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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: laura_bush who wrote (436577)	7/31/2003 12:52:48 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Respond to of 769667

So SI Bob is your employee? What are you talking about? You're Anus_in_Austin reincarnate...<g> GZ

To: laura_bush who wrote (436577)	7/31/2003 1:51:43 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

The Naz peaked on March 10, 2000 at 5132.52. Clinton remained in office for another 45 weeks after that. The Naz closed at the end of those 45 weeks at 2770.38, dipping as low as 2299.65 in the process. Then Bush took office. He has been in office for 132 weeks. The Naz is currently at 1,753. So, in Clinton's 45 weeks in office from the peak, the Naz went down nearly 2,400 points, or nearly 50 points per week. During Bush's 132 weeks in office so far, the Naz is down 1,017 points, which is less than 8 points per week. I've never quite understood investors, and I know many of them, who have blamed the losses in their portfolios on Bush. The politicians really don't have much to do with it anyway, in either direction, and blaming (or crediting) them for stock prices or the economy just doesn't make much sense and just makes people lose focus on the things that do affect the economy and stock prices. Even if Bush could have waved a magic wand at the Naz, which was already heading south in a big way when he took office, it's hardly reasonable to expect him to "fix" whatever is wrong on day one. On April 3, 2001, just ten weeks or so into Bush's term, the Naz had already fallen below where it is right now. What was Bush supposed to do between January 21 and April 3 to magically change the market's momentum? The media is too thick to dispel people's notions that this is somehow Bush's fault, but investors who buy the "blame Bush" explanation are likely to miss out on the real factors which move the market. Let me know if you need help with the big words, Bonnie.