Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Folks the market is at 97' levels

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
TwixVoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 10:17 PM
Original message
Folks the market is at 97' levels
We are at 1997 levels in the market right now. In other words we are looking at a minimum of 10 GOOD YEARS before you even get back to where you were last year.... and that's 10 years AFTER the "recovery" starts.... IF it starts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lxlxlxl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. where we were was an illusion...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. And thats the REAL IMPORTANT thing
for people to acknowledge. Most didn't do so at the time; some did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. It Took 30+ Years To Return To 1929 Levels
Much more if inflation is factored in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. and that's the dirty little secret nobody wants to talk about n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
4. Lets remember:
BUY LOW!

sell high
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmileyRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. 1997 was a good year for me.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
6. That's what they were saying on Oct. 20, 1987
But whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Double T Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. What recovery?
All of our jobs, factories, intellectual properties and anything else of value is being sold off or sent out of the country. Until this situation has a 180 degree reversal, we can forget about any recovery. Rome is burning to the ground and the fire department was closed due to insufficient funding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Our standard of living is equalizing with the rest of the world
The "recovery" is from our own heady sense of entitlement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Double T Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Americans won't voluntarily live a simpler life so NOW............
they will be forced to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. X-actly, and AT LEAST we have Obama in office
so we can hope for a safety net for the least fortunate. And the rest of us get a lesson in under-consumption, frugality, and humility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. Well that's not exactly right.
The thing is, the GWB years were not good even if you don't count the last year. If we could have 8 Clinton years starting right now we could recover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Look closely at the numbers of the Clinton years, there.
See where the years of tremendous market growth were? 1995-1999. That's the tech bubble. Not stable growth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. So the stock market gains during the Clinton years were a bad thing?
Good luck selling that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Do you understand what a market bubble is?
Apparently not.

A bad thing? Not for some people. Illusory and unsustainable? Yes, though the shakeout in the tech sector following the bubble collapse c. 2000 was much less damaging than our present financial problems are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Is that like where you put the market in a round plastic thingy and blow through it?
My cat likes to get them. Not market bubbles, just the regular kind. I guess if I were smart like you I would know the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. We've Already Offshored Millions Of Jobs To Micro-Wage Countries
And deregulated financial industries, the two Clinton moves that increased corporate profits and drove the 90s boom. Problem is, you can't do those again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Deregulation of the financial services sector was not a factor in the Clinton-era boom.
There were two bills that provided major deregulation of financial services: The first was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and the second was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Both became law too late to have had any important impact on economic results during the Clinton administration.

You might have a point, however, about offshoring US jobs. If so, we are left to wonder why the GWB years were such a failure despite an accelerated level of offshoring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
12. My then-future wife and I started dating in 1997. Sounds good to me!
Besides, if we return to pre-Bush levels of everything, it's kind of like getting a do-over, right?

:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mind_your_head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
15. In "other words"......we've lost EVERYTHING that we've saved/worked for
and have to start all over again, if we are able.

Sounds like fun! :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Waiting For Everyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
16. So is real estate - why is it surprising that stocks dropped too?
Assets are assets. Both were bubble-ized, and this is a deflation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Has the typical home value fallen by as much as the DJIA, though?
I'm thinking no, though I don't honestly know for sure. If the DJIA has fallen about 55% from its high, then wouldn't home prices have to fall an equal amount?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Waiting For Everyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-03-09 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. In some areas it would be more than that, in some less.
Edited on Tue Mar-03-09 12:15 AM by Waiting For Everyman
But real estate is probably going to drop more this year. Some say, another 50% (on average) from where it is now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
21. I thought you meant 1897!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-03-09 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
24. DOW 5500 HERE WE COME!!!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 03:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC