The Dow Jones industrials pass 12,000

2006-10-18 07:27:13

#1

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6857|132 and Bush

I'm think it's only going to go up as well now that we are entering the peak of the retail shopping season.
Good news for the economy no doubt. I am sure that the huge drop in fuel prices helped as well.

NEW YORK - The Dow Jones industrial average swept past 12,000 for the first time Wednesday, extending its march into record territory as investors grow increasingly optimistic about corporate earnings and the economy.
ADVERTISEMENT

The index of 30 big-name stocks surpassed the milestone just after trading began, rising as high as 12,049.51. The Dow had already set closing records seven times during the past two weeks.

I'm think it's only going to go up as well now that we are entering the peak of the shopping season.
Good news for the economy no doubt. I am sure that the huge drop in fuel prices helped as well.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2006-10-18 07:37:09

#2

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6905

Just curious, what does the 12,000 actually mean? 12,000 whats?

2006-10-18 07:44:35

#3

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6857|132 and Bush

ghettoperson wrote:
Just curious, what does the 12,000 actually mean? 12,000 whats?

http://economics.about.com/cs/stockmark … _jones.htm

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2006-10-18 08:00:43

#4

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7018

But my Nasdaq is pooping.

2006-10-18 08:33:27

#5

Stubbee: Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts; +223|6999|Reality

The question is when is ti going to crash?
Figure that out and sell the day before it happens.

The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'

2006-10-18 09:39:26

#6

alpinestar: Member; +304|6852|New York City baby.

slwf.ob made around 3000k $ on this stock today

2006-10-18 10:12:10

#7

Masques: Black Panzer Party; +184|6978|Eastern PA

While it's good that the DJIA is going up, I'd like to make a coupla points and shit in everyone's punchbowl:

First, when adjusted for inflation, the DJIA is actually 17% down from it's all-time high in Jan, 2000. It'd have to rise by another ~1500-2000 points to truely be a new all time high.

Second, I'd like to know what are the driving factors behind the rise (ie. what sectors of the economy, companies, etc.), afterall, the DJIA is only an average of 30 stocks.

The broader stock market is even further below its 2000 peak. The Dow Jones Wilshire 5000, which tracks more than 5,000 stocks and is the most comprehensive measure of the U.S. Stock Market, is 23 percent below its record close on March 24, 2000, after adjusting for inflation. (Even without adjusting for inflation the Wilshire 5000 is 9 percent below its March 24, 2000 peak.)

2006-10-18 10:15:20

#8

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6905

Masques wrote:
While it's good that the DJIA is going up, I'd like to make a coupla points and shit in everyone's punchbowl:

First, when adjusted for inflation, the DJIA is actually 17% down from it's all-time high in Jan, 2000. It'd have to rise by another ~1500-2000 points to truely be a new all time high.

Second, I'd like to know what are the driving factors behind the rise (ie. what sectors of the economy, companies, etc.), afterall, the DJIA is only an average of 30 stocks.

The broader stock market is even further below its 2000 peak. The Dow Jones Wilshire 5000, which tracks more than 5,000 stocks and is the most comprehensive measure of the U.S. Stock Market, is 23 percent below its record close on March 24, 2000, after adjusting for inflation. (Even without adjusting for inflation the Wilshire 5000 is 9 percent below its March 24, 2000 peak.)

Well, so much for optimism then...
Sounds like you're all screwed.

2006-10-18 10:38:00

#9

Masques: Black Panzer Party; +184|6978|Eastern PA

ghettoperson wrote:
Well, so much for optimism then...
Sounds like you're all screwed.

Not necessarily, just that the outlook (as with most things in life) isn't as rosy as it first appears. Personally I think the stagnation in wages is a more pressing concern than the recent rise in the DJIA. Real change in household income is down (when adjusted for inflation) from 2000 levels as are wages of college graduates.

2006-10-18 10:43:15

#10

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6701|The Land of Scott Walker

No, not screwed. The stock market is doing very well, even if it's not at the 2000 peak after inflation.

2006-10-18 10:46:32

#11

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6905

I hope my economics teacher doesn't read this forum....

Still, my excuse is we've never discussed the stock market.

2006-10-18 11:15:01

#12

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6805|Southeastern USA

I've been trying to dig up some numbers i heard on the radio the other day on the fact that this years fed deficit was down over 22%, but this event is speculated to have an effect on interest rates and inflation as well, which would change that story, in favor of a further decrease of the deficit. Seems to be something shoved under the rug due to typical election year selective reporting. Other related things floating around that aren't likely to be covered are that the average household is expected to save $500-600 on heating this winter, jobs are up......again, and the housing market (mostly construction from what i heard this morning) had another surge. Though to be fair, the housing market has been booming so hard for so long, I doubt it can sustain itself much longer.

2006-10-18 11:28:25

#13

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6798|Texas - Bigger than France

I also heard on the radio that the deficit is down to Clinton era (or at least beginning Bush era) or something like that.

I was like, wow...wars, oil, company corruption...how's that possible?

2006-10-18 11:42:42

#14

Masques: Black Panzer Party; +184|6978|Eastern PA

kr@cker wrote:
I've been trying to dig up some numbers i heard on the radio the other day on the fact that this years fed deficit was down over 22%, but this event is speculated to have an effect on interest rates and inflation as well, which would change that story, in favor of a further decrease of the deficit. Seems to be something shoved under the rug due to typical election year selective reporting. Other related things floating around that aren't likely to be covered are that the average household is expected to save $500-600 on heating this winter, jobs are up......again, and the housing market (mostly construction from what i heard this morning) had another surge. Though to be fair, the housing market has been booming so hard for so long, I doubt it can sustain itself much longer.

It seems as though ~half of the states have seen increases in sales of existing houses (these have been in the south and non-coastal west, areas with traditionally cheaper costs of living/housing) which, when taken in light of wage stagnation (posted above) seems to indicate that there are a non-trivial number of people that are being priced out of certain regions of the country altogether.

EDIT: This has some important implications for essential personnel (educators, emergency response, etc.) in such areas.

Last edited by Masques (2006-10-18 11:49:36)

2006-10-18 11:54:33

#15

Masques: Black Panzer Party; +184|6978|Eastern PA

Pug wrote:
I also heard on the radio that the deficit is down to Clinton era (or at least beginning Bush era) or something like that.

I was like, wow...wars, oil, company corruption...how's that possible?

Unless there was a surplus, that's impossible. There was probably some "fuzzy math" used.
link

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that the federal deficit for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 will total around $260 billion, aided by a surge in revenues. That's $58 billion lower than last year's deficit and about $77 billion lower than projections at the beginning of the fiscal year.

Great news? Budget experts in Washington and on Wall Street say it's a welcome development, but misleading. Washington's funny math excludes the Social Security trust fund, which is running a $177 billion surplus this year. Washington spends it, but doesn't count it as spending. It's officially listed as "off-budget" borrowing.

"In practice, all the money Washington collects goes into the same pot and gets spent the same. On paper, we say we'll pay Social Security back later," said Brian Riedl, chief budget analyst for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research center.

So the deficit is actually about $437 billion, the CBO calculates: the $260 billion official deficit plus the $177 billion borrowed from the trust fund. Since the money is "borrowed," it adds to the gross federal debt, which is expected to reach about $8.5 trillion by Jan. 1.

Last edited by Masques (2006-10-18 12:00:58)

2006-10-18 12:03:23

#16

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6798|Texas - Bigger than France

Nice work Masques...you have a link to everything and anything. It helps quite a bit.

Calling upon your special power, can you link to a jellyfish wearing a hat?

2006-10-18 13:29:24

#17

Masques: Black Panzer Party; +184|6978|Eastern PA

Pug wrote:
Nice work Masques...you have a link to everything and anything. It helps quite a bit.

Calling upon your special power, can you link to a jellyfish wearing a hat?

That's a tall order...jellyfish being slippery and all. I could probably find a jellyfish as a hat.

2006-10-18 14:23:07

#18

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6805|Southeastern USA

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/11/D8KMJBT81.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … icit_x.htm
http://www.redding.com/redd/nw_business … 24,00.html
were some of the ones that i had found, but i still hadn't found anything other than speculation that the drop would be further due the dow rise, sorry i couldn't post them earlier, multitasking the internet isn't fun on dialup ( at work)

heating costs
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbc … 28/OSHnews
http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/ne … &rfi=6

most of the ones i can find are "members only" access for newspaper websites, and these don't seem to be as optimistic as what i'd first heard, but it's a drop nonetheless

that social security thing has been a timebomb for decades, and I don't know what anyone can do about it, when you have more people drawing on it than are paying into it, shit goes bad, but everytime you try to do anything resembling reform, groups like the AARP get out their book of scare tactics and tell everyone "they're trying to kill your benefits!!", seems they'd rather just keep on with the status quo until the SSA and or the country go bankrupt

2006-10-18 14:39:44

#19

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6804|San Diego, CA, USA

Thank goodness for the George Bush Tax Cuts. Without it this wouldn't had been possible.

2006-10-18 17:51:10

#20

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6661|North Carolina

Pug wrote:
I also heard on the radio that the deficit is down to Clinton era (or at least beginning Bush era) or something like that.

I was like, wow...wars, oil, company corruption...how's that possible?

That's flat out wrong, but hopefully, we'll move towards less spending soon.

2006-10-18 17:53:44

#21

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6661|North Carolina

Harmor wrote:
Thank goodness for the George Bush Tax Cuts. Without it this wouldn't had been possible.

Actually, a president doesn't have much power over these things. Even with all the things Clinton did, he wasn't personally responsible for the good state of the economy in the 90s. Tax cuts don't really play much of a part in this, but the business cycle does.

2006-10-19 00:12:16

#22

AlbertWesker[RE]: Not Human Anymore; +144|6900|Seattle, WA

Turquoise wrote:
Harmor wrote:
Thank goodness for the George Bush Tax Cuts. Without it this wouldn't had been possible.
Actually, a president doesn't have much power over these things. Even with all the things Clinton did, he wasn't personally responsible for the good state of the economy in the 90s. Tax cuts don't really play much of a part in this, but the business cycle does.

Yet all I ever hear from Dems, in relation to Bush, is how WONDERFUL Clinton was with the economy, and HE created the surplus economy, and HE was the savior of economics in the mid 90's. OMG I'm sick of it, not saying you guys are saying this, I just hear this all the time. Its so damn annoying. No President is responsible majorly for any change in the market. I'm sick of hearing both sides.

2006-10-19 08:14:19

#23

alpinestar: Member; +304|6852|New York City baby.

now take a look at SLWF.OB lol additional 1k made today and stays stable in 40s this morning

2006-10-19 12:14:23

#24

jonsimon: Member; +224|6751

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Harmor wrote:
Thank goodness for the George Bush Tax Cuts. Without it this wouldn't had been possible.
Actually, a president doesn't have much power over these things. Even with all the things Clinton did, he wasn't personally responsible for the good state of the economy in the 90s. Tax cuts don't really play much of a part in this, but the business cycle does.
Yet all I ever hear from Dems, in relation to Bush, is how WONDERFUL Clinton was with the economy, and HE created the surplus economy, and HE was the savior of economics in the mid 90's. OMG I'm sick of it, not saying you guys are saying this, I just hear this all the time. Its so damn annoying. No President is responsible majorly for any change in the market. I'm sick of hearing both sides.

Our governments (state and federal) can do relatively nothing to aid the economy. They can do plenty to cater to special interest groups and ruin the economy, but not much to improve it. Our whole run for governor here in Michigan is based on "making jobs in michigan", I'm sick of the bullshit.

BF2S Forums The Dow Jones industrials pass 12,000

ghettoperson wrote:

Masques wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

Pug wrote:

Pug wrote:

Pug wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Harmor wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Board footer