General Electric: Signaling Economic Turmoil

The Dow Jones Industrial Average originally consisted of 12 companies.

Of those original companies back in 1896, only General Electric remains, and during the most recent recessionary periods it has proven reliably representative of trend.

During the collapse of the dot-com bubble, General Electric fell from roughly $60 per share in September of 2000 to nearly $20 per share in February of 2003, a whole 66-percent decline over 29 months.

Over the ensuing 55 months, General Electric shares would rebound over the 40-dollar level, only to tumble all the way down to $7 per share by March of 2009, as the world experienced the greatest financial meltdown since the Great Depression.

Since that low, General Electric has endured to again eclipse the $30-per-share mark, closing at $32.88 on July 15, 2016.

Since then, however, the stock has resumed its seemingly-secular downward trajectory to close at $17.45 per share at the end of 2017, completing a full 47-percent decline just before the new year.

With the lauded "January Effect" looming large, many investors and commentators recommend an allocation toward General Electric to take advantage of the historical trend.

However, the technical movements of stocks are rendered predictable only by their estimations against relatively normal, predictable conditions.

Should this downward movement instead indicate a broader trend for the greater economy, this may in fact portend something far more serious than any opportunity to buy the dip.

If immediate history is any indicator, a major economic recession is upon us.

Comments

Death by Socialism

This title is available for purchase on Amazon , Lulu , Barnes & Noble , and Walmart .

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes. The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

Get Your Copy of “Death by Socialism” Today

Buy your copy of Death by Socialism today at Lulu , Amazon , Barnes & Noble , or Walmart . Every year, there is a list of the world’s top causes of death. The list ordinarily includes heart disease, stroke, pulmonary disease, lung cancer, tuberculosis, and malaria, among others. However, there is one cause of death that is conspicuously absent from this list; one that has claimed more than one hundred million lives over the past century alone, and one that has left countless mil- lions of lives and families in shambles. You will not find this cause of death listed on any coroner’s reports. You will not find any laboratories researching a cure. There are no fundraisers or public awareness campaigns around it. You will not even find a passing mention of it in any of the newspapers. It is the most ruthless of serial killers, and yet it never has its day in court. More than people, this cause of death has claimed entire civilizations. It is the most silent of killers: it is Deat

Paradocracy

Search This Blog