Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: groanup
BUT!

The "Hype" of the DOW (at first - it REALLY only rose strongly AFTER the Repubbies got the House in 94, then grew from 94-98) during the Clinton years by the media, then the NASDAQ (from 98-99 when the DOW went flat) was NOT really what the companies were worth.

Make sense? It was "tulip money" based on hype and speculation about the dotcom industry and the low oil prices.

Now, after 6 years of growth in the economy, balanced by REAL growth in the value of the companies as the stock prices dropped, flattened, then slowly recovered means that the REAL (minus inflation) value of the companies is actually reflected by stock prices.

Make sense? Earlier, the DOW stock prices were artificially too high - then they dropped too far after 9/11 and the democrats' incessant demand for recession news, then they took a long time to recover back to where it should be.

A steady 2-4% growth in the economy from 2000 to now means that the DOW SHOULD be shortly above all-time highs again.
20 posted on 03/22/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: Robert A. Cook, PE
If I may, I'll respond to those points in your post that I understand:

You are right. The major move in the Dow in the 90's occurred after the Contract With America got elected. On January 3, 1995 the Dow closed at 3838.48. In January of 2000 I believe it peaked at 11,722. That's over a 250% return. Then all hell broke loose. A lot of the Dow's momentum had to do with the bubble in the tech stocks. The Dow lost over 4000 points. Ouch.

Tuplip money is a kind moniker. The Y2K thing created tens of thousands of fake jobs. There were companies with NO earnings doing IPO's and rasing billions of dollars. I used to converse with a friend who was very good on these things. During the bubble all of the literature that was used to sell mutual funds spoke about "time in" the market not "timing" the market. We knew that when the bubble popped that market timing would come back into favor. It did. Market timing is, after all, only a form of damage control investing.

I think what you say is true, there is REAL growth in the economy with REAL companies who make REAL money and hire REAL people.

But, rest assured, after about 20 years or so the wizzes on Wall Street will have another NEW thing. Last time it was the internet, next time it will be micro-robotics or bio-tech. Whatever it is it will be profound and will be PROOF that things have changed. They won't have changed as far as investment is concerned. There will be another bubble and the aftermath will be a lot of people who lost everything pointing fingers at Wall Street or auditors or the government.

The only finger they won't point is the finger that points at themselves for being so foolish and greedy.

It is a scenario that has played out every couple of decades since the advent of bid/ask markets and capitalism.

The tulip fiasco is just the oldest (1700's) that we have good data on. There were older ones.

Get a book called "A Short History of Financial Euphoria" by John Galbraith.

He's not a conservative economist but his book tells a vivid story.

23 posted on 03/22/2006 7:25:40 PM PST by groanup (Shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson