Jeremiah Wright revisited
Earlier this spring, there was a good deal of discussion everywhere about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama’s former and long-time pastor. We heard plenty here Political Fix and elsewhere on STLtoday.com.
The fallout for Obama’s campaign lasted for weeks, even after Obama’s response in a lengthy speech on race. (For the record, one YouTube clip of that speech has been viewed 4.3 million times since it was added a little more than a month ago.)
Given that kind of attention, I’m a little surprised that Wright’s interview last week on PBS with Bill Moyers and subsequent appearances aren’t getting more hits on the web.
In fact, Wright speaking out still is drawing less traffic on YouTube than the GOP ad from North Carolina tying Wright and Obama to Democrats running for governor. (This is the ad campaign that is drawing serious flak from both Democrats as well as Republicans nationally, including Sen. John McCain.)
Still, the entire issue is bound to find its way to the spotlight again, as Wright continues to speak out, most recently at the National Press Club this morning. Wright specifically says his critics are really after his faith and black church traditions that were under attack.
I’m posting the four parts to the interview Wright gave to PBS below. Take the time to watch them, and then offer your thoughts.
Amazed you are the idiot - big deal a Roth - tiny amounts every year can only be contributed. Where is that 20% a year? Now, it’s 9% a year. You are so ignorant to not know the Stock Market will not go to zero. When it was at 7900 it had been at 10000 years prior to that low mark, now it’s just trying to make up for all those huge losses. Who are you kidding? Yourself only.
Maybe the short bus you so commonly refer to did not help you out much at all and you had better try taking some college courses or return to high school to receive your GED.
**Everything is short term for you knuckleheads. My stock portfolio is up 100% over the last 5 years, including the downturn of about 10% in the first quarter of this year. That’s a 20% average for you short bus riders.** April 30th, 2008 at 9:53 am Amazed
**As we speak it is at 12969. The 30 stocks in the Dow are up collectively 79% in the last 5 almost 6 years. **April 30th, 2008 at 1:39 pm Amazed
***If you take my port back 10 years(I’ve been in for only 8 and only really heavy beginning in 02) It has averaged about 9-10%. ***April 30th, 2008 at 1:39 pm Amazed
Which is it 9-10% or 20% a year? Do you know the difference between the number 9, 10, and 20? I think not. Let me explain: the difference is 100% or double. Poor feeble-minded short-bus rider. Maybe th fumes got to your brain from sitting in the back of the short-bus.
LIARS CAN NEVER REMEMBER THEIR PREVIOUS LIES HENCE THE CONTRADICTIONS !!
ENOUGH SAID — — —- LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE !!!
AMAZED– Let’s get your facts straight once and for all:
CAGR of the Stock Market
This calculator lets you find the annualized growth rate of the S&P 500 over the date range you specify; you’ll find that the CAGR is usually about a percent less than the simple average.
Year and Return
2007 3.81
2006 12.80
2005 3.01
2004 9.00
2003 26.39
2002 -23.37
2001 -13.04
2000 -10.14
1999 9.51
1998 16.67
1997 11.02
1996 10.27
1995 14.11
1994 -1.47
1993 7.03
1992 4.47
1991 16.35
1990 -6.58
1989 17.25
1988 12.41
1987 2.59
1986 15.32
1985 26.38
1984 1.41
1983 17.23
1982 15.12
1981 -10.03
1980 25.76
1979 12.49
1978 -0.32
1977 -11.36
1976 19.14
1975 31.13
1974 -29.56
1973 -17.10
1972 15.63
1971 10.28
1970 0.10
1969 -11.45
1968 6.55
1967 20.09
1966 -12.98
1965 9.06
1964 12.98
1963 18.68
1962 -11.81
1961 19.88
1960 -4.02
1959 6.76
1958 31.83
1957 -13.62
1956 -2.19
1955 26.24
1954 42.33
1953 -8.07
1952 11.02
1951 10.37
1950 16.82
Date Range
Jan 1 to Dec 31
Compound Annual Growth Rate (Annualized Return)
A problem with talking about average investment returns is that there is real ambiguity about what people mean by “average”. For example, if you had an investment that went up 100% one year and then came down 50% the next, you certainly wouldn’t say that you had an average return of 25% = (100% - 50%)/2, because your principal is back where it started: your real annualized gain is zero.
In this example, the 25% is the simple average, or “arithmetic mean”. The zero percent that you really got is the “geometric mean”, also called the “annualized return”, or the “CAGR” for Compound Annual Growth Rate.
Volatile investments are frequently stated in terms of the simple average, rather than the CAGR that you actually get. (Bad news: the CAGR is smaller.)
Average r: %
True CAGR: %
Standard Deviation: %
$1.00 grew to: $
(These returns are just capital gains, not dividends; if you owned an S&P 500 index fund with low fees you would have made more money than this.)
Note that 2000-2002 really was as bad as it felt, destroying about as much wealth as 1973-1974: in both of those periods one dollar “grew” to about sixty cents. On the other hand, the ten year period from January 1993 through December 2002 still delivered an annualized return of 7.29 percent, far more than inflation. So maybe the new economy isn’t really dead, and we just have to learn to pace ourselves a little…
—–Maybe in thirty years you will get all your principal back, AMAZED if you are still around.—–
OK folks. I’m leaving as they are for now, but lets try to get back on topic. And watch the language.