Hey Techweenie - How About that Dow!

[the]

Originally posted by techweenie
He's an Independent.

Not quite. He considers himself an "Independent Democrat and is identified as such.

He caucuses with the Democrats, and anyone with an objective viewpoint not pushing an agenda or trying to win an argument considers him a Democrat.

He didn't change formally change political parties from Democrat to Independent because his political viewpoints changed. Obviously.

From his Website:

"In 2006, Senator Lieberman was elected to a fourth term as an Independent, because of the strength of his record and his accomplishments for the state. He won the general election by more than 100,000 votes. He remains committed to caucusing with Senate Democrats, but will be identified as an Independent Democrat (ID-CT)."

[techweenie]

Originally posted by the
Not quite. He considers himself an "Independent Democrat and is identified as such.

He caucuses with the Democrats, and anyone with an objective viewpoint not pushing an agenda or trying to win an argument considers him a Democrat.

He didn't change formally change political parties from Democrat to Independent because his political viewpoints changed. Obviously.

From his Website:

"In 2006, Senator Lieberman was elected to a fourth term as an Independent, because of the strength of his record and his accomplishments for the state. He won the general election by more than 100,000 votes. He remains committed to caucusing with Senate Democrats, but will be identified as an Independent Democrat (ID-CT)."

In many military matters, he votes with the Republicans. In social issues, he votes with Democrats. I understand he defines himself as "Independent Democrat." Most Democrats I know do not consider him part of the party. I guess you would say most Democrats are 'pushing an agenda.' That's certainly how I feel about Republicans.

[the]

He's the exact same guy he was before he had to technically change labels to get back in the back door of congress.

He votes exactly the same as before. He caucuses with the Democrats. That makes him a Democrat, not an "independent."

But if you choose to believe the artifice that he is a "true independent," then so be it.

[the]

P.S. I don't think you really believe that, though. I think you're just trying to keep that argument alive so when things go terribly bad, you can say the Dems weren't in control.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by the
He's the exact same guy he was before he had to technically change labels to get back in the back door of congress.

He votes exactly the same as before. He caucuses with the Democrats. That makes him a Democrat, not an "independent."

But if you choose to believe the artifice that he is a "true independent," then so be it.

I choose to believe that he is not the kind of person I want in the Democratic Party. I sent money to Ned Lamont's campaign.

[the]

That's fine, but the truth remains, the Dems control both houses.

Lieberman considers himself a part of the Democratic Caucus, and the Democratic Caucus considers Lieberman a part of them.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by the
That's fine, but the truth remains, the Dems control both houses.

Lieberman considers himself a part of the Democratic Caucus, and the Democratic Caucus considers Lieberman a part of them.

If Cheney has to come in and break a tie vote within the next few weeks, I promise not to say 'I told you so.'

[Superman]

Originally posted by techweenie
I understand he defines himself as "Independent Democrat." Most Democrats I know do not consider him part of the party. I guess you would say most Democrats are 'pushing an agenda.' That's certainly how I feel about Republicans.

LOL. Some of you guys are going to think this next observation is wacko. If you stopped short of a conclusion and used this as an opportunity to learn something, then you would learn something. Aw heck, that's not gonna happen. Here goes:

You guys think "independent democrat" is an oxymoron. Because emotionally, you have to demonize the liberals. And you like to think of Republicans and the whole "freedom" lie as an example of rugged individualism. That's funny. The Republican agenda is narrow, fellas. That's why we call it "conservatism." The Democratic Party's biggest problem is its widely diverse platform. Yes, this includes the wackos you guys love to caricaturize. In fact it includes a WIDE range of ideas. The Republican Party definitely has this advantage, and I have seen both parties deal consciously with this Democratic weakness. The Republican Party is FAR more linear and narrow. That makes the R Party more efficient. There is little dissention. Democrats have a terrible time just agreeing on an agenda.

Again, most of you guys are going to dismiss this out of hand. But maybe, perhaps, somebody......will take a closer look at what, at least in my State Capitol, is a universally recognized political fact. The Republican Party has more discipline. The Democratic Party is WAY more diverse. That's the weakness that Rove has so effectively exploited.

In the future, when I see someone conclude that the Republican Party is where we see the wide diversity of opinions, I'm going to know who's not paying attention.

[hytem]

I think the market is proceeding cautiously--reflecting mixed demand for investing. It doesn't take much for a pullback, as we have seen recently. Fear is always the major factor in pullbacks--anything that generates fear. And, unfortunately, the media is good at hyping fear, which somehow figures into its ratings game.

Low interest rates will continue to spur the market, because that's a good investment climate. I believe the Iraq war drain and the deficit spending have hurt the market and investors' confidence. That big push upward a few years back when Clinton balanced the budget reflected a very bullish attitude about the future. The demand for stocks climbed out of sight. Then, Greenspan lowered the boom on interest rates, and the "irrationally exuberant" market deflated. It recovered again when he dropped interest rates sharply when Bush took office. But the bullish attitude that prevailed prior to 2000, when the budget was balanced, has not returned because of 9/11, Iraq and big budget deficits.

With the need to reduce carbon emissions and foreign oil dependency, I believe the handwriting is on the wall for oil and the Middle East. Big changes are coming soon, no matter who becomes President. It will be recognized as a national security issue. Right now, Iraq is preventing the politicians from focussing on more important issues, but it will happen eventually. It is probably already happening in corporate boardrooms and higher political circles.

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by hytem
IThat big push upward a few years back when Clinton balanced the budget reflected a very bullish attitude about the future. The demand for stocks climbed out of sight. Then, Greenspan lowered the boom on interest rates, and the "irrationally exuberant" market deflated. It recovered again when he dropped interest rates sharply when Bush took office. But the bullish attitude that prevailed prior to 2000, when the budget was balanced, has not returned because of 9/11, Iraq and big budget deficits.

A bit of cart beforet he horse.

The budget was balanced during the Clinton years largely through capital gains taxes from the booming stock market. The stock market did not boom because of a balanced budget.

The fact is that the stockmarket does not require a balanced budget to do well because, by and large, the Federal balance sheet is independent from the many corporate balance sheets that make up share trading companies.

That the market does not need a balanced budget is empirically demonstrated by performance of the last 5 years, which has generally been upward.The budget has never been balanced during that time. Ditto during the Reagan years and the stock market rise then.

Finally, Greenspan did not "lower the boom" on the stock market. Greenspan made his famed "irrational exhuberence" statement in 1996... a full 4 years before the 2000 decline of the market. His interest rate moves also preceded the collapse substantially. But given the incredibly high tech P/Es of the time, I doubt anyone could ever justify them, regardless of the interest rate. They were indeed, quite irrational.

I agree with your statements on carbon emissions.

[legion]

Supe, the Democrats can be incredibly narrow-minded and unified on certain issues. For example, if you are black, hispanic, gay, a union member, a woman, work for a university, a lawyer, poor, a civil servant, or a victim, you are supposed to vote Democratic because this is the party that represents you. Nevermind that you can be black and rich, or a woman and the head of a corporation. They like to latch on to one characteristic and define you by it, then tell you that you are one of them because of it. Reminds me of the joke about Democratic diversity: it's a black liberal, a jewish liberal, and a white liberal all saying the same thing. Further, Democrats seem to feel that members of these groups are disloyal if they do not vote Democratic. It's almost as if they are saying: "Look at all I've given to you and you don't return the favor by voting for me! You ungrateful little...."

But the fact is, many issues Republicans are homogenous on, Democrats are divided on, and vice versa. It makes each party appear to be a "big tent" to its members and the opposition to be a united threat.

[hytem]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
A bit of cart beforet he horse.

The budget was balanced during the Clinton years largely through capital gains taxes from the booming stock market. The stock market did not boom because of a balanced budget.

The fact is that the stockmarket does not require a balanced budget to do well because, by and large, the Federal balance sheet is independent from the many corporate balance sheets that make up share trading companies.

That the market does not need a balanced budget is empirically demonstrated by performance of the last 5 years, which has generally been upward.The budget has never been balanced during that time. Ditto during the Reagan years and the stock market rise then.

Finally, Greenspan did not "lower the boom" on the stock market. Greenspan made his famed "irrational exhuberence" statement in 1996... a full 4 years before the 2000 decline of the market. His interest rate moves also preceded the collapse substantially. But given the incredibly high tech P/Es of the time, I doubt anyone could ever justify them, regardless of the interest rate. They were indeed, quite irrational.

Don't think so. Balanced budgets boomed the market, reflecting consumers' confidence in the future. It wasn't the market that balanced the budget. Stocks are worth what people are willing to pay. Strictly supply and demand.

I'm an investor and was a daily market watcher during this period. The market took a hit when Greenspan said irrational exuberance--and it was shortly before he started raising interest rates--stating he was concerned about inflation--which didn't exist. The market took a hit every time he raised the rates, and it was the summer of 2000 before the elections. That big anti-trust case against Microsoft at the time was also a killer for tech stocks. It cast the whole computers future into question.

Capital investment collapsed when Greenspan raised rates, and growth funds still haven't come back that well, after eight years. The main movers have been small to mid company value stocks.

When Bush took office, Greenspan lowered interest rates 4 times in Jan 01 (!), as soon as Bush was inaugurated; the Microsoft anti-trust suit was settled, and the market slowly rebounded. But the average American had to live with 1% CDs for years, which more than offset those tax cuts. I know it cost me.

Some people think Greenspan killed the market to get Bush elected. Books have been written about it. I think he may have been more concerned about the market being overvalued. And I think he just did it again recently, with his statement about a possible recession in 07. That aggravated the U.S. market at a time when there had just been a foreign correction.

Greenspan doesn't like the market to get ahead of itself. He believes that stock prices should be tied to company fundamentals. I believe stock prices also reflect the confidence of the investor in the future. If things look good to them, they will pay more. In that sense, he may have been right this time: the market is doing fairly well considering the current state of affairs.

[techweenie]

Getting the budget under control was a factor in the boom.

The budget being out of control is a factor in our current inability to regain and sustain the trajectory of the 90s.

[legion]

Originally posted by techweenie
Getting the budget under control was a factor in the boom.

The budget being out of control is a factor in our current inability to regain and sustain the trajectory of the 90s.

Wrong.

We had capital streaming in from Asia after the financial crisis. There was more capital going around then sensible places to put it...right when the internet was taking off. Money has since flooded into real estate. It will chase some other fad in the near future.

[Racerbvd]

Balanced Budget, never happened, it was a projected budget, it was never done., President Clinton using Enron accounting to get the numbers he wanted. You can adjust the numbers in your check book, projecting future income to balance it, but that doesn't that it is actually balanced if it isn't there.

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by hytem
I'm an investor and was a daily market watcher during this period. The market took a hit when Greenspan said irrational exuberance--and it was shortly before he started raising interest rates--stating he was concerned about inflation--which didn't exist.

I also, like most people, was an investor and daily watcher during that time period.

Here is the chart of the NASDAQ. I don't see any "hits " of any sizable proportion either in 1996 when Greenspan made his irrational exhuberence speech in Dec of 06....not really until 2000 when the market started to collapse.




If you were a day trader perhaps the smalll downward blips seemed like cliffs, but for the average investor during the 1990's it was all one big upswing. In fact if you got out of the market when Greenspan made his famed IE speech in 1996, you would have lost out big, because the market hasn't dipped below that point in the 10 years since.

I concur that the stock market, like any market is driven by supply and demand. And interest rates factor into that demand by driving a competitive demand for bonds or debt financed investments. However, they are just one factor. Other elements like companies actually delivering earnings weigh even heavier in stock valuation. Unfortunately, most of the earnings of the internet boom didn't pan out and cheap money provided by the Fed wasn't going to change that.

A balanced budget, again, empirically doesn't seem to have played much of a party in any stock market boom of the 20th century.

[techweenie]

A logarithimic chart is good if your agenda is understating the market peaks.

[hytem]

Originally posted by hytem

I'm an investor and was a daily market watcher during this period. The market took a hit when Greenspan said irrational exuberance--and it was shortly before he started raising interest rates--stating he was concerned about inflation--which didn't exist. The market took a hit every time he raised the rates, and it was the summer of 2000 before the elections. That big anti-trust case against Microsoft at the time was also a killer for tech stocks. It cast the whole computers future into question.

I'll correct myself a bit here: Greenspan uttered his irrational exuberance in a Dec. 96 speech, which dropped the market a couple of points the next day, and foreign markets a bit more. There was some surprise at the time at the impact of his remarks. The market rebounded and continued to climb.

His interest rate hikes occurred before the elections during 2000, and were attributed to inflation concerns. It was about the time Bill Gates was getting harrassed by the Justice Dept on anti-trust. The combination killed the market--especially tech stocks(NASDAQ). That's reflected in the charts others have shown here.

It has taken the market 8 years to get back to those prior levels, and tech isn't there yet by a longshot. A lot of people lost a lot of money on NASDAQ. Were stocks overvalued? Greenspan thought so. And he continues to influence the market with his words lately--mostly negative.

As best I can see, interest rates haven't correlated with inflation since the 1980s or early 90s. What's inflationary is the cost of energy (oil). Raising interest rates just kills the housing market, investment and the stock market--and so impacts the economy. Bush and the Fed Chairman know that by now.

What's keeping inflation down is made in China and low food costs. You can't tamper with the China situation (e.g., raising RMB value or tariffs) without creating inflation. Walmart has become too important for the average American.

[RoninLB]

my market newsletter just now advised to buy when S&P is under 1380



and as far as I'm concerned inflation is a risk. And I don't think the Dems will succeed in cramping free trade or I'd be beating feet soon.