Top 10 investing years for subsequent 10 year returns since 1965 to date

1988: 18.80% nominal per annum average from the S&P500 12/'88-12/'98

1987: 18.15%

1989: 17.99%

1990: 17.57%

1979: 17.27%

1981: 16.53%

1982: 16.16%

1978: 16.14%

1977: 15.02%

1985: 14.98%

These years have an average total S&P500 market capitalization to GDP (in trillions) ratio of 48.

The ratio at the end of 3Q2014 was 112, which historically produces 10 year returns averaging about 3.24% nominal.

Rush Limbaugh is back for 2015 and he's dumber than ever, just like Zero Hedge

Here:

And the second thing I saw was the economy is growing at this 5% rate.  By the way, do you know how that happened, folks?  Do you know what the bulk of the economic growth -- I mean, what is the economy?  The economy is consumer spending, essentially, consumer spending and consumption, commerce.  You know what the majority of spending was in the fourth quarter was people spending money on Obamacare, mandated by law.  The vast majority of our economic growth -- this was made public by Tyler Durden at -- I forget the website.  It's off the top of my head.  Well-known business website.  Over half of the spending in this country in the fourth quarter was you and me and everybody else spending money on health care. ... Well, some economic growth, when over half of it is essentially required by the government? 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aside from the fact that the quarter in question is stated in error as the fourth, the idea that "the majority of spending . . . was people spending money on Obamacare" is ludicrous.

Line 17 in the snapshot above from the GDP report shows that 3Q2014 healthcare spending was $2.0089 trillion. Line 2 shows the total of all personal spending at $12.002 trillion. Healthcare spending thus represented just 16.7% of that in 3Q. And that percentage is identical to the percentage spent also on healthcare in 2013. Healthcare spending is not anywhere near "over half of the spending in this country in the fourth [sic] quarter".

ObamaCare hasn't suddenly driven up healthcare spending in 2014 at all. Maybe after the fourth quarter is over and we get the final number for that in March 2015 we will be able to say that Obamacare has driven up healthcare spending overall, but so far we cannot say that. So far such increases have been born by too small a percentage of the adult population to show up in the data.

What we can say is that so far healthcare spending is growing at a pace slightly behind the pace of the overall economy, which grew at 4.96% annualized in 3Q. Healthcare spending grew at a slightly less robust 4.6% rate.

It is likewise incorrect to say as Rush Limbaugh says that healthcare spending accounts for "the bulk of the economic growth" in 3Q. Healthcare spending grew $88.6 billion in 3Q2014 from 2013, which represents just 10.65% of the $831.7 billion overall increase in GDP over 2013 in the latest report. Over 89% of the increased growth thus came from other categories.

Conservatism is not about fighting lies with more lies.

John Tamny of Forbes spends four pages trying to convince us falling oil prices are always due to a rising dollar

Here, in Forbes:

"Falling crude prices ... were a function of a rising dollar that revealed itself in a major decline in the price of gold that is and was priced in dollars."

I don't know. Maybe he's trying to convince himself, not us. Reminds me of listening to a religious fanatic who can't stop talking. You know the kind. They usually get older and eventually think the better of it and move on. But not John Tamny.

The idea that a falling dollar produces higher oil prices is a nice theory occasionally supported by the data. The trouble is, there are too many examples of the correlation breaking down.

Crude oil prices from the mid-1980s to 2004 were remarkably range-bound between $12 and $35 a barrel despite the huge drop in the dollar from 1985 and its subsequent rise through the early 2000s. The dollar's rise in the late 1990s did nothing to change this. In fact, oil rose in tandem with the dollar then, as it did marginally after 1995 and as it did at the end of the late recession.

The sheer scale of the moves in oil prices is not commensurate with the relatively small moves in the dollar since 2005, nor is the relative tranquility of oil prices before that explained by the out-sized moves in the dollar.

The case is similar with gold, which at the current price of the dollar is still much, much higher than a dollar at this level in the past would indicate is called for. Gold was quiescent for 20 years and a lot lower than now all the while the dollar moved dramatically down and up again and down, off the 85 level. Contrary to Tamny, the recent decline in the price of gold has hardly been major, and hardly enough to convince that it is hewing to the performance of the dollar.

To illustrate how little gold has cared for the dollar's level, just look at how long it took for gold to peak after the 2008 all-time low in the dollar: over three years. And there is also that roughly 13 point rise in the dollar during the late recession when gold also began its long and biggest leg up.

That's not supposed to happen.

Sorry!