Okay.
You’re a dishonest sack of shit.
That was easy.
When you take the recent meltdown into acount over the past 40 years bonds have outperformed stocks. If you’d invested in tocks for 40 years and were now retiring you’d have seen a huge chunk of your wealth wiped out overnight. You’d have been better off putting your money in the bank, and you don’t make 10% with a savings account.
In what way am I dishonest?
No. It’s not. That chart does not show what you think it shows.
That chart measures price over time. What we are talking about is total return. These are totally different things, as the former does not measure return.
I have corrected your embarrassingly basic math misconceptions, and provided you several examples of exactly what you have asked for in terms of proof.
You have responded with charts that do not say what you say they are saying, and your attempt to change the time horizon seems dishonest to me.
Here’s pretty much the same thing over 15 years explained so even you can follow it :
I’m a bit confused here. Happily, it is a condition I am familiar with.
Would both spitting cobras kindly explain how their mutually contradictory scenario respond to such developments as the Recent Unpleasantness? To the untrained eye, it would seem that a person who invested for about 40 years in the usual things the small investor is drawn to…he might well have done all right if the cashed in his portfolio a year or so ago, and not so great now.
Seems as I recall such, like weeping and gnashing of teeth from ordinary folk who followed such a retirement formula. Were they making shit up?
In which case it seems to me that Ms Rosie Scenario has some 'splainin to do. Why, for instance, might I assume a recovery in investments to status quo buttbuck? And mustn’t I assume that steps have been made or are being made to ensure this sort of greed-soaked clusterfuck doesn’t never ever happen again?
Oh, I understand it. I’ve been in the Financial services industry for over 20 years, been a trader, portfolio manager, institutional salesman, to name a few of my positions.
The question you posed though was not 15 years. It was 30 years. Which is why I think you look dishonest on top of ignorant. Trying to change the terms of an argument after you’ve lost it is fundamentally dishonest.
In spite of that, I will give you a point because your chart is actually measuring what you think it is measuring. That makes you 1-3 in this regard.
Really though, it does little to support your argument. That chart shows that even after having gone through the worst bear market since the Great Epizootic of 1875, one would have still achieved a positive rate of return while investing at the worst possible time.
Your chart actually demonstrates the following:
The high standard deviation of the S&P 500 is justified versus the riskless rate of return (as measured by your proxy, cds) over a fifteen year time horizon, due to the relative minimal relative cost in a worst case scenario.
You could confirm this by showing rolling fifteen year periods for the previous 100 years. Of the 85 possible scenarios that would draw you would see that the five or six where the riskless rate exceeds the equity rate were inevitable followed by an extreme in the other direction as returns reverted to the mean.
It was actually 40 years, the link I posted makes the same point over 40 years too, bonds outperforming stocks, so I’m not changing any terms of any argument, just tryiong to explain it in a way you can understand it.
I’d like to get back to discussing the explosion of wealth heading for the top 1% and especially the top 0.1% over the past 30 years.
You’ve asked a truly excellent question.
The problem is this. You’ve probably heard the 10% number as a return for stocks thrown around quite a bit. Probably, so much so, that you think their might be something to it.
Scratching your head though you probably remember that the market was higher 12 years ago in 1997 than it was now, and you’re probably wondering how a negative return over 12 years relates to an average return of 10%
Is that a fair restatement?
The answer is this:
Since 1924, the market has averaged 10%. During that same time frame there have only been 4 years where it has returned within 2% of that number.
I’ll say that differently:
There have only been 4 calendar years since 1924 where the market has earned between 8 and 12%.
So, while the 10% number is accurate, it is not representative. Most of the time throughout history we are either way ahead, or way behind the average. When you think of the market averaging 10% you probably think of a nice steady inclined line while in fact it is a series of jagged peaks and precipices.
Historically, a long term underperformance in equities like we are currently undergoing represents a “low” as in “Buy low, sell high.” And a long term overperformance like we had in '99 represents a “high.”
Now some argue that America’s economic leadership is a thing of the past, and it may be different this time. Maybe. Maybe not. That’s a different argument.
Again, excellent question. I hope the answer helped.
It says “1994-2008.” In what way is that 40 years?
And, it’s not bonds, you ignorant twit, it’s CDs.
While we’re on the subject of CDs, they’re a stupid ass measure compared to tbills because CD rates vary so much in any given environment and are impossible to measure in a statistically meaningful aggregate. At any given point in time one CD from Bank A might pay 2% while one from Bank B might pay 4% based on their relative need for deposits, loss reserves, banking reserves, the lending environment, and a host of other factors. So, there is no such thing as a constant CD rate that can be measured. They are either making it up, or picking an average from what they guess is some representative banks.
Because of this people who know what they are talking about use tbills to measure the riskless return. In fact, looking at that chart of yours the return for the CDs looks suspiciously like the one for tbills, so I’d bet Research Associates just used tbills as a proxy for CDs.
So, I was being nice by accepting your chart at face value when in fact it is pretty bullshit.
Though not as bullshit as claiming 1994-2008 is 40 years you lying piece of sack of crap slut traschcan dirtbag scummisst bitch.
No doubt, but it’s customary to concede your current defeat before you proceed to your next ass-whupping.
Those days are long gone. Nowadays they are in the business of creating money. Bankers, Wall Street gamblers and the Financial experts created incredible wealth and no product what so ever. How conservatives can not see the world has changed for the benefit of the rich, is beyond me.
I’m happy to let anybody who can read click the link, click through to the other links and decide which of us got his arse kicked here. 
Why would you want to do that, when I have repeatedly cited data showing that wealth has NOT exploded for the top 1%? Is this some form of the ‘big lie’, where you keep repeating it hoping it will stick?
For everyone reading this who thinks there might be an iota of truth in what Dick is saying, here’s the raw data:
Year Share of wealth held by the top 1%
1922 36.70%
1929 44.20%
1933 33.30%
1939 36.40%
1945 29.80%
1949 27.10%
1953 31.20%
1962 31.80%
1965 34.40%
1969 31.10%
1972 29.10%
1976 19.90%
1979 20.50%
1981 24.80%
1983 30.90%
1986 31.90%
1989 35.70%
1992 37.20%
1995 38.50%
1998 38.10%
2001 33.40%
2004 34.30%
2006 32.70%
Notice just how special the period between 1976 and 2000 is - it’s a period of anomalous low - an outlier. The cause of this anomaly was the combination of high inflation and low growth that really kicked asset holders in the teeth. This is why Mr. Dastardly chose to measure his scary wealth increase starting from this period. Had he started from ANY of the 22 dates on the chart other than what he picked, the result would not support his case.
What why he was lying with statistics.
I clicked on those links. So far 2 out of the 3 links you’ve shown do not say what you say they say.
No doubt your reluctance is because you don’t wish to make it 3 out of 4.
(You totally suck at this.)
One question: how do you type?
Let’s look at the statistics you’re usuing to make your claim about wealth and top earners. You got them from this site :
and that guy, a psycologist, got them from this guy as he says here in your linky:
Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2007).
Now I googled this Wolff guy to see what basis he has for commenting on wealth etc. and it turns out he’s pretty qualified. He’s written books and articles on the subject and is managing editor of the Review of Income and Wealth. And it turns out he agrees with me and not with you!
Here’s a sample of his thoughts on wealth and the distribution of income over the past 30 odd years :
MM: What have been the trends of wealth inequality over the last 25 years?
Wolff: We have had a fairly sharp increase in wealth inequality dating back to 1975 or 1976.
Prior to that, there was a protracted period when wealth inequality fell in this country, going back almost to 1929. So you have this fairly continuous downward trend from 1929, which of course was the peak of the stock market before it crashed, until just about the mid-1970s. Since then, things have really turned around, and the level of wealth inequality today is almost double what it was in the mid-1970s.
Income inequality has also risen. Most people date this rise to the early 1970s, but it hasn’t gone up nearly as dramatically as wealth inequality.
MM: What portion of the wealth is owned by the upper groups?
Wolff: The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth.
In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.
The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth.
This is a very concentrated distribution.
MM: Where does that leave the bottom tiers?
Wolff: The bottom 20 percent basically have zero wealth. They either have no assets, or their debt equals or exceeds their assets. The bottom 20 percent has typically accumulated no savings.
A household in the middle — the median household — has wealth of about $62,000. $62,000 is not insignificant, but if you consider that the top 1 percent of households’ average wealth is $12.5 million, you can see what a difference there is in the distribution.
MM: What kind of distribution of wealth is there for the different asset components?
Wolff: Things are even more concentrated if you exclude owner-occupied housing. It is nice to own a house and it provides all kinds of benefits, but it is not very liquid. You can’t really dispose of it, because you need some place to live.
The top 1 percent of families hold half of all non-home wealth.
The middle class’s major assets are their home, liquid assets like checking and savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, and pension accounts. For the average family, these assets make up 84 percent of their total wealth.
The richest 10 percent of families own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks. They own about 85 percent of all financial securities, 90 percent of all business assets. These financial assets and business equity are even more concentrated than total wealth.
MM: A couple years ago there was a great deal of talk of the democratization of the stock market. Is that reflected in these figures, or was it an illusion?
Wolff: I would say it was more of an illusion. What did happen is that the percentage of households with some ownership of stocks, including mutual funds and pension accounts like 401(k)s, did go up very dramatically over the last 20 years. In 1983, only 32 percent of households had some ownership of stock.
By 2001, the share was 51 percent. So there has been much more widespread stock ownership, in terms of number of families.
But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market. In 2001, only 32 percent of households owned more than $10,000 of stock, and only 25 percent of households owned more than $25,000 worth of stock.
So a lot of these new stock owners have had relatively small holdings of stock. There hasn’t been much dilution in the share of stock owned by the richest 1 or 10 percent. Stock ownership is still heavily concentrated among rich families. The richest 10 percent own 85 percent of all stock.
As a result, the stock market boom of the 1990s disproportionately benefited rich families. There were some gains by middle class families, but their average stock holdings were too small to make much difference in their overall wealth.
MM: Apart from the absolute level of wealth of people at the bottom of the spectrum, why should inequality itself be a matter of concern?
Wolff: I think there are two rationales. The first is basically a moral or ethical position. A lot of people think it is morally bad for there to be wide gaps, wide disparities in well being in a society.
If that is not convincing to a person, the second reason is that inequality is actually harmful to the well-being of a society. There is now a lot of evidence, based on cross-national comparisons of inequality and economic growth, that more unequal societies actually have lower rates of economic growth. The divisiveness that comes out of large disparities in income and wealth, is actually reflected in poorer economic performance of a country.
Typically when countries are more equal, educational achievement and benefits are more equally distributed in the country. In a country like the United States, there are still huge disparities in resources going to education, so quality of schooling and schooling performance are unequal. If you have a society with large concentrations of poor families, average school achievement is usually a lot lower than where you have a much more homogenous middle class population, as you find in most Western European countries. So schooling suffers in this country, and, as a result, you get a labor force that is less well educated on average than in a country like the Netherlands, Germany or even France. So the high level of inequality results in less human capital being developed in this country, which ultimately affects economic performance.
and so on
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
So even your cite agrees with me.
I’m happy to let anybody with the ability to read look at those links and decide for themselves which of us sucks at this.
Huh, that does seem pretty damning. Wasn’t somebody saying something about lying with statistics earlier?