The Spectre of Math

October 24, 2008

On stocks (price of)

Filed under: Economics,Politics — jlebl @ 10:53 pm

Value in our main portfolio dipped below $100k today. I feel sort of light headed when I think of how much money we’ve lost this past few weeks. I keep telling myself it’s monopoly money. I did some extra shares of AINV today, thinking it can’t go any lower, I might as well make some money if it does another dead cat bounce and I sell.

So someone should explain to me why republicans are supposed to be better for the markets. Investors are still voting republican. For the lower taxes? That doesn’t make sense to me. If the taxes are lower, but your investments are where they were a decade ago (not counting inflation) how is this good for you? 0% of 0 is not much less than 30% of 0.

About these ads

8 Comments »

  1. doesn’t mean it makes sense to vote democrat. unfortunately the elections are causing uncertainty in the market. it’s better not to vote at all. these guys are bureaucrats, not entrepreneurs.

    bear market baby.

    Comment by Jesse — October 24, 2008 @ 11:02 pm | Reply

  2. Keep in mind that the current crisis was manufactured by Democrats when they pushed the new rules of lending. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd blocked any attempts by Republicans to recrity the problem. Meanwhile the Democrat crony Raines stole several times more than Ken Lay (with forged signatures et. al.), and nobody dared to touch him because he was black. And it’s not some shit I’m reading off pitiful rightist blogs or something. I heard it all at the C-SPAN audio, directly from the mouths of Democrats.

    Add to that how ACORN stormtroopers occupied bank branches in order to force bad loans, or else. It’s little wonder that investors don’t want to support those people. They are a menace for the economy.

    In the big picture, Republicans are responsible for the profigate spending, and Bush is personally responsible for not vetoing any of it for years, and even using the same money spigot to buy AARP votes with his Medicare expansion. That’s however, is a different matter, which might have created its own crisis some time by 2025. Actually, it probably will, unless corrected. But it’s not very relevant to the question of today.

    Comment by Pete Zaitcev — October 25, 2008 @ 4:00 pm | Reply

  3. Pete: I think it’s hard to point to any specific event and say “this caused the crisis.” The republicans were in charge in both the legislative and the executive for most of the years when the crisis was brewing. To say that the opposition party somehow blocked any attempts to rectify the situation is a cop out. That just means that any attempts (if there were any real attempts) were pretty weak. So if republicans knew how to correct the situation and did not manage to do it (while they did manage to start a war, which I would consider a much harder feat), that means that you are saying they are incompetent. I don’t think they are incompetent.

    And I believe it is a cop out to just say that the executive branch is without blame. The executive branch is really the branch responsible for running the government. The executive is very strong in the US, and the president appoints the people who are directly responsible.

    Your post is obviously biased towards the conspiracy theory of things.

    Jesse: Well in this country it unfortunately does mean that. There is no third option. Not voting at all just means you have split your vote for both parties, but it doesn’t help anything. If you look at two graphs over the last 50 years, one is the GDP growth, and one is the deficit, you see that they tend to do better (GDP growth higher, deficit lower) during democratic presidencies. No matter why that happens, it is good empirical evidence that democratic presidencies are good for the economy. I’m a scientist not an ideologue. And you can go by empirical evidence.

    The standard argument is that the republican presidents were impeded by democrats in the congress. This argument has two conclusions: it says that the particular president was incompetent, or it says that it is irrelevant who the president is. Neither conclusion is a good argument to vote for your guy.

    Comment by jlebl — October 28, 2008 @ 2:36 pm | Reply

  4. empirical evidence shows that the government is a the forefront of the economic woes.

    neither party is good for the economy. and the federal reserve is mis-allocating resources at the expense of all.

    parties are inconsequential to economic law.

    Comment by Jesse — October 28, 2008 @ 5:46 pm | Reply

  5. Jesse: well, what’s the empirical evidence? There is nothing to compare it to. There wasn’t any time in recent history in the US where there was no government interference in the economy. Thus we have NO CLUE what would happen if the government interfered substantially less. You are confusing “empirical evidence” with “idealogical common sense.” If you are a capitalist ideologue, you think that large government necessarily leads to good economy. But there is NO EVIDENCE to support this claim, just that “it seems like that should be correct.” That doesn’t mean that it’s not correct, it just means that it’s a guess, not based on empirical evidence (which doesn’t really exist one way or the other).

    Saying that parties are inconsequential to economic law is nonsense. There is reasonably good correlation between certain economic indicators and the policies of the party in power. That doesn’t say what is cause and what is effect, and it leaves the possibility for coincidences.

    All I am saying is, that best guess according to empirical data consisting of “party who has the executive branch” and “GDP growth” and “deficit” is that it is better to have a democrat in the white house. That’s just the “best guess” based on empirical evidence. Let’s leave ideology out of it. I don’t care what you think ought to be true based on your idea of how the world works.

    You can’t just say “empirical evidence says foo” without foo actually being supported by empirical evidence (meaning some statistic) just because you think that “foo” should be true. I am not saying that “foo” is not correct, but it’s not supported by any evidence, unless you show me some evidence. So as far as I see your post is a random collection of words put together resembling the english language, but having no substance whatsoever.

    Comment by jlebl — October 29, 2008 @ 9:53 pm | Reply

  6. well i could respond to you comment with some information and sources, but based on your response, i don’t think you would be open to it anyway. i am not guessing as you claim. you are guessing. it seems that you are basing your guess on preconcieved notions about ideology, governance, and economics.

    i agree, dems tend to be better than the repubs in relative terms. im sorry i didn’t stick to the point you were making. i was attempting to draw a broader concept out of the muck of economic models. looking at only specific information and leaving out all the other factors is insufficient and is one of the major flaws in the keynesian school of thought that runs our economic lives.

    there are economic laws. ideas have consequences. as long as people think there is no third option the hole just gets bigger. if people don’t try to change things and decide that there is no choice, then that is the action that allows all things to stay the same.
    claiming its too hard is a cop out and you will be taken advantage of. the proof is in the pudding as they say.

    Comment by Jesse — November 1, 2008 @ 3:20 pm | Reply

  7. Thank you for making my point about ideology vs. scientific reasoning. Though perhaps you did not mean to.

    Comment by jlebl — November 3, 2008 @ 1:11 am | Reply

  8. lol. what can i say?…go ahead and try to separate politics and economics. in this day and age it would be a blessing.

    so why are investors still voting republican?

    http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=302137342405551

    Comment by Jesse — November 4, 2008 @ 5:55 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: