Let the Good Times Roll! Or, Tonight We're Gonna Party Like It's 1929

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kidicious


So that is your strategy. You just hold on to your stocks no matter what? Never sell for loss?

No, that's not my strategy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by LordShiva
No, that's not my strategy.

Then you must believe that you can lose money in the stock market.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Then you must believe that you can lose money in the stock market.

Of course.

It doesn't follow that I believe that one must sell his/her stocks in order to benefit from it.

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Dude, I don't have to show you. Even the commies here know you're a joke.

I'm glad that you find my arguments amusing.

I'm sure you will glad to know that I find your attempts at economic reasoning even more hilarious.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Dude, I don't have to show you. Even the commies here know you're a joke.

Well I agree that the poor are poor because the rich are rich, but I don't agree with the way he says the economy works.

And the economy is not a zero sum game, but neither are resources and opportunities endless.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Of course.

It doesn't follow that I believe that one must sell his/her stocks in order to benefit from it.

I wasn't saying either way, but of course you have to sell your stocks to benefit from them. Unless you are talking about some warm fuzzy feeling you get by reading the financial papers.

But we are talking about whether or not social security can lose money or not invested in the stock market.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I wasn't saying either way, but of course you have to sell your stocks to benefit from them.

But you don't. If you were to go out and start a business, you wouldn't need to sell it before you could benefit.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by LordShiva


But you don't. If you were to go out and start a business, you wouldn't need to sell it before you could benefit.

Well ok dividends, my bad.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Any graph which covers such a long period and doesn't correct for inflation is rather worthless. It seems like the valuations of stocks (and thus the index numbers) could easily be corrected to constant dollars.

[Kuciwalker]

I did a google image search for S&P 500. The point was the picture, not a detailed analysis.

[Dinner]

My point is the picture is worthless just like if I posted a graph showing the total national debt of the US for the same time period. It needs to be done in constant dollar value to be worth while or else inflation will show a giant upward movement even though value hasn't done the same.

[Kuciwalker]

My point was a rebuttal to Kid that didn't involve more than 5 seconds' googling.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by LordShiva


QFT. Inequality is self-correcting as long as the government stays out of the way.

Seriously, is there any evidence for this or are you just popping off?

The US in the second half 19th Century is an excellent example of a developed country where the government stayed out of the way. Income inequality rose massively. The US in the 1950s had a heavily regulated economy, and nevertheless had relatively low income inequality -- probably the lowest in US history, certainly the lowest of its industrial history.

So WTF?

[Kuciwalker]

The 1950's is an anomalous case.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The 1950's is an anomalous case.

If so, then use Europe. Most Western European economies are significantly more regulated than our own. Those same societies have less income inequality than we do, and less income inequality than they did in earlier, less-regulated eras.

I'm not arguing pro- or anti-regulation, per se. I'm just saying that the idea that inequality is self-correcting as long as the government doesn't interfere is absurd on its face and unsupported by any historical evidence.