It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The NASDAQ Chart last 40 Years

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   
So I was interested in the NASDAQ performance in the past couple decades and this is what I got.






Anyone can get the same thing if they go to: finance.yahoo.com...^IXIC&t=my&l=onz=mq=l&c= and modify the graph time frame.

Great Job Bush.

Maybe there was something to that year 2000 prophecy.










[edit on 25-9-2008 by '___'eed]




posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link   
It is good to see that the markets have not fallen to the levels which they fell back in 2000-2003, hope the situation improves back to normal and the markets are back into uptren.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   
How quickly you blame Bush for everything that goes wrong. The downward trend is the dot-com crash in 2000 and 9/11 in 2001. The trend started almost a full year before Bush even took office. After these two events, the graph looks normal.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Hey Blue... Who so you think is responsible for oversight of the financial affairs of the country? The Prez. The buck stops with him. He appaoints the people heading-up agencies like HUD, FEMA, Treasury, etc. So yea, it IS his fault and the rest of the clowns he hired.

The economy has been eroding for several years. The impact of spending ~$12B a month on the wars and the requisite borrowing has been significant. Who was monitoring all this? Lots of experts have been screaming warnings about this for years (not the least of which was Ron Paul). So Bush and his appointees either:

1. Were asleep at the wheel the entire time

2. Didn't give a rat's ass

3. Were utterly clueless about what was going on and all the expert warnings

4. Wanted it to happen


Many, many credentialed people have been warning of the looming crisis. Yet Bush et al act as if this problem suddenly jumped out from behind a tree. As late as mid-July he was saying the economy was 'basically sound'. In January the economy was 'on solid footing'. His 'judgement' decides who he appoints to oversee the economy. He's responsible. The buck stops with him.

So yes, blue, I blame Bush. And rightfully so.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
Hey Blue... Who so you think is responsible for oversight of the financial affairs of the country? The Prez. The buck stops with him. He appaoints the people heading-up agencies like HUD, FEMA, Treasury, etc. So yea, it IS his fault and the rest of the clowns he hired.


Well, going by your theory I guess we should be crucifying Clinton for the crash all the way up to Jan. 2001, right? You'll notice that after the crash the market was pretty steady until 9/11. If you're one of the crowd that believes Bush brought down the towers then I guess your theory will hold water with the rest of the nutjobs. Otherwise, you can can't really blame the president when a terrorist attack brings down the market.

Sure looks to me like you're just another one of those people trying to pin the ills of your world on Bush regardless of what the facts right in front of you seem to indicate.

Edit: The thread seems to indicate that the topic is the NASDAQ market for the last 40 years. Yet, you have gone into the current state of the market and the looming economic crisis. If you're looking to argue this, there are many other threads already in place that are fitting the bill just fine. I will say this though, the crisis we're going through right now can be traced back through the last several administrations so be sure to share the blame appropriately.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by BlueTriangle]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Lol this is the worst thread on financial issues ever.

How can you blame Bush for the Dot Com crash in 2001?

Even if you are one of those nuts that think Bush was responsible for 9/11, the dot com crash was before 9/11. Hence in no way, not even in the thinnest most speculative manner, is Bush responsible for the NASDAQ's performance.

Correlation does not equal causation.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
The information superhighway bubble peaked when the Nasdaq hit 5,000. I remember sitting in a rainy bustop shelter reading the PM edition headline. Then 911 pulled the plug on the market. The stolen election of 2000 didn't help buoy markets either. I blame Bush and Co. for falling asleep at the wheel on 911 and if you add in the Iraq war debacle you have an unhappy market. Throw in climate change and peak oil concerns and you get what we got today.

As we get greener technologies coming on line I believe you will see a rebound in the world markets just from the cost savings alone.

I wouldn't say that Bush is the orchestrator of the Nasdaq averages over the last 8 years.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Hey, you were the one that brought Bush up. And tit looks 'normal' after 2001? Look at the scale of the chart. How can you say that? There ins't sufficient post-2001 data available to make that statement relative to the scale of the chart.

This has nothing to do with 9/11 or whether I'm a 'nutjob' or not. The facts are straightforward: The President has oversight responsibility for the economy and markets through his various agency heads; he told the American public on multiple occasions as late as mid-July that the economy was 'sound'. Last night he said it was 'in crisis'. Where was the oversight?




top topics



 
0

log in

join