>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:30:00 -0400, alexy
asbry.net> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:59:08 -0400, alexy
asbry.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>Mike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>using the exact top of the market in 1929 for any type of comparison is
>>>>>unrealistic.
>>>>Obviously (to most, at least). You need to recognize the intellect you
>>>>are dealing with here. He has said that
>>>>:from 1929-today, that is a 79 year time frame. from 1954-1966 the
>>>>:markets expanded, 12 years. then again from 1982-2001, another 19
>>>>:years, that is total of 31 years out of 79 years,
>>>>
>>>>In other words, he thinks the DJIA got from it's low of about $40 in
>>>>1932 to $280 at the beginning of 1954 without increasing. So I wish
>>>>you luck trying to explain things with real numbers to him.
>>
>>My sentiments exactly. And while he wasn't talking about an
>>inflation-adjusted DJIA, the plot you posted showed the same
>>thing--the market increase (inflation adjusted or not) between 1932
>>and 1954. So you are right. Sheesh. How in the hell can he conclude
>>that it didn't increase from 32 to 54. You nailed it in another post
>>when you pointed out that it was disingenuous to measure off of 1929,
>>and to Vid's "mind" increases in the market to bring int back closer
>>to a previous high are not increases.
>
>
>It's amusing how you see what you want to see.
I think I'm seeing what is there. Do you mean to imply that I am
making this up?
I see Vid's statements that the only increases in the market in the 79
years since 1929 were 1982-2001 and 1954-1966. Do you see those, too?
I see actual data showing DJIA of ~40 in 1932, and ~280 in 1954. Do
you see that too, or do you think I am making it up.
With my mind like a steel trap, I deduce that the DJIA had to increase
during the period of 1932 to 1954 in order to get from 40 to 280. Do
you disagree?
The chart you posted shows the inflation adjusted DJIA to be about
$500 in 1932 and about $2,000 in 1954. Do you agree, or am I only
seeing what I want to see?
Applying that steely reasoning again, I deduce that the
inflation-adjusted dow had to increase to get from 500 to 2000
Putting all these together, I conclude that Vid was either lying or
terribly confused when he said that the only periods of increases int
he dow were those two.
Please feel free to point out any place I've seen something that is
not really there, or drawn an invalid inference.
>Mike chose 1929 as the
>starting point. THAT was disingenuous.
Yes, it was Vid's starting point, and while Mike fell victim to the
temptation to turn Vid's disingenuous argument around on him, he
became guilty of the same.
> If you start investing 1 year
>before the crash (assuming a 33 year work life just for simplicity)
>only 3%% of your investment is affected by the crash. So his life
>"story" of investment is stilted by his starting point.
>
>Now if instead he had chosen 1899 as the start for his 33 year
>investment history the crash would have impacted 97%% of his lifetime
>investments.
Yes, after the bubble had artificially inflated 90%% of his lifetime
investments.
>Equally stilted perhaps but between the two you see the
>difference of high hopes and crushed dreams. The guy who retired on
>his investments in 1928 got a rude awakening in the 30s and likely had
>to go back to work - if he could.
That's a valid point.
> And you know full well Vid was
>saying that 1932 to 1954 was the trough from 29.
No, I really don't think he is capable of seeing that distinction. I
acknowledged over and over again that the trough didn't catch up, but
pointed out that there were gains in those years. He'd hear none of
it. And to claim that the market grew in only 31 of the 79 years
because of its relationship to a previous bubble is an out-and-out
lie, or stupidity of the highest order.
> In other words an
>investment in 1929 did not regain it's full inflation adjusted value
>till 1954.
That's true if the dog ate your dividend checks.
>A similar trough went from 1965 to 1995.
Only in inflation-adjusted. We were comparing alternative investments,
all of which would suffer the same inflation losses.
>The poor bastard
>who retired in 1964-65 faced an ominous erosion of his nest egg.
The real question is would his nest egg have ben better invested in
stocks or savings accounts or other fixed interest accounts.
Not a relevant question for me, since I think you should be largely
out of stocks by the time you retire, because you have low tolerance
for fluctuations.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
