NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently capital markets are not buying into the theory that Bush is about to wreck the Nation. here (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6720592)

Bush is good for capitalists, but bad for the poor.

Bush is good for capitalists, but bad for the poor.

Well the US is a capitalist nation...

I think people are just finally going 'meh' to the fact this guy [Bush] is back

Stock soars (moderately), but the US dollar dropped again. More money marketers are losing faith in the US dollar and moving to other currencies and gold.

That means that the stock market is confident that companies will do well, but the US itself may not.

"The markets have taken on new life prompted by the election results and the slide in crude,"

More than a meh,

The only reason anyone said the economy would suffer after this election is if it got dragged out for an extra month like in 2000. The economy doesn't care if the president is Republican or Democrat, as long as it knows one way or another. The economy does not like uncertainty.

Stock soars (moderately), but the US dollar dropped again. More money marketers are losing faith in the US dollar and moving to other currencies and gold.

That means that the stock market is confident that companies will do well, but the US itself may not.

The dollar is too high. And has been too high for a while. In the first debate even Kerry talked about the need for it to be lowered.

The US is capitalist. When companies do well, the country does well.

This is more leftist spin.

The only reason anyone said the economy would suffer after this election is if it got dragged out for an extra month like in 2000. The economy doesn't care if the president is Republican or Democrat, as long as it knows one way or another. The economy does not like uncertainty.


Ha, so then all those people who ran around shouting that Bush would wreck the economy etc. if elected were just lying. As I suspected all along.

Ha, so then all those people who ran around shouting that Bush would wreck the economy etc. if elected were just lying. As I suspected all along.

No, they weren't lying, per se. They just lack the gift of omniscience, unlike me. He may very well wreck the economy, or he may not. They didn't know. They were guessing he would. It doesn't make them liars. Now, if in four years the economy is still doing well, then they will have been liars.

Well to be fair stocks would of soared no matter who got elected as long as there was not another 2000. In fact the stock market over time has surged more when a democrat has been elected then a republican, which I found odd personally, but apparently so.

Stocks soared before the Great Depression. Then they crashed, all at once. Nobody believed that the stocks would crash before they did.

i bet you a 100 shares of halliburton i can guess WHICH stocks are soaring (which areas)

No, they weren't lying, per se. They just lack the gift of omniscience, unlike me. He may very well wreck the economy, or he may not. They didn't know. They were guessing he would. It doesn't make them liars. Now, if in four years the economy is still doing well, then they will have been liars.

Well if he may "very well" wreck the economy, then people wouldn't be investing in it. They would invest in Europe or Japan.

The fact is capital markets have reacted positively to the re-election of Bush, and clearly have faith in his leadership. Nor do they believe that he will cause an economic meltdown.

i bet you a 100 shares of halliburton i can guess WHICH stocks are soaring (which areas)

Yes, Wal-Mart, Altria, 3M and Gap Stores.

Haliburton closed down. You owe me 100 halliburton stock.

The dollar is too high. And has been too high for a while. In the first debate even Kerry talked about the need for it to be lowered.

The US is capitalist. When companies do well, the country does well.

This is more leftist spin.

The US dollar is "too high" because the US has an enormous trade deficit and frighteningly large budget deficit, which the Bush administration seems determined to let grow.

That's not leftist spin - that's a serious economic problem. Letting the US dollar fall is 'benign neglect' on the part of the US administration. They're hoping that lowering the cost of the dollar will begin to equalize the trade deficit. But it won't because the Chinese have pegged their currency to the US dollar while they are ramping up their industrial capabilities and exports. So their products will still be as cheap as ever, even though European and Canadian imports are becoming more expensive.

Well if he may "very well" wreck the economy, then people wouldn't be investing in it. They would invest in Europe or Japan.

The fact is capital markets have reacted positively to the re-election of Bush, and clearly have faith in his leadership. Nor do they believe that he will cause an economic meltdown.

It has little to nothing to do with the fact that it was Bush that got elected. The markets would have reacted identically if Kerry had gotten elected. The reason there was such a surge was that for the past couple of weeks people have been very apprehensive about investing, fearing another meltdown of the markets like in 2000 after that fiasco. Once it was determined that there wouldn't be that kind of doubt, those people felt free to invest without such trepidation. It's not an endorsement of the specific president; it's just an endorsement of certainty.

Also, "very well" the way I used it does not equal the way you requoted it.

The US dollar is "too high" because the US has an enormous trade deficit and frighteningly large budget deficit, which the Bush administration seems determined to let grow.

That's not leftist spin - that's a serious economic problem. Letting the US dollar fall is 'benign neglect' on the part of the US administration. They're hoping that lowering the cost of the dollar will begin to equalize the trade deficit. But it won't because the Chinese have pegged their currency to the US dollar while they are ramping up their industrial capabilities and exports. So their products will still be as cheap as ever, even though European and Canadian imports are becoming more expensive.

It's called laissez faire.

And the only why the Chinese can peg to the dollar is by buying US debt, or dollars. Essentially they are taking a long position when the rest of the money markets are going short. All this artificially devaluing the YUAN to make their products more attractive is going to hurt them. Eventually they will be loosing more money by holding, and they will have to stop buying and the YUAN will soar, trade deficit closes, we buy more from mexico etc.

Anyway everyone in the west has current account deficits, that's how third world countries get richer. Look at the UK, trade deficits since forever. Yet it's the only growing economy in the EU.

It has little to nothing to do with the fact that it was Bush that got elected. The markets would have reacted identically if Kerry had gotten elected. The reason there was such a surge was that for the past couple of weeks people have been very apprehensive about investing, fearing another meltdown of the markets like in 2000 after that fiasco. Once it was determined that there wouldn't be that kind of doubt, those people felt free to invest without such trepidation. It's not an endorsement of the specific president; it's just an endorsement of certainty.

Also, "very well" the way I used it does not equal the way you requoted it.


I suppose thats why the market tanked when the early(fraudulent) exit polls came out showing kerry with a strong lead.

It's called laissez faire.

And the only why the Chinese can peg to the dollar is by buying US debt, or dollars. Essentially they are taking a long position when the rest of the money markets are going short. All this artificially devaluing the YUAN to make their products more attractive is going to hurt them. Eventually they will be loosing more money by holding, and they will have to stop buying and the YUAN will soar, trade deficit closes, we buy more from mexico etc.

Anyway everyone in the west has current account deficits, that's how third world countries get richer. Look at the UK, trade deficits since forever. Yet it's the only growing economy in the EU.

Yes, but the British pound is worth 2.5 times the US dollar. Their situation is not the same as the US's at all.

I suppose thats why the market tanked when the early(fraudulent) exit polls came out showing kerry with a strong lead.

Define "tanked".

It has little to nothing to do with the fact that it was Bush that got elected. The markets would have reacted identically if Kerry had gotten elected. The reason there was such a surge was that for the past couple of weeks people have been very apprehensive about investing, fearing another meltdown of the markets like in 2000 after that fiasco. Once it was determined that there wouldn't be that kind of doubt, those people felt free to invest without such trepidation. It's not an endorsement of the specific president; it's just an endorsement of certainty.

Also, "very well" the way I used it does not equal the way you requoted it.

So the economy and the president are completely unconnected then?

Yes, but the British pound is worth 2.5 times the US dollar. Their situation is not the same as the US's at all.

No, it's not. It's worth about $1.86. And it's always been "worth" more than the dollar in that sense.

And why isn't the situation the same?

So the economy and the president are completely unconnected then?

Did I say that at all anywhere? No. All I said is that it didn't matter that it was specifically Bush that got elected, the market would have done comparably as well yesterday and today if Kerry had gotten elected.

Did I say that at all anywhere? No. All I said is that it didn't matter that it was specifically Bush that got elected, the market would have done comparably as well yesterday and today if Kerry had gotten elected.

Well as the economy and the presidency are connected, and the market surged and is bullish on the future (look at the stocks that led), the apparently the street does approve of Bush.

Well as the economy and the presidency are connected, and the market surged and is bullish on the future (look at the stocks that led), the apparently the street does approve of Bush.

You aren't listening. This isn't a blanket endorsement of Bush. The exact same thing would have occured if Kerry had won. The market was just excited to see certainty in the future of our country. An enormous amount of investors were worried about another 2000 fiasco, especially considering how divided the vote looked going into election day. The fact alone that we can say for sure who our president will be for the next four years encouraged investors to stop holding back. Stop trying to turn this into some sort of victory for Bush; it isn't.

You aren't listening. This isn't a blanket endorsement of Bush. The exact same thing would have occured if Kerry had won. The market was just excited to see certainty in the future of our country. An enormous amount of investors were worried about another 2000 fiasco, especially considering how divided the vote looked going into election day. The fact alone that we can say for sure who our president will be for the next four years encouraged investors to stop holding back. Stop trying to turn this into some sort of victory for Bush; it isn't.

What if the Rally continues?

I accept that some or the surge is due to certainty, but according to the efficient capital market hypothesis, that adjustment should have occured almost straight away - not gone on to a two day rally. The fact that the market is trending upward, and continues to do so indicates approval of the outcome of the election.

And as the other poster observed, stocks pulled back sharply on tuesday afternoon when bogus exit polls were released showing a kerry victory. So what does that tell you about the attitude of the street. You are spinning I say.

Halliburton is up 10¢. The British pound is worth US$1.83 as of yesterday.

-Mr. Fact Machine
I'm not making it up!

What if the Rally continues?

I accept that some or the surge is due to certainty, but according to the efficient capital market hypothesis, that adjustment should have occured almost straight away - not gone on to a two day rally. The fact that the market is trending upward, and continues to do so indicates approval of the outcome of the election.

And as the other poster observed, stocks pulled back sharply on tuesday afternoon when bogus exit polls were released showing a kerry victory. So what does that tell you about the attitude of the street. You are spinning I say.

Please, I didn't even vote for Kerry. You are clearly the one spinning. You're taking a two-day surge and turning it into some kind of economic victory for Bush. If there is a continuous surge over the course of his presidency, then I will admit I am wrong. But the stock market cares very little who is president, just that there is one. Obviously I am theorizing, but if Kerry had won, you probably would have seen a similar surge in bio-tech stocks, as Kerry's stance on stem-cell research would have most clearly have benefitted such companies. The surge you are seeing now is people jumping to invest in industries that will obviously do well in a Bush administration. The market trending upwards has quite little to do with the choice of president, as it was being forecasted as bullish even before the election. Don't make this into some sort of endorsement of Kerry or anything. I don't care who won, much like most investors. I'm just sick of people claiming a relationship between such-and-such and approval for Bush or Kerry. You want to see a better indicator for public approval of a Bush win? Look at the election results. That a lot more clearly defines the attitude of the people towards the presidency than economic forecasts.

Halliburton is up 10¢. The British pound is worth US$1.83 as of yesterday.

-Mr. Fact Machine
I'm not making it up!

Thank you. I didn't look it up, I was trying to do it from memory. $1.83 will do fine. :)

Look at the UK, trade deficits since forever. Yet it's the only growing economy in the EU.
BULLSHIT!

Source now.

Halliburton is up 10¢. The British pound is worth US$1.83 as of yesterday.

-Mr. Fact Machine
I'm not making it up!

Halliburton is down.here (http://quote.morningstar.com/Quote.html?ticker=HAL)

So much for Mr. Fact Machine

BULLSHIT!

Source now.

*Yawn*

You could try the CIA world fact book. But I suppose just yelling bullshit everytime there is some inconveinent fact is easier.

*Yawn*

You could try the CIA world fact book. But I suppose just yelling bullshit everytime there is some inconveinent fact is easier.

Well, it is easier.

*Yawn*

You could try the CIA world fact book. But I suppose just yelling bullshit everytime there is some inconveinent fact is easier.
http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/index_wide.cfm?page=Economic%20and%20Financial&story_id=3353433

Real GDP chance, Euro area:
2.0%

Not growing?


Yep, you're full of shit dave. Nice try.

http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/index_wide.cfm?page=Economic%20and%20Financial&story_id=3353433

Real GDP chance, Euro area:
2.0%

Not growing?

He didn't say it was not growing. In fact, he said it was growing. He said they've had trade deficits forever.

Yes, this is the same market that pays attention to sports games for predictions and astrology. I bet you that the market rallied when New Year's Eve came around. I am looking up now.

He didn't say it was not growing. In fact, he said it was growing. He said they've had trade deficits forever.
"Yet it's the only growing economy in the EU."

Nope. They all are growing.

Stock market Does Better Under Dems Than Reps (http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/)

According to their paper, entitled, "The Presidential Puzzle: Political Cycles and the Stock Market" and published in the October issue of the Journal of Finance, stock market returns are on average about 5 percent higher when the White House is run by a Democrat than during Republican rule.

Looking at the 72-year period between 1927 and 1999, the study shows that a broad stock index, similar to the S&P 500, returned approximately 11 percent more a year on average under a Democratic president versus safer, three-month Treasurys. By comparison, the index only returned 2 percent more a year versus the T-bills when Republicans were in office.

The study also looked at how the index responded under both Democrats and Republicans, using two portfolios tracked by the Center for Research in Security Prices, a research outfit affiliated with the University of Chicago's business school.

The "value-weighted portfolio" ranks all the stocks in the index according to their total market value, whereas in the "equal-weighted portfolio" the stocks are all ranked the same.

On average, value-weighted portfolios returned 9 percent more under Democrats than Republicans during the 72 year period, while equal-weighted portfolios returned 16 percent more under Democrats.

"Yet it's the only growing economy in the EU."

Nope. They all are growing.

Oh, I get what you're saying. I thought you were contending the first part of that sentence. My bad.

I myself think that the market is glad that it is over. The thing they hate the most is uncertainty, and a victor should be a relief for them. I did notice, however, that oil prices were higher, as the market expects that the nation will use more oil with Bush in office. What I'd really be interested to see, however, are alternative energy stocks.

http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/index_wide.cfm?page=Economic%20and%20Financial&story_id=3353433

Real GDP chance, Euro area:
2.0%

Not growing?


Yep, you're full of shit dave. Nice try.
It's a mixed bag. The large economies of France and Germany are basically dead. Smaller economies, like Ireland and Greece, are booming, perhaps even growing too fast.

Stocks soared before the Great Depression. Then they crashed, all at once. Nobody believed that the stocks would crash before they did.

The Great Depession had nothing to do with the person in office. It was caused largley by buying on margin (something no longer legal).

The dollar is too high. And has been too high for a while. In the first debate even Kerry talked about the need for it to be lowered.

The US is capitalist. When companies do well, the country does well.

This is more leftist spin.

The country has a mixed economy it is NOT pure capitalism. Regulation is needed to keep powerful business intrests from running roughshod over the rest of the country.

Bush's own business proffessor taught him this, and Bush demonstrated that he understood. In short, Bush understands that he's trying to bring back the gilded age of the early 20'th century by removing industry regulation. Even the prohibition party made some news this year.

Edited because Hesparia saw the error of his ways.

It's called laissez faire.

And the only why the Chinese can peg to the dollar is by buying US debt, or dollars. Essentially they are taking a long position when the rest of the money markets are going short. All this artificially devaluing the YUAN to make their products more attractive is going to hurt them. Eventually they will be loosing more money by holding, and they will have to stop buying and the YUAN will soar, trade deficit closes, we buy more from mexico etc.

Anyway everyone in the west has current account deficits, that's how third world countries get richer. Look at the UK, trade deficits since forever. Yet it's the only growing economy in the EU.
Yes, I should point to the example of Argentina here I suppose. Look what happened to IT when they tried to peg it to the value of the dollar. You see, the yuan is not worth as much as the dollar, and the Chinese policy will only hurt them, as it has done in every other area that has tried such a policy.

By the way, I think we should look at the US growth rate of 4.5% compared to the Euro rate of 2%. I'd say that a single country, doing far better than a conglomerate of nations, should say quite a bit. I do believe that the combined populations of the Euro nations are greater than that of the US. Hmm.. So much for the effectiveness of that policy. Even more interesting is that with a weaker economy, the Euro is still valued at about 1.28 American dollars. Now, to me that sounds like artificial inflation, but I suppose I could be wrong.

And for the record, its not the debt that hurts a nation. It's the interest. And unfortunately the US doesn't have the ability to default on its debts like so many European nations did after WWII.

By the way, I think we should look at the US growth rate of 4.5% compared to the Euro rate of 2%.

In reference to this, that is because the Euro rate is an average of all the nations of the EU, and by definition the faster growing economies are being dragged down by the slower growing economies. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, just a contention with this point.

It's a mixed bag. The large economies of France and Germany are basically dead. Smaller economies, like Ireland and Greece, are booming, perhaps even growing too fast.
No, its more that France doesn't have a growing population (which is why the US GDP growth is so high), and Germany is being dragged down by the old east Germany.

i bet you a 100 shares of halliburton i can guess WHICH stocks are soaring (which areas)
I bet Jet Blue and Southwest airlines rise on dropping crude prices and upcoming holiday season. With ATA declaring bankruptcy and these two airlines fairly profitable. (Jet Blue JBLU is more profitable than Southwest, LUV on the street).
I own JBLU and am waiting for the profits. Their only bad quarter was their 1st quarter ever.

I predict US Auto corporations rise with dropping gas prices meaning more SUV sales.

Retail will go up as more money is available from dropping crude.

Tech stocks will rise with the exception of Sun Microsystems, although if CEO Scott McNealy resigns they jump.

I think Northrop Grumman rises on the fact that their Newport News Shipyard will be busy with the Virginia SSNs and other shipyards building the Burke class DDG. New carriers will also help along with the F-22 and F-35.

Make your stock picks now!!!

In reference to this, that is because the Euro rate is an average of all the nations of the EU, and by definition the faster growing economies are being dragged down by the slower growing economies. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, just a contention with this point.
Fair nuff' :)
I'm more than willing to agree with that point. I guess I should have made myself more clear, however, since my post seems to be vague even to me.

You see, my goal was to point out the dangers of globalization, and the benefits of the free market economy, i.e. capitalism. However, it was my fault entirely for not making that clear. My apologies. And your point is well-taken.

Fair nuff' :)
I'm more than willing to agree with that point. I guess I should have made myself more clear, however, since my post seems to be vague even to me.

You see, my goal was to point out the dangers of globalization, and the benefits of the free market economy, i.e. capitalism. However, it was my fault entirely for not making that clear. My apologies. And your point is well-taken.

Thank you. It seems like my attempts at parity over these past few days are being taken alot better than I would have envisioned.

and Germany is being dragged down by the old east Germany.
A valid point. After all, 4 decades of inadequate and mind-bogglingly inept administration by the Soviets can not be overcome in a mere 20 years. Not with technology growing at the rate it is.

Thank you. It seems like my attempts at parity over these past few days are being taken alot better than I would have envisioned.
No problem my friend. You will find that we Republicans are not all stubborn, recalcitrant fools. Although Ashcroft is :).

No problem my friend. You will find that we Republicans are not all stubborn, recalcitrant fools. Although Ashcroft is :).

Yeah, Cheney, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld scare me. Bush seems like an almost decent person.

No, its more that France doesn't have a growing population (which is why the US GDP growth is so high), and Germany is being dragged down by the old east Germany.
Very true, although other factors are in play. I'm just saying that the Eurozone is a mixed bag.

Nevertheless, I find it interesting that Ukraine, Russia, and the Baltic states are booming, while East Germany, with a similar manufacturing based economy, is latent. Nevertheless, I digress.

Very true, although other factors are in play. I'm just saying that the Eurozone is a mixed bag.

Nevertheless, I find it interesting that Ukraine, Russia, and the Baltic states are booming, while East Germany, with a similar manufacturing based economy, is latent. Nevertheless, I digress.

Well, those former USSR nations' economies benefit from alot of trade between each other, whereas the former East Germany is dragged by the former West Germany towards more trade with Western Europe.

Very true, although other factors are in play. I'm just saying that the Eurozone is a mixed bag.

Nevertheless, I find it interesting that Ukraine, Russia, and the Baltic states are booming, while East Germany, with a similar manufacturing based economy, is latent. Nevertheless, I digress.
Socialist state without the machinery to back it up, basically.

Well, those former USSR nations' economies benefit from alot of trade between each other, whereas the former East Germany is dragged by the former West Germany towards more trade with Western Europe.
However, it sounds to me like a perfect match. The East can provide processed materials for manufacturing in the west, and at far cheaper prices. Already, this is happening with countries in the former Soviet bloc. And as Germany has no minimum wage laws, it seems like cheap labor to me.

"Yet it's the only growing economy in the EU."

Nope. They all are growing.


No they are not all growing. And out of the "Big" four only the UK shows any real growth.

The little under developed economies are also growing - with current account deficits I may add. Those base on the German model show contraction, and have done so for a while now. I believe it has been quite a few years since Germany saw positive economic growth.

Also the US economy is not growing because of immigration, it is the other way round. The US has net immigration because the economy is growing. Therefore there are more jobs, therefore people come here to take them. (Just like happened with France in the 70s when it had postive economic growth.)

Yeah, Cheney, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld scare me. Bush seems like an almost decent person.
You know, its funny. Even if you hate Bush, he is just so damn likeable. He seems just like the guy next door. Did everyone see the comparisons between him before going live and Edwards going live? I loved how he just ran his fingers through his hair.

Seriously, he just seems like such an average guy. If he is faking, then he is far more intelligent than anyone gives him credit for.

You know, its funny. Even if you hate Bush, he is just so damn likeable. He seems just like the guy next door. Did everyone see the comparisons between him before going live and Edwards going live? I loved how he just ran his fingers through his hair.

Seriously, he just seems like such an average guy. If he is faking, then he is far more intelligent than anyone gives him credit for.

Yeah, Bush seems like an everyman. Like I said, he's almost a decent person.

No they are not all growing. And out of the "Big" four only the UK shows any real growth.

The little under developed economies are also growing - with current account deficits I may add. Those base on the German model show contraction, and have done so for a while now. I believe it has been quite a few years since Germany saw positive economic growth.

Also the US economy is not growing because of immigration, it is the other way round. The US has net immigration because the economy is growing. Therefore there are more jobs, therefore people come here to take them. (Just like happened with France in the 70s when it had postive economic growth.)
No...I'm not talking about immigration, I'm talking about birth rate.

1% isn't minimal, its about par, and it certainly isn't contraction. Germany is growing at roughly 1.5% per year, Sweden at 3% (CA surplus of 6.4%), France at 2.5%ish (CA suprlus of .3%), Belgium at 2% (CA surplus of 3.2%) and Italy behind the rest at <1% (CA deficit of .9%)

Apparently capital markets are not buying into the theory that Bush is about to wreck the Nation. here (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6720592)
I think you'll find that a lot of the gains were made, not because Bush won per se, but because he won decisively.
The markets were worried that it might end another 2000/Florida fiasco dragging on for weeks and when it was a clear, outright victory, they heaved a sigh of relief and rallied.
The same would have happened if it'd been Kerry the winner by a clear margin.

No...I'm not talking about immigration, I'm talking about birth rate.

1% isn't minimal, its about par, and it certainly isn't contraction. Germany is growing at roughly 1.5% per year, Sweden at 3% (CA surplus of 6.4%), France at 2.5%ish (CA suprlus of .3%), Belgium at 2% (CA surplus of 3.2%) and Italy behind the rest at <1% (CA deficit of .9%)

Those are forecasts. The 2003 figures do not tell the same story. And those are actual.