Thursday, November 24, 2005
Today's news also forces me to remember -- against my will, to be sure -- the tradition at the New York Times of linking short term swings in the financial markets -- at least when they are negative -- to the policies of the Bush administration. On April 16, 2005, for example, the Times ran a front page story with the headline "Stocks plunge to lowest point since election," suggesting that it was the election that had something to do with the "plunge."
We eagerly await the front page story with this headline: "Stocks soar to highest point since before September 11, 2001". We're fairly sure, however, that we won't see it in the Times.
My own little piece here is my holdings in the Baron Asset Fun is up 17.02% this year which includes an almost 5% disbursement for gains/dividends/etc posted on 11/22/2005. Third Avenue Value is doing a little worse at 6.86% and the Fidelity Select Natural Gas Fund is up 12.59%.
So I guess I am not one of those who have been left behind.
Small Print Disclaimer: This info is not meant as an endorsement of any investment style or product. It is just my own experience with the products mentioned. Call it a review. Do your own research or call an investment advisor before investing.
President Clinton was the first person I heard say this (a paraphrase): "When something bad happens, they think I was up all night planning it. When something good happens, it was in spite of me."
But you're right. The NYT will never say anything that reflects positively on the Bush admininstration.
More here on liberal blame-Bush views of the stock market and why they are wrong.
If one believes that the President has enough control over the economy to send the stock market up and down, then, bearing in mind the falling market he inherited from Clinton and the impact of September 11th, Bush has done an excellent job. In fact, virtually all of the post-October 2002 recovery in the market has occurred since we invaded Iraq in early 2003.
My thought as I bypassed the mall/Best-buy chaos at 6:20 am was "how can this get spun negatively?" Heck, the parking lots were jammed like pre-Katrina school bus lots.
Then I realized the economy was SO bad, these folks couldn't afford those 3D X-boxes and Oprah 20th anniversary dvds UNLESS they left their homes at 5 am.
At least I think that's what the ABC Radio lead story said...
The stock market's performance is especially strong considering the downward pressure that the fed raising interests rates and the energy inflation has put on it.
My favorite though is that "buy and hold value" super investor Warren Buffet (aka mini-soros, at least politically) has lost almost a Billion dollars betting against the strength of the dollar.
Perhaps if our politicians had to suffer in an analogous fashion for thier mistaken positions our government would be more "efficient" at serving its' citizens.
The Iraq war was the big turning point for the market. It had been apparent to me that the market was in a holding pattern waiting to see what was going to happen. I jumped in with both feet a week before the invasion pretty confident that one way or another an end to the waiting would be great for the market. I could get used to being that right on a regular basis.
Anonymous - Why no, Bush deserves no praise because low inflation growth without tax increases are just so common in wartime. Losing an american city and having positive economic growth is such a nonachievement that it's not surprising that Democrats aren't mentioning it.