Display:
The Financial Sense guys have a known bias (they are gold nuts, for many of them, and thus anti-inflation ultra-hawks), and I flagged this, but they do have a point that the real returns on the Dow have been pretty mediocre in this decade, even when expressed in dollars.

Expressing the Dow in euros is a lot more relevant to us here in Europe - and definitely legitimate and meaningful in terms of "value". The fact that the dollar has lost 40% of its value against the euro over the period has to mean something, right?

I mean, market cannot be that wrong?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Apr 28th, 2007 at 06:15:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
yes I agree with your comments on the euro, and won't elaborate here, because I already have to Migeru and Laurent.  In my own mind I was commenting on gold and oil from your comment, and really should have excluded the euro.

you can cherry pick dates to prove anything you want on returns on the American stock markets, since stock markets have cycles, though the long term trend is up.  The Dow was 10791 at the beginning of the decade, which was Jan 2, 2001, so it is 21.6% higher today, six years later, and that is definitely lower than the longer term growth figures.  If you chose January 2000 the returns would be far less.  If you chose 1995 they would be far better.  The long term returns from US equities are about 10% nominal and 7% real.

 But the US economy is incredibly strong in recent times.  There has been one very minor recession since 1991, which is an incredible period of prosperity, particularly thinking of the challenges of the tech wreck, 9/11, a poorly chosen and poorly run war in Iraq,,,,just to pick a few.

by wchurchill on Sat Apr 28th, 2007 at 01:20:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series