>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:40:52 -0400, alexy
asbry.net> wrote:
>>>>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.
>
>
>You want to start at the bottom of the hole and say it's all up from
>here, ignoring the fact you fell into a well. You ignore falling into
>the well and then say things have been great since I started climbing.
No. I just don't want to lie about whether growth occurred in those
years.
>
>You distort his comment that from the peak of the pre-crash at 4500
>(inflation adjusted that level was not seen again until about 1963.
No. I don't deny that if you lost your dividend checks.
>Things fell 80%% and then climbed 80 and you want to focus on the
>climb.
No. Not focus on the clime. just snot lie about it.
> You're knowingly and intentionally distorting his point.
Yet if that were the case, I'm sure you could pick apart the facts or
reasoning I presented earlier. But you haven't. Instead, you have
said, in effect, that people should ignore what his lies, because you
agree with what he might have meant.
>
>Frankly it's tiresome.
Yes, I imagine it is. And defending his position on dividends won't go
much better for you.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
