Firstly, You do not have to believe a word Prechter or any other wave theorist has to say, but at least have some respect for the work they do.
Why respect what is ridiculous nonsense and has no validity? Why not check the bottom of Prechter's shoes? How much have you lost in opportunity by clinging to irrational prejudice?
East LA?? Man, I live in Canada, eh!!
Same ghetto. At least LA isn't socialist.
Blah, blah, I can go on...
Please don't. The '50s stock market was so slow that I preferred looking for valuable coins in the sacks I bought from the federal reserve bank.
"The herd did not get cleaned out in 29?"..You are right, most got cleaned in 1930 once the Dow dropped some 90%.
You're wrong. I see you've read too many astute publications about that time. If everyone or the majority sold, to whom did they sell?
Now, for those who held tight onto their RCA stock, they broke even again around 1964 I believe.
Why not go look at a chart and then notice the split indications. Better yet, go check a real company like GM or GE instead of that hack operation. RCA had to be taken out of its misery.
I guess that Depression story is a myth?
More than you can imagine because what gets press is what happens to a few. Please tell me how many starved to death during that period. No one in the press. In the early '80s there was a higher unemployment rate than in the '30s. How can you explain that away? Got it. The welfare state. Hail Canada.
Productivity Growth..ah yes...the call of the "new economy"..but, for those of us in real businesses (i.e. not doy-com shams), the so called computer enhanced productivity gain was felt some 20 years ago, not in the last 5 years.
Yes, I didn't think you would understand. You must think that productivity gain is only attributable to dotcoms. It has little to do with them. Tell me, how are you creating this post? On the thing that you don't use in real business?
Computer enhanced productivity was felt 20 years ago? What is this, no, what kind of a clown are you?
The internet, although useful, is unprofitable and generally deflationary.
The Internet is generally deflationary? If this statement is interpretable, then it's false, but the problem is the nouns are not categorical, so the sentence is incoherent.
The current market is a classic mania by any and every definition. The mania is what has created the "good feeling" especially for those who now assume that annual stock returns of 20% is "normal". But the fact is, since 1925, the GDP has averaged 6.5% growth and stocks have averaged about 8% including dividends. Over time, share prices cannot above the GDP level. Over the past 15 or so years, the annual increase in stock prices has averaged 17% despite the GDP growing at under 6%. GDP would have to grow at 20% for a decade, without inflation to "catch up" to the stock price increases. This is beyond fantasy. Therefore, the rise in stock prices has come from the mania itself, not from growth or any productivity gains, etc.
Since when are stock market returns correlated with GNP? De temp en temp? GNP represents real output and the stock market represents corporate profitability. If GNP rises 5% and the stock market rises 50%, does that mean that even though profits have risen 50%, the stock market should only have risen 5%? There isn't even necessarily a directional correlation. Somehow you seem to think that stocks are worth book value only. I can see you've never been successful with stocks and you won't be as long as you cling to these childish prejudices, the same ones that are making a fool out of Cormier. |
