Dow Breaks 10,000!!! Damn that Obama!!!!

You give him credit, don't you Cyclops? Isn't that enough?

That's Raving Aussie. You don't speak it?

I don't give him credit. I don't think he has anything to do with it at all. I don't even think it's a good thing.

I'm just wondering where all the people have gone, who claimed that Obama was directly responsible for the Dow dropping? I have yet to see a single one of them stay consistent in their belief that Obama has control over such things.

Cycloptichorn

Well, really, any kind of recovery should be credited to Bush....

I suppose his dad made the decision based on GAAP. Land and other assets are maintained at the acquisition cost. The exception is stocks and other financial assets if, and only if, the company is in the business of trading stocks and other securities.

While his dad did decide to do that it is not a requirement. Businesses revalue assets all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revaluation_of_fixed_assets

The Dow breaking 10,000 is obviously a result of the Bush recovery. As you guys keep saying, Obama hasn't been in office long enough to effect changes like this so lets all give thanks to Bush's economic policies and forward thinking in this slight recovery.

I'm willing to give Bush's bailout efforts from a year ago some credit although I think the larger effort Obama pushed was more beneficial. I think Bush's economic policies for the seven years before that were poor.

So obviously, there is a fair amount of sarcasm in your post. I agree that the impact of Obama's policies are really yet to come. The stock market is a leading indicator and I hope that means that better times are coming, but most recessions are reasonably short lived and it will be a long time before we can say Obama's policies mitigated a disaster or did nothing but raise the deficit. Bush Sr. got hit by a similar cycle. I thought his economic policies were generally pretty solid, but the downturn hit right before the election and Clinton got to take credit for the recovery that Bush's team worked on. (This is not a comment on Clinton's economic policies which I have no particular heartburn with.)

So, since you brought it up, in retrospect, what do you think of GW Bush's policies, good and bad?

I think I'll just quote this from your own link. You are entitled to your opinion; you don't make the rules. Thanks for the link, by the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revaluation_of_fixed_assets[edit] US GAAP on Upward Revaluation of Fixed Assets



Noone ever said assets can't be appraised and sold at current prices, nor appraised for purposes of borrowing money. I did say you can't jack up the value on the Balance Sheet as values increase.

I think at least 2 people disagreed with the statement about using the increase in stock price for borrowing based on stock held by the company.

I'm not at all sure what you are referring to here, or why.

Stock owned by a company not involved in trading stock as a part of their business would carry the stock at the acquisition cost, though. I have had several employers try to force an explanation of tax rules from me. It is a losing proposition. The rules are what they are. Certainly, a lender is going to look to the value of the assets. If it is a large loan, they may well require an appraisal. This does not, and will not affect the Balance Sheet.

If you want a rational, try this; every year, every company in the US is going to pay to have all fixed appraised. If it's higher than the previous year, they are going to pay income tax on the gain. If it is lower, they will claim the loss as a deductable expense. They will repeat the process every year, sometimes paying taxes on gain and sometimes deducting loses. Does this seem useful to you?



I don't care how many people disagree with a statement on the sun rising in the east, though someone is surely going to remind us that the sun doesn't rise; the earth rotates.

The bookkeeping on the land in question was correct, unless the value of the land was permanently impaired. That is not an opinion.

I think Roger and I are right about how assets are valued on the financial (and tax) returns in the U.S. which is Cost. We can continue the debate, but I doubt any minds will be changed.
How about FIFO, LIFO and NIFO? How awesome is that debate? Well, not very awesome, but interesting. I'll try to set that up tomorrow.

Haven't messed with FIFO or LIFO since graduation. Is NIFO anything like the notorious FISH method of the late '70s?

Nobody is to blame really. Badness from 20 years ago has put our economy in this situation. We are never to recover. Rome didn't recover .......no previous leading tyrant recoved for a substantial time....get ready ....here comes the downfall. whoops here it is.