When would a 10% tax rate generate more revenue then the current tax rate?

[NYcarbineer]

See? Proved my point. You demand we adhere to the founders' principles but immediately demand that you get to decide what they were and weren't.

You remain a stubbornly dishonest hack.

I didn't demand any such thing. In fact, you lying bitch, I made no demand of any kind.

I DO reject your irrational and baseless spin on what the Constitution and the Founders might say concerning "strict government control over corporations." Your baseless conjecture is certainly not supported by ANYthing at all.

By the way, carbuncle, we are permitted to reject each others' assertions regarding what the Founder's MIGHT say about "protectionism." And of course I reject your views. YOU reject supporting your blather in any way, after all.

Ignoring your immature meltdown,

I submit this for your rebuttal:

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

Prove that the above is factually incorrect, or, more style, just launch into another childish rant.

And on protectionism:

The Tariff Act of 1789, was the first major Act passed in the United States under its present Constitution of 1789 and had two purposes as stated in Section I of the Act which reads as follows;

"Whereas it is necessary for that support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandise:"[1]

Tariff of 1789 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, the VERY FIRST major piece of legislation to come out of Congress was a protectionist tariff bill.

Now reconcile that with your claim that the founders weren't protectionist.

Your typically arrogant but always baseless self congratulation aside, and dismissing your usual ad hominem tripe, it should not go unnoticed that your alleged "rebuttal" actually rebutted nothing.

I never denied that the Founders might wish to have a government willing and able to engage in some kinds of protectionism (in fact, to the contrary, I was quite clear in recognizing that notions of "protectionism" existed).

What I SAID, you dimwit, was that THEIR notions of protectionism might differ from the way YOU tend to grasp the meaning of that term.
Nothing you posted refutes or rebuts a single thing I have said.

Let's go a tiny bit further. If (pick a nation) Japan happens to impose special tariffs on American manufactured goods which we try to sell abroad, but the U.S. happens not to impose a reciprocal tariff on Japanese products, then the Japanese government is certainly engaged in protectionism. And the U.S. by contrast, in that example, would certainly NOT be engaged in protectionism. The government, under those or other relevant circumstances, absolutely has a Constitutional authority to seek to level off the playing field.

As to CORPORATIONS. I am mildly gratified that you are beginning to study the topic closely enough to recognize the history of that construct. At the same time, you and your ilk will continue to clamor that "corporations are not 'People!'"

What you guys FAIL to grasp is that corporations (the very word MEANS "body") were imbued with the status of "person" LARGELY for the very reason and for the very purpose of insuring that they have access to the Courts.

That doesn't qualify as "strict government control." And I already agreed that there IS a valid place for SOME government control over corporations. This is why we have such things as "regulations."

It remains forever murky whatever it is you seem to imagine you are arguing for (or against). Corporations DO exist, Virginia. They ARE subject to SOME reasonable government control (as I previously and correctly said), but not STRICT government control. This is not a socialist state.

Feel obliged to try again, carbuncle. Try to be a little bit clear in your thinking this time, though.

Predictable.

^ That you'd have nothing intelligent to say by now?

Yes. Quite predictable.

I'd already said it and you had to concede I was correct.

Now back to the original topic, the principles of the Founders:

1. Protectionist

2. Believers in strict control of corporations

 

[LeftofLeft]

The GOP has already caved and agreed to increase the debt limit and increase funding.......

And that means it is going to benefit the US in the long term? Because the RINOs won vs. the conservatives? how?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You remain a stubbornly dishonest hack.

I didn't demand any such thing. In fact, you lying bitch, I made no demand of any kind.

I DO reject your irrational and baseless spin on what the Constitution and the Founders might say concerning "strict government control over corporations." Your baseless conjecture is certainly not supported by ANYthing at all.

By the way, carbuncle, we are permitted to reject each others' assertions regarding what the Founder's MIGHT say about "protectionism." And of course I reject your views. YOU reject supporting your blather in any way, after all.

Ignoring your immature meltdown,

I submit this for your rebuttal:

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

Prove that the above is factually incorrect, or, more style, just launch into another childish rant.

And on protectionism:

The Tariff Act of 1789, was the first major Act passed in the United States under its present Constitution of 1789 and had two purposes as stated in Section I of the Act which reads as follows;

"Whereas it is necessary for that support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandise:"[1]

Tariff of 1789 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, the VERY FIRST major piece of legislation to come out of Congress was a protectionist tariff bill.

Now reconcile that with your claim that the founders weren't protectionist.

Your typically arrogant but always baseless self congratulation aside, and dismissing your usual ad hominem tripe, it should not go unnoticed that your alleged "rebuttal" actually rebutted nothing.

I never denied that the Founders might wish to have a government willing and able to engage in some kinds of protectionism (in fact, to the contrary, I was quite clear in recognizing that notions of "protectionism" existed).

What I SAID, you dimwit, was that THEIR notions of protectionism might differ from the way YOU tend to grasp the meaning of that term.
Nothing you posted refutes or rebuts a single thing I have said.

Let's go a tiny bit further. If (pick a nation) Japan happens to impose special tariffs on American manufactured goods which we try to sell abroad, but the U.S. happens not to impose a reciprocal tariff on Japanese products, then the Japanese government is certainly engaged in protectionism. And the U.S. by contrast, in that example, would certainly NOT be engaged in protectionism. The government, under those or other relevant circumstances, absolutely has a Constitutional authority to seek to level off the playing field.

As to CORPORATIONS. I am mildly gratified that you are beginning to study the topic closely enough to recognize the history of that construct. At the same time, you and your ilk will continue to clamor that "corporations are not 'People!'"

What you guys FAIL to grasp is that corporations (the very word MEANS "body") were imbued with the status of "person" LARGELY for the very reason and for the very purpose of insuring that they have access to the Courts.

That doesn't qualify as "strict government control." And I already agreed that there IS a valid place for SOME government control over corporations. This is why we have such things as "regulations."

It remains forever murky whatever it is you seem to imagine you are arguing for (or against). Corporations DO exist, Virginia. They ARE subject to SOME reasonable government control (as I previously and correctly said), but not STRICT government control. This is not a socialist state.

Feel obliged to try again, carbuncle. Try to be a little bit clear in your thinking this time, though.

Predictable.

^ That you'd have nothing intelligent to say by now?

Yes. Quite predictable.

I'd already said it and you had to concede I was correct.

Now back to the original topic, the principles of the Founders:

1. Protectionist

2. Believers in strict control of corporations

I have already said that you are arrogant and I note also that you are delusional.

AGAIN, because you are either stupid or dishonest (possibly both) I will deign to remind you that the question is NOT even debated that the Founders would agree that the Government ought to have the authority to enact SOME protectionist laws. I agree with THAT much more limited proposition DESPITE the fact that you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge the limitation. "Some" is a word that HAS meaning except to brain fart liberal jokes like you. Naturally, since YOU aren't bright or honest enough to acknowledge THAT part of it, I do NOT agree with YOU or your silly meaningless claims.

And you have STILL failed to show that the Founders' principles entailed "strict" control over corporations. Some? Sure. As I correctly have noted all along. But "strict?"

More of your always unsupported bleating blather.

In a nation whose founding principles include LIMITED government and a limit on the AUTHORITY of government, it would be ignorant to pretend that your view has any validity. It does not in fact.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And you have STILL failed to show that the Founders' principles entailed "strict" control over corporations. .

Actually no control whatsoever since there were no corporations then that resembled modern corporations. Then the British East India Company, for example, was a govt monopoly designed to enrich the British Govt. Today there are 100 million corporations locked in a deadly battle for survival based on their ability to slavishly provide the best products and jobs possible in the entire world.

 

[healthmyths]

It comes down to 10% of what. 10% of an extremely expanded economy would generate more revenue than the current rate in a contracted economy.

Didn't work when Bush tried it. But this time is different?

The economy is definitely more contracted now than when Bush cut taxes.

Just the facts folks! Tax cuts went to affect, TAX revenues increased.
GDP increased.
And all of this in spite of these events that NO other president has ever faced in one administration!
1) Recession...
2) Dot.com bust remember $5 trillion in market losses MEANT tax deductions which meant LoWER REVENUE DUMMY!
3) Little event like 9/11occurred! 3 days no flights;10 days no wall street! 18,000 businesses loss

• 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
• 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
• 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...

In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:


View attachment 53679
Source: USDA ERS - International Macroeconomic Data Set

Bush's deficits are the fault of Bush cutting taxes twice while the US entered TWO wars.

You don't read fACTS at all do you.
You have some stupid opinions all because you are a Bush Basher regardless of the truth!
Did the dot.com bust occur? YES
Did 9/11 occur? YES
Did the worst hurricane seasons not just hurricanes seasons ever occur? YES
Did those events cost jobs? YES! Dot.com/9/11/hurricanes all cost jobs! Why is that so hard to admit?
If they cost jobs.. they cost payroll taxes! Payroll taxes are part of TAX REVENUES!!!
Did they cost businesses? Yes 18,000 business lost. Wall street closed 10 days! Airlines didn't fly... AND YOU can't admit
that had a negative affect not the economy and the tax revenues?
See this is the problem with people like you. Regardless of whether it was Bush or Obama it was an disastrous affect on the economy!
It wasn't a GOP/Democrat issue it was the FACT.

Now as far as 2 wars. Did the 1991 Cease Fire exist? YES.
Did Saddam break the Cease fire? dozens of times.
Did Clinton sign the 1998 Liberation of Iraq act and did he not bomb Iraq? YES.
Did 9/11 occur and when 90% of us believed based on Democrat and GOP administrations evaluations of Saddam that he had to go!
So why are you ignoring these simple facts? Is it just a "party" issue? I mean are you such a died in the wool politically driven person
that the above FACTs mean nothing???

 

[healthmyths]

Before we talk wistfully of flat taxes and lowering tax rates we need to talk about reducing government waste. Need to cut WAY back on military spending (or at least start winning wars to justify the costs,) and audit government spending top to bottom. Imagine the actual costs involved with government are less than half what we actually spend due to waste, dead projects that still get funded, and corruption.

Until we spend money in government like a retiree on a fixed income, taxes aren't the solution either way.

Partially correct and partially false.

What we SHOULD do is engage in all parts of that conversation at roughly the same time.

Cutting waste. Good idea. BUT, mere meaningless words until we mange to figure out how to identify all the places it exists (and define what constitutes waste, which is not always a matter of agreement).

And there is no good reason to "cut" military spending unless we are actually as safe as we can reasonably be. There MIGHT very well be different ways to try to generate lower costs for what we spend for things military. But many folks (most often the knee jerk liberals) see the military component of our national budget as a big fat cow from which they can cut off massive slices to pay for "other things." Such "vision" is dubious. Are we confronted with lots of potential enemies out there? Are THEY cutting THEIR spending? Or are they building up? Are we adequately equipped to fight a "two front" war? Or two or more simultaneous wars? Wouldn't it be at least prudent to address all of these (and a multitude or related) questions BEFORE we choose to trim the national budget by trimming military spending?

Audit? Yes. Let's all agree to audit the living snot out of ALL components of the national budget. And let's audit the FED, too.

Military actions over my lifetime is precisely what's made us less-safe. When you drop bombs on people their relatives and friends tend to get annoyed.

So how do you stop the beheadings? The religious zealots that have an end time mentality that are more interested in dying so they can get 70 virgins in heaven.... they don't care about dropping bombs on their relatives...hell they use their relatives as shields!
The ignorance of people as to the objective of the caliphates issued is what we are dealing with...i.e. their objective is to destroy infidels...YOU!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now back to the original topic, the principles of the Founders:

1. Protectionist

Our Founders were not economists. In fact the world's economists did not agree on free trade till protectionism caused the Great Depression trade wars and collapsed world trade.

Common sense will tell you that protection is stupid if you want to have world class goods and services.

dear, in 1980 you paid 10 years pay in Hungary for a car without a gas gage(dip stick instead) that had to be backed up a hill because of a gravity fed carburetor.
They employed engineers by the 1000's all of whom swore that was the best they could do. It is not until you have had years and years of free Republican international competition that you have any idea how many engineers are needed and at what salary to produce a world class car.

Can you have the IQ to understand why the world has moved to free trade ?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The ignorance of people as to the objective of the caliphates issued is what we are dealing with...i.e. their objective is to destroy infidels...YOU!

most American liberals are so so stupid they fear Christianity more!!

 

[eagle1462010]

Now back to the original topic, the principles of the Founders:

1. Protectionist

Our Founders were not economists. In fact the world's economists did not agree on free trade till protectionism caused the Great Depression trade wars and collapsed world trade.

Common sense will tell you that protection is stupid if you want to have world class goods and services.

dear, in 1980 you paid 10 years pay in Hungary for a car without a gas gage(dip stick instead) that had to be backed up a hill because of a gravity fed carburetor.
They employed engineers by the 1000's all of whom swore that was the best they could do. It is not until you have had years and years of free Republican international competition that you have any idea how many engineers are needed and at what salary to produce a world class car.

Can you have the IQ to understand why the world has moved to free trade ?

Stock Market Crash of 1929 - Buying on Margin

As the boom market continued, people were increasingly willing to buy stocks with borrowed money. The "buy now, pay later" method of credit was introduced to the stock market as "buying on margin." The deal was to put some of the money down, then pay for the rest of the shares with profits when the paper was sold. The concept works, provided that the stock prices keep going up.

Buying on margin became so popular that by the late 1920s, "ninety percent of the purchase price of the stock was being made with borrowed money." Not only that ... the U.S. economy had come to depend on that activity. Before the crash, nearly forty cents of every dollar loaned in America was used to buy stocks.

As more people bought stocks with borrowed money, the demand for stocks increased - as did the prices. In 1928 alone, the stock market doubled.

Applying the formula of the time, a person with $6,000 could buy $60,000 worth of stock because all one had to do was put down 10% of the purchase price. With a market going ever upward, who would have thought about "paying the piper" - that is, the rest (90%) of the purchase price - in the event the value of the stock "tanked?"

Calvin Cooledge, then President of the United States, had friends in the financial industry. Regulations, at the time, were so minimal that "the street" could run itself.

(Does any of this sound familiar?)

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now back to the original topic, the principles of the Founders:

1. Protectionist

Our Founders were not economists. In fact the world's economists did not agree on free trade till protectionism caused the Great Depression trade wars and collapsed world trade.

Common sense will tell you that protection is stupid if you want to have world class goods and services.

dear, in 1980 you paid 10 years pay in Hungary for a car without a gas gage(dip stick instead) that had to be backed up a hill because of a gravity fed carburetor.
They employed engineers by the 1000's all of whom swore that was the best they could do. It is not until you have had years and years of free Republican international competition that you have any idea how many engineers are needed and at what salary to produce a world class car.

Can you have the IQ to understand why the world has moved to free trade ?

Stock Market Crash of 1929 - Buying on Margin

As the boom market continued, people were increasingly willing to buy stocks with borrowed money. The "buy now, pay later" method of credit was introduced to the stock market as "buying on margin." The deal was to put some of the money down, then pay for the rest of the shares with profits when the paper was sold. The concept works, provided that the stock prices keep going up.

Buying on margin became so popular that by the late 1920s, "ninety percent of the purchase price of the stock was being made with borrowed money." Not only that ... the U.S. economy had come to depend on that activity. Before the crash, nearly forty cents of every dollar loaned in America was used to buy stocks.

As more people bought stocks with borrowed money, the demand for stocks increased - as did the prices. In 1928 alone, the stock market doubled.

Applying the formula of the time, a person with $6,000 could buy $60,000 worth of stock because all one had to do was put down 10% of the purchase price. With a market going ever upward, who would have thought about "paying the piper" - that is, the rest (90%) of the purchase price - in the event the value of the stock "tanked?"

Calvin Cooledge, then President of the United States, had friends in the financial industry. Regulations, at the time, were so minimal that "the street" could run itself.

(Does any of this sound familiar?)

dear stupid liberal, you pretend that regulation is magic. Ask the USSR and Red China if it worked. Regulation is more apt to to be harmful than helpful. Do you understand?

 

[eagle1462010]

Now back to the original topic, the principles of the Founders:

1. Protectionist

Our Founders were not economists. In fact the world's economists did not agree on free trade till protectionism caused the Great Depression trade wars and collapsed world trade.

Common sense will tell you that protection is stupid if you want to have world class goods and services.

dear, in 1980 you paid 10 years pay in Hungary for a car without a gas gage(dip stick instead) that had to be backed up a hill because of a gravity fed carburetor.
They employed engineers by the 1000's all of whom swore that was the best they could do. It is not until you have had years and years of free Republican international competition that you have any idea how many engineers are needed and at what salary to produce a world class car.

Can you have the IQ to understand why the world has moved to free trade ?

Stock Market Crash of 1929 - Buying on Margin

As the boom market continued, people were increasingly willing to buy stocks with borrowed money. The "buy now, pay later" method of credit was introduced to the stock market as "buying on margin." The deal was to put some of the money down, then pay for the rest of the shares with profits when the paper was sold. The concept works, provided that the stock prices keep going up.

Buying on margin became so popular that by the late 1920s, "ninety percent of the purchase price of the stock was being made with borrowed money." Not only that ... the U.S. economy had come to depend on that activity. Before the crash, nearly forty cents of every dollar loaned in America was used to buy stocks.

As more people bought stocks with borrowed money, the demand for stocks increased - as did the prices. In 1928 alone, the stock market doubled.

Applying the formula of the time, a person with $6,000 could buy $60,000 worth of stock because all one had to do was put down 10% of the purchase price. With a market going ever upward, who would have thought about "paying the piper" - that is, the rest (90%) of the purchase price - in the event the value of the stock "tanked?"

Calvin Cooledge, then President of the United States, had friends in the financial industry. Regulations, at the time, were so minimal that "the street" could run itself.

(Does any of this sound familiar?)

dear stupid liberal, you pretend that regulation is magic. Ask the USSR and Red China if it worked. Regulation is more apt to to be harmful than helpful. Do you understand?

Dear I'm not a liberal......and your position on what caused the Great Depression is BS........

Margin Call anyone..............oops............the Fiat money isn't there anymore...................BOOM.............

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

your position on what caused the Great Depression is BS........

..

my position is Bernanke's and Friedman's that it was the Federal Reserve. What is your position??

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now back to the original topic, the principles of the Founders:

1. Protectionist

Our Founders were not economists. In fact the world's economists did not agree on free trade till protectionism caused the Great Depression trade wars and collapsed world trade.

Common sense will tell you that protection is stupid if you want to have world class goods and services.

dear, in 1980 you paid 10 years pay in Hungary for a car without a gas gage(dip stick instead) that had to be backed up a hill because of a gravity fed carburetor.
They employed engineers by the 1000's all of whom swore that was the best they could do. It is not until you have had years and years of free Republican international competition that you have any idea how many engineers are needed and at what salary to produce a world class car.

Can you have the IQ to understand why the world has moved to free trade ?

How can protectionism be stupid if your country is bleeding jobs by the millions to cheap labor overseas and the products of that cheap labor are coming back into this country as if they were made here?

 

[NYcarbineer]

BTW

Talking about a 10% flat tax is useless unless you know what that tax applies to.

Gross income? Taxable income after deductions? No deductions? Some deductions?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How can protectionism be stupid if your country is bleeding jobs by the millions to cheap labor overseas and the products of that cheap labor are coming back into this country as if they were made here?

jobs are leaving because of highest liberal taxes in world, liberal budget deficits, and liberal unions and thanks to the liberal war on families and schools

 

[eagle1462010]

1987 Stock Market Crash Chart and What Caused the Crash | Stock Picks System

1987 Stock Market Crash Chart

Causes of the Crash
One of the many reasons that resulted in the crash of 1929 is the overvaluation of the stocks. The trading of the stocks at that point of time was being carried out at a very high P/E ratio. High P/E ratios do not result in a stock market crash every time. This can be understood from the fact that even during the years 1960-1972; the stocks were being traded at high P/E ratios. But at that time no such crash in the stock market happened.

Market Analysts who researched on supposed reasons for the crash of 1987 also believe that computer trading and security of derivatives is a major cause that resulted in the historical crash. The big investment companies ordered extremely large stock trades through computers. This also served to be a reason for the big stock market crash.

 

[eagle1462010]

your position on what caused the Great Depression is BS........

..

my position is Bernanke's and Friedman's that it was the Federal Reserve. What is your position??

Making bets with no ability to pay.........then borrowing more to jack them up to sell to some other sucker and try not to be the one holding it when it all comes down.................

Margin Trading.........speculation......1929
Derivatives and speculation 1987
Derivatives and speculation 2008..........

If you can't afford the losses............then don't play the casino of Wall street.........

 

[eagle1462010]

How can protectionism be stupid if your country is bleeding jobs by the millions to cheap labor overseas and the products of that cheap labor are coming back into this country as if they were made here?

jobs are leaving because of highest liberal taxes in world, liberal budget deficits, and liberal unions and thanks to the liberal war on families and schools

An area we'd agree on.............as we've already had the discussion on Inversion and tax rates on another thread..........Drop the rates to 12% and get the Investments back here...........

On the markets, and the casino...........BS.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Dot Com Bubble Burst That Caused The 2000 Stock Market Crash | Stock Picks System
The Dot Com Bubble Burst is what caused the 2000 stock market crash. The years 1992-2000 were favorable for the stock market and the dot com boom was in full effect. But things began to take a downturn from September 2000.

Intro
As per the records of September 1st 2000 of NASDAQ, the trading was at 4234.33. The fall started after that and by January 2nd 2001 there was a drop of 45.9% and the NASDAQ was now trading at 2291.86. There was a drop of 78.4% from the 5132.52 of March 2000. In October 2002, the NASDAQ was trading at 1108.49.

Causes of the Crash
The 2000 stock market crash resulted in a loss of almost $8 trillion of wealth. So what must be the reason of the crash? As has been deduced by market experts, the corporate corruption is believed to be a major reason for the crash to occur. Lots of multinational companies had been drawing profits by engaging in illegal means and frauds. The accounts that they maintained had serious loopholes and the debts were not shown. The stock options that the officers took worked towards diluting the companies. Another probable reason for the 2000 stock market crash was the overvaluation of the stocks and the dot com bubble burst. Even the companies that had absolutely no hope of earning profits and were consistently loosing money had a market capitalization of more than a billion dollar. The stock trading was going on the P/E basis.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

your position on what caused the Great Depression is BS........

..

my position is Bernanke's and Friedman's that it was the Federal Reserve. What is your position??

Making bets with no ability to pay.........then borrowing more to jack them up to sell to some other sucker and try not to be the one holding it when it all comes down.................

Margin Trading.........speculation......1929
Derivatives and speculation 1987
Derivatives and speculation 2008..........

If you can't afford the losses............then don't play the casino of Wall street.........

dear, is their even one economist who believes that caused the Depression???