Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nasdaq 4000 — This Time It's Different?

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the new-and-exciting-bubbles-to-pop dept.

The Almighty Buck 241

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes, quoting USA Today "The NASDAQ has topped 4000 for the first time in 13 years, but much has changed since then. ... Tech investors in 2000 were right about the possibilities of the Internet and mobile computing. But they were dead wrong about which companies would be in the vanguard ... The recovery of the NASDAQ has been a complex tale of creative destruction, where old companies that once fueled the index have been pushed aside by new players. Back in 2000, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Intel, Oracle, and Sun accounted for 8.9%, 8.5%, 7.1%, 3.6% and 2.6%, respectively, of the value of the NASDAQ composite. Today, companies that were just starting out or didn't even exist — think Google, Amazon, and Facebook — are in the top 10, accounting for 4.7%, 2.7% and 1.5% of NASDAQ's value. Microsoft, Cisco and Intel's weight has fallen sharply. Apple, which wasn't in the top 10 in 2000, is a behemoth at 7.9%. So is the NASDAQ enjoying a long overdue catch-up with the rest of the market, or is the broad market overpriced, with the NASDAQ being pulled along for the ride? 'The reality is that the only thing that's the same from Nasdaq 4000 in 1999 and Nasdaq 4000 in 2013,' says Doug Sandler, 'is the number 4000.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

BFD (4, Interesting)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about a year ago | (#45538027)

Adjusted for inflation the NASDAQ isn't worth any more than it was 13 years ago.

Plop Plop Splash Splash O What A Relief It Is!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538059)

Oh wow. A 18 inch lincoln log of pure fecal matter (plus bits of corn) just came out of my butt! Plus some small turdlets that are of no consequence. Thats a great big shit, dudes! The kind that bends in half when you flush it and clogs the fucking toilet. But so very satisfying! *PLOP* *SPLASH* *AHHH*

Re:Plop Plop Splash Splash O What A Relief It Is!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538073)

pics or it didn't happen.

Re:BFD (5, Informative)

dsginter (104154) | about a year ago | (#45538065)

Re:BFD (1)

blue trane (110704) | about a year ago | (#45538109)

But did they have smartphones?

Re:BFD (3, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45538157)

But did they have smartphones?

The cell phone I had in the year 2000 could memorize more phone numbers than I could; that seemed pretty smart to me for its time. There was even a camera add-on available for it.

Re:BFD (1)

mlts (1038732) | about a year ago | (#45538287)

Sorta... For some Motorola flip-phones, there was a PDA that snapped on the back which gave some primitive capabilities over an addressbook.

That is one thing I don't miss... the IT "bat belt" and carrying a cell phone, a PDA, a Blackberry (it was for text messages at the time), a satellite pager, and a MP3 player like a Nomad Jukebox. No, a smartphone isn't as good as each individually, but just one device to worry about is a lot easier than five.

Re:BFD (3, Informative)

samkass (174571) | about a year ago | (#45538421)

The Matrix came out in 1999. Remember those switchblade phones they used? That was a Nokia 8110 [] ... state of the art in 2000. The PalmOS phones wouldn't come out for a few years after that, which are arguably one of the first mass-produced "smart" phones.

Re:BFD (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year ago | (#45538781)

Surely the n9000 communicator was the real state of the art? The 8110 was a piece of crap in comparison.

Re:BFD (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#45538981) []

Yeah, x86 based too.

though, in the 55" inch tv index we have all gotten incredibly rich in the past 10 years.

Re:BFD (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538237)

I think OP meant the other direction: 4000 NASDAQ2013 bucks would have only been worth 2949.31 NASDAQ2000 bucks.

Re:BFD (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45539299)

Another way to look at it is that $4,000 today is $2,949 in the year 2000. So we are really 33% below the peak set in 2000 (in real dollars).

Considering how much tech companies have grown in those 13 years, the fact that we are still a third lower, just goes to show how badly overvalued the NASDAQ was then.


Re:BFD (1)

blue trane (110704) | about a year ago | (#45538101)

Right, you could sell your house for an inflated amount back then!! oh wait...

Quick and dirty analysis post. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538317)

This runnup is mostly QE - the Fed printing money - and also the fact that corp profits are at record levels.

But it can't continue forever. I don't see in the fundamentals how corp profits can continue their upward trend. Corp America has cut expense to the bone and getting anymore productivity increases out of their employees just won't happen.

As far as QE is concerned, that money is being borrowed by the hedge funds and other institutional investors very cheaply and funneled back into the market - among other investments like housing. But whenever "tapering" is mentioned, you always see a sell off.

But that's the market.

As far as the economy in general is concerned, we are not recovering - we are recovered. This is all there is, folks and the policy makers are too chicken shit to admit it.

So, what does that mean? As soon as corp profits slide, expect a bit of a sell off but not a crash because all of this QE has inflated asset prices Although, if interest rates spike, there could very well be a huge (20%) correction.

Re:Quick and dirty analysis post. (1)

blue trane (110704) | about a year ago | (#45539239)

There's no production capacity problem. There's a demand problem. There's no scarcity of labor. Obviously, the solution is to create money and use it to empower individuals, instead of corporations.

this is structural. and so is the solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45539581)

You can't base your economy on consumer consumption when 99% of consumers have no extra money in their pockets to spend.

Hopefully Fox can keep the plebes distracted from the growling in their bellies by getting them riled up about abortion or the prospect of some black person getting healthcare.

Quick! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538033)

Everyone into the bubble! It's never going to stop growing!

Even tho it's growing because we're cutting everything we can...

mumble mumble scam mumble bitcoin (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538051)

stifling innovation blah blah wealth gap something something system is rigged

Good news for all us have-nots!!! (5, Funny)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#45538057)

Now it's bound to trickle down to us, right?

Re:Good news for all us have-nots!!! (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45538077)

Pretty on the nose there. The headline asks "This time it's different?" The answer is "yes, this time the employees aren't seeing any of the money"

Re:Good news for all us have-nots!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538359)

Well, the CEO's sure as fuck are. Many employees have been battered down to paycheck-to-paycheck living, which means no investing and no income from things like capital gains, dividends, interest (HA!), etc. It takes money to make money, now more so than ever. I think we've passed a tipping point in the economic inequality, and it can only end badly.

Re:Good news for all us have-nots!!! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45539151)

Battered down? More like bought themselves into paycheck to paycheck living.
Need proof of this? Take a look at your neighbors. If they're anything like the typical American family today they're driving a car that is worth nearly as much as their home, both of which they're still likely making payments on unless they're in their 60s. 3-4 TV, 3-4 cable boxes, 3-4 media players, hundreds of movies that they've either never watched or watched twice and will never be seen again. Smartphones for dumb kids and 60 dollar video games that have even less ROI than the BluRays and DVDs. Big cable bills for 850 channels that never get watched. Trips to Disneyland that cost more than a year's tuition for junior to go to state college. 40 dollar t-shirts with a NFL teams name printed across it. Tablets and MP3 players that become paper weights after a year because of the flawed perception of obsolescence. Half a day's wages to watch the latest CGI frag-fest with average shot lengths under 2 seconds and music/sound that's louder than a train...
We've gone crazy is what it is. We consume like we're millionaires even thought we see the bills coming in and knowing it's not going good. But no biggie... bankruptcy is there to save us all, right?
People who blame companies for what people consume are about as insightful as people who blame spoons for obesity. Markets don't create themselves without consumers. Not in the long term anyway and certainly in no great numbers. Wasteful spending is the order of the day because people have no desire to live lives that are practical and sane.

Re: Good news for all us have-nots!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45539585)

I wish Slashdot used a comment system that allows for Up voting. Sometimes a comment is too much.

Re:Good news for all us have-nots!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538363)

What employees? All I see are ((sub-)sub-)contractors in SE Asia.

Re:Good news for all us have-nots!!! (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year ago | (#45539195)

Well yes and no.

The problem during the Tech Bubble, was the industry was Employee Driven. In order to get employees you needed to offer them a lot to get them. Hence the 6 Figure Web developers, and all this other stuff.

The bubble popped, and it became Employer driven. So the Employees want these jobs and will follow the demands of the employer.

So right now trickle down isn't working, because we still have an Employer market.
That said they are hiring more as their companies grows and that does trickle down.

Trickle down does work, but it isn't the end all be all that the republicans want you to think. Trickle down is a small factor, larger factors is good old Supply and Demand.

Re:Good news for all us have-nots!!! (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45539263)

Except that, you know, in the face of absurdly high corporate profits, employees still eat the bullet because that's made up nonsense. Trickle down never works. It has never worked. And trying just leads to abuse and human suffering.

Re:Good news for all us have-nots!!! (4, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#45539449)

I think trickle down has always been premised on the idea that rich people and CEO's would voluntarily do the right thing with their money and increased profits. It's premised on the idea that a CEO would act in the best interests of the company and invest his profits the company's long-term future--not just go for the quick short-term profit, use it to pay himself a big bonus, and then bail with his golden parachute when the long-term problems hit. It's premised on the idea that a rich individual is going to share his wealth (hiring more servants, buying more stuff, and spreading it around)--not just horde his money and be a cheapskate fuck to the illegal immigrants he hires on the cheap to do all the work around his mansion.

In other words, the premise that trickle-down is based on is complete bullshit, as has been evidenced by over three decades now in the U.S. of watching money NOT trickling down for shit.

Re:Good news for all us have-nots!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538379)

I dunno. Have you invested?

There's a lot of people who are anti-"free market" who caw on about investors making a killing and everyone else scratching at the dirt for breadcrumbs. Wouldn't it make sense to become and investor and make a killing? I've invested and while I'm not going to be driving a Bentley or flying off to Aruba in my Lear anytime soon it has paid off. There is no legal market in the US I could have invested in and made this kind of return on aside from the lottery.

That's something that has been lost to the past two or three generations of Americans... investments and savings. Granted, a savings account pays next to nothing as an investment but it's a buffer against the hard times. When some are running up a bills at 20+% interest there are others who didn't buy every new iteration of smartphone and big screen TV who are going to land on their feet in pretty short order.

Too many people are quick to cry that medical bills are bankrupting people. I wonder how many of these people who are being bankrupted had enough money to last them an extra week if this weeks pay didn't come through for some reason without having to reach for a credit card that is already probably carrying a few months worth of take-home-pay debt on it.

And as for retirement? It's a known fact that the vast majority of the working masses today aren't lined up for a serious chance at retiring by 65. This is where the other investments come in. If you're hoping that SSI and 401(k) is going to take care of things then you're seriously out of your mind or you're dumping money into your 401(k) at an astonishing rate. Not that dumping money into a 401(k) is the worst idea but a lot of would-be retirees lost their shirt over it just a decade ago. It could happen again today. For those of us who don't plan on touching the fund for a couple of decades it's not a big deal if the market takes a dip for a bit but for those who plan on retiring in the next ten years? It'd kill them.

The sad thing is that there are a lot of 30-somethings I work with who don't even bother with the 401(k) let alone anything else. 401(k) with a company matching contribution is some of the easiest money anyone can make in their lifetime and there are tons of people who aren't taking advantage of it. But, hey, who has time or money for that with 2 new consoles coming out?

While I know what you're talking about when you mock "the tickle down effect" the fact of the matter is that our grandparents didn't have that tickle down effect either. They had pensions or they invested or they worked until they died. The media has fooled you into thinking that this dynamic has changed much outside of most companies no longer offer pensions.

If you see a successful business and you're complaining about their profits instead of investing in them then you are the fool. We've become lazy mega-consumers who want things to take care of themselves instead of taking matters into our own hands. The people who fail to plan for their future deserve whatever they get for being irresposible.

Re:Good news for all us have-nots!!! (3, Insightful)

David_Hart (1184661) | about a year ago | (#45538585)

Now it's bound to trickle down to us, right?

Only if you put some skin into the game. You did invest in the stock market after the real estate crash, right?

I was fortunate enough to have some spare cash to invest. My only regret is that I didn't put more in over the last two years. It's my opinion, though, that we are near the end of the bull market. I'm thinking that interest rates will go up and the shift will be to the bond market once Quantitative Easing ends. But, I am not a professional analyst, it's just my personal opinion...

Re:Good news for all us have-nots!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45539163)

I really doubt you are a have not. Funny how most people want to claim (and take pride in announcing) to be part of this non-exclusive club.

Re:Good news for all us have-nots!!! (4, Informative)

dcw3 (649211) | about a year ago | (#45539409)

There's no reason you can't start collecting on that trickle at an early age. At 23 years old, I had $600 to my name back in '82, and on the advice of a broker (and remembering that my grandmother had invested in the same company) purchased 60 shares of Detroit Edison. I joined their dividend reinvestment program (DRIP), which was much better back then (no fees, and 5% discount to the market price). I've long since sold the original 60 shares, and only hold onto those that were accumulated via dividends and worth about $20k.

If you participate in a 401k, chances are that you're already in the market, and enjoying some trickle.

Do some homework on the markets, it's much easier now than when I started. It's not only for 1 percenters.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538095)

Amazon was 6 years old in 2000. How would that be considered "just starting out"?

Facebook is still overvalued (4, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45538119)

The NASDAQ won't be meaningful until the overvalued stocks are down to prices that reflect the value of their business and business plan. If you don't think Facebook is overvalued, then tell me, what is their business plan? That's OK, because nobody who works there knows what it is, either. They are rapidly approaching the end of their hype. Once the shit hits the fan and investors want to see profit they will go the way of plenty of other dot-com bombs.

Re:Facebook is still overvalued (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538255)

Are you being sarcastic? Facebook's business plan is to show people ads. Users spend an average on 8.3 hours per month on the site: []

Also given the high amount of personal information they have about users the ads are probably more valuable than those shown on television for example. If you think their user base is going to decline, you are welcome to that opinion and you should short the stock, but the way things are going now their business plan seems perfectly sound.

Re:Facebook is still overvalued (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538401)

Ah, good ol', my one-stop source for amazing facts. Thanks for the reference.

Re:Facebook is still overvalued (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538649)

That stat originated in their Q2 2013 earnings call...

1.15 billion users spending 20 billion minutes per day.

But hey, if you think they are lying you should report them to the SEC, then your short position will really take off!!

Re:Facebook is still overvalued (1)

Salgat (1098063) | about a year ago | (#45539477)

The issue with Facebook is that it's a very fickle line of business. Every predecessor before Facebook (including Myspace) has suffered from a massive loss of users over a short period of time.

Re:Facebook is still overvalued (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | about a year ago | (#45539489)

How long before the user base starts to decline precipitously? There's the mom factor. For all the young kids who get a kick out of posting outrageous stuff to Facebook, the fact that their mom is now on facebook is a killer. There’s the “it’s the new email” factor. By that I mean, it’s the new thing that everyone uses to communicate, so I get tons of useless shit, and I mostly ignore it all now. I think you can spot this with Facebook event RSVPs having earlier been more accurate and now being worthless. Anyone else want to chime in?

Re:Facebook is still overvalued (3, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#45538261)

You must be new to this whole stock market thing. Seriously if you wait for stock prices to come down to earth, well, you will have to wait for the next crash. The cost over value is built in to most stocks and is only loosely tied to actual assets and earnings. And while I agree with you that some stocks are hugely, ridiculously over-valued (like FB), people are still buying them and making money from them. Don't buy it if you don't like it. Risk tolerance is highly personal. It's that simple.

Re:Facebook is still overvalued (5, Insightful)

tjb (226873) | about a year ago | (#45538425)

Over the last 12 months, Facebook, had revenues of nearly $7B and profits of about $1B. You can argue that their stock is overvalued (and I'd tend to agree), but they clearly have a pretty solid business plan. []

Re:Facebook is still overvalued (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#45538443)

what is their business plan?

Maybe aggregate a wealth of information on people for whatever purposes the highest bidder may pay. But then again, NSA and Marketing would have no need for any of that so I'm probably wrong.

Re:Facebook is still overvalued (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45538623)

what is their business plan?

Maybe aggregate a wealth of information on people for whatever purposes the highest bidder may pay. But then again, NSA and Marketing would have no need for any of that so I'm probably wrong.

Selling ads only gets you so far, if people don't click on the ads you show them (regardless of how tailored they are) or more importantly don't actually buy anything from the people the ads are for. Eventually people will stop advertising on facebook when they realize that they aren't generating enough money from the ads to justify their costs. At that point, the whole business collapses as the NSA already has all the data they need (and wouldn't pay facebook for data anyways).

Re:Facebook is still overvalued (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#45539287)

Selling ads only gets you so far, if people don't click on the ads you show them (regardless of how tailored they are) or more importantly don't actually buy anything from the people the ads are for. Eventually people will stop advertising on facebook when they realize that they aren't generating enough money from the ads to justify their costs. At that point, the whole business collapses as the NSA already has all the data they need (and wouldn't pay facebook for data anyways).

Selling ads works for Google. Then again, between AdSense and DoubleClick and everyone else Google owns, Google commands around 98% of the online advertising market.

Facebook is sitting on a wealth of personal public information as well. (I say public because the reality is, it IS public, "privacy controls" is just a marketing scheme to get you to give up way more personal information than you'd give anyways). Enough of it that Google is quite envious of that data (hence tying everything to G+ in an attempt to gather as much personal information as possible)

All that information means Facebook has the ability to target specific demographics, or to run very interesting correlations - stuff that Target and other companies would kill for. (Target, for example, monitors purchases you do in their stores to determine if a child is on its way, and they have huge banks of analytical data for that based on in-store purchases. However, the analytics can get it wrong.). Imagine what kind of analytics could be done if Target got access to the information on Facebook and correlated it with their customer base.

And that's where Facebook sites - they have a wealth of information that people have voluntarily given them (thanks to "privacy controls" marketing). Such a big pile competitors like Google are envious and rapidly trying to build their own collection. While Google owns the vast majority of the online ad market.

The future of marketing isn't generic ads that attempt ot appeal to as many people as possible, it's using analytical data gathered form users to do hyper-specific advertising. Perhaps your profile says you're a hardcore Android user - well, I'm sure Samsung and the like would love to show you Android ads for their latest and greatest running the latest Android. They also know not to send you ads for the vast majority of lamer Android devices (if you're hardcore, you won't care for lame crapdroids). Likewise, if you're a hardcore iOS user, they know to avoid advertising to you as you're less likely to convert so the effort will be wasted.

Or imagine being able to market to those who own unlocked phones, or those who are coming out of a contract and looking around, etc.

Slashdot cries wolf - again. (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year ago | (#45538527)

They are rapidly approaching the end of their hype.

*Yawn* Slashdot has been predicting the imminent end of Facebook since about thirty seconds after it first became available to the general public - almost ten years on, and it still hasn't happened. If/when Facebook crashes Slashdot will crow about how they've been 'right all along', conveniently forgetting that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Re:Facebook is still overvalued (3, Interesting)

xigxag (167441) | about a year ago | (#45538541)

Facebook had $2.02 billion in revenue [] this past quarter, the bulk of which is advertising, up from $1.59 billion a year ago, and generating $621 million in quarterly profits. [] .

They have a good chunk of the worldwide digital advertising market and seek to expand further, especially through mobile. That's their plan.

Re:Facebook is still overvalued (3, Insightful)

rlwhite (219604) | about a year ago | (#45539181)

Facebook allows a granularity of advertising targeting that was hard to get before. For example, I've been involved in a community organizing effort that had trouble getting media attention and had no real budget for advertising, and I've found that $50 in Facebook advertising targeted to our zipcode got us about ~5000 views and ~150 clicks. That was about as much participation as we got in months of free community newspapers articles, and we largely hit a different audience.

Re:Facebook is still overvalued (1)

mlts (1038732) | about a year ago | (#45538559)

There is a point where advertising has a place as a market, but right now, sites like Facebook are playing the game of offering advertisers a bit more info, notching up the intrusiveness on subscribers just a bit more.

One can compare this to boiling the frog. But, there is a point where people will say enough is enough and move to another social network (even though VK is Russian, it functions closely enough to Facebook that the learning curve wouldn't be that difficult), or G+ (where there are actually intelligent conversations taking place because the signal to noise ratio is a lot better.)

There might even be room for a distributed service where one's E-mail address is used as an ID, and there are multiple services that pass messages, blogs, wall posts and such, done in such a way that it is presented to the user as one service. Instead of the cat pictures coming from John Doe, they come from John Doe (john_doe@someID) [1].

A decentralized social networking protocol may be the next evolution. It has been done in the past, from E-mail being from one big server to many SMTP servers.

One can even add to this a web of trust (although I wouldn't want to trust any social networking site with my public key data in general.)

[1]: Where someid is mapped by John Doe's "home" social network to his E-mail ID, but hidden from others.

Re:Facebook is still overvalued (1)

samkass (174571) | about a year ago | (#45539305)

This makes no sense to me. First of all, G+ is a non-starter because Google is even worse than Facebook about collecting all the data they can on everyone who touches their services and trying to sell to them. If it ever were to catch on (however unlikely that may be), you'd see the exact same thing there or worse. The rest, well, if you can't monetize it somehow, who's going to pay the developers to develop it? A bunch of enthusiasts only gets you so far, and won't be able to keep up with an organization that has a revenue stream that's able to sustain a large development team. Apple's theory has been to tie their services to hardware and make money there, thus negating the need to track and spam, but it doesn't seem to produce great online services that way (and most geeks here seem to prefer Google monitoring their every move to Apple's model anyway). So basically, it's not going to become world-class if it can't be monetized, and while the only two models today (track and spam like FB and Google or tie to hardware like Apple and Samsung) each have significant issues, you don't seem to be proposing any alternate model that could be self-sustaining either.

Re:Facebook is still overvalued (1)

istartedi (132515) | about a year ago | (#45538933)

I hate FaceBook as much as the next guy (and refuse to use it) but their business plan is actually pretty straightforward. They sell ads and data about users to advertisers. They're part of the cadre that's turned the Internet into 21st Century TV.

The better criticism of FB's current valuation is that it projects too much growth. The user base is kind of saturated. Once you have a double-digit percentage of the entire planet, it's hard to go much higher. If they try to grow revenue through increasing advertising, they run the risk of alienating users.

Obamacare a resounding success! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538127)

Millions of people saved by Obama himself, personally!

"Enrollment in the Affordable Care Act through Colorado's health insurance exchange is barely half the state's worst-case projection, prompting demands from exchange board members for better stewardship of public money."

Oh, wait, no it's not, it's a complete and utter failure. Almost like it was PLANNED that way.

And you douchenozzles support this crap? What the hell is wrong with you?

Re:Obamacare a resounding success! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538251)

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it"

-- Joseph Goebbels

Re:Obamacare a resounding success! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538413)

“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”
Saul D. Alinsky

Yes, the mantra of tyrannical dictators, but this leaves the question unaddressed. Why do you supposedly intelligent, modern, switched-on hipster douchebags suppport Obama and radical socialism? History is all one needs to know to reject these people out of hand, but here socialism rules the day.

And if you are paying attention you will see the left actually calling for Obama to rule as a dictator and to throw the constitution away in whole. Insanity!

Insane indeed, but real nonetheless.

Re:Obamacare a resounding success! (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#45538361)

It just like Nancy Pelosi said, they had to pass it to find out what's in it. Kind of like when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge only to gain the knowledge that they shouldn't have done that.

No Difference (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538135)

There's still gullible investors (Mom & Pop and professional both) out there now throwing money at anything Web 2.0, and there is a tech bubble out there that will burst.

So no, not much is different. The only question is how far it will climb and how much money Mom & Pop will lose this time around per capita.

Re:No Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538307)

None, because this is all free Fed money thrown at the market by the banks. See they're too big to fail now and they know it. HFT increases the volume of transactions per day, leading to an appearance of liquidity, but the actual number of investors is not as large as you'd think. Witness the instant dry up of liquidity when the "whitehouse bomb" hoax e-mail was sent out as proof that a small amount of banks are doing most of the actual trading.

Free FED's Money (2)

HansKloss (665474) | about a year ago | (#45538153)

How nice is to have private bank's cartel that prints and prints the money like there is no tomorrow.
Stocks up, profit up, US people deeper and deeper in debt.
Perpetuum mobile for Wall Street.

Re:Free FED's Money (1)

BobMcD (601576) | about a year ago | (#45538229)

I agree. 'Wall Street breaks record' is just a sign of the end of the bubble.

Expect it to come down hard and fast once the QE backs off.

Re:Free FED's Money (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538299)

You voted for it, enjoy!

In honesty, anyone in the stock market is making a killing because the Fed is printing $85 Billion a month and that is where it is going. No, I did not typo the amount. Its wrong, its generational theft, but you seem to think they are stealing from you but they are stealing from your kids in reality. Its unethical, but that's the stance of the DNC, and on top of that they put in a healthcare law that will also force those kids we are already robbing to pay for older people's (who just benefited from the stock market increase) health care. I've tried to explain it to people, but they insist on voting for it.

There are a bunch of kids growing up today in so much debt they don't even see coming, and they can't afford a college education or even get a job. I'm guessing at some point they will revolt and take your SS and Medicare away and toss you out on the street without a second thought.

Yes, please tell where the market will go next. (3, Informative)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about a year ago | (#45538179)

...but don't tell everyone, just me.

If you can predict its future behavior, it's not a market. "Technical analysis" is today's astrology, and like yesterday's astrology, it works only so long as you're surrounded by believers.

That said, there are ways to reliably outperform the market:

  • 1. Buy better (faster, lower-latency) access than your competitors.
  • 2. Buy more regulators and legislators than your competitors.
  • 3. Cheat, without getting caught -- or without regard for getting caught, if you've done a good job at point 2.

I've got money in the market, because in general it outperforms other investments over the time horizon I'm facing. But I don't delude myself that I can outrun the pack.

So: Welcome to the Obama Crony Capitalist Economy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45539349)

They get profits. You get to go on Medicaid when your insurance policy is cancelled due to ObamaCare.


Re:Yes, please tell where the market will go next. (1)

dcw3 (649211) | about a year ago | (#45539535)

Or, you could simply put your money into the S&P500, and do pretty well. You'd also save yourself a lot on broker fees, and the headaches of researching individual companies. Here's a chart going back to 1950. You can clearly see the "Internet bubble", and the collapse from from the housing bubble as well. But, over time, it's essentially, a continuous climb. [] ^GSPC&t=my&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=

Yeah, it's called hyperinflation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538189)

US dollar won't survive another 10 years, so it really doesn't mean much.

Re:Yeah, it's called hyperinflation (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45538487)

If the US dollar hyperinflates there will be no question of it. It'll be as if the currency were made of high radioactive nuclear waste. No one will want to hold US dollars even an hour longer than they have to.

Re:Yeah, it's called hyperinflation (1)

mlts (1038732) | about a year ago | (#45538945)

The one thing keeping the dollar from hyperinflating is the fact that oil transactions are done in USD. A move to the basket system by OPEC... and there will be a world of hurt.

I wonder if BitCoin may end up being the world's "lingua franca" currency, sooner or later. The downside is that all transaction chains are public, but that can also be an upside to show that a business's books are legit.

Re:Yeah, it's called hyperinflation (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45538993)

The one thing keeping the dollar from hyperinflating is the fact that oil transactions are done in USD.

And that 350 million people have to pay their taxes in US dollars.

Will Facebook be around in 2020? (1)

ears_d (1400833) | about a year ago | (#45538221)

Is "social" a trend, or are we only experiencing its infancy?

Re:Will Facebook be around in 2020? (1)

internerdj (1319281) | about a year ago | (#45538417)

We aren't going to lose our need to connect our online lives with our IRL lives. To knock off facebook, you need to have an interest in connecting everybody and any service in their lives together. That kind of rules out media congloms or phone/internet/television companies. They might have the cash to mount a resistance but they don't have the corporate will to include people from competitors or to support competitors' devices/applications. So we would have to look at a startup that offers a social network that is good enough to draw everyone away from facebook. It could be done, but I wouldn't dump your FB shares yet.

Re:Will Facebook be around in 2020? (1)

mlts (1038732) | about a year ago | (#45538973)

A decentralized network of social networks likely will be a better replacement for Facebook than anything else, just like E-mail is decentralized for the most part.

What if you could earn money on a CD? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538223)

Back then I had a CD that earned 5 bills a month that now earns less than $50. Savers were valued to some extent. Now they want me to put my money on the current flavors of the month like facebook.

I cashed out of the equities the afternoon that putz dubya signed the tarp. I doubt I'll ever be back.

If it makes you feel good that your portfolio numbers have been goosed up by the fed, enjoy yourself. Despite what they say, qe will never stop until their arms get ripped out at the sockets. Enjoy the happy days.

Re:What if you could earn money on a CD? (3, Informative)

tjb (226873) | about a year ago | (#45538551)

I cashed out of the equities the afternoon that putz dubya signed the tarp. I doubt I'll ever be back.

IOW: "I got scared, cashed out at nearly the lowest point possible, lost a ton of money, missed a historic run-up and now I'm bitter!"

Re:What if you could earn money on a CD? (2)

mlts (1038732) | about a year ago | (#45538777)

I use CDs as a place to park money for semi-long times. As an investment, meh. I've done worse [1].

These days, I focus on stocks that are stable, tough to kill, and don't feel bad ethically by owning them. RedHat comes to mind, because they actually expand the "pie" and make new things.

I also have done some personal loaning. A couple thousand lent to a farmer so he can increase his animal head count and have plenty of fowl ready to slaughter come T-day is one example. A bank wants to charge 15% APR, I do a loan for 5% APR, simple interest. To boot, I don't even have to worry about collecting if it isn't paid [2]. Come tax time, I toss the interest income on the 1040, call it done.

[1]: GM stock, now that was painful. Since the old stock was turned into bankrupt pieces, and new shares issued, it was a true loss.

[2]: I make it known that after six months, I charge the loan off my taxes, which means that the IRS will go after the person I loaned to, as the debt will be considered income, thus taxable. The threat of the IRS being sicced keeps the checks coming in far more than the threat of turning it over to any collection agency. This isn't a risk-free business, but it is a way to make money... and actually help the local economy, something that banks have stopped doing.

Blowing bubbles again? (3, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#45538227)

I think the world is starting to wise up. The idea that the market is anything but a casino has taken root. It is demonstrable that the current highs in the market have little to no effect on the rest of the economy as [real] unemployment continues to grow, as businesses continue to decline, as welfare programs grow and on and on. Is the word recession or depression? I can never quite tell the difference and it doesn't help that the media and the players making money in all of this are in complete public denial over all of this.

The pedestrian banks are going to begin charging customers for keeping their money in accounts as interest rates are lowered to the point that lending profits are too low for operations to continue.

All of this and they have the gall to report on the market's activities as if it represented the economic health of the nation or the world? This reality is too big to hide any longer. This is especially true as the house votes to restore the conditions which trashed the world economy [] back when things really went bad before. It has passed the house but not yet the senate. I can't imagine what these people are thinking except that they don't care about the larger economy in the slightest and that's pretty much the 99% of us.

Re:Blowing bubbles again? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538323)

The stock market is a casino that pays out, on average, 8% per year. That sounds like a pretty great casino...
I don't try to predict the short term, I just ride an index fund and have been for 25 years. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't be fully invested in the stock market unless they are within 10 or 15 years of retirement.

Re:Blowing bubbles again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538475)

You just went and made me feel like the 9% 12 month return I've gotten on my 401k as of Nov. 1st isn't so special. :P

Re:Blowing bubbles again? (3, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#45538785)

If your 401(k) retirement savings are getting high return, they probably also have a high risk. Whether that's right for you or not depends on how close you are to retiring, but generally speaking, a modest return from a retirement plan is a safe idea. If you want to gamble on high-return stocks, use disposable money for that.

Re:Blowing bubbles again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45539135)

My 401k should follow fairly close to whatever the market does. As I am heavily into indexed funds. (20% on the year as is the market).

Last dip I took the opportunity to change my allocation rates. I left the money where it was (it would bounce back eventually as many cycles do). But I changed the allocations to more heavily weight towards index funds that did not lose as much. Now that they are back to pre 2008 levels I will move the cash around again to the new funds.

Honestly you do not want to know how well a fund will do in a boom time (hint: they all do unless they have bad managers). What you want to really know is how they did when the market sucked.

This is a good read about what is wrong in our economy. It is also a good read as you can follow what everyone is doing and you can try to game it for your advantage. As it will take major acts of congress to fix it. For example I would go long on the major 3 insurance companies right now if I had the spare cash. Ability to raise prices in a basically oligopoly mandated by the gov. Market distortions are a serious place to make cash. Good place to lose it as well if the winds change in washington...

One thing I have learned though is when people start saying 'the market has changed' or 'it is a new normal'. It is about to get a haircut. You dont beat the whip of the market. You ride it...

Re:Blowing bubbles again? (2)

cmorriss (471077) | about a year ago | (#45539013)

If you've only gotten a 9% return in the past 12 months, you should either be near retirement or are way too conservative in your fund choices. I have a very diversified portfolio and still easily have a return above 20% in the last 12 months.

or made the wrong bets... (1)

schlachter (862210) | about a year ago | (#45539165)

There are plenty of big name stocks that have gone down or stagnated over the past 12 months. I own several of them. No need to assume someone is too conservative just because they don't match your gains.

Re:Blowing bubbles again? (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#45538739)

That doesn't quite account for the rapid devaluation of the dollar resulting from "quantitative easing" by the Federal Reserve Bank does it?

Re:Blowing bubbles again? (4, Informative)

tjb (226873) | about a year ago | (#45538943)

What rapid devaluation? The one happening inside your head?

Here in the real world, inflation has been less than 2.5% annually since 2008, lower than in any similar period in at least 50 years.

Re:Blowing bubbles again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45539319)

8% is indeed not taking into account inflation. Over the last 25 years, the real returns have been between 5 and 6%. That is good or bad depending on your expectations, but certainly not in casino territory.

theres a big variable missing (1)

nimbius (983462) | about a year ago | (#45538289)

No one takes this into account in america because for some reason taking into account the fundamental failures of unbridled consumer capitalism is a "bad thing"
the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act committed $7.77 trillion to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. in 2009. You dont get to pump that much money into your economy and violate the good faith and principal of an open exchange system of capital and investment without serious repercussions. youve altered the system on a fundamental level that should render nearly every analyst suspect in their evaluation or prediction of it. at best, what we have is a run-flat tire posing as an economy. at worst, nearly every performance metric and return at any exchange level is completely without genuine meaning, no better than a fraudulent lottery ticket.

Macro-economics is more psychology nowadays... (4, Interesting)

Junta (36770) | about a year ago | (#45538387)

At the scale of the US economy, it's important how people 'feel'. If people feel like things are crashing or will crash, then things will crash. If that means 'printing money' to make people *feel* like things are good, then so be it. Obviously you can't do that indefinitely, but if you have no flexibility then things have historically proven to bubble and crash.

It does mean that comparing most economic indicators is not necessarily apples to apples, but if people *feel* like it is, and it makes people willing to move money, then it does have some value. The key is finding the right balance between inflexible metric, mob rule economy, central manipulation of the markets, etc.

Re:Macro-economics is more psychology nowadays... (3, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45538571)

At the scale of the US economy, it's important how people 'feel'. If people feel like things are crashing or will crash, then things will crash. If that means 'printing money' to make people *feel* like things are good, then so be it. Obviously you can't do that indefinitely, but if you have no flexibility then things have historically proven to bubble and crash.

I guess, if all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. The problem here is twofold. Bubbles and crashes aren't inherently bad in themselves. They're just a manifestation of imperfect knowledge and that's not going away.

They also happen with greater severity when someone tries to game the psychology of economies. The 2007-2008 real estate crash, for example, can be traced back to nation-level policies which freed a lot of easy leverage in North America and Europe for real estate. These policies were enacted in order to recover from various economic problems of 1998-2002.

Good and bad... (2)

Junta (36770) | about a year ago | (#45539045)

The danger here is that there is some speculation involved, but if not for the Quantitative easing, we may well have been on the trajectory to a repeat of the great depression. A lot of theory suggests that such moves globally might have averted the great depression. You are right that bubbles and crashes to some extent is not bad, but no one can deny that the great depression was bad.

This is not to say governments should feel they have free reign to print money (see Germany post world war i, the confederate states of the U.S civil war, and recently Zimbabwe). We love it when a problem and solution are straightforward, that one 'pure' philosophy is the correct thing (e.g. inflexible 'money' supply is a popular cause for people to rally behind), but the truth is that there is a lot more subtlety and a middle road must almost always be sought.

Re:Macro-economics is more psychology nowadays... (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#45539209)

This, so very much.

The fundamental point of the economy is to let people get what they want. Ideally, if I want a product, I will be able to get it, and the person I got it from will be able to get whatever he wants, too. Volume is king.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether a loaf of bread costs $1 or $100, as long as people can get a loaf of bread when they want it without too much hassle. It doesn't matter that trillions of dollars got dumped into some particular accounts, as long as those trillions are quickly used for more trade. It is indeed what people feel that matters the most. If people are confident that they'll be able to buy groceries next month, they'll buy their kid a toy this month, sending money back around the economic machine for another round.

Dumping money into the economy postpones and spreads out the impact of a crash. Generally, when the stock market crashes and people see their money's numeric value decline rapidly, they stop buying goods, halting the all-important trade. By dumping money into the market, the government can keep those indicators from falling too far too fast, so while people may reduce their trade somewhat, there's no panic. Over time that money can be pulled out of the market again slowly (through taxes, indirect costs, etc.), but people won't notice the gradual change. They'll still know that they have enough money to get what they want, and that's all that matters.

Betteridge's law of headlines... (4, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | about a year ago | (#45538315)

Again, the answer is 'no'. Some people think the age of the companies is different, and the problem last time was too much faith in fuddy-duddy old companies. No, they were just in the position to be riding high on the influx of VC to all sorts of new, not established startups that had to buy their hardware and software from *somewhere*. The bubble popped around the new companies first, not the old. The big, 'old' companies suffered the downstream effects of that bubble going away.

Again, we see the signs all over the place of the late 90s. Massive investment in endeavors without any sign of profitability yet and not really a good sign of how profitability will occur (hello Snapchat). Lot's of 'new blood' with money being spent under the assumption that 'oh, these whipper-snappers are refreshing, new, and might completely change the world *this* time for a long term and better be a part of that'.

The bulk of Amazon's success is still yet predicated on operating on razor-thin margins (and you already see investors grumbling). Their EC2 unit is currently the beneficiary of the same dot-com rush that the 'old' companies benefitted from in the late 90s. Facebook I'm not quite sure about, but it does seem to be a potentially troubling sign they feel they have to shell out billions frequently in order to stay 'cool'. Google and Apple are about the only one of the mentioned three that I think has an undeniably working business model without a huge sign of long-term problems (well, except for 'growth' might plateau since there is only so far they can go). I do think in another economic downturn, Apple would go down pretty hard since market tolerance for premium brands gets hit hardest.

Re:Betteridge's law of headlines... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45538885)

It's always different. And it's always the same.

One thing stays the same - speculation (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year ago | (#45538329)

Nasdaq is a stock market, just like Wall Street.

No matter if it's a tech company like Google or Microsoft, or if it's a car company like Toyota or GM, or a food related company like Kraft, or a hygienic item company like Colgate - they will have their ups and downs, and some companies such as Kodak will find themselves redundant by the marketplace.

Just because the Nasdaq index is now headed by Google / Amazon does not mean the current company lineup is that much better than the Microsoft / Cisco era.

I am an investor, although I still hold some stocks, I prefer to focus my investment towards the startups - at the very least, the ones that I invest in are in possessions of very exciting ideas and/or

The other reason I prefer to invest my money in the startups because I want to give the young people the chance to prove themselves.

Re:One thing stays the same - speculation (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year ago | (#45538497)

"Wall Street" is not a stock market. It is a district within which several stock exchanges are located.

2000-2013 comparison (1)

Rotten (8785) | about a year ago | (#45538385)

Economy is in a much better shape now. Top 10 NASDAQ companies are producing tons goods and giving 1000's of jobs to the people.
Thanks god society is eager to buy those "likes" thingies that boost the economy. And what about those "character" things? 1 is not enough, everybody wants 140 of 'em!

Re:2000-2013 comparison (1)

plopez (54068) | about a year ago | (#45538847)

"giving 1000's of jobs to the people"

And the US still has 7.4 pct U-3 unemployment and it worse in many other places in the world. Maybe if people and corporations stopped hoarding wealth we could pay for important things, such as infrastructure, and put people back to work.

No, it isn't different (1)

bravecanadian (638315) | about a year ago | (#45538457)

There are still companies that are incredibly over valued in the Nasdaq and the entire stock market (not just Nasdaq) has been inflated by the Fed QE of 85 billion a month.

It will come tumbling down and then we'll start the whole thing over again.

(that is when you buy)

articles like this shout "bubble" (1)

peter303 (12292) | about a year ago | (#45538619)

When they say we can defy the laws of economics. Valuate a company with no revenue.

Re:articles like this shout "bubble" (1)

plopez (54068) | about a year ago | (#45538765)


trickle-down? (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | about a year ago | (#45538759)

The NASDAQ topped 4000. The Dow Jones topped 16,000. The trickle-down should begin at any time now. Corporate America is awash in cash. Everyone can have a good job! All those poor starving corporations can now afford decent group policies, rendering the hated Obamacare moot. If this doesn't happen it will be because corporate taxes are too high, and they don't have enough say in government relative to their taxation! They will be struggling if they have to pay taxes!

Wasn't 2000 in the middle of a bubble? (1)

plopez (54068) | about a year ago | (#45538815)

So that does not bode well. But maybe it's different this time. Or maybe I just don't "get it". Or maybe it's a new economy.

Probably not. My advice, run for the hills while you still can.

SELL!!! (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about a year ago | (#45538921)

If they say it's not a bubble this time, it's probably a bubble.

about to fall (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#45539173)

Apple and Facebook are obviously about to drag a significant portion of the index down with them as they're crashing and burning in the near future. Considering what percentage they cover, I'd pull all of your money out of NASDAQ ASAP after Christmas shopping season.

We got the recovery we asked for (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#45539197)

This is a Wall Street recovery, not a Working Man recovery. Keynesian is an epithet nowadays, so instead of going the 1930s route and investing in infrastructure and public works to put working stiffs back in the field, we elected to dump money on Wall Street until the investors felt happy enough to start diversifying out of their tortoise shells. No one should be surprised that the effect is great stock prices and mediocre, trickle-down improvements in the economy everywhere else.

These index milestones are irrelevant except for the fact that the trickle down effect might raise the flow up to Babbling Brook.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?