General warning to users...

saddlebag <saddlebag RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 1:03 am, ~kurt <actinouran... RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> The NASDAQ was way overpriced a decade ago.
>
> What makes it properly priced now?

I already answered that - a more reasonable price to earnings ratio.
As I said, so many tech stocks were so overpriced compared to their
earnings, they coined the term "new economy stocks", because the old
rules didn't apply to them. Talk about arrogance. People got what
they deserved. Investing - managing your own stock portfolio - takes
research and work. Any idiot could just throw money at the market back
then and make a buck - what is the fun in that. That is why I prefer
Futures. It is a zero sum market - for every buck I make, I take it
*out* of someone elses pocket.

> I was skeptical the whole run, but at some point you have to hop that
> train. I was never an "investor," but it wasn't unusual for me to buy

I lost out a lot because I was concentrating on trading Futures at the
time. I should have put all my energy into what was "in" at the time.

- Kurt
 >> Stay informed about: General warning to users... 

On Oct 3, 10:23 pm, ~kurt <actinouran....TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote:
> saddlebag <saddle....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 3, 1:03 am, ~kurt <actinouran....TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> The NASDAQ was way overpriced a decade ago.
>
> > What makes it properly priced now?
>
> I already answered that - a more reasonable price to earnings ratio.

Earnings? None of them had earnings back then. People were paying
for "eyeballs." Funny stuff for sure, but the 90s was loaded with
freebies in addition to money flowing like rain in the PacNW.

Still, my point was that there is no right or wrong value. Something
is worth what someone else will pay for it. Personally, I wouldn't
pay a football player $20k/yr, but my persoanl valuation has no effect
on the actual market.
 >> Stay informed about: General warning to users... 

On Oct 4, 5:02 am, saddlebag <saddle....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 10:23 pm, ~kurt <actinouran....DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > saddlebag <saddle....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 3, 1:03 am, ~kurt <actinouran....DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > >> The NASDAQ was way overpriced a decade ago.
>
> > > What makes it properly priced now?
>
> > I already answered that - a more reasonable price to earnings ratio.
>
> Earnings? None of them had earnings back then. People were paying
> for "eyeballs." Funny stuff for sure, but the 90s was loaded with
> freebies in addition to money flowing like rain in the PacNW.
>
> Still, my point was that there is no right or wrong value. Something
> is worth what someone else will pay for it. Personally, I wouldn't
> pay a football player $20k/yr, but my persoanl valuation has no effect
> on the actual market.

Yup. Suspension of disbelief is a powerful force in economics, as
well as cinema. The masses "buy" their heroes these days, and you end
up with million dollar NFL players.

I wonder how much our paper dollars would be worth if the public
really understood the degree of our nation's debt, and the fact that
the gold standard was quietly swept under the rug years ago. US
Stocks have always seemed speculative to me, but so long as we
maintain military domination I guess it will continue for a while yet.
 >> Stay informed about: General warning to users... 

On Oct 4, 11:15 am, Vaughn <vbra... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 5:02 am, saddlebag <saddle... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 10:23 pm, ~kurt <actinouran... DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > saddlebag <saddle... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 3, 1:03 am, ~kurt <actinouran... DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> The NASDAQ was way overpriced a decade ago.
>
> > > > What makes it properly priced now?
>
> > > I already answered that - a more reasonable price to earnings ratio.
>
> > Earnings? None of them had earnings back then. People were paying
> > for "eyeballs." Funny stuff for sure, but the 90s was loaded with
> > freebies in addition to money flowing like rain in the PacNW.
>
> > Still, my point was that there is no right or wrong value. Something
> > is worth what someone else will pay for it. Personally, I wouldn't
> > pay a football player $20k/yr, but my persoanl valuation has no effect
> > on the actual market.
>
> Yup. Suspension of disbelief is a powerful force in economics, as
> well as cinema. The masses "buy" their heroes these days, and you end
> up with million dollar NFL players.
>
> I wonder how much our paper dollars would be worth if the public
> really understood the degree of our nation's debt, and the fact that
> the gold standard was quietly swept under the rug years ago. US
> Stocks have always seemed speculative to me, but so long as we
> maintain military domination I guess it will continue for a while yet.

Unlikely. We don't have the manpower and have outsourced most all of
our ability to build things. Our best hope is a Mexican invasion.
Plenty of small bodied young'uns who'd be hard to target and the older
ones work hard and inexpensively.
 >> Stay informed about: General warning to users... 

Vaughn <vbrandt DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I wonder how much our paper dollars would be worth if the public
> really understood the degree of our nation's debt, and the fact that

Do you? The ratio of our public debt to GDP is on the order of 65%. This
country has a $13 trillion dollar a year economy. Before people go freaking
about being $6 trillion in debt, or going $500 billion more in debt every
year from the Iraq thing, they need to remember this, and give thought
to the ratio of their own earnings to debt ratio....

You will find our debt to GDP is not uncommon for developed countries.

Go look up Japan's debt to GDP ratio. They are having some problems (and
these guys were all the rage in the 80's - the country that was going to
bring the US to its knees).

> the gold standard was quietly swept under the rug years ago. US
> Stocks have always seemed speculative to me, but so long as we
> maintain military domination I guess it will continue for a while yet.

Stock values are based completely an agreement in price between buyers
and sellers. But, there is a sense of overvalued and undervalued
based on the profits a company can make.

- Kurt
 >> Stay informed about: General warning to users... 

"saddlebag" <saddlebag.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1191448039.999778.151550@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 30, 5:11 pm, "D" <d....RemoveThis@d.DDD> wrote:
>> "saddlebag" <saddle....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1191182887.321352.236740@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 30, 1:34 pm, ~kurt <actinouran....RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> saddlebag <saddle....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:

>> > Most people today wouldn't have the house I grew up in for a garage.
>> > I feel no pity for them being house poor.
>>
>> Yup, and sometimes folks buy their house when they're DINKs and don't
>> realize one day they might become SITCOMs.
>
> You had me on that one. I thought it might be an All in the Family
> joke.
>

So you got it? I didn't realize how good I had it as a dink. What about
All in the Family? You mean dingbat?
 >> Stay informed about: General warning to users... 

TroytheTroll wrote:
>> And everyone who replied to you essentially reposted it. Try googling
>> it with the dashes. You might be surprised at the hits.
>>
>
> I'll try that.

note: catching up with old posts after almost month without USENET

I created once a very unique e-mail address on gmail,
and to may surprise next day first thing I found in my mailbox was a
spam .... I never used that e-mail before, just created it.

--
A.
 >> Stay informed about: General warning to users...