Gobama! US Stocks End 2010 With Second-Straight Year Of Gains

[Still a Democrat]

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose slightly Friday while other stock measures fell modestly in a quiet ending to a second-straight year of gains for the market.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 7.80 points, or 0.07%, at 11577.51, up 11% from where it began 2010. The Dow's gain for the year represents its second-straight annual increase, with almost half of the 2010 climb having come this month; it rose 5.2% in December.

The DJIA came close to ending 2010 at a fresh closing high for the year; if it had closed above 11585.38, it would have reached its highest close since August 2008.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101231-704849.html

[DavidDvorkin]

1. Prepare for snark, anger, dismissal, and unrecs.

[Rex]

4. A little wishful thinking there are ya?

:eyes:

[mdmc]

49. from all those not vested in the market

[Cleita]

2. That does nothing for 95% of Americans.

*yawn*

[treestar]

7. Where does that come from?

Really, examine that statement.

If the economy is doing well, people get hired. That means a good market. A bad market is the type where companies close down and people get laid off.

[Cleita]

9. Really, so where are the jobs with 10%

unemployment that they admit and that is no doubt even higher? Gambling on money doesn't provide jobs except maybe for the maids and gardeners.

[walldude]

54. Actual unemployment is said to be between 17 and 22%

depending on who you listen to.. It's hard to find the most current numbers but here are some from a couple months ago:


http://consumerist.com/2010/10/the-real-unemployment-figure-is-225.html
http://www.pri.org/business/economic-security/the-real-unemployment-rate2118.html
http://www.nevadanewsbureau.com/2010/10/29/nevada’s

[treestar]

60. My point is the general idea that the stock market doing better

does no good for Americans. If it did poorly, Americans lose jobs. So it seems to be silly to insist that it doesn't matter to the rest of us what happens on it. One could hardly cheer it doing down and must be hopeful with it going up.

Some people just have this blind hatred for "the corporations" or "Wall Street." Yet those are the same entities who they think should give them jobs.

[Xicano]

15. So you're a trickle down economic theorist?

Cleita is correct in asking where are the jobs? Where's the trickle down? If your theory were correct, then, why are so many today unemployed or under-employed?

Of course I could just as easily be incorrect because you could just be someone who's a party loyalist over loyalty to party principles.


Peace,
Xicano

[Uben]

40. One BIG reason there are no jobs.....

.....is not a lack of money at all. It's called "automation". Tens of millions of jobs have disappeared because they are now done by computers or robotics. Computers and robots do not need days off, healthcare, raises, or vacations, so they are much more desirable than flesh and blood workers. Sure, we've lost jobs to outsourcing, but those pale in comparison to those lost to computers and robots. And, they're not coming back......ever! So, that means humans will be relegated to doing only those jobs that cannot be performed by automation, and most of those are service jobs and not good paying manufacturing jobs. The times have changed. The "good old days" are gone forever. The future will be "find a job if you can". Sad, but true.

[Xicano]

69. While it is true automation eliminates jobs, however...

...I do not see automation as being responsible over the last several years to account for more jobs lost due to out-sourcing and corporate consolidation and downsizing.

Being a longshoreman on the west coast I see through my job the changes in trade levels and trade deficits, and, I have to tell you over the last 15 to 20 years I've witnessed us loading back more and more and more empty containers while we receive very little to no empties to discharge from a ship. In addition the amount of cargo has gone up significantly.

These facts I see with my own eyes illustrates more and more and more goods are being imported to us while less and less export goods are going out. This fact directly represents American job loss due to off-shoring.

[treestar]

61. But why would it not get worse where the stock market goes down

and there is hope that there would be more jobs where the stock market goes up. I don't get the blind hatred of business, without which there would be no jobs at all. Businesses doing better has to do good. It may not always trickle down (and we aren't a socialist state, so we do live by that whether we agree with it or not) but businesses failing can hardly be a good thing, and businesses succeeding does.

[Xicano]

73. Why would the stock market and the job market not get better with consumer sided economics?

Why do you side with an economic model pushed by the fat-cats on Wall Street which has resulted in ultra concentration of the wealth and millions of American jobs lost as a result? Is it that you just believe after thirty years of trickle down and deregulation (just another word for lawlessness) that some how sooner or later it will work other than to ultra concentrate the wealth out of the hands of the working class into the hands of the top few percent?

Sorry but I would consider myself delusional if I believed something would do what it has failed to do for thirty years. You may feel differently and that's your prerogative. But I'm sticking with more FDR principles vs Raygun principles.

And we may not be a socialist state, but, more so, we are not a corporatocracy. In the original laws in this country we allowed a corporation to exist only if it served the "public interest".

[vi5]

16. The stock market is not the economy...

And too many people in power thinking so is a big part of the reason why this country is in the mess it is in.

In fact a company's stock can go up BECAUSE they've fired a bunch of people, or closed plants, or shipped jobs overseas and as a result of those actions are showing a big profit. It doesn't matter if the bulk of that profit is going to CEO's and CFO's and so on instead of towards hiring new people or buying new equipment.

[Statistical]

25. profits don't go to CEO and CFO.

You are aware that salary (and other forms of compensation) are a cost.

Profit is Revenue - Costs.

[Cleita]

29. Oh, poof.

Where do you think those big fat year end bonuses come from? They are given in stock options and when the market goes up, they make millions from those options when they cash them in.

[Statistical]

31. Of course they do but that isn't profits.

When a company like Apple says they mad $x million in profits that is AFTER the cost of compensation.

[Cleita]

32. You seem to have profits mixed up with capital gains.

The company makes no money on the stock after the initial offering. However, posting good profits for a company increases the trading in the stock. So if you are a stock holder and your company stock posts good profits, you can sell that stock for more than you paid for it. If it was a bonus and you paid nothing for it, when you do sell it, you make a killing in capital gains. Also, capital gains are considered income by the IRS.

[Statistical]

35. Which doesn't have shit to do with the price of tea in China.

Try re-reading the thread again.

[Cleita]

39. I guess you are getting mad because you have

nothing left to argue with, so buy bye. I am not replying to you anymore.

[vi5]

65. So do you honestly believe...

That a company goes "Hmmmm we posted a record profit this year because we laid off a thousand people, closed 3 plants, and shipped another thousand jobs over seas......now it's time for us to start hiring!!!"

I was being half-silly with the CEO crack. But the main point stands. A company stock doing well has nothing to do with how many jobs they are creating or how many people can actually afford to buy their product. In fact in most cases the inverse is true. Their stock will go up the more productive they are and the less people they need to pay to do their job and the more money they charge for things.

[Statistical]

67. However there is a limit on how far you can cut employment.

Most upgrades and downgrades are now on top line growth (gross revenue) not necessarily just profits.
No company is stupid enough to think they can forever cut employment and keep the bottom line growing.

[vi5]

70. No, but there is no doubt that any company's goal

is to be able to make more, with less resources, less expenses, and more profits.

You can feel about that what you want, but there's no doubt that those goals are rarely in the best interest of the general public (as opposed to stockholders) and also not in correlation to the health of the economy. If the economy is crappy and a company in that environment can make due with fewer resources then their stock will go up. It doesn't mean the economy is healthy it just means that individual company has figured out a way to maintain their profit margins and meet their individual expectations.

[treestar]

62. This may be true but still it matters that companies do better

It's not like it has no effect on us at all, which was what the post I responded to was saying. Businesses have to be viable. I can't afford to hire anyone right now, if I did better maybe I could - people seem to lack an understanding of that concept. It's just a larger scale for a large company. Income of the company has to exceed expenses. Businesses don't close just to be mean to workers.

Now the outsourcing is another story. If they create jobs abroad rather than here, it does not help us. But then they still create some here, so we could hardly cheer for their demise.

[vi5]

63. I understand business.

Yes, businesses have to be viable. But the Stock Market is nothing more than a daily and hourly snapshot of individual companies. The economy can be horrible, and people can have no money to spend on goods and services and people can be unemployed and underemployed and the stock market can still be doing well.

That's why when most DC and Wall Street people were saying "The economy is doing great! Look at Wall Street" even though most people living in the real world knew that the housing market was doing poorly and unemployment kept creeping up, most intelligent people were saying "Uh...this is bad...this is really bad." Then when it got so bad that even Wall Street notice that's when all of a sudden everyone sat up and took notice. It didn't matter that regular people were doing horribly and everyone knew about it, as long as Wall Street was doing well. But when Wall Street stopped doing well....well only THEN was it a catastrophe that got the attention of everyone in power.

Wall Street and the economy can do well at the same time. But Wall Street can do well long before and long after the economy is in the toilet.

[Hydra]

74. "The stock market is not the economy"

Succinct and accurate.

/thread

[DireStrike]

36. I GUESS that statement is true

Does the stock market being up really mean that the economy is doing well? It sure doesn't translate into jobs.

[tyne]

12. Actually, it does.

The vast majority of Americans have their pensions/401k's tied to the stock market.

[Cleita]

14. Trust me, I have been retired now for fifteen years, and

those pension funds are as volatile as the market and not to be relied on. My most reliable income is Social Security. Other income has varied from 9% that we were getting when DH retired down to 1 or 1% that I have now. I couldn't live on my retirement savings today and they are slowly dwindling anyway because COLA is going up but income from assets has gone down and we have received no COLA increases on Soc. Sec. for two years. The only people benefitting are the multi-millionaires and billionaires who can afford that kind of volatility over the long run.

[Statistical]

17. Where do you get your stats from? Roughly 50% of Americans have wealth in stocks.

Most own stocks indirectly via mutual funds.

[Cleita]

19. So where is your link to that 50% statement?n/t

[Statistical]

20. Here is one source ...

http://www.ici.org/pdf/fm-v19n6.pdf (45%)

Here is another one.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/DailyNews/market_poll020716.html (55%)

[Cleita]

21. How about this chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Households_vs_Individuals_Income.png

According to that only 5% of individuals have income more than $100,000 a year. They would be the ones who would benefit from a rise in the stock market.

Also, I have mutual funds but frankly because I have to be conservative in my choices, so I don't gain much much and probably would be just as well off my money under the mattress. So a rising stock market doesn't benefit the majority of the population.

[Statistical]

23. Only people w/ >$100K income benefit when market rises? Really?

Then you make a conclusion that because you don't benefit much somehow it would be just as good as money in the matress (which is subject to inflation, theft, and fire). Then you somehow take this illogical collection of thoughts and reacht eh conclusion that "a rising stock market doesn't benefit the majority of the population."

In essence you simply will believe what you want to believe.

[Cleita]

27. Who can afford to lose millions a day other than

very rich people. I can't afford $1,000 a day because I don't have the cushion to sit on a stock until it performs. So a dozen billionaires will sell on Monday to make profits. We little mutual fund holders can't do that. Don't you get it?

[Statistical]

33. Where do you get these numbers from "millions a day", "thousands a day"

$10 a day invested at 8% over 40 years is worth roughly a million dollars.

Why can you sit and hold it? It doesn't matter if it is $100 or $50 million.

[Cleita]

38. You apparently have never bought or traded stock.

There is that little pesky matter of brokerage fees every time you trade, so it would behoove you to trade in millions if you have them. Otherwise it's your broker and financial manager who will be going to the bank with all your capital gains. Only multi-millionaires can afford to play this little casino game.

[Statistical]

43. Your telling me I haven't traded stocks?

You are aware for example many mutual funds don't change a flat fee (load) but rather an annual expense ratio. Your cost is directly proportional to the amount invested. Many brokerages offer very low comissions for ETF. Fidelity for example offers $1 trades on ETFs. $1000 investment with $1 brokerage fee is what 0.1%. While "buying in bulk" makes it easier the idea that you can't participate without millions to invest "each day" (your dubious claim) is completely false.

"Only multi-millionaires can afford to play this little casino game."
False 55% of Americans are stockholders. Discount brokers, ETF, dividend reinvestment programs, 401K, mutual funds, and IRA provide low costs methods to invest on a periodic basis.

[girl gone mad]

28. The top 10% wealthiest Americans own 98.5% of all the stocks in the country.

The rest are not deriving any benefit from Bernanke's Ponzi plans, but they will certainly be required to bear the costs.

[Statistical]

30. While the rest may not be deriving the majority of the benefit it is illogical to say ..

they derive no benefit.

Even pension funds invest in stock market thus people with a pension and no direct ownership have their financial outlook improved (pension solvency) when market rises.

[Cleita]

34. So you really believe that trickle down BS and yet

all you have to do is look around you at the reality to see that it is BS and actually operates in reverse as trickle up, up and UP.

[Statistical]

37. No I don't believe in trickle down BS.

I do believe someone in middle class who puts 10% of their money into the market via 401K for example benefited from the market rising. The rich benefited more but it is illogical to say because the rich benefited the middle class didn't also.

[DireStrike]

41. You're making this big stink over 1.5%?

That's hardly worth talking about. It's practically a semantic argument.

[Statistical]

44. 1.5% of the roughly $140 trillion in wealth in the US is $2.1 trillion.

While the rich have too much it is illogical to say $2.1 trillion is nothing. Hell SSA trust only has ~$3 trillion. This year was a good year and that wealth rose.

Sure the rich benefited disproportionately but that doesn't mean the trillions held by the "bottom 90%" didn't also rise.

[DireStrike]

45. 140 trillion in wealth, or 140 trillion in stocks?

I couldn't find the total value of stocks. Where did you get that from?

[Hannah Bell]

58. Bottom 90% shared 18% of all stock/mutual fund wealth circa 2007.

Top 1% has 39%.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

I wouldn't call it "wealth".

[Statistical]

59. Of course it is wealth. I may be improperly allocated but it is still wealth.

[NutmegYankee]

72. Far more than 5% of Americans have stocks.

IRAs and 401Ks are quite popular you know.

[Rex]

3. It is a real shame they can crash the market on purpose.

Wish someone would put a stop to that kind of nonsense.

[Odin2005]

5. Fuck Wall Street.

[gulliver]

6. Ship rightside-up again. Pumps operational.

I feel very good about 2011 under Obama.

[Raschel]

8. While I support the President, I don't believe that any economic gains benefit the common man

in this country any longer.

[Cleita]

10. You are right because the jobs that provide those

Wall Street profits are in China, not here.

[sabrina 1]

11. Well, the Wall St. Gambling Casino is still providing well

for the gamblers, but how does that help all those who can't afford to gamble on Wall St.?

[msongs]

13. lol the wealthy elites are doing fine with all these republican policies in place lol nt

[xchrom]

18. Why do people still think that the stock market is an

Indicator of the broader economy?

Home prices still falling, unemployment still strong,
99ers with no benefits,and so on.

The stock market is up and that's really all it means.

[girl gone mad]

46. Correct. The vast majority of middle class wealth is tied up in home equity..

not the stock market.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

22. Not bad

for American businesses living under the socialist dictatorship of President Obama.

:sarcasm:

[Hannah Bell]

24. this is why the top 20% like him while the rest wonder when it's going to get better.

[Statistical]

26. 55% of Americans have wealth in the stock market. That wealth increased this year.

[JackRiddler]

47. Bullshit. Most have peanuts in the market. Small shareholders are fodder for bubbles and crashes.

The DJIA and S&P 500 (the two measures people most often mean when they speak of "the stock market") are not the measure of what matters in life, or even of economic health per se, and they do not tell us what makes a government good or bad (and thus have little to do with how one should judge Obama or any other president).

And as you prepare a response, remember that almost everyone here is intimately acquainted with the finances of Americans on the median and lower economic levels. Remember that most people here either own stock or know people who do. So it's not an easy snow job to tell us how our fate and prosperity are tied up with the DJIA as the most important measure.

Oh, and here's what you would have made if you'd simply trusted in the DJIA in the last 10 years:



ZERO. Minus inflation, LESS THAN ZERO.

Don't tell me it's Bush's fault, either. Bush was a reaction to the crisis of capitalism, and made it worse, but is not the cause of it.

[WinkyDink]

52. "wealth"?

[walldude]

56. I find that figure amazing since 20% of Americans

don't even have jobs. Just goes to show that people who aren't struggling have no fucking clue what it's like for most Americans who live paycheck to paycheck. Yeah let's all party because homes are being foreclosed on, people are out of work and little kids are writing Santa asking for clothes and food...

[rug]

42. That's all that matters.

[aikoaiko]

48. My fav part of the rising stock market is the abundant silence from all those who announced losses

but claimed not to be cheering the stock market losses and only reporting the facts. But when the stock market rose, they stopped reporting the indexes. Strange indeed.

[WinkyDink]

50. Stock prices always rise when UNemployment does. No cheers here.

[DavidDvorkin]

51. Soaring market --> more IPOs --> more jobs

[WinkyDink]

53. Evidence?

[JackRiddler]

55. It's the Church of Adam Smith. We don't need no steenkin' evidence.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Yay, Reaganomics! Get yer cup and wait for the trickle from the capitalists.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Stocks are up? WUR DOOOOMED!

Stocks are down? WUR DOOOOOOMED!


See?


DOOOOOMED!

[KG]

66. so the parasite class is doing well. as always. whoop-dee-dam-doo.

[Marr]

68. You or your parents must be quite well off.

[Raine]

71. Gosh with such good news

how did Democrats manage to lose the house? :sarcasm:

[neverforget]

75. 4 reasons for optimism in the 2011 economy.

If you go through the reasons, you find out that it means jack shit for the vast majority of Americans. But yeah, Wall Street and corporations are doing great!

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2010/12/30/four-reasons-for-optimism-in-the-2011-economy/?iid=HLM

--snip--
But the average person in America will probably still feel little difference. The annoyingly high unemployment rate will improve some but not by much next year. It will probably continue to hover around 9%.

And one of the most critical parts of the recovery, the housing market, probably won't see any real improvements. Many economists expect home prices to drop by an additional 15% to 30% due to an excess of inventory.

Indeed, this is a gradual recovery. Improvements will be slow – probably so slow that to many it will probably be hard, if not impossible, to follow, let alone take notice.
--snip--