Airbus Arbitration Scheduled
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
you can find out more here............. find out nowsentrido said:
Look, let's get real. The boom was no more caused by Reagan or Bush I than Clinton, and the crash was no more caused by Clinton than by Bush II. Contrary to what many would like to believe, the guy in the White House has little power over the economy, save to destroy it intentionally. None would do that, because there is nothing to be gained by doing so.
The boom was caused by the proliferation of personal computers, associated productivity software, and networking of those computers together. Or, put another way, business process reengineering, which peaked during the 1990s. The subsequent rise of Internet connectivity in a substantial number of consumers' homes (brought on in part by the removal of the non-profit restriction of the Internet that was in place until 1994), coupled with the graphical nature of the Web, brought anywhere computing to millions of people. This new market created a huge influx of capital investment opportunity, which brought the stock markets to amazing new highs.
The bust was caused by overspeculation (as are all such busts), though the specific trigger was the Justice Department's insistence of beating down Microsoft. It could have been anything; the market was primed to pop. That just happened to be the right pin at the right time.
The Presidents were all peripheral to these events.
The boom was caused by the proliferation of personal computers, associated productivity software, and networking of those computers together. Or, put another way, business process reengineering, which peaked during the 1990s. The subsequent rise of Internet connectivity in a substantial number of consumers' homes (brought on in part by the removal of the non-profit restriction of the Internet that was in place until 1994), coupled with the graphical nature of the Web, brought anywhere computing to millions of people. This new market created a huge influx of capital investment opportunity, which brought the stock markets to amazing new highs.
The bust was caused by overspeculation (as are all such busts), though the specific trigger was the Justice Department's insistence of beating down Microsoft. It could have been anything; the market was primed to pop. That just happened to be the right pin at the right time.
The Presidents were all peripheral to these events.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
Yea, ah-huh, Presidents of the country are just by standers to the economic events LOL...
Hey, Mweiss, I lived the market boom as a day trader, and I lived the crash of 2000. When I finally pulled out I lost close to 200,000. Greenspans big mouth of "market exhuborants"...his one statment killed the sentiments on wall street. And every time the Fed rate would come out, everyone would just hold their breath...LOL....
I have learned to take a "back seat" to the market and wall street gambling.
Hey, Mweiss, I lived the market boom as a day trader, and I lived the crash of 2000. When I finally pulled out I lost close to 200,000. Greenspans big mouth of "market exhuborants"...his one statment killed the sentiments on wall street. And every time the Fed rate would come out, everyone would just hold their breath...LOL....
I have learned to take a "back seat" to the market and wall street gambling.
sentrido,
I'm only basing this on my observations of the stock markets. Things seemed to have plateaued around the end of 1999 and the beginning of 2000. Then, in April, the minute the impasse was announced the markets tumbled. They never recovered.
PITbull,
you may have been there, but Greenspan made his "irrational exhuberance" comment many years before the 2000 crash. In fact, the market more than doubled after that comment. The Fed rates actually had little to do with the market performance, except on a very localized basis (which would show up for day-traders, but not for the rest of us). Compare long-term market trends with the Fed rate, and you'll see how little they have to do with each other.
I'm only basing this on my observations of the stock markets. Things seemed to have plateaued around the end of 1999 and the beginning of 2000. Then, in April, the minute the impasse was announced the markets tumbled. They never recovered.
PITbull,
you may have been there, but Greenspan made his "irrational exhuberance" comment many years before the 2000 crash. In fact, the market more than doubled after that comment. The Fed rates actually had little to do with the market performance, except on a very localized basis (which would show up for day-traders, but not for the rest of us). Compare long-term market trends with the Fed rate, and you'll see how little they have to do with each other.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
mweiss,
Greenspan made that statement early in 1999. and it most definitely effected the markets. And the Fed rate most definitely effected the markets; and everyone was daytrading except you obviously. Many many folks were not in the markets for the long term, but rather short term, which obviously created the roller coaster ride of the markets from 1995 to 2000.
So, why is it that life affects me differently than you and I just have a completely different perspective on historical events that I lived?
I don't believe you have the "market" on this.
Greenspan made that statement early in 1999. and it most definitely effected the markets. And the Fed rate most definitely effected the markets; and everyone was daytrading except you obviously. Many many folks were not in the markets for the long term, but rather short term, which obviously created the roller coaster ride of the markets from 1995 to 2000.
So, why is it that life affects me differently than you and I just have a completely different perspective on historical events that I lived?
I don't believe you have the "market" on this.
I can't speak to why you feel that "everyone" was day-trading during the 90s, but I can assure you that Alan Greenspan used the phrase "irrational exhuberance" in a well-publicized speech on December 5, 1996. There are plenty of places on the 'net where you can see this for yourself, if you care to look.
Likewise, if you cared to read my post, I said that the Fed rate has localized effects on the market, but that these do not persist over time. Again, there are plenty of ways you can do this analysis for yourself. I have done so.
Likewise, if you cared to read my post, I said that the Fed rate has localized effects on the market, but that these do not persist over time. Again, there are plenty of ways you can do this analysis for yourself. I have done so.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
My man, I lived it. And I and many many people day traded. Fed rates affected the day traders. The long term investor wasn't effected by market fads or trends. So the "roller coaster " effect came from the day traders.
Greenspan also stated "Irrational exuborants" of the markets more than one time.
Greenspan also stated "Irrational exuborants" of the markets more than one time.
Oh, and while we're on the subject, here's what the markets looked like on December 4, 1996, the day before Greenspan's comment.
NASDAQ 1,320.54
Dow 6,422.94
S&P 500 745.10
Here's what they looked like when the market closed today:
NASDAQ 2,065.48
Dow 10,515.56
S&P 500 1,145.20
NASDAQ 1,320.54
Dow 6,422.94
S&P 500 745.10
Here's what they looked like when the market closed today:
NASDAQ 2,065.48
Dow 10,515.56
S&P 500 1,145.20
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
Mweiss,
Check out what the NASDAQ was and the Dow Jan. of 2000, and then March of 2000
I can tell you from my memory: Jan Dow was approx 11,000 and NASDAQ was over 5,000
March 2000, both started to drop like rockets and this decline was triggered by daytraders.
Check out what the NASDAQ was and the Dow Jan. of 2000, and then March of 2000
I can tell you from my memory: Jan Dow was approx 11,000 and NASDAQ was over 5,000
March 2000, both started to drop like rockets and this decline was triggered by daytraders.
Similar threads
