kathaksung
Under Surveillance
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 0
8. The game is who will be the potential loser (7/19/05)
So what. One tactic agents used to use is to disguise as a foreigner and as a female. So people would think they were neutrol and unbiased. They sometimes prefer to use such names such like Lodonsusan, or Canadalady. To take the advantage in debate.
----------
8. The game is who will be the potential loser (7/19/05)
First of all. People should recognize the difference between average return of stock market and average return of stock investors?
The Dalbar research gave you the result: In latest 20 years, 1985 to 2004, (2005 not finished yet).
Average investor's yearly return: 3.7%. (ordinary people)
Average S&P 500 index yearly return: 13.2% (stock price gain)
Get clear the idea of "average investor" and what happened to the difference between 3.7% and 13.2%.
Nobody deny the high return of stock market, only it belongs to special interest group not ordinary people.
I emphysize the average investor's return: 3.7%. Because S.S. is about the interest for ordinary people - the average tax payer, not for the special interest group. And my equation tells where the money went.
37 (average investors gain in 10 years) + 95 (special interest group gain in 10 years) + 100 (capital gain of S&P company) = 232 (price paid by potential loser after 10 years)
This is how Bush and his S.S. war room show to people:
132 (total profit made in 10 years) + 100 (capital gain of S&P company) = 232 (price paid by potential loser after 10 years)
They mix average investor with special interest group.
And this is how ordinary people got in stock market in latest 20 years, almost nothing (in mutual fund) or a loss (401k in Nebraska). A rare data leaking from government censorship net.
Bush and his group only blow the trumpet on that 13.2 but leave the "3.7 and loss" alone.
One thing very important is this took place in a rising stock market. Investor should have a rich profit, yet the result is poor. Where the profit came from? Stock market won't create wealth. It came from potential loser. From 232 paid by new buyer.
In the chart of S&P 500 index, we can see there are two obvious expanding period. The index rose from about 200 to 500 in 15 years. (1980 to 1994) This is the time when pension fund and IRA introduced into the market. And index rose from about 500 to 1200 in 10 years (1995 to 2004). It reflects that how the investment fund baloons the price of stock market.
I made a rough metaphor to make it easy to understand: The original invetor had a stock worth $200 for 30 years, then government introduced a new buyer, Pension and IRA. Pension and IRA paid $500 in 15 years and had the stock price being $500 in 1994. To make market a prosperous one, government found another big buyer, 401(k). 401(k) is a rich man, in 10 years, he raised the market by $700 to $1200. 401(k) now has no extra money to raise the market. (401k paid $1200) G(government) promised it can double in 10 years. But who has that much money to double the price to $2400? G now is in a hurry, the only one he can find is S.S.. S.S. has that ability to boost the stock market, but the problem is 10 years later, when S.S. intends to sell the stock, who has that much money $4800 to take over the hot potato? After all there will be an end. That's how a potential flood developing into a tsunami.
Bush doesn't care. What he wants is at current he and his group can make money. He borrows to pay the bill. (He cut tax by issuing national bond, you people pay it later) He spends at your debt. When crisis break out, he is not a Presidnet any more. Or even he is not alive then. Young people will bear the loss.
CptStern said:
So what. One tactic agents used to use is to disguise as a foreigner and as a female. So people would think they were neutrol and unbiased. They sometimes prefer to use such names such like Lodonsusan, or Canadalady. To take the advantage in debate.
----------
8. The game is who will be the potential loser (7/19/05)
First of all. People should recognize the difference between average return of stock market and average return of stock investors?
The Dalbar research gave you the result: In latest 20 years, 1985 to 2004, (2005 not finished yet).
Average investor's yearly return: 3.7%. (ordinary people)
Average S&P 500 index yearly return: 13.2% (stock price gain)
Get clear the idea of "average investor" and what happened to the difference between 3.7% and 13.2%.
Nobody deny the high return of stock market, only it belongs to special interest group not ordinary people.
I emphysize the average investor's return: 3.7%. Because S.S. is about the interest for ordinary people - the average tax payer, not for the special interest group. And my equation tells where the money went.
37 (average investors gain in 10 years) + 95 (special interest group gain in 10 years) + 100 (capital gain of S&P company) = 232 (price paid by potential loser after 10 years)
This is how Bush and his S.S. war room show to people:
132 (total profit made in 10 years) + 100 (capital gain of S&P company) = 232 (price paid by potential loser after 10 years)
They mix average investor with special interest group.
And this is how ordinary people got in stock market in latest 20 years, almost nothing (in mutual fund) or a loss (401k in Nebraska). A rare data leaking from government censorship net.
Bush and his group only blow the trumpet on that 13.2 but leave the "3.7 and loss" alone.
One thing very important is this took place in a rising stock market. Investor should have a rich profit, yet the result is poor. Where the profit came from? Stock market won't create wealth. It came from potential loser. From 232 paid by new buyer.
In the chart of S&P 500 index, we can see there are two obvious expanding period. The index rose from about 200 to 500 in 15 years. (1980 to 1994) This is the time when pension fund and IRA introduced into the market. And index rose from about 500 to 1200 in 10 years (1995 to 2004). It reflects that how the investment fund baloons the price of stock market.
I made a rough metaphor to make it easy to understand: The original invetor had a stock worth $200 for 30 years, then government introduced a new buyer, Pension and IRA. Pension and IRA paid $500 in 15 years and had the stock price being $500 in 1994. To make market a prosperous one, government found another big buyer, 401(k). 401(k) is a rich man, in 10 years, he raised the market by $700 to $1200. 401(k) now has no extra money to raise the market. (401k paid $1200) G(government) promised it can double in 10 years. But who has that much money to double the price to $2400? G now is in a hurry, the only one he can find is S.S.. S.S. has that ability to boost the stock market, but the problem is 10 years later, when S.S. intends to sell the stock, who has that much money $4800 to take over the hot potato? After all there will be an end. That's how a potential flood developing into a tsunami.
Bush doesn't care. What he wants is at current he and his group can make money. He borrows to pay the bill. (He cut tax by issuing national bond, you people pay it later) He spends at your debt. When crisis break out, he is not a Presidnet any more. Or even he is not alive then. Young people will bear the loss.
