Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (90753)	4/6/2001 12:13:20 AM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

<As I stated before, a higher savings rate isn't directly related to stock prices. Proof is in Japan. They have a far higher savings rate and their stock market has been in the toilet for ten years. Americans chose to "save" their money by investing it in the markets. Americans have been far less risk averse than the Japanese have been for the last ten years. > Yes, good point... that AND the fact that the Japanese society just doesn't put up with layoffs and such like the U.S. and you've got a worse situation than I thought: Folks who saved nothing, who WILL get layed off much easier & quicker than over there, and who have all their money in the market... I've pushed my "Rip van Winkle" wake up and buy the S&P date back another 3 years... and moved my sell limits on my gold stocks up another 500%. DAK <What period in history did stocks have reasonable valuations and what were they?> Common Grace... you must know some market history... <NG>

To: GraceZ who wrote (90753)	4/6/2001 12:30:59 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

grace, >>Maybe what you mean to say is that they always matter eventually? Because it is obvious that they didn't matter for quite a few years. Why else would you be saying the same thing for four years and the market only started correcting a year ago?<< while i didn't use the word eventually, i thought it was obvious. i think it absurd to think anybody believes that the market can't go up when it is overvalued or go down when it is undervalued. the logical extension of such an absurd belief is that the markets would travel in only one direction until fair value was reached. is this truly where you thought i was coming from or was it just an opportunity to "put me in my place," however absurd the "logic"? >>As I stated before, a higher savings rate isn't directly related to stock prices<< again, i NEVER singled out the savings rate as being a single villain. the point is simple. it is a single item that can't continue over the long term. at some point, folks will save. that savings could lead to less money available to the stock market (most people know that less money in the market means lower stock prices than if there were more money going in the market, but i'll mention it less this statement gets misconstrued). please focus on the word "could." >>They have a far higher savings rate and their stock market has been in the toilet for ten years<< this actually is what i was saying. you use exactly my point to prove my point is wrong. AMAZING! >>however, proper investing is not about possibilities. it is about probabilities. the end result has an 100% occurrence.<< a crash. it has happened every single time in history and it happened this time. we are not discussing IF, but HOW MUCH now. you are technically right, though. one doesn't know a lot things. some use that as an excuse to do dumb things like buy the naz for 5k "b/c it is there." others let the data history provides to guide their behavior and don't overpay for reasonable company prospects. however, batting 1000 for human history is a pretty darn good guide (batting 1000 means 100%, lest there be more confusion). you see, the human history sample size shows crashes after bubbles occur 100% of the time. that leads to conclusions about the population of all bubbles, grace. a reasonable person could call the 100% probability of a crash post bubble rounding error. in case you weren't aware, rounding occurs an awful lot in real life. btw, in case you didn't notice, bubble pops are still batting 1000. ;-) >>What is a "reasonable" credit level?<< as i said, one doesn't know a lot of stuff. one can use that fact to put their hand on a red hot burner or stick their head in ignorance sand and get spanked. i use history as the best guide. we are out of whack with history. >>What period in history did stocks have reasonable valuations and what were they?<< again, head in sand or reasoned approach? i think you are quite capable of reviewing history and drawing a reasonable conclusion. >>Yes, we have layoffs. Yet the unemployment level is lower than it was during those times when I'm almost certain you would point to as having stock prices within historically reasonable valuations.<< well, we know you are capable of making reasoned conclusions. trends matter. ever heard of positive and negative spirals? the worst of positive spirals often don't have as good statistics as the best of bad spirals. this ought self evident. in case it isn't, i was the front runner in a high school cross country race for about 30 seconds. during that 30 seconds, one could argue i was the fastest cross country runner. they'd be wrong. let's just say the trend didn't work in my favor ;-) >>I understood the context I was using the term, but you were using it in a completely different context. It took me a while before I realized you misunderstood my context because you don't always write using complete sentences.<< actually, i had to ask you what you meant b/c i realized your confusion (i can find the posts...). you then posted the definition of after i asked. then i corrected your misunderstanding of the topic under discussion. but, hey, what's a misrepresentation of truth between friends? well, if you told the truth, your attempt to belittle my "complete sentences" wouldn't have sounded quite so good, would it? just so there is no wiggle room on your part to absolve yourself of personal responsibility (i learn mos from past history and act accordingly - history is a good guide)... Message 15598575 skeets to grace: "what do you think chained dollars are?" Message 15598755 grace to skeets (quoting a web site): "The statistical sources express this by saying that real GDP is measured in "chained constant dollars." For example, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis' "FRED" data-base, the U. S. rate of real production for the third quarter of 1995 was $6776.5 in chained 1992 dollars. In this example, 1992 is the base year, and the production of various goods and services in the third quarter of 1995, if continued at the same rate for a full year, would have had a market value of $6776.5 in dollars of 1992 purchasing power -- as nearly as we can figure, using the "chain index" approach." care to change your story now? ;-) actually, you'll just ignore it and move on to contest the next topic (history is the best guide!). you don't need to feel compelled to do it (see below). btw, the discussion was on chain weighted dollars in the context of hedonic pricing. it was not on chain indexing or chained constant dollars (nobody ever used those terms). one similar word does not make for equal meanings. but, i'm probably being incoherent again! -vbg- i then corrected your error... siliconinvestor.com and i didn't even insult you! i was nice... skeets to grace: "i can understand the confusion, though." i do quite enjoy the lengths to which some people must distort reality in an attempt to "get me," though. does it take a lot of time or does it just "flow?" ;-) the irony is that this line of posts was started by you saying how others often don't see the other side. why should they? they can just make anything up, believe it is true and spread out the insults based on false information! i think with that we shall have to agree to disagree. obviously, you don't understand my view and i don't understand your view. disagreeing does not makes folks "bad" or "good." nor should it make one feel insecure. this forum isn't appropriate to mislead for the purposes of belittling. while i don't partake of the former, the fact someone misleads in an attempt to belittle me doesn't bring out warm fuzzies. i don't think that the underlying (no pun intended) motivation can be solved on the cfz. so, best of luck. my discussions with you are over and i'm sure that we will both be better off! :-)