Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

To be frank, I think the QE mechanism and the ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) of the Fed have essentially just created inflation in assets, but not yielded any tangible benefits from a fundamental standpoint.Some may disagree, but my assertion has always been that the problems we are experiencing in the past 15 years are almost solely the fault of the Federal Reserve. In the Greenspan era, he started this notion of stepping in aggressively at the slightest hint of recession. (Despite his so-called Ayn Rand views on 'Free Markets') As a result, his loose money policy set the stage for the dot com bubble of the 90s. When that burst in 2000, the subsequent recession should have been more severe. However, Greenspan did what was unprecedented at the time and dropped the prime lending rate to 1%. And he kept it there for far too long. This basically created ANOTHER disconnect and culminated in the housing bubble and the financial crisis.The solution to the most recent Great Recession was to once again throw easy money at the problem. Now, we dropped interest rates to zero and started the QE mechanism. The result? Same as before. We now have another disconnect between fundamentals and asset prices.What does this mean for the future? Hard to say and no one knows the end result. But my suspicion is that interest rates will stay low because we will likely be on the verge of another downturn and subsequent recession.The frightening prospect in this circumstance is that the Fed basically has no ammunition left. They have little to no room to maneuver on the prime lending rate. The situation in China, Europe and the current oil glut are all out of their hands. What that may mean is that the USA goes into a multi-decade 'malaise' similar to what occurred in Japan. Some are now basically saying the Fed is just a passenger at this stage and Sir Isaac Newton is in the drivers seat.And I can't say I would be surprised at that result. Japan had a massive asset bubble in stocks and housing. To unwind those sorts of disconnects, most central banks try to spread the pain over a longer time frame. The downside is that if the disconnect was sufficiently large, that 'unwinding' can take a VERY long time.Regarding the size of the disconnect resulting from Greenspan, when he took his Fed Chair position, the DOW JONES was hovering right around 2000. It peaked in 2000/2001 at around 11000. That is a 14% y-o-y return which is unheard of in stocks over their average. For the most part, stocks will return 6-8% y-o-y returns in a nominal market over a wide time frame. So he almost double that.One final note on the Greenspan era is that he set the precedent for the morale hazard we saw in 2008 when the investment and commercial banks were essentially 'bailed out'. For those that may not be aware, in 1998, we had a massive problem manifest with the Asian credit crisis. At the time, a particular outfit named 'Long Term Capital Management' had a tremendous amount of exposure to Asian debt. They basically were bankrupt and their downfall would have taken several investment banks with them. Greenspan stepped in and provided Fed 'assistance' to shore up the downside. While LTCM went under, the contagion did not spread to other investment banks. Oh, and as a little anecdote, anyone care to guess which investment bank was the most over-exposed to LTCM? *drum roll* Lehman Brothers. :-)In the end, perhaps Yellen will surprise me. But I am not optimistic. Unless we get a Fed Chairman like Volcker, my suspicion is that we are in for some very uncertain and choppy waters for years to come.

I cannot make these numbers work. Did you err here?

I used an online calculator. But I believe I did it right. I can do it in sequence over 13 years as follows:Start amount: 2000 (utilizing 14% annual return)
2000 x 1.14 = 2280
2280 x 1.14 = 2599
2599 x 1.14 = 2963
2963 x 1.14 = 3377
3377 x 1.14 = 3850
3850 x 1.14 = 4389
4389 x 1.14 = 5004
5004 x 1.14 = 5704
5704 x 1.14 = 6503
6503 x 1.14 = 7414
7414 x 1.14 = 8452
8452 x 1.14 = 9635
9635 x 1.14 = 10984Let me know if you spot something amiss with my math. Being so dependent on Excel nowadays, it wouldn't surprise me if my basic math skills have atrophied.

errorEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

err.

Trump is to duck out of the next Republican debate in order to spend more time looking for his balls.Fox News has issued a statement (I'm not making this up): Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The Historical Rate of Return for the Stock Market Since 1900 | Not unheard of. According to the link given above, the highest rate of return for a decade was during the 1950s.I agree that the Fed is running out of management tools. But I also think you are failing to spread the blame for the 2008 to all of the guilty parties.

Iowa
Clinton gets about 43%
Sanders gets 55% or 56%ThenNew Hampshire
Sanders gets about 60%
Clinton fails to get 40%

Lamark, I don't think that Hillary gets what likeability means. She's a very nice person and she can be funny and also serious and the works; but it seems as if for most people she still is not a very likeable person. She should have given it up after her attempt in 2008.She's probably got the best policies in the world and she is extremely intelligent, and whatever, but she won't be elected.Her husband doesn't seem to have been very intelligent, but he got elected twice. Not because of his policies, but because he's likeable.After all, very stupid people can be elected to be US President if they are likeable. Bush the second is an example. It just boils down to personalities. Hillary just doesn't have that likeable personality, even though she is extremely intelligent and can sort a lot of things out without much effort from her part.

I think Bush II was a lot smarter than he pretended to be.Hillary drives people crazy because she attacks the crap out of her opponents (often quite dishonestly, such as her attacks on single-payer), then complains at the smallest attack on her. The public simply can't stand her. Her negatives are like 55%. Amazing that she is even a contender with negatives like that. But she is a ferocious attacker of her opponents.I think her b.s. about Bernie "going after Obama's healthcare, "he will end ObamaCare", ... "I can't believe I have to defend ObamaCare in a Democratic primary", is going to blow up in her face.Only about 20% of voters under 45 only support her in Iowa.Her strong opposition to single-payer hasn't been so obvious until now. Now voters will have a clear choice, with Bernie in the race (and Clinton loudly aiming at him, by tearing down on his single-payer plan, via distortion)

Notice that the "news" out of the last town hall meeting (where each candidate was on the stage independently and asked different questions, different attitude loaded questions) is that Bernie said "Will we raise taxes, yes we will ... " while ignoring that he said that you in effect get a tax rebate by not having to pay your private insurance premium for a net benefit for people earning under $250,000/yr.They GOP candidates are also talking about a 90% tax bracket, when the top bracket proposed is 52%: Included in those taxes is universal health care, so lower income families will save by the amount of their private corporation health care plans.This is still lower than the tax brackets under Eisenhower.But the media pundits (like the "moderator" Cuomo for the town hall) would see their taxes increase, so that is what they report rather than the actual facts.Enjoy

Yea but you got to understand the republican voters or soon to haves, don't want to have high taxes when they become rich.

You mean the ones making $18,000 a year and thinking they will win the lottery sooner or later? The people that have voted against their own interest for all their lives because daddy was a republican?

'Let's Drag Veterans Into Our Gross Spectacle,' Said Some GOP Candidates

She's about as likeable as a rabid honey badger. Yes, she should have given up, but if you know anything about her, her whole life is about this moment. Her "marriage" to Bill was a political alliance, not a genuine marriage. It's an understanding they both have and serves as an expedient to getting what they want. I think she has terrible, heavy-handed policies. She's barely reminiscent of a Democrat because she's so hawkish.The bottom line is that she comes across as shrewd, manipulative, and a liar who would stab you in the back if it benefitted her in some way.