(10-01-2010, 01:25 PM)kandrathe Wrote: It fell right after that, and didn't return to that price for 5 years, where at any time I might have bought it at a fraction of the year 2000 value.
Stocks go up. Stocks go down. My point is - your idea of "ludicrous," an obvious loser, still would have net you 10% annual, despite having been at an unsustainable peak when you would have bought, and just following a major crash when you sold.
Had you bought at 100ish, in the early 2000s doldrums, then sold at 750 at the height of 2007, you'd have made a killing - about 22% annual. But then, if wishes were ponies, then beggars would ride, and if the stock market worked backwards, we'd all make a hobo of Warren Buffett.
Quote:Ok, in your opinion then, companies using stimulus money to hire people they couldn't afford is better than having them eventually hired by companies that can afford them?
Funny, I seem to recall arguing that to you, when you suggested massive tax credits for businesses to hire extra workers as a solution to unemployment.
You're trying to frame this as a choice between "make work" employment and "real" employment. The real choice is between "make work" employment and unemployment - otherwise, why is there 10% unemployment? And yes, that's a benefit to the "make work" employed worker, albeit an expensive one.
Quote:It was. The price crashed within months, as did Microsoft, IBM, and every other tech stock whether they deserved it or not.
And yet, it recovered. Holding Google was a great investment through that whole period, to present, *despite* two major crashes. As Warren Buffett said, you don't have to listen when Mr. Market comes to your door with a price in hand, and you didn't have to sell right after the crash. In fact, you'd have been an idiot if you did.
Quote:I'll have to look them up to quote it directly.
Please do. Pay particular attention to what they say about the key mechanisms: Interest rates, investment levels, and consumer spending. Then check them against what we observe.
Per the Iraq War: There's hedging your bets, and then there's the side you come down on. Are you really telling me that your position was one of opposition to the war? Or just distaste at having to pay for it all because France and Russia weren't interested? (Edit: Cagey, you were. But the one consistent theme is that Saddam *must* be "dealt with," and that existing methods weren't working. If you opposed the war, you certainly had an odd way of saying so.)
-Jester
(Ah, memories. Did you really predict that there wouldn't be many people living in Africa by 2010? I should really be keeping a list.)