>

>>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.