WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 15:17:09 +0000

Well, the Bushies have been calling for a World War since Sept. 12, 2001. So, maybe the call to arms is a bit belated. 10:19am and still too close to call. Wouldn't mind having Bush come out and say he won though... just to add to the drama. Wall St. goes Republican, no surprise there.

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-03 16:53:48 +0000

CNN says Bush won as of 11:56 am (sorry I was away from my computer in a meeting; this could be stale news by now). _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-04 16:24:17 +0000

Correct me if I am wrong but the market always slows a little before an election and always rebounds afterward. Nobody wants to buy anything until they figure out if they should invest in oil, tobacco and weapons or if they should instead go for technology and manufacturing. That's my take. But I have no sources.

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-04 16:31:55 +0000

Yes certain markets seem to be rebounding. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=509&ncid=509&e=4&u=/ap/20041103/ap_on_bi_ge/eln_business_impact_1 This sounds like GREAT news: More money for oil More money for drug makers More money for communications companies More consolidation of media channels More refineries More drilling YEAH!!! HOOORAAAYYY!!!

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-04 16:36:36 +0000

I as an investor have better rates of return in my index funds, have increased the amt of $$ I am saving for retiremenmt and the amt of money I have begun saving in a tax deferred 529 college savings plan for my daughter. I fail to see these as bad things _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-04 16:40:22 +0000

BTW, since when have businessmen and people making wise investments become the scum of the earth? all the sudden I feel as though people are suggesting that my outlooks here are the equivalant of being a fascist or a member of Al Qaeda or something.... I just want to be able to pay for the things that are important to me as I get older and I want to try to do so in a way that big brother leaves me alone as much as possible.... _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-04 16:44:44 +0000

In case you may have forgotten, the Clinton economy was not so heavily based on these constituentcies and the stock market was MUCH better. 6 years ago you would have had a much better return on all of the above without handing the bank to some of the most suspect industries on the planet. The guys who set up that econmony would have been coming back into play had Kerry been elected. Just remember, Warren Buffett backed Kerry. I have trouble believing that the most successfull investor in history would have backed a stock market looser.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-04 16:45:21 +0000

The proof of that pudding is still 10-20 years away. There is some concern that this Administration's fiscal policies will destroy the US financial markets. I'm happy that we're all comfortable enough to save money. However, there are many many many families who cannot, even though they work two to three jobs.

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-04 16:47:27 +0000

My gosh Rich, no no, business men are not the scum of the Earth. I'm getting my MBA as we speak for Christ sakes. I just want an economy that is not only successfull, but that provides for all people in all classes and sectors, and is backed by companies that are at least not the worst possible types.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-04 16:54:14 +0000

...'bout the same time trial lawyers did... ;)

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-04 17:24:42 +0000

That is an interesting phenomenon that I am not trying to deny: the Stock MArket historically has done better when Democrats are in office... (When I was thinking pros / cons of Kerry / Bush I actually had this in mind) However (and I don't mean this as a rhetorical questions to serve a political purpose, I am genuinely curious), can we attribute the balanced budget and success of the stark markets in the mid 90's to Clinton? Clinton did significantly decrease the military budget to get the Surplus we had, and that really doesn't seem like an option right now... _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-04 18:25:23 +0000

I'd give it to Bush 41 & Clinton. (In retrospect) I applaude Bush 41 for raising taxes. Another reason for my selection on Tuesday: the fiscal policy heir of Bush 41.

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-04 18:30:11 +0000

That is a point, but keep in mind that the largest part of the Clinton reduction was due to mothballing a bunch of outdated cold war stuff. He actually increased spending on the stuff we are using. Historically supply side economics has not worked- which is where most of this new debt is coming from. Plus, if we had decided to fight the correct war, not the one if Iraq, then the necessity for military spending would be substantially lessened. And then add to that if we had not given away the surplus by giving us each $300, we would now have had it to spend.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-04 18:36:04 +0000

The $300 wasn't a give-away of the surplus. It was an early tax refund. If the guv'ment owed you $300 on your 2001 taxes (or whenever it was...) then you got nothing back, you had already received the check.

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-04 18:55:56 +0000

Come again? I guess I need to read up on this. My recolection of that event is that everyone got $300. Do you mean to say that if you owed the IRS money you got nothing? That makes sense.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-04 19:09:20 +0000

I mean to say if you owed the IRS money that year, and you had cashed that $300 check that fall, you owed an additional $300.

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-05 01:20:29 +0000

I think there might be a myth here that only people that have more money than they know what to do with can save. Cant anyone living below their means save? I personally am mired in credit card debt, have leftover medical bill debt from a depressive episode over 6 yrs ago, deal with a new $400 + a month for daycare, etc. etc. etc. Its not easy for anyone to save. Is there another country other than here where it is easier to save? Between my wife and I we juggle about 3 jobs and are still renting (hell, we're moving into a house owned by Jackie's parents... I cant even comprehend how fast all my $$$ goes out the door, so I know what yr talking about tgl, but I think the individuals can ultimately become more financial strength and solidarity is by hard work and personal responsibility instead of 100% government reliance. _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-05 02:06:46 +0000

I'm not talking about people who have more money than they know what to do with. Yes, I agree that anyone living below their means can save. I think it might be difficult for people making less than $20K (poverty is defined as <$18,850 for a family of four), with no credit options, with no medical insurance, to save for their retirement or children's education. That's the norm: a two income family struggling to stay in the middle class. The middle class does deserve tax breaks for children, mortgage interest, et cetera. I don't understand the disdain for people working 2-3 jobs by themselves, and still making less than $25K, and trying to raise a family. People don't want to rely on the government (Reagan's welfare queens aside), they want to work and provide for their families. What does it say about our society that a family with one or more wage earners working 2-3 jobs apiece are having a difficult time staying afloat? I think that's morally wrong. No one is (OK, very few are) coming to America looking for a hand out, people come here for jobs.

Posted by frame609 on 2004-11-05 05:10:52 +0000

No talk on this thread as of yet re: the amount of disposable income that was floating around five or so years back because of the whole internet thing. What does everyone think about that?

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-05 05:22:23 +0000

As in were it all went? It got spent. There are not enough incentives for personal savings in this country. We are a nation of debtors.

Posted by frame609 on 2004-11-05 06:09:08 +0000

As in the general climate, where it all went, etc. In the past five years, I've seen a lot less money being thrown around- a little less each year. I'm afraid we haven't hit the bottom yet.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-05 18:54:29 +0000

How far right can we go?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-05 18:57:07 +0000

The economy is already shaping up to be a disaster. [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26581-2004Nov4?language=printer[/url] Oh, how the world hates us....

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-05 19:09:06 +0000

I should buy my currency wheelbarrow now, before inflation?

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-05 20:06:42 +0000

This highlights part of the problem with how we measure economics in general. Consider this: 1- The current trade defecit and outsourcing trend pose serious problems with measurement of the econmy via the stock market. A simple way to think of this: if I run a company and send a bunch of jobs overseas, the effect on my stock (and therefore the stock market) may be good, but the long term effect on the economy is bad due to the loss of jobs. Therefor the effect of a global economy renders the national stock market measurment very innacurate. 2- Inflation takes into account the cost of good and services, which means that in order for infaltion to be occuring, for the most part, everything including labor must go up. That means that wages goes up if inflation is occuring. So despite the fact that everything 'material' costs more these days, inflation has not occured because the cost of services is so low. 3- Even the comsumer price index has not shown a jump because of the effect of technology. The CPI takes into account qualitative increases as a sign of price reduction. In another words: I buy a computer last year- Pentium 1200 for $600. I buy a computer this year- Pentium 2400 for $600. The CPI calls that a 50% price reduction due to the doubled quality of the machine. It's not hard to see how the measure no longer works when you figure in computers, cell phones, satelite radio, stereo equipment and crack pipes.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-05 20:25:29 +0000

Re: 1) I don't buy the "outsourcing" scandal for a second. Jobs aren't going overseas at the rate people fear. Although, I can see how the US stock market might react narrowly, i.e., it's going to go up on news that might only hurt the global economy in the long run. Re: 2) The cost of services is incredibly low, without the labor unions backing wage increases for the service sector (that part of the job market that's expanding), people in that sector will continue to labor long and hard for wages that don't keep up with the cost of living. Re: 3) crack pipes; buy, sell or hold?

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-05 20:28:50 +0000

Keep in mind that #1 is not soley based on outsourcing, that is just an example. The larger implication is that in a global economy you can have a wide array of ways to conduct business that increase your stock price but wreck the national economy. Crack pipes, buy! They should be on a commodity exchange.