In 2000 George W. Bush ran as a businessman. He also ran as a uniter who would restore honor to the white house.

This year Mitt Romney is running as a businessman (though his businesses were successful).
Barak Obama is running as a uniter.
Both Clinton and Obama are running to restore America's prestige in the world.

I guess they saw that these were very successful slogans and plagerized them.

Actually, if your principle investment is at risk, then it is a wise thing to do. You move your capital out before you lose it and put it somewhere it will be safe, long term growth strategy notwithstanding.

Not everyone has the advantage of being financially wealthy and having a hedge in place to cover market downturns impact on their investments.

The stock market and most investments based off it are not about actual value but perceived value. So, in other words, most of it is probably valued higher than what any actual value really is. Publicly held companies and their executive leadership and boards main focus is to increase shareholder wealth, meaning raise the value of the stock the stock holders own. Market downturns are simply corrections to put things back to a more realistic value as opposed to the "story" that Wall Street sees.

An economy that is based off stock market value is indeed an economy that is always on the verge of bursting like a balloon. We can thank Clinton and his policies for the basis of economy we have now... consumer debt and stock market.

If this is extra, fluff, frosting money, by all means leave it in the stock market. If this is money you need for retirement, I might listen to that brother a little more closely.

Better than just pull out entirely. Look at where the economy is struggling, and where it's growing, because there are aspects of the economy that are doing well. Further, blanket pulling out, actually causes more decrease in the econmy. If your money isn't invested, the companies don't have that capitol to invest in research and development other captiol costs.

And the occasional downturn in the market is actually a very good thing. As Cat mentioned, the market needs periodic resets to correct the value of stocks.

But pulling out entirely is foolish. Actually it's worse than foolish, it makes the economic problems even worse. The market will always go up and down but over time, the market always goes up, an average of 11% historically, even through the crash of 29 and the following depression. If your money is invested in solid companies, not dot-com type here today-gone tomorrow firms, it will ride out any corrections. What firms are these? Firms like IBM, GE, UPS, AT&T, Time Warner and the like. Heck Time Warner was bought by dot-com darling AOL. Who owns who? Time Warner survived as the primary firm, AOL the purchasing firm has been relegated to it's real position, as a subsidiary.

Additionally with the up and down nature of the market, you make more money with a market that goes up and down, than you do with one that only rises. If it only rises, sure your investments increase in value, but each subsequent investment purchases fewer shares per dollar. However if the market goes up and down, sure at times the value of your investment decreases, but as you continually invest more, during the down turns you get more stock per purchase. And with the continual average growth of the market, those shares purchased at cheaper prices grow more in value than those which would have been purchased in a continually growing market.

Oh and check out this CNN article Venture Capitolists are optimistic about the economy.  

BTW, I'd like to point out that a periodic recession or even depression used to be considered a normal economic happening. It was considered necessary for the economy to later be even stronger. After the Great Depression the government has been trying its hardest to prevent a recession and especially a depression. The massive spending has resulted in runaway inflation.
A free market is also a dangerous market - you could lose your shirt. But a managed economy means that most people will be poor with little chance of getting rich.
I'm not being insensitive to the unemployed - I've been unemployed for extended periods in the past. But government should not be in the business of managing the economy. The end result is that we'll all be equally poor with a few super rich ruling over us.

DaKnife wrote:

---

Better than just pull out entirely. Look at where the economy is struggling, and where it's growing, because there are aspects of the economy that are doing well. Further, blanket pulling out, actually causes more decrease in the econmy. If your money isn't invested, the companies don't have that capitol to invest in research and development other captiol costs.

Actually, a company gets no capital benefit (as in cash flow) from stock price after the IPO for stock offering. Once the company has sold the stock, they see nothing. Everything then is "aftermarket" trading between the individuals or institutional investors that own the stock and those that want to buy it.

And the occasional downturn in the market is actually a very good thing. As Cat mentioned, the market needs periodic resets to correct the value of stocks.

But pulling out entirely is foolish. Actually it's worse than foolish, it makes the economic problems even worse. The market will always go up and down but over time, the market always goes up, an average of 11% historically, (actually long term return averages about 12.9%) even through the crash of 29 and the following depression. If your money is invested in solid companies, not dot-com type here today-gone tomorrow firms, it will ride out any corrections. Yes, as long as you are willing to have your principal capital tied up for the long term, including the risk that in the short term you will may actually lose some of it. What firms are these? Firms like IBM, GE, UPS, AT&T, Time Warner and the like. Heck Time Warner was bought by dot-com darling AOL. Who owns who? Time Warner survived as the primary firm, AOL the purchasing firm has been relegated to it's real position, as a subsidiary.

Additionally with the up and down nature of the market, you make more money with a market that goes up and down, than you do with one that only rises. If it only rises, sure your investments increase in value, but each subsequent investment purchases fewer shares per dollar. However if the market goes up and down, sure at times the value of your investment decreases, but as you continually invest more, during the down turns you get more stock per purchase. And with the continual average growth of the market, those shares purchased at cheaper prices grow more in value than those which would have been purchased in a continually growing market. This assumes that one is an active trader and has the time and foresight to really follow the "market", regardless of if they are handling the trading themself or have it handled by someone else via a mutual fund. Mutual funds generally will have hedges already built into them, based on the risk involved.

Oh and check out this CNN article Venture Capitolists are optimistic about the economy.  

---

For those that are risk averse, government bonds, while not always providing a great return in comparison to a blue chip stock portfolio, do provide a set return and the capital is generally protected. It is less risky. Just like in the corporate world, a debt holder gets paid off before a stock holder should the company go under... Look to where foreign interests invest heavily in the U.S. ... not the stock market, but in government bonds. If I had the money to invest, this where it would go. All the stock I own has come in the form of employer incentives or life insurance companies we have policies with that went public and so the policy holders were automatically provided shares of stock. In other words, I have not invested any capital in the stock market. If I had the funds available, I may, but only as part of a comprehensive approach.

The Constitutional role of government in commerce is very limited. Congress is supposed to set the value of money (which they don't do anymore) and they can regulate interstate commerce and commerce with foreign nations. It doesn't say that they can tell you, for instance, who you can hire and who you can't.
The period of greatest government intervention in the economy has also seen the greatest stagnation in our wealth building. Our standard of living has slowly been creeping downward for a couple of generations now. Did you know, for instance, that it used to be possible for the average person to purchase an automobile with the cash that they had saved up? There was car debt, but it was much rarer and people paid it off more quickly. Now the average person is not going to be able to save up even $15,000 for a compact sedan unless he takes many years to do it.
Like with the Soviet Union, our charade of an economy will collapse eventually. It may perhaps be doing it right now, or we may just be headed for a severe recession.

arbilad wrote:

---

Did you know, for instance, that it used to be possible for the average person to purchase an automobile with the cash that they had saved up? No, really? (yes, I'm being sarcastic) There was car debt, but it was much rarer and people paid it off more quickly. (Are you comparing it dollar to dollar or the price of a vehicle as a % of annual income?) Now the average person is not going to be able to save up even $15,000 for a compact sedan unless he takes many years to do it. The average person these days does not even bother to actually purchase a vehicle... they lease...

---

I fail to see how the government is responsible for this... not going to let you draw me into a one sided argument about the evils of federal law and policy.

Is the government responsible for a consumer debt based economy? Yes and no. Policy certainly makes it easier or harder to extend credit and buy on credit, but the government is not out there telling everyone to take out loans and to run credit cards up.

Your comment almost sounds like you are looking forward to a day when our economy absolutely tanks... We do not have a charade, or fake, economy. We have an economy that is severely stressed because of consumer debt and unfair trade.

Back to the example of the cost of a car... More likely it is the result of unions raising the price of labor to build vehicles and fabricate parts (were you aware that the typical blue collar union autoworker makes as much as most IT professionals, and yet they still aren't treated fairly or paid enough? Non-union workers in auto manufacturing areas outside of Michigan may not be paid as much, but they are still paid a nice salary relative to the typical white collar employee because of the union wage precedent -- used to keep the unions out), and all the ever increasing cost for the parts that gets passed down the supply channel to the end customer. That and consumerism (the need for the customer to have every sort of bell and whistle accesory included in a vehicle). Anything that could be attributed to a regulatory environment is only a nominal cost per vehicle.

Good point Arbi....Debt elimination should be priority number one.  My biggest asset is my home which is paid for, and my education which is about two-thirds done (I hope :)). I kind of wish interest rates would go up in some ways so as to discourage consumption and spur savings, but I think it would have a downside as well.  Economics is a nebulous thing....

I might add, if the economy were to collpase and I was to suffer in consequence of it and that is what needs to happen to me so I can gain eternal life, (gulp) so be it ! 

Fregramis wrote:

---

I kind of wish interest rates would go up in some ways so as to discourage consumption and spur savings, but I think it would have a downside as well.

---

Unfortunately, this is one aspect of our economy that is broken, and could be corrected by governmental oversight... tieing the interest rate paid on savings accounts back to the prime rate instead of allowing banks to get away with the mere pittance they give these days. Banks make far too much profit off of fees, penalties, etc. and all the stuff for the privilege of letting you put your money in their "care".

A lot of it depends upon how close you are to retirement. If it's just a few short years away, transferring to something other than stocks may be a good idea. If you still have a bunch of years left to retirement, chances are you'd do better to leave your money in the fund it's currently in. In the history of the stock market there has been no five year period in which stocks haven't risen--and that includes the Great Depression. If I have my facts right!

Mahonri wrote:

---

All of the morning talk shows are giving McCain front runner status.

Romney still leads big time in delegate count.

What's up with that?

---

The national polls all show McCain as the man to beat. However, it looks like it's probably going to go to the convention undecided. That'll make things really interesting. I think this presidential race is turning out to be highly interesting thus far.

 

arbilad wrote:

---

The Constitutional role of government in commerce is very limited. Congress is supposed to set the value of money (which they don't do anymore) and they can regulate interstate commerce and commerce with foreign nations. It doesn't say that they can tell you, for instance, who you can hire and who you can't.

---

Question --  about illegal immigration (and I think, though I'm no expert, that if illegal immigration were "fixed" we'd be able to fix the economy, health care and education to a large degree - so that's why McCain is a definite NO for me)... Can't the gov't come in and tell businesses that they CANNOT hire illegals?

Can't the gov't come in and tell businesses that they CANNOT hire illegals?

They can and have and then haven't backed it up. There is no backbone when it comes to getting votes.

BTW, not everyone believes that Romney was good for the Massachusetts economy, or that he reduced the deficit there without raising taxes.