Official: DOW worse than 1929

[Glenn Black]

http://dshort.com/charts/bears/four-bears-large.gif



It's now official. With a 55.2% drop, we are worse than the 73 Oil Embargo, and worse that the Dot-Com tech crash. The DOW in today's bear market is now equal to 1929 crash.

Note: The Great Depression crash is based on the DOW; the three others are for the S&P 500.

Look at the 1929 crash and how it progressed. We have a long way to go, yet everybody I know is friended out. Nine years ago, I was the only one friended out. "Johnny Come Lately's" is you ask me.

Chart lifted from http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/

If it drops any lower, we will be worse than 1929. I'd like to see the chart for the 1890's panic. I hear it was worse than 1929.

If we go worse than the 1890's panic, there is no bottom to how low we could drop. Let's all join hands and pray.

[cjppjc]

Re: Official: DOW worse than 1929

You are killing me. Please find something funny to post.

[Digidiver]

Re: Official: DOW worse than 1929

[BadJuju]

Re: Official: DOW worse than 1929

Digidiver: Is Ziyi Zhang your avatar? If so, she is hot.

[Sharky]

Re: Official: DOW worse than 1929

Re: Official: DOW worse than 1929

At -48.2% and -49.1%, both the 1973 oil crisis and the Tech Crash were worse than the -47.9% crash in 1929.

The real news seems to be that the percentage lost is about the same as in the Great Depression at an equal time from the peak -- 16 months. That didn't happen in either of the other two bear markets.

[cjppjc]

Re: Official: DOW worse than 1929

Thanks:cool:

[Rajiv]

Re: Official: DOW worse than 1929

Remember that in the Great Depression, the Dow continued its downward slide until it had lost ~90% of its peak value by 1934 -- The Dow would have to be at around 1500 level, last seen in 1985

[dpandorf]

Re: Official: DOW worse than 1929

Remember that in the Great Depression, the Dow continued its downward slide until it had lost ~90% of its peak value by 1934 -- The Dow would have to be at around 1500 level, last seen in 1985

Sure seems to be rapidly heading that way now isn't it? Cliff diving anyone? :eek:

[grapejelly]

Re: Official: DOW worse than 1929

friended out? What does that mean?

[krakknisse]

Re: Official: DOW worse than 1929

friended out? What does that mean?

You can't say s c a r e d here. Fred thinks it funny.

"I see debt people" (wooo!)

[Rajiv]

Re: Official: DOW worse than 1929

Isn't that a kind of censorship? I personally think that this is very childish -- Is this sanctioned by EJ? If it is, I am quite disappointed.

[Guest]

Re: Official: DOW worse than 1929

Here, try this one. Type S P O O K , but all lowercase attached.

Looky here: friend (hint: i just typed s p o o k )

:p :p :p

Someone here tweaking the editorial buttons has a squirrely sense of either humor, or propriety, or what the heck else, I don't know. Funny because he seems so impeccably sane all the rest of the time. I couldn't imagine a saner sounding voice on iTulip than our beloved FRED (other than when he's getting steamed about "fraudulent technical analysts"). What could have happened to him? Is he going all squirrely on us? :eek: :confused: :rolleyes:

[Chris Coles]

Re: Official: DOW worse than 1929

Isn't that a kind of censorship? I personally think that this is very childish -- Is this sanctioned by EJ? If it is, I am quite disappointed.

Rajiv, it is a little bit of fun. We need as much "FUN" as we can find, I am sure you will agree to that? Chris.

[Rajiv]

Re: Official: DOW worse than 1929

Unless you are in on the joke, things can often be misunderstood -- as was clearly the case earlier.

Maybe a disclaimer at the top of each itulip page saying that words may be arbitararily changed on posts made by itulip members based on the jocular whims of system administrators.

[Guest]

Re: Official: DOW worse than 1929

Chris, you miss the point.

Rajiv, it is a little bit of fun. We need as much "FUN" as we can find, I am sure you will agree to that? Chris.

This is a rule in journalism, blogs, or any public discussion community. It is "not cool" to introduce editorial insertions into the comments of contributors, no matter how frivolous, without notifying these contributors that the editors wish to retain the privilege to do so.

In any kind of publishing, doing this without a clear disclaimer is a "no-no". Rajiv gets it. Not a whole lot of others appear to. Does not matter in the slightest how frivolous it may be. I am surprised iTulip, with it's depth and subtlety of understanding in practically all directions, feels it can dispense with this point. It matters not one bit that this is a "private club or community". This is a right which contributors should retain anywhere. You can set up a website where you reserve reproduction rights to any contributor content, but you can't "summarily edit" any of that content without their permission - or if you do reserve this right, you need to make that very clear in a further disclaimer. Nowhere on iTulip does it say "we reserve the right to change words in your posts at our discretion", now does it?

I'm actually less concerned about iTulip doing that, than I am at the lethargic response to this practice on the part of all of it's readers. If you submit an comment or letter to your local newspaper, and you see it published the next day but with "some words changed", what do you conclude as to the propriety of that? Do you take that lethargically too? iTulip don't seem to "get" this point, which is quite surprising. Word to iTulip's editors. You don't "own" our comments outright. The exchange of views (particularly with paying subscribers) is a two way street, where certain lines are not crossed. So the correct "terms of use" everywhere is, that you do not introduce macros, regardless of their frivolity, which change subscriber comments in any way, without A) clearing it with them, and B) posting a disclaimer on "terms of use" clearly on the website.

Most particularly, you don't introduce macros such as "schiffty" when contributors are referring to a well known stock broker, which cast even the most jocular slur upon that professional. Why? Because by doing so, you potentially render your own contributors liable to a complaint from that party, while your contributors may not have intended to cast any slur upon him. By doing this, iTulip has exposed it's contributors to a civil risk which the contributors were not made aware of beforehand. This is a perfect illustration of the line that gets crossed in propriety, when contributor comments are "altered" by what looks like a harmless macro on a forum such as this. It's like a man groping a woman on a public bus. Everyone around him is staring at him and saying "in civilized community you can't do that with impunity", and the man just stares back blankly and says "why not"? Get the point?

Unless you are in on the joke, things can often be misunderstood -- as was clearly the case earlier. Maybe a disclaimer at the top of each itulip page saying that words may be arbitararily changed on posts made by itulip members based on the jocular whims of system administrators.