In misc.survivalism P. Maffia <pmaffia@centurytel.net> wrote:

In simple words you might understand --- Since I was replying solely to
your
last note, I snipped all that came before as being unessential. There
were
no grammatical errors. And all I did was accurately and tersely point out
your inanities.

Yep. Trolling. I've done exactly that, and it was described by Curly as
trolling. He doesn't like that.

In misc.survivalism nick hull <nh...@isp.com> wrote:

In article <fn4qi8$f4...@reader2.panix.com>,
 EskWI...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
In misc.survivalism theloneranger...@aol.com wrote:

Anyone want to predict what Tuesday will bring?

Buying opportunities.
Lots of people lost their shirts buying bargains in 1929 ;)

Lots more made fortunes buying in 1987.

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
        -- Bertrand Russel

Nope, "value" is perceived and based upon a wide variety of commodities.
The dollar is but one and varies widely, in fact the dollar is down about
65% so a 12,000 DOW is more like 7,800 points seven years ago.

Now you are repeating uncontested dialog,

Well make up yuour mind. Should I snip what's "uncontested" or leave it al
in it's entirety.

Curly sez:
They should be everyday items needed by normal families, some typical
food items, clothing, shoes, transportation, entertainment and
especially foreign currencies.

Paul sez:
Yet you declare that foreign currencies are
"everyday items needed by normal families"?

"They should be everyday items needed by normal families.....especially
foreign currencies"

"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote

Anyone want to predict what Tuesday will bring?

Yup. The stock market will go down.
Then it will come up.
Then it will go down.
Then it will come up.

Life goes on.

In misc.survivalism theloneranger100@aol.com wrote:

Anyone want to predict what Tuesday will bring?


Buying opportunities.

In misc.survivalism P. Maffia <pmaffia@centurytel.net> wrote:

In simple words you might understand --- Since I was replying solely to
your
last note, I snipped all that came before as being unessential. There
were
no grammatical errors. And all I did was accurately and tersely point out
your inanities.

Yep. Trolling. I've done exactly that, and it was described by Curly as
trolling. He doesn't like that.

"Curly Surmudgeon" <Curly.is.not@home.com> wrote
Again, you snipped the thread avoiding the original words.


Again, you've pieced it together without help. Amazing.

You posted: "Five years from now we'll see much higher DOW numbers than
today"


And in five years we will know if that is true.

which elicited my question: "No doubt but will the numbers in five
years represent greater value than in January 2000?"


Define "value".

For the seller, value means they trade for something (generally stock)
they think has greater value than what they are giving up (generally
cash).

For the buyer, value means they trade for something (generally cash)
they think has greater value than what they are giving up (generally
stock).

How do you propose to value the stocks in January 2000 and in January
2013?

By the Dollar. By the Euro? By the Yen? All you're doing is pricing
the stock, not valuing it.

My point was/is that the "numbers" you imply meaningful really aren't
without relationship to some real world merchandise or property. The
"numbers" represent dollar prices of 25 stocks. Each of these stocks
are transnational both in services and ownership. The Dow moves not
only by company perceived value but by international currency
fluxuations.

That elicted my response: "That's what I just said, the dollar isn't a
valid reference to compare dollar value by. To which you replied:

Yet, that's how they are priced, and that's how you percieve their
*value* - in US dollars.

No, that is _not_ how I perceive value.


Yet, that's how you buy the stocks. In currency.

"The DOW is down." "The DOW is up."
Both based not on values, but on prices.

Nor most of the world, the dollar is but the barter commodity however
that commodity varies continuously and must be factored into "value."



It's factored into the trade price......what the buyer and seller settle
on as the equal value of the numbers of shares -v- the value of the
number of dollars, euros, etc.

Yes, I did and you've lost sight of the thread and morphed the dialog
by snipping and speaking in pronouns.

Do you mean to tell me that the English language tripped you up?

They should be everyday items needed by normal families, some typical
food items, clothing, shoes, transportation, entertainment and
especially foreign currencies.


If you want to have a real dialog then stop the distractions and
misrepresentation.



ME?? Misrepresentation?

Yet you declare that foreign currencies are
"everyday items needed by normal families"?

What normal family do you know that needs foreign currencies (plural) on
an everyday basis?

Lots of people lost their shirts buying bargains in 1929 ;)

Lots more made fortunes buying in 1987.

Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:

"Curly Surmudgeon" <Curly.is.not@home.com> wrote
Again, you snipped the thread avoiding the original words.


Again, you've pieced it together without help. Amazing.

Yes, my mental facilities are above average.

And you continue that practice so this will
likely be my last word on the topic.

Now you are repeating uncontested dialog,

You aren't able to piece it together without help.

For the seller, value means they trade for something (generally stock)
they think has greater value than what they are giving up (generally
cash).

Nope, "value" is perceived and based upon a wide variety of commodities.

Fuck you, troll.

They should be everyday items needed by normal families, some typical
food items, clothing, shoes, transportation, entertainment and
especially foreign currencies.

Yet you declare that foreign currencies are
"everyday items needed by normal families"?

Nowhere did I say such a thing,

In article <fn4qi8$f43$4@reader2.panix.com>,
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:

In misc.survivalism theloneranger100@aol.com wrote:

Anyone want to predict what Tuesday will bring?

Buying opportunities.

Lots of people lost their shirts buying bargains in 1929

"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote
Anyone want to predict what Tuesday will bring?



Yup. The stock market will go down.
Then it will come up.
Then it will go down.
Then it will come up.



Life goes on.

You never know. The fed may announce an unplanned 3/4 percent drop in
the prime with a promise of more next week in an attempt to prop up
the stock markets.

Is it a sign of panic on the part of the Fed? Will the consumers view
it that way?

You never know. The fed may announce an unplanned
3/4 percent drop in the prime with a promise of more
next week in an attempt to prop up the stock markets.

Bob Brock wrote:

You never know. The fed may announce an unplanned
3/4 percent drop in the prime with a promise of more
next week in an attempt to prop up the stock markets.

Is it a sign of panic on the part of the Fed? Will the
consumers view it that way?

The 'consumers' are idiots. You need to get out there
among them. It will make your skin crawl.