The Dow Jones Industrial Average

[tinfoil]

And, SF, I'm still quite interested in your explanation as to why the SEC made the rule change in 2004 with respect to leverage ratios at the big investment banks if Gramm Leach Bliley already allowed them to carry such high leverage ratios.

Probably because whoever was in charge was an ex-Goldman Sachs executive

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yes, the CONCEPT is the same. But there was actual real growth under Clinton and the correction when the tech bubble burst was mild. So Clinton gets credit for the growth during his tenure less the correction which still equals tremendous growth. For Bush, once you factor in the correction, the result is a lost 8 years of little to no growth whatsoever.

I wouldn't exactly call having my average annual salary for my IT sector cut in half 'mild'.

 

[The Dude]

I wouldn't exactly call having my average annual salary for my IT sector cut in half 'mild'.

I would call it lucky and uneducated cable guy moron like you survived the recession with a job.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I would call it lucky and uneducated cable guy moron like you survived the recession with a job.

you also call long haired hippy tech geeks 'KKK members', but all that tells us is you're definitely retarded.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yes, the CONCEPT is the same. But there was actual real growth under Clinton and the correction when the tech bubble burst was mild. So Clinton gets credit for the growth during his tenure less the correction which still equals tremendous growth. For Bush, once you factor in the correction, the result is a lost 8 years of little to no growth whatsoever.

LMAO... the correction was 'mild'??? You half wit. It was not. As stated, the tech boom that you said was 'real growth' still has yet to recover 40% of its value from that 'mild' correction. Let's not forget that the fraud at Enron, World Com, Global Crossing, Qwest etc... ALL occurred during that 'real growth' period. Yes, when you factor in BOTH recessions, the past ten years the markets have been relatively flat. It is called a bear market.

Sider note . . . the Nasdaq is not the economy, nor is it a reasonable proxy thereof.

Side note... the housing market is not the economy nor is it a reasonable proxy thereof.

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO... the correction was 'mild'??? You half wit. It was not. As stated, the tech boom that you said was 'real growth' still has yet to recover 40% of its value from that 'mild' correction. Let's not forget that the fraud at Enron, World Com, Global Crossing, Qwest etc... ALL occurred during that 'real growth' period. Yes, when you factor in BOTH recessions, the past ten years the markets have been relatively flat. It is called a bear market.

Hilarious. The recession lasted 8 months and the total peak to trough decline in GDP was -0.3%, the smallest recessionary contraction since the Great Depression. By contrast, the most recent recession lasted 18 months and the total peak to trough decline in GDP was -5.1%, the largest contraction since 1945. The 2000 recession was indeed mild by any measure.

Side note... the housing market is not the economy nor is it a reasonable proxy thereof.

I never said or implied that it was.

By the way, still waiting for that Gramm-Leach-Bliley thing you mentioned. I'm very interested in reading about it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Hilarious. The recession lasted 8 months and the total peak to trough decline in GDP was -0.3%, the smallest recessionary contraction since the Great Depression. By contrast, the most recent recession lasted 18 months and the total peak to trough decline in GDP was -5.1%, the largest contraction since 1945. The 2000 recession was indeed mild by any measure.

Hilarious indeed. you seem to think GDP is the be all end all of determining how severe a recession affected the economy. Tell us genius... what happened during that recession? Interest rates get dramatically lowered? Credit substantially loosened up. All starting with your boy Billy Clinton. Who also repealed Glass Steagall.

I never said or implied that it was.

and I never stated the Nasdaq was either, yet you pretended I had. I was showing that the bubble in tech, like the bubble in housing, had not even come close to coming back after the respective bubble burst.

By the way, still waiting for that Gramm-Leach-Bliley thing you mentioned. I'm very interested in reading about it.

Yeah, my bad... I was thinking of the exemption of derivatives from regulation was a part of GLB. It was not. It was a separate bill in 2000. Commodity futures modernization act of 2000.

 

[Bonestorm]

Hilarious indeed. you seem to think GDP is the be all end all of determining how severe a recession affected the economy. Tell us genius... what happened during that recession? Interest rates get dramatically lowered? Credit substantially loosened up. All starting with your boy Billy Clinton. Who also repealed Glass Steagall.

No, not the be all and end all, but when you're talking about whether a recession is mild or not, total economic contraction is a good place to start. If you have some other relevant metric that shows that the 2000 recession was not at all mild on an absolute or comparative basis, I'm all ears.

And interest rates should be decreased during a recession. The problem was that interest rates were kept too low for too long. But if you look at the data, consumer credit growth didn't really change all that much. What changed is the nature of the loans. This is where subprime lending became huge. Because traditional credit was unavailable to many people, subprime lenders stepped in beginning really in 2003 and dramatically increased their lending while the regulators sat on their asses and did nothing. Clinton wasn't president in 2003.

and I never stated the Nasdaq was either, yet you pretended I had. I was showing that the bubble in tech, like the bubble in housing, had not even come close to coming back after the respective bubble burst.

We were talking about whether the 2000 recession was a mild one and you pointed to the value of the Nasdaq in support of your argument that it was not. My retort was that the Nasdaq is not the economy and, as such, whether it declined in value is not germane to the issue of whether the 2000 recession was mild. It may be one data point that you can point to in support of your argument that the 2000 recession was not mild, but standing alone it isn't terribly useful.

Yeah, my bad... I was thinking of the exemption of derivatives from regulation was a part of GLB. It was not. It was a separate bill in 2000. Commodity futures modernization act of 2000.

Yeah, I was pretty certain you were incorrect on that one. Can you give me a link to what you are talking about regarding investment bank leverage ratios and the CFMA?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yeah, I was pretty certain you were incorrect on that one. Can you give me a link to what you are talking about regarding investment bank leverage ratios and the CFMA?

do you understand what derivatives are?

If you did, I don't think you would be asking that question.

 

[Bonestorm]

do you understand what derivatives are?

If you did, I don't think you would be asking that question.

I understand what derivatives are. Can you still provide me a link for the provision of the CFMA that relates to leverage ratios for investment banks? I'm interested in the relationship between it and the SEC rule change in 2004. My sense is that the 2004 SEC rule was the crucial act that unleashed the money used to invest in derivatives as CDS exposure didn't really take off until after 2004.