Is Obama a bully?

[ironsides]

Under Clinton, companies started outsourcing, thereby creating jobs in other countries that Americans once had. What is wrong with bringing what ever jobs we can back to the U.S. for our workers. It is about time Americans start worrying about Americans first again. keep in mind, we once out produced most of if not all the world combined. Why should cap and trade have any impact on American jobs. Raising the cost of energy to Americans will not float in Congress until unemployment drops and salaries rise. There might be a token increase, but nothing more. I also that Canada will be right along with us on this, because they lost jobs as well and are in a similar situation.

Don't worry some sort of free health plan will come from Obama and the Democrats.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Under Clinton, companies started outsourcing, thereby creating jobs in other countries that Americans once had. What is wrong with bringing what ever jobs we can back to the U.S. for our workers. It is about time Americans start worrying about Americans first again. keep in mind, we once out produced most of if not all the world combined. Why should cap and trade have any impact on American jobs. Raising the cost of energy to Americans will not float in Congress until unemployment drops and salaries rise. There might be a token increase, but nothing more. I also that Canada will be right along with us on this, because they lost jobs as well and are in a similar situation.

Don't worry some sort of free health plan will come from Obama and the Democrats.

Yeah...Ummm....I think the point Trex is trying to make is, with Cap&Trade being
potentially in conflict with NAFTA, we don't want to see something like this to
happen and be justified against Canada's Oil and Gas Industry.

United States – Canada softwood lumber dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The trick being that if Canada sells its Oil and Gas to America, it will be
penalized by Cap&Trade, but if it doesn't sell its Oil and Gas to America,
it will be penalized by NAFTA. Kind of a Catch 22 situation where Canada
could be taxed if it does, and taxed if it doesn't. It doesn't have anything to
do with American jobs....just as a way to squeeze revenue from a trade
partner in violation of a trade agreement.

 

[JLM]

That post is a real hoot SJP... Really, establishing that the indicies were lower at the end of Bush's tenure as the 'evidence' that the markets were poor.

Here's a wee hint for ya - lots happened in those 8 years and the only folks that I know that lost money (overall) fit into one of 2 categories:

1 - Greedy or didn't diversify and/or didn't take profit along the way.
2 - High risk investments that didn't pan-out.


All exchanges in North America (and I suspect the Nikkei, Hang Seng and London) all hit their record highs during Bush's reign... But let's be perfectly clear - this event had to do with a vast # of global variables and not just US or Cdn policy.

That said, it appears that your investment practices are entirely influenced as to 'when' the liberals are in power, it must be the time to invest.

It's clear why your returns were sub-par.

If you count from Oct.1 2001 until Oct.1 2008 and were invested mainly in equities and didn't do anything stupid you did well.

 

[JLM]

You may have made money hand over fist, Captain, but the average investor hasn’t, as is evident from the various indices.

As I mentioned, all the US indices were lower when Bush left office, compared to when he came to office. That means most Americans lost money in the eight years that Bush was in office, no matter how you slice it (that is the definition of the index). No doubt a few investors manage to beat the index, but most don’t.

Situation was slightly different in Canada. Liberals were in power until 2005 and economy was doing quite well in Canada when they were incurring huge deficits in USA (under Bush). Canadian market performed quite well up until a year or two ago, when TSE peaked at 15,000.

And I did make money in Canada, especially in banks. That is why overall I did make money. However, I made very little in USA.

In USA the average investor was royally screwed by Bush. During Clinton years yearly return of 15% was considered on the low side. During many Bush years, investors got negative returns, they actually lost money.

Anyway, if you are saying that you made money hand over fist during the dot com meltdown, and during the recent meltdown (both the meltdowns thanks to Bush), you must be a financial wizard indeed.

Technically you are probably right, but anyone with an ounce of financial savvy made a pisspot full of money. I think an astute investor (I do it and I'm not astute) at least mentally reviews his portfolio every couple of months and do a little profit taking as you go along. A really astute investor would have taken a lot of profit last Oct. 1 and then bought back in just as Obama was taking office.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

All exchanges in North America (and I suspect the Nikkei, Hang Seng and London) all hit their record highs during Bush's reign...

Sorry Captain, I know you are a Bush acolyte, but it doesn’t work that way. It is long term trend that is important in stock market, not temporary fluctuations. When economy is good, stocks are expected to go up in the long term. That didn’t happen during Bush presidency.

Indeed, I think Bush is one of the few presidents for whom stock market was lower at the end of the presidency, than at the beginning. I cannot recall any other president in recent memory (Carter perhaps?).

When markets are down big time, people lose money in the markets. When Bush came or power, Dow was around 10,000. assuming a modest 5% increase per year, Dow should have been around 15,000 when Bush left office, and not around 8 or 9000.

Indeed, only a committed Bush acolyte will claim that markets going down from 10000 to 8000 over a period of eight years is a great economic performance. But then you also think that Mulroney was an economic wizard, that economy did great under him, and that the 40 billion $ deficit he incurred was Trudeau's (and Chrétien/Martin’s) fault.

So I suppose your reasoning that economy performed great under Bush is consistent with your reasoning that economy performed great under Mulroney. Then is suppose people punished Republicans and Tories for no reason at all.

No matter what political spin you put on Bush’s performance, when market goes from 10,000 to 8000 over a period of eight years is a lousy economic performance, not a great economic performance (except of course, if one belongs to far right).

When markets are down, it s reasonable to suppose that people will lose money. I doubt whether there are very many happy investors at present, I would think most investors are deeply unhappy with Bush’s performance (except you, of course).

Compared to that, indices almost doubled during Clinton years and investors made money by the barrelful. Why do you think that Clinton left office with 65% approval rating but your Messiah Bush left office with 28% approval rating? I suppose that was Clinton’s fault?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

All exchanges in North America (and I suspect the Nikkei, Hang Seng and London) all hit their record highs during Bush's reign

Here you are flat out wrong, Captain. NASDAQ went from 5500 to 1700 during Bush’s eight years, it did not hit a record high during Bush presidency.

NASDAQ plunged form 5500 to 1100 during Bush presidency, in the year 2002 (in 2001 he could plausibly blame Clinton, but in 2002 it was totally Bush’s fault). Today it has recovered to around 1700.

NASDAQ plunged straight down under Bush, it did not hit a record high.

All exchanges in North America (and I suspect the Nikkei, Hang Seng and London) all hit their record highs during Bush's reign... But let's be perfectly clear - this event had to do with a vast # of global variables and not just US or Cdn policy.

I see, so when DOW hit the record high, bush gets the credit, but when it plunged, global variables get the blame? Spoken like a true Bush acolyte.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I think an astute investor (I do it and I'm not astute) at least mentally reviews his portfolio every couple of months and do a little profit taking as you go along.

JLM, I assume most investors do that. However, that does not prevent your portfolio from going down when markets go down. The only way your portfolio won’t go down is if you sell all of your equities (stocks, mutual funds etc.) and put your money in cash. That is not advisable, and most experts would frown upon that. Taking a little profit means your portfolio will still go down when markets go down, but you have cashed in on some of your profits.

A really astute investor would have taken a lot of profit last Oct. 1 and then bought back in just as Obama was taking office.

In the hindsight it looks very easy, doesn’t it, like looking up the answer at the back of the book? Looking back it is easy to say, I should have bought here, sold here, bought here, sold here and made a ton of money.

Unfortunately it is not that simple going forward. Thus DOW is around 8500 now. It is time to buy or to sell? Is DOW headed for 10000 or for 6000? Even experts cannot make that prediction, they get it wrong many times. Why do you think most mutual funds are losing money big time? There has been some recovery in the past quarter, but overall most mutual funds are still losing money.

 

[captain morgan]

Sorry Captain, I know you are a Bush acolyte, but it doesn’t work that way. It is long term trend that is important in stock market, not temporary fluctuations. When economy is good, stocks are expected to go up in the long term. That didn’t happen during Bush presidency.

Thanks for the tip Mr. Buffet, I'll be sure to keep it in mind.

On the note about Bush and the economy; I guess that all the prosperity that occurred for a period of time did not actually happen... 'Twas a massive example of group/global hypnosis.

BTW - I think that you are the only person on the planet that thinks that a democrat/republican directly controls the global economy.

Indeed, I think Bush is one of the few presidents for whom stock market was lower at the end of the presidency, than at the beginning. I cannot recall any other president in recent memory (Carter perhaps?).

Hmmm, the Great Depression comes to mind; possibly the recession in the late '70's or perhaps Black Monday in the '80's? Look that up for me, will ya? But I'm going out on a limb here, lemme guess - It's Bush's fault back then too?

When markets are down big time, people lose money in the markets. When Bush came or power, Dow was around 10,000. assuming a modest 5% increase per year, Dow should have been around 15,000 when Bush left office, and not around 8 or 9000.

By this logic, the markets should go up in perpetuity right? Considering that the formal markets have been around for over a hundred years, why aren't they trading in the 50- 60k levels by now?

Answer - 'Cause your theory and statement is patently obsurd.

IBut then you also think that Mulroney was an economic wizard, that economy did great under him, and that the 40 billion $ deficit he incurred was Trudeau's (and Chrétien/Martin’s) fault.

I do think this?.. That's news to me?

What am I thinking now?.. I'll even give you a hint; it rhymes with LJp must have been Lopped on his Lead as a Laby Lamy, Lamy times without a Lelmet.

No matter what political spin you put on Bush’s performance, when market goes from 10,000 to 8000 over a period of eight years is a lousy economic performance, not a great economic performance (except of course, if one belongs to far right).

Ya still don't get it.. Only in your world do the markets differentiate wildly on liberal/conservative or democrat/republican.

No wonder you lost your shirt in the markets when everyone else was cleaning up - you were waiting for the stars to align with a liberal democrat North American market to lead you to the promised land?

Ya got the democrats in office right now!.. How's that portfolio coming along?

Compared to that, indices almost doubled during Clinton years and investors made money by the barrelful. Why do you think that Clinton left office with 65% approval rating but your Messiah Bush left office with 28% approval rating? I suppose that was Clinton’s fault?

Here's an investing tip for you SJP.. Don't worry so much about the approval ratings as they don't directly impact the security or ROI on investments.

Just a thought.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Technically you are probably right, but anyone with an ounce of financial savvy made a pisspot full of money.

I am not sure you understand how markets work, JLM (and apparently neither does the Captain, otherwise he wouldn’t make the glib statement that most investors made money by the barrel when markets declined from 10000 to 8000 over a period of eight years).

I remember reading somewhere that market lost more than a trillion dollars in value during the recent meltdown. What happened to those trillion dollars, it is not a number in vacuum.

What that means is that investors lost a trillion dollars and that doesn’t happen without a lot on investors losing money. The fact is the two Bush meltdowns have lost many investors money. When NASDAQ plunges from 5500 to 1700, most investors are going to lose money if they were in the market.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

On the note about Bush and the economy; I guess that all the prosperity that occurred for a period of time did not actually happen... 'Twas a massive example of group/global hypnosis.

Captain, that prosperity happened because of the subprime lending. The whole pack of cards came crashing down when subprime bubble burst. The whole prosperity was financed by borrowed money, Bush converted Clinton surpluses into huge deficits.

BTW - I think that you are the only person on the planet that thinks that a democrat/republican directly controls the global economy.

And I think you are the only person I have met who thinks that Bush was an economic genius, that markets flourished during Bush years and that investors made money by the barrelful during Bush years.

I know you have to defend your Messiah Captain, but this is the weirdest argument I have come across, saying that DOW dropping from 10000 to 8000 over a period of eight years represent stellar, great economic performance, that it makes Bush a financial genius.

I suppose by this logic if DOW is 6000 when Obama leaves office, people will be happy indeed, everybody would have become multimillionaire (according to your logic).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

By this logic, the markets should go up in perpetuity right?

You got it Captain, there is hope for you yet. Markets should always go up in the long term. If markets are down over a period of eight years, that denotes a weak, anemic economy, poor economic performance, and not a roaring, strong economy as you seem to think.

But by your weird, twisted logic, I assume economy was weak during Clinton years, with markets going up 20% per year in many years, that time investors must really have lost their shirt. And of course, they became filthy rich during Bush period, when markets performed miserably for eight years.

But then again, you think that economy was roaring ahead during Messiah Mulroney’s years (Mulroney was economic genius, remember?) and tanked big time during Chrétien/Martin’s years, so I assume this reasoning would be consistent with your thinking.

Anyway, so no doubt you wish that when Obama leaves DOW is around 6000 (and TSE around 7000), then investors really would have made plenty of money.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Ya still don't get it.. Only in your world do the markets differentiate wildly on liberal/conservative or democrat/republican.

I differentiate between good and bad economic performance, Captain. In recent memory, good economic performance has meant Democratic rule in USA (Clinton) and Liberal rule in Canada (Chrétien/Martin). Bad economic performance has meant Republican rule in USA (Bush the first, Bush the second), Conservative rule in Canada (Mulroney, Mike Harris)

Here's an investing tip for you SJP.. Don't worry so much about the approval ratings as they don't directly impact the security or ROI on investments.

Much as you may not like it Captain, approval ratings are related to economy. The fact that Bush had poor approval rating and markets tanked big time during Bush years are closely related.

Also, the fact that Clinton had sky high approval rating and market went sky high during Clinton years are closely related.

Ya got the democrats in office right now!.. How's that portfolio coming along?

Not so good, Captain. The markets are up recently. By your definition, that means that investors are losing money big time.

If DOW plunges to 6000 now, that would be great news, everybody will make money by the barrelful (again, according to you).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No wonder you lost your shirt in the markets when everyone else was cleaning up

I realize you have to defend your Messiah (Bush), captain, and I can understand your saying that everybody got filthy rich during Bush years. However, when markets lose one trillion dollars in value, that means that a lot of investors have lost money in the market (much as you may not like to admit it).

Anyway, US economy is in the tank big time, house prices are plunging, you would think people would spend some of the multimillion dollars they earned during Bush years (in the stock market) and snap up bargains, wouldn’t you?

Indeed, if the market were doing so great, everything was so hunky dory, if everything was paradise during your Messiah’s reign, why the economic downturn? Was that engineered by Democrats to win election? If most investors in USA are filthy rich as you claim, why the current economic misery?

 

[captain morgan]

Good luck to you on the financial end of things Porter... I don't wish evil on anyone for any reason, but presuming that you actually believe the statements you have made, well, indeed you will need all the luck you can get.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Good luck to you on the financial end of things Porter... I don't wish evil on anyone for any reason, but presuming that you actually believe the statements you have made, well, indeed you will need all the luck you can get.

I have been investing since 1994 and I do all right, Captain. Over the long term I have done very well indeed. However I don’t subscribe to your twisted logic that when markets go down over a period of eight years, that means that most investors got filthy rich during that period. I didn’t, and I suspect neither did many investors. When markets lose one trillion dollars in value, that means that a lot of investors are hurting.

Indeed it is the time spent in the market that makes you money (and not timing the stocks). When I started investing, TSE was around 3500, Dow around 4000. So you can see I have done very well indeed in the markets since 1994. I remember buying Royal Bank for 7.5$ and BMO for 15$ in 1994.


But again, I think it is nonsense to claim that most investors became filthy rich during the eight years period when markets went down.

 

[ironsides]

Yeah...Ummm....I think the point Trex is trying to make is, with Cap&Trade being
potentially in conflict with NAFTA, we don't want to see something like this to
happen and be justified against Canada's Oil and Gas Industry.

United States – Canada softwood lumber dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The trick being that if Canada sells its Oil and Gas to America, it will be
penalized by Cap&Trade, but if it doesn't sell its Oil and Gas to America,
it will be penalized by NAFTA. Kind of a Catch 22 situation where Canada
could be taxed if it does, and taxed if it doesn't. It doesn't have anything to
do with American jobs....just as a way to squeeze revenue from a trade
partner in violation of a trade agreement.

I don't think anyone in the U.S. would be that stupid, then again I've been wrong about that many times before. If Obama actually does start penalizing companies trading in oil with us, he will have a problem getting elected again. He also does not have a rubber stamp Congress when it comes to oil resources to many states involved in it. This Cap & Trade, is not really a popular idea with Congress anyway, it will cause many problems like a trade war with just about everybody. You did mention one thing that causes me some concern, and that is violating a trade agreement, I know the U.S. has broken many trade agreement's in the past because so called big business being involved. Softwood being a good example.

 

[JLM]

"However, when markets lose one trillion dollars in value, that means that a lot of investors have lost money in the market "- In the vast majority of cases we are only talking a "paper" loss. just like if your house depreciates in value to $2 for a week or a month, if you don't sell it, it doesn't matter. People with large amounts of money invested aren't in a position where they have to sell right away. So the point you make is about 95% moot.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

People with large amounts of money invested aren't in a position where they have to sell right away. So the point you make is about 95% moot.

JLM, some are and some aren’t. Older people, those who were counting on the stock market for retirement are particularly vulnerable. Those in their 30s and 40s, no problem, they can ride it out.

It all depends upon somebody’s particular situation, if they are forced to sell or not. For instance, if somebody has a medical emergency and has to raise a few thousand dollars (or tens of thousand dollars) in a hurry, they may be forced to sell.

So it all depends upon the individual cases. You are right, the loss is a book loss. However, I can imagine many instances where the investor may be forced to sell in a declining market (another instance would be where children’s education fund is invested in stock market and it is time for the kids to go to the university)..

 

[JLM]

JLM, some are and some aren’t. Older people, those who were counting on the stock market for retirement are particularly vulnerable. Those in their 30s and 40s, no problem, they can ride it out.

It all depends upon somebody’s particular situation, if they are forced to sell or not. For instance, if somebody has a medical emergency and has to raise a few thousand dollars (or tens of thousand dollars) in a hurry, they may be forced to sell.

So it all depends upon the individual cases. You are right, the loss is a book loss. However, I can imagine many instances where the investor may be forced to sell in a declining market (another instance would be where children’s education fund is invested in stock market and it is time for the kids to go to the university)..

YEp, every individual case is a little different alright. People who are approaching retirement age should be transferring gradually over to fixed income accounts (mortgages, bonds, etc.) Mind you some of us tend to live dangerously even in our doddering years, after the recent crash I found myself lured into buying more equities as they were so cheap. But a good rule of thumb is to have enough fixed income to handle a 3-5 year time horizon.

 

[petros]

A really astute investor would have taken a lot of profit last Oct. 1 and then bought back in just as Obama was taking office.

Ag, Au and U have done me very very very well over the past 9 years. The worse the stocks get the more I'm worth. When everything else craps out 2 of those three are the only way to stay safe.