

what they got wrong was that housing prices proceeded to fall nationally by what - 30%?

That fouled up the risk control models at the banks - in truth the banks were calculating risk wrong.

So the relevance here...what if stocks don't rise over time in the 21c? Will anyone be able to retire? will any endowment have a role in sustaining an institution? Will every pension fund go bankrupt?

Sort of a doomsday scenario.

Being realistic, I will not live past 2050, if I even make it that long, I would be 94 at that time.

So it's the first half of the 21st century that I am concerned about, and that I think is of most interest in this discussion.

[quote]dumb wrote:

Right, I will do that, because I definitely failed to grasp your rhetorical device and wasn't at all responding with false literality to reiterate my opinion that your constant mincing and tangential derailing adds nothing to this forum

Grasp this you pompous, illiterate twit.

K5 wrote:

[quote]dumb wrote:

Right, I will do that, because I definitely failed to grasp your rhetorical device and wasn't at all responding with false literality to reiterate my opinion that your constant mincing and tangential derailing adds nothing to this forum

Grasp this you pompous, illiterate twit.

Pompous? Maybe. Illiterate? No way.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

K5 wrote:

[quote]dumb wrote:

Right, I will do that, because I definitely failed to grasp your rhetorical device and wasn't at all responding with false literality to reiterate my opinion that your constant mincing and tangential derailing adds nothing to this forum

Grasp this you pompous, illiterate twit.

Pompous? Maybe. Illiterate? No way.

Eschew obfuscation

K5 wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Pompous? Maybe. Illiterate? No way.

Eschew obfuscation

Endeavor to persevere.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

K5 wrote:

Eschew obfuscation

Endeavor to persevere.

You yet again miss the point. Quelle Surprise