Tidal Fish Forum banner

1 - 20 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Out of curiosity I looked at the history of the DOW-JONES as we all have been trained to think of it as a weather-vane of the economy. There have been years that the market was bull (surging upward) and bear (surging downward). Now who was President during the upward surges:
BULL YEARS:
1896-1929
1949-1966
1982-2000

Cleveland 1885-1889 & 1893-1897 (D)
Coolidge: 1923-1929 (R)
McKinley 1897-1901 (R)

Ike 1953-1961 (R)
Johnson 1963-1969 (D)
Kennedy 1961-1963 (D)
Truman 1945-1953 (D)

Regan 1981-1989 (R)
Clinton 1993-01 (D)

Thus the Democrats were in power during the upswing of the stock market 5 of 9 times. What does this mean....not one darned thing except it was kinda fun to look at.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,432 Posts
Shows what I've thought all along. As far as the economy goes, the President, whoever he is, doesn't deserve as much blame or credit as we give him.[smile]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Very true CaptG...I have contended all along that except for the ability to declare war, enact a large Small Business Administration budget and spend the economy into deep debt (which ultimately results in a tax hike) the president is rather neutral.

Reagan's tax cuts in the 1980s were so large that they stimulated a decades-long debate over their economic and revenue impact. That debate was never fully resolved. The problem is that thousands of factors affect the nation's gross domestic product - its output of goods and services. Even the most sophisticated models of the economy have trouble sorting out what affects what.

So who should you believe? Raise your eyebrows if anyone claims to know for sure. Forecasting federal budgets alone is tremendously complex. That's partly a math problem. The deficit is the difference between two huge numbers - federal revenues and federal outlays. A small shift in either one (both exceed $2 trillion) can cause a sharp deficit change.


JERRY "I HAVE TO ADMIT"...hardly. This article from the Christian Science Monitor is just one of hundreds on the subject. The general consensus is that if you are biased one way you will see what you want to see....if you are biased another you will see the opposite. If you examine the economy with a open mind you will also see that the economy boomed in years of tax hikes.

CONSIDER MY EYEBROWS RAISED
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
It takes the Republican Administrations somewhere between 4 to 8 years to get the economy rolling and the Democrats about the same amount of time to screw it up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
When the biased read anything it is either for or against their preconceptions. The highly trained economists cannot figure it out....but some on this board can. Strangely that group seems to come from one population.

"Ignorance is not knowing the facts. Stupidity is ignoring them".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,808 Posts
Chris ,in your implied comments,that some of us are at a disadvantage when it come to the thought process.Here is a little fact for you ,when my cash flow increases that leaves me to decide what is in my best interest to do with such funds.Invest ,pi$$ away so some other folks can follow the ripple,which inturn makes the economy go round and round.Since due to these tax cuts my cash flow has increase.Now like I told ya before anytime you get a raise in your SS checkand the goverment reduces the tax rate on such increases,send em over to ole Jerry and he will add em to the pile.[wink] This article come comes from Jerry`s real life experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
The president's relationship to the economy is like the Maestro to the orchestra-no matter which way he moves his arms, they know the song and they just keep playing!
[excited][excited][excited]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
[Q]etouffe123 originally wrote:
When the biased read anything it is either for or against their preconceptions. The highly trained economists cannot figure it out....but some on this board can. Strangely that group seems to come from one population.

"Ignorance is not knowing the facts. Stupidity is ignoring them".
[/Q]

Jerry just what in this implies that I think I have figured the economy out . I point out that highly trained economists cannot discern cause and effect. If you are saying you have...then may I suggest that it is you that is claiming that you understand the economy, the stock market and the GNP better than highly trained economists.
I am glad that you are doing well financially. If I recall correctly you are doing so because of the efforts of your union. Perhaps my history books are wrong. I thought that unions were founded by socialists/communists and supported by Democrats

Are you always this confused?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,808 Posts
My union doen't have a damn thing to do with it.In fact in my opinion they were very inefficient in deal with my employer.The only area the excelled in was saving jobs of worthless employees..My take on the economy is I have worked all my adult lifeand did alright having worked as a blue collar woking stiff.Got myself a nice little nest egg Don't have any bills ,educated 3 kids own my own home.Now where do you stand in this rotten economy ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Your own personal status, while greatly important to you, is hardly a bell-weather of the economy. You deny the role of the union in which you were a dues paying member. You claimed that the Bush tax cuts were the cause of the increasing economic picture. OK Jerry prove it. Cite books, authors, articles by established economists etc. .... not just some hot-air to brag on how well you personally are doing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,925 Posts
123, many of these so called well trained and knowledgeible experts who write things don't know their a$$ from their elbow either. Just quoting some other writers thoughts doesn't make them facts. Heck, one could quote Alice In Wonderland to support one's views. Even Jon Swift gave the keys to saving the Irish in his Modest Proposal.

Let me ask you this, what did you ever publish?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Capt. Dave now that was profound. According to your logic all bibliographies on a subject should be eliminated (or at least that disagree with your bias). If Alice in Wonderland were pertinent to a subject then certainly in should be quoted and included in notes and/or the bibliography. I stand by my statement that "if the information disagrees with someone's preconception then it is axiomatic it is wrong".

If someone posts information from various sources (and many of mine are pulitzer prize winners) then it follows that I am a moonbat, socialitst, Democrat etc. Strangely in other populations that is called research and the proper way to have discourse on a controversial subject.

Personal stories, while at times funny, rarely are considered "proof" of anything in the larger scale. The economy is such a scale. I am not sure who you reference, as economists are on your disregard list, when you want the best information possible on a economic subject. Perhaps you follow the trend on here of reading only material, or watching tv programs that fortify your present conceptions. While that may be comforting it is rarely educational.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,808 Posts
Chris,unemployment is a near or record lows personal wealth is up,home ownership is up,the stock market is moving back to where it was at the end of the last recession..All of this has happened after all that has happened,with all them major storms along our coasts,9/11.So that tells me that I don't need some think tank or other sourse to tell me how to think.Addressing your other point.The reason I am sitting where I am in this point of my life is because Imade it happen,didn't sit on mya$$ and wait for someone to take care of me.The funny thing about that is anyone can do it,nothing special involved.There are economist on the other side of this equation. the glass is not half empty!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,184 Posts
If someone posts information from various sources (and many of mine are pulitzer prize winners) then it follows that I am a moonbat, socialitst, Democrat etc. Strangely in other populations that is called research and the proper way to have discourse on a controversial subject."
Yes but good researchers dont always publish one point of view as you do. You always have a one sided political agenda in your posts which is why I dont take much stock in your sources. I dont care if they are from Pulitzers, or Nobel Laureates. If you summarily dismiss Jerry's statement as unimportant, you have lost one of the most important tools in research, factual life experiences, not theory.

We have been discussing fisheries mgt on the other boards. One individual tries to present some data, however, dismissing observations by watermen, rec fishermen, charter guys and the like. Hearings are to be held by the State to consider these life experiences. They are important.

If, on the other hand you are preparing a research project and want to make a statement as part of the research which gives one point of view, then so be it. I'll bite, let me see your data, and at least I know your not on a political diatribe to make one party look bad. To be honest, I never said that Clinton's economy was bad, he was certainly moderated by the repub Congresses Contract with America, but none the less was successful, and with all his issues, could probably be reelected today. JFK was probably a fiscal conserve. In order to look at various Presidents and their roles in the economy, you must also look at the Congresses that approve the budgets, they have a kinda symbiotic relationship.

cg you still makin 42% a month in the stock market, what are you complaining about?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Ok this will be my last info on this thread:

1. If you look at a timeline between the relationship of the USA at war and the economy you will notice that the economy is consistently vigorous at times of war.
2. When the government pours billions of dollars into a flagging economy two things occur: A. Employment goes up and B. all economic factors begin to rise.
3. If these dollars are from deficit spending there are consequences: A. Interest group pressure increases to get a larger piece of the pie (abramoff). B. Eventually taxes must be raised to offset the deficit. Regan increased the deficit enormously and Bush had to raise taxes to cover Regans folly.

These factors do not include trade, globalization, the increasing friction with China and Japan...all of which have a economic component.

Good For Jerry...if he thinks his union did nothing and he paid dues for nothing so be it....and he made everything happen all on his own cranal power pushing his muscles.
Most will think differently except of course CaptFrank who will always be on the opposing side regardless how it makes him a appear a dim-witted loose cannon eg calling people moonies and quoting the Washington Times himself.
If the increase in poverty is just a fiction made up by the democrats you better tell the US government as it is they reporting it. Some will say "they are just lazy" this of course flies in the face of the number of employed among the ranks of the impoverished. This is all available from government sources to those not too lazy to look them up.

I ASKED FOR PROOF THAT THE BUSH TAX CUT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ECONOMIC BOOM..... WHAT I GOT WAS JERRY BRAGGING ON HOW WELL HE IS DOING AND HOW HE DID IT ALL BY HIMSELF....REGAN CUT THE TAXES AND BUSH SR HAD TO COVER HIS FOLLY BY RAISING THEM. NOW CUT YOUR BULL******....GIVE FACTS...OR GO PLAY WITH EACH OTHER IN THE SANDBOX !
 
1 - 20 of 59 Posts
Top