You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
paper for people who still want to believe in fairy tales, free & fair markets & other fantasies.
- Thread starter rtw
- Start date
Do they have charts of major indexes where they do not rebalance and take out the losers?
I think if you were to plot the Dow Jones over the last 100 years or even lesser periods and kept those downhill stocks in the calculation, it would certainly paint a different picture, like negative returns.
Rebalancing the Dow Jones is a hocus pocus operation that has been going on for decades and skews the results by a huge factor. When you remove the losers and leave just the winners in, then add new better stocks the charts will show you a never ending rise of the Dow Jones thru the years! If they left the losers in, we would see the Dow Jones cratering down and losing huge sums in the process! That is the reality of it! A number of those stocks have gone bankrupt!
this is well known to everyone except the most naive and inexperienced.the charts will show you a never ending rise of the Dow Jones
buying an index fund would then be the smartest way to invest money......for the long term..trading is and always will be, a highly subjective and treacherous affair
Rebalancing the Dow Jones is a hocus pocus operation that has been going on for decades and skews the results by a huge factor. When you remove the losers and leave just the winners in, then add new better stocks the charts will show you a never ending rise of the Dow Jones thru the years! If they left the losers in, we would see the Dow Jones cratering down and losing huge sums in the process! That is the reality of it! A number of those stocks have gone bankrupt!
+1
Due to its price-weighting, the DJIA can be likened to a Bell Curve. Removing the low end, produces a new, higher, low end. It's that simple.
Funny, the schools I went to discussed economics quite a lot, using a standard set of definitions and terms and standard sets of data to back up those terms. Yours? You stated "the real economy of the world has gone nowhere", which is categorically false. You did not state "the number of full time jobs with benefits that pay middle class wages" has gone nowhere. That's a very different thing. Nor did you claim that salaried worker wages have stagnated or that debt has somehow gotten "worse", although you're pretty vague on that.hilarious. this member urgently needs to go back to primary school to learn the very important skill of reading comprehension.
- in 2009 the s&p bottomed somewhere around 900 points, by 2018 it has consistently been trading above 2,700 points.
- meanwhile, in the usa there are pretty much the same number of full time jobs with benefits that pay middle class wages in 2018 than there were in 2007 before the previous stupid financial bubble burst (around 71 million). this even when the working age and total population of the usa has increased significantly over this period. the very infantile charts you shared say nothing about labor force participation rates nor about entrepreneurship and creation of businesses since 2009, ¿do they?.
- ¿what about wages? ¿have wages been increasing significantly to afford salaried workers higher standards of living anywhere in the world since 2009?
- ¿what about debt? ¿is there anything positive to say about what has happened with all kinds of debt since 2007?
things were horrendous in 2007, debt was unpayable and the stupid financial bubble that the stupid fed inflated after 2001 burst and permanently impacted the lives of pretty much everyone in the planet. after 2009, central banks have managed to make everything much worse and unpayable debt was more than doubled in the last decade. but hey, if the s&p has tripled since 2009 boneheads will want to believe everything must be going great.
If your definition of "real economy" is salaried workers wages and employment, plus some fuzzy debt number, then you've got a different definition than anyone who actually studies this for a living, but let's go with that much different claim. Clearly the actual GDP per person is steadily increasing. If that hasn't gone to salaried workers, it's because more and more is going to the top 1% of the population. The only way in history that's ever been fixed is through government intervention or revolution. So you're actually arguing for more government intervention (or a revolution, not sure which?).