Spare_change
Gold Member
- Jun 27, 2011
- 8,690
- 1,293
No issues with my logic......which is why you don't cite one.You prove yourself incapable once again ....Surely, you jest ...No...they retired because their retirement savings and homes recovered from the Wages of Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux, and they could finally afford to....They "retired" only because they couldn't find work, moron.
I'm pretty sure you can't fathom the complete idiocy of a statement like that. How is it possible that you are so completely deluded?
I have the S&P soaring from 1335 in Jan 2001 to a lofty 805 by January 2009........new home sales went from about 900,000 per year in 2007 to about 300,000 per year in 2010....
What have you got?
First, you claim that all is right with the world and that people retired because they finally can - and then, you post numbers that directly disprove your own statement.
You need to rethink your logic ...
Your original "criticism" was sufficiently vague that I could not clearly discern the pathology from which you are suffering....
Having dispensed with the need to demonstrate that Supply Side Idiocy Part Deux left the economy, and by extension household net worth, a smoking pyre, I will now close the circle, Hannibal style....
Is it your belief that the values of these asset classes didn't improve thereafter?
![]()
The S&P had recovered all its losses as of late summer, 2013.
Home inventories were falling, and sales recovering by the same year.
The Boomers started turning 65 in 2011.....
LOL ----- you seriously don't really believe this, do you?
Tell me --- just exactly how long will it take for a retiree's investments to return to pre-recession purchase power levels? (The answer is a lot longer than they will be alive).
Your case of economic relativity doesn't support your point ... you need to try again.
Now, as for your pathetic attempt to demonstrate your supposed superior intellect, I would strongly suggest you go back to high school. Your facility with the English language leaves much to be desired. Your attempt to distract from the weakness of your argument by dressing it in folderol is childish at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.