NationStates Jolt Archive

PrezBO is going to address (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_speech_9)the nation again. So far he has had a very depressing effect on the stock markets, leaving the DOW at an 11 year low.

If he can get past his usual doom-and-gloom cheerleading, i.e. "...economic catastrophe from which we might never recover...", will he encourage the markets with talk about economic liberty and the free market? What do you think? (Don't bother, it's rhetorical)

My real question is how much lower will the DOW open after this speech? My guess -- at least 100 points lower, and probably more like 200.

How 'bout by the end of the term? Any predictions about what the market will be in 2012? My guess is about 8000. This includes the catastrophic recession after the GWB tax cuts are allowed to expire in 2010 and capital gains are allowed to be taxed as ordinary income.

It's already down near 7100. My guess is by this summer, we'll be down to 5000 and cruising on down.

By 2012, you had better be ready for riots in the streets.

In case you haven't noticed, we already HAVE a catastrophic recession...

Yes, of course, how foolish of me, the stock market troubles are all related to the one month that Obama's been in office, not the year long recession and the four month economic meltdown that proceeded it.

I mean, it's not like the dow had already dropped 2,000 points in the 3 months before he even took office or anything...

In case you haven't noticed, we already HAVE a catastrophic recession...

The man who predicted it, Nouriel Roubini, says we're now headed into a deep, multiple-L shaped depression. Far worse than what we're in now.

Prepare for the Revolution.

Yes, of course, how foolish of me, the stock market troubles are all related to the one month that Obama's been in office, not the year long recession and the four month economic meltdown that proceeded it.

I mean, it's not like the dow had already dropped 2,000 points in the 3 months before he even took office or anything...

Roubini knows more than you do. We're fucked.

Roubini knows more than you do. We're fucked.

The strange thing is that Roubini has been saying we're fucked since 2004. Why weren't you on here slating the last government for ignoring him?

The strange thing is that Roubini has been saying we're fucked since 2004. Why weren't you on here slating the last government for ignoring him?

I was having fun being on about Muslims.

Now, the economy is the big issue.

The man who predicted it, Nouriel Roubini, says we're now headed into a deep, multiple-L shaped depression. Far worse than what we're in now.

Got any link?

In case you haven't noticed, we already HAVE a catastrophic recession...
No, the recession isn't nearly the catastrophe that the recovery effort has turned out to be.

Got any link?

It's going to be way worse.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/21/MNNA161178.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

The man who predicted it, Nouriel Roubini, says we're now headed into a deep, multiple-L shaped depression. Far worse than what we're in now.

For the record, I've said quite early on (2001? 2002?) that the economy would collapse under Bush...

I was having fun being on about Muslims.

Now, the economy is the big issue.

Aw. Muslim trolling is no longer as fun as it used to be. :( :( :(

It's going to be way worse.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/21/MNNA161178.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1
If we don't get our act together soon, meaning get the government out of the picture, we'll be talking about the lost generation in the US economy, rather than the lost decade that Japan experienced.

Let's count how many times PrezBO mentions the free market or anything that sounds like economic liberty. My guess is that we won't have to use more than one finger, if that.

Aw. Muslim trolling is no longer as fun as it used to be. :( :( :(

Flying planes into buildings and doing suicide bombings is trolling.

Yes, of course, how foolish of me, the stock market troubles are all related to the one month that Obama's been in office, not the year long recession and the four month economic meltdown that proceeded it.

I mean, it's not like the dow had already dropped 2,000 points in the 3 months before he even took office or anything...

2000? More like 6000.

Flying planes into buildings and doing suicide bombings is trolling.

It is? Huh. Well, I uh, learn something new every day, I guess!

It's going to be way worse.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/21/MNNA161178.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

He's also said that with aggressive economic policies the economy can be on the rise by 2010.

I don't think the sky is falling just yet.

He's also said that with aggressive economic policies the economy can be on the rise by 2010.

I don't think the sky is falling just yet.

Nothing appears to have been aggressive enough, or coordinated on a world-wide scale.

If we don't get our act together soon, meaning get the government out of the picture, we'll be talking about the lost generation in the US economy, rather than the lost decade that Japan experienced.

Let's count how many times PrezBO mentions the free market or anything that sounds like economic liberty. My guess is that we won't have to use more than one finger, if that.

Hang on, wasn't it the free market and lack of regulation and proper oversight that got us into this state in the first place?

Flying planes into buildings and doing suicide bombings is trolling.
Interestingly, Obama has done more to depress the DJIA than the destruction of the WTC.

Nothing appears to have been aggressive enough, or coordinated on a world-wide scale.

Based on what?

Hang on, wasn't it the free market and lack of regulation and proper oversight that got us into this state in the first place?
Hardly.

Hardly.

Well, that's convinced me otherwise.

If we don't get our act together soon, meaning get the government out of the picture, we'll be talking about the lost generation in the US economy, rather than the lost decade that Japan experienced.


Wait you want to work with dirty ebil librawls?????

http://phumphries.com/forums/images/smilies/killtard.gif

Let's count how many times PrezBO mentions the free market or anything that sounds like economic liberty. My guess is that we won't have to use more than one finger, if that.

Nahh he is just giving you the middle finger.

So if the previous approaches of the last eight years do not work so why would should we those people?

Based on what?

Roubini has made the comment that the entire world needs to get together, and act more aggressively - even the US is not being aggressive enough. Germany isn't being aggressive at all.

This is a worldwide phenomenon, requiring coordinated action by any country with the wherewithal to act. Some European countries are already too far gone to be able to help.

In a month or so, it will be too late.

Hardly.

What was it then?

PrezBO is going to address (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_speech_9)the nation again. So far he has had a very depressing effect on the stock markets, leaving the DOW at an 11 year low.

If he can get past his usual doom-and-gloom cheerleading, i.e. "...economic catastrophe from which we might never recover...", will he encourage the markets with talk about economic liberty and the free market? What do you think? (Don't bother, it's rhetorical)

My real question is how much lower will the DOW open after this speech? My guess -- at least 100 points lower, and probably more like 200.

How 'bout by the end of the term? Any predictions about what the market will be in 2012? My guess is about 8000. This includes the catastrophic recession after the GWB tax cuts are allowed to expire in 2010 and capital gains are allowed to be taxed as ordinary income.

Wow. You sure like to make some dodgy assumptions.

First, you make the assumption that Obama has a measurable negative effect on the DOW. I would like some evidence for this, please.

Second, why do you assume that the free market is the only possible healthy solution? I don,t actually need evidence for this assumption because I know it's wrong. The free market is not always the answer.

Why do you assume that a catastrophic recession must inevitably follow after the end of GWB's tax cuts? I would like evidence for this as well.

Wow. You sure like to make some dodgy assumptions.

First, you make the assumption that Obama has a measurable negative effect on the DOW. I would like some evidence for this, please.


He does actually. The market is a strange beast. I remember my old econ prof. He once showed us a joke study he researched. Every time Ford took a tumble; the market dipped.

When Poppy Bush rolphed while have lunch(may have been dinner) with the Japanese Prime Minister, the market dropped.

Think about it. If the President got on the tube and said all plans have failed! You don't think the market would tank?

Second, why do you assume that the free market is the only possible healthy solution? I don,t actually need evidence for this assumption because I know it's wrong. The free market is not always the answer.

Because the free market fairies will make sure all people act in an honest way! No true businessman would ever cheat the system!

Why do you assume that a catastrophic recession must inevitably follow after the end of GWB's tax cuts? I would like evidence for this as well.

Because the money will stop trickling down to the rest of us! I haven't found mine yet.....

Roubini has made the comment that the entire world needs to get together, and act more aggressively - even the US is not being aggressive enough. Germany isn't being aggressive at all.

This is a worldwide phenomenon, requiring coordinated action by any country with the wherewithal to act. Some European countries are already too far gone to be able to help.

In a month or so, it will be too late.

Peer Steinbrück is just being a douche. The rest of Europe seems keen to invest and push through this crisis and if the US gets it's finger out then it won't matter what Germany is doing, their recovery will be driven by the rest of the world market.

The only market that truly matters at the moment is the US, if the US can get a handle on things (a big ask after the last 8 years) then the rest of the world will follow quickly.

If the US is indeed to far gone to be helped then the recovery will still happen, abeit more slowly, and be driven by the EU, China and India and the US will most definatly lose it's status as the worlds superpower.

He does actually. The market is a strange beast. I remember my old econ prof. He once showed us a joke study he researched. Every time Ford took a tumble; the market dipped.

When Poppy Bush rolphed while have lunch(may have been dinner) with the Japanese Prime Minister, the market dropped.

Think about it. If the President got on the tube and said all plans have failed! You don't think the market would tank?.....

Your anecdotes, while amusing, do not actually constitute evidence.

Your anecdotes, while amusing, do not actually constitute evidence.

Actually he was being sarcastic about Myrmi's Free Market Is The Answer to Everything approach.

Yes yes. Obama is the reason the stock market is the way it is. Because of his one month in office. Dear Leader Bush II has nothing to do with it.

Myrmi, your threads are almost as pathetic as DK. Do you want him to fail too?

The strange thing is that Roubini has been saying we're fucked since 2004. Why weren't you on here slating the last government for ignoring him?

Because Bush was a Republican, and we all know that any economic problems Republicans face arent their fault and the result of their shitty policies, but the result of the Democrat that came before or after them.

Yes yes. Obama is the reason the stock market is the way it is. Because of his one month in office. Dear Leader Bush II has nothing to do with it.


I think he's not saying that specifically, just that the stock market is reacting negatively to Obama. It isn't too hard to believe, just look at what happened to the markets immediately after the stimulus bill was passed. Regardless, the stock market react negatively towards aaanything, and it's not the be all and end all of everything.

I think he's not saying that specifically, just that the stock market is reacting negatively to Obama. It isn't too hard to believe, just look at what happened to the markets immediately after the stimulus bill was passed. Regardless, the stock market react negatively towards aaanything, and it's not the be all and end all of everything.
I guarantee that the DJIA would climb 500 points, at least, if Obama would say that he intended to eliminate taxes on capital gains. His problem is that he thinks there will be capital gains to tax under his current scheme. Investors like some certainty. What we have now is the remake of Brewster's Millions, starring PrezBO and the US Congress.

I think he's not saying that specifically, just that the stock market is reacting negatively to Obama. It isn't too hard to believe, just look at what happened to the markets immediately after the stimulus bill was passed. Regardless, the stock market react negatively towards aaanything, and it's not the be all and end all of everything.

It has been on a progressive negative trend since the end of Bush's term. But when people tried to blame that on Bush, Myrmi and Hotwife did their "OH NOES NOT DEAR LEADER!" dance and denied any blame belongs on his head.

But now that Obama is in office for one month, its clearly all his fault. Even the negative momentum that was happening before he even took office.

Its transparent sniping not based on logic, but bitterness and rage that their party had shit policies and has earned themselves near political obseleteness (word?).

It has been on a progressive negative trend since the end of Bush's term. But when people tried to blame that on Bush, Myrmi and Hotwife did their "OH NOES NOT DEAR LEADER!" dance and denied any blame belongs on his head.

But now that Obama is in office for one month, its clearly all his fault. Even the negative momentum that was happening before he even took office.

Its transparent sniping not based on logic, but bitterness and rage that their party had shit policies and has earned themselves near political obseleteness (word?).
You don't understand, but then I don't expect much from you. It may not be Obama's fault, but it is his responsibility. He is not shouldering that burden.

You don't understand, but then I don't expect much from you. It may not be Obama's fault, but it is his responsibility. He is not shouldering that burden.

So, do you have that evidence I asked for?

It has been on a progressive negative trend since the end of Bush's term

Stock markets constantly fluctuate however, in reaction to major economic news stories.

You don't understand, but then I don't expect much from you. It may not be Obama's fault, but it is his responsibility. He is not shouldering that burden.

You know Truman was the only one who said "the buck stops here" and he didn't exactly leave things in good order.

So why should the President take blame for the last eight years?

You know Truman was the only one who said "the buck stops here" and he didn't exactly leave things in good order.

So why should the President take blame for the last eight years?

Because it's Sauron, why else? The Dark 4 Years for Real Americans™ until 2012, when Sarah Palin will rise and protected from evil Democratic Orcish Witchcraft, take back the country with Honor, Dignity and Pride that every non-secessionary part of the great nation can bask in and curse the evils of Sauron Hussein Obama and his Islamo-Socialist ways.

You don't understand, but then I don't expect much from you.

No, I understand, certianly better then you. And I can just see through your "concern" to the tears of bitterness.

It may not be Obama's fault,

Oh, so maybe you and DK will stop blaming him?

but it is his responsibility.

No shit.


He is not shouldering that burden.

Orly? Forgive me, I thought he was the president. And I thought that most of what hes done since hes been in office has been dedicated to the economy. Just because hes not doing what you like doesnt mean hes not doing anything.

You know Truman was the only one who said "the buck stops here" and he didn't exactly leave things in good order.

So why should the President take blame for the last eight years?
You don't understand, either. It's not about blame, it's about responsibility. The economy is his responsibility. He can't avoid that. Obama is President and it's his responsibility to fix problems. That's presumably why he wanted the job.

You don't understand, either.

Right right, not agreeing with you and thinking your "arguements" and "ideas" (if we can call them that) are made of fail means not understanding:rolleyes:.

Wouldnt be NSG if that wasnt the case.

It's not about blame,

Then why are the Men of the West so eager to blame him for everything? Maybe if you guys stopped...

it's about responsibility. The economy is his responsibility. He can't avoid that. Obama is President and it's his responsibility to fix problems. That's presumably why he wanted the job.

Yeah, that bastard. Its not like hes been working around the clock and already passed a bill with the sole focus of fixing the economy or anything.

Orly? Forgive me, I thought he was the president. And I thought that most of what hes done since hes been in office has been dedicated to the economy. Just because hes not doing what you like doesnt mean hes not doing anything.

Real Presidents take extended vacations until a terrorist attack hits the nation. Sauron is clearly an Al'Qaeda sleeper operative. How dare he work hard from the get go trying to undo the damage- er glorious legacy of the past 8 years!

My real question is how much lower will the DOW open after this speech? My guess -- at least 100 points lower, and probably more like 200.



That would still leave it 40-100 points up from yesterday.

Snip

Here is the deal. The reason they went down before is other areas were being addressed. He was not exactly clear on how his bank restructuring plan would work.

It is not so much what is said but hoe detailed he is. The article says he intends it to be a detailed report. If your not absolutely crystal clear with business, then business doesn't invest they put their money into gold and wait to see whats going on.

If he is absolutely clear prices will go up as investors know how to invest.

If he is not clear then investors will wait until implementation.

That would still leave it 40-100 points up from yesterday.
So if Obama makes a speech and the market only opens 200 points down, it's a positive sign? What strange rules we have now.

So if Obama makes a speech and the market only opens 200 points down, it's a positive sign? What strange rules we have now.

I often wonder if you read the things you quote. Not what I was saying at all, I was putting your prediction in perspective. He's not giving a surprise speech, they know it's coming. The market had gone up after Bernanke talked earlier today. If his ever utterance is such poison to the markets, you'd think that they would start now instead of rallying.

So, where are the goalposts going to be? If they don't drop like you predicted, or if they go up-what's going to be the excuse? We know it will be Obama if it drops, but if it goes up, what will get the credit?

Hmm...thats a toughy...

Obama's got the reach, and technique sure, but Wall Street has sheer mass and tenacity...

I think it may come down to who'll last longer under the punishment of the Octagon, and Obama has stamina in spades...

So, Im gonna say, Obama Wins...

So, where are the goalposts going to be? If they don't drop like you predicted, or if they go up-what's going to be the excuse? We know it will be Obama if it drops, but if it goes up, what will get the credit?

No, Bush will get credit.

Obama vs. Wall Street?

Last I checked, those fatcats on Wall Street don't command the military. [/completely ignoring all context of the thread]

:D :D :p

So if Obama makes a speech and the market only opens 200 points down, it's a positive sign? What strange rules we have now.

Why is the market the be all and end all of measuring success?

The markets helped get us into this situation, I don't see why pandering to their selfish wishes needs to be the only consideration, people are losing their jobs, their homes, their confidence in the future of the country, I'm just not sure they're watching the markets as the sole indicator of their potential situation.

The fact that the markets have dropped enormously has little to do with Barack Obama, it's been on the cards for quite some time.

To make the market indicators the prime focus of the plan would be irresponsible, basically saving the very people who've been covering up this whole mess in the first place.

PrezBO is going to address (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_speech_9)the nation again. So far he has had a very depressing effect on the stock markets, leaving the DOW at an 11 year low.
ahhh..how ironic. The rightwingnut job still loves to blame Clinton for anything bad that happened after his tenure, leading from 2001 right up to the end of 2008. "It's all Clinton's fault for how he ran things!" they would wail when faced with the reality of the economic mess that was the USA in the last few years under a republican president. Nothing Bush did had any effect on the ecomony, as the reason for any failure could be traced right back to the Clinton 90s
Now we have a new President, a democrat, who's been in the Whitehouse little more than a month. And suddenly everything about the economy is directly affected by what he does and say. Lord know nothing in the past 8 years could possibly have any affect, could there?


wait. did I say ironic? I mean pathetic.

I think he's not saying that specifically, just that the stock market is reacting negatively to Obama. It isn't too hard to believe, just look at what happened to the markets immediately after the stimulus bill was passed. Regardless, the stock market react negatively towards aaanything, and it's not the be all and end all of everything.
Heaven forbid the stock market might be reacting negatively to other factors at play here, like the fact that the end of the financial year's coming up, that Xmas shopping season wasn't the savior that some companies were desperately relying to keep going, that multitudes of companies are facing shortfalls and needing credit to keep themselves going but the banks ain't lending, that yearly financial reports and forecasts are starting to come in which are bleak to say the least, that a lot of short-term loans are coming due soon but there's no money to pay for them, etc etc etc

But of course none of these things could possibly spook an already glum and falling market. Any, and every, fall has to be due to Obama, right?

No, the recession isn't nearly the catastrophe that the recovery effort has turned out to be.

Maybe we should just sit on our hands and pray to Jeezuzz. I'm sure that would help.

The Republican solution to everything is (a) give more money to the rich and they'll take care of the riffraff and (b) pray to Jeezuzz.

Prayer is worthless and I'd rather have some of that money and see the rest go toward stuff that helps everyone not just those that can afford 9 homes.

In case you missed it, some money to us plain folks and some money to stuff that will help everyone, like better infrastructure, better healthcare and better schools is what the recovery package is trying to provide.

The questions are (a) is the division in the right proportions and (b) can even $780 billion dollars impact an economic recession that is world wide.

I figure its worth a try. We may in fact be fucked but at least we'll go down swinging.

Yeah, that bastard. Its not like hes been working around the clock and already passed a bill with the sole focus of fixing the economy or anything.

Be fair KoL. Myrmi's not saying he isn't doing anything. He's saying what Obama is doing won't fix it. Whatever you have to say about what he thinks will or won't work, whether what Myrmi proposes will actually work or not, it's a legitimate criticism.

Be fair KoL. Myrmi's not saying he isn't doing anything. He's saying what Obama is doing won't fix it. Whatever you have to say about what he thinks will or won't work, whether what Myrmi proposes will actually work or not, it's a legitimate criticism.

Actually, by saying that Obama isn't shouldering his responsibility, Myrmi is, in fact, saying that Obama isn't doing anything (or atleast, not even close to enough):

You don't understand, but then I don't expect much from you. It may not be Obama's fault, but it is his responsibility. He is not shouldering that burden.
(emphasis added)

You don't understand, either. It's not about blame, it's about responsibility. The economy is his responsibility. He can't avoid that. Obama is President and it's his responsibility to fix problems. That's presumably why he wanted the job.

I might add to the above post (Sarkhaan's), that this post suggests that not only is he not "shouldering the burdern" but he is trying to avoid his responsibility and that he needs to step up and attempt to fix problems.

All of this suggests that he isn't actually trying to do anything, which is NOT a legitimate criticism and has no basis in reality.

I was having fun being on about Muslims.

Now, the economy is the big issue.

That's not an answer, just an excuse and a dodge.

I guarantee that the DJIA would climb 500 points, at least, if Obama would say that he intended to eliminate taxes on capital gains. His problem is that he thinks there will be capital gains to tax under his current scheme. Investors like some certainty. What we have now is the remake of Brewster's Millions, starring PrezBO and the US Congress.

Ah, so money/income from your actual work should be taxed fully. However, when you invest in the work of others and get income that money should not be taxed?

So if Obama makes a speech and the market only opens 200 points down, it's a positive sign? What strange rules we have now.

Ah, so the economy is Obama's "responsibility" but it wasn't Bush's? Strange rules indeed.

Ah, so money/income from your actual work should be taxed fully. However, when you invest in the work of others and get income that money should not be taxed?

You obviously don't get it. Money from labor is fair game. Logically, how could it be any other way? However, investment money is money from labor (if you have even the remotest respect for the understanding successful investment requires) that, apparently, shouldn't be taxed because...

I'm sorry even when I'm trying to be sarcastic I can't finish that statement. Obviously, the only rational reason anyone can come up with not taxing investment is that taxes discourage investment just like taxing work discourages wor... wait, that's not rational either.

Certainly, there must be SOME rational reason why we tax one kind of income but not another? Oh, right, it's because investment income is generally made by people who have the spare money to gamble in the stock market. Right. Those are good wholesome folks. We can't tax good wholesome folks.

So if Obama makes a speech and the market only opens 200 points down, it's a positive sign? What strange rules we have now.

Truth be told, I would say it means nothing. We're talking about a market that quite often rallies when companies cut jobs or economic data comes in worse than expected and falls when the opposite happens...the stock market is neither a good predictor of economic conditions nor a good predictor of the economic effects of a given event.

The stock market is so myopic that attempting to please it is not only foolish but destructive. Its performance is relevant only in the long-term.

That's not an answer, just an excuse and a dodge.

People actually expect better than that from Kimchi?

Flying planes into buildings and doing suicide bombings is trolling.

Is it strange that I find this, instead of offensive, to be incredibly funny in the same way that a guy flipping off a box of kittens would be funny?

Truth be told, I would say it means nothing. We're talking about a market that quite often rallies when companies cut jobs or economic data comes in worse than expected and falls when the opposite happens...the stock market is neither a good predictor of economic conditions nor a good predictor of the economic effects of a given event.

The stock market is so myopic that attempting to please it is not only foolish but destructive. Its performance is relevant only in the long-term.

Very true. One reason Boeing decided to announce the layoffs is the tanking price of Boeing Stock after the 787's delays were...extended? Wall Street is gambling, and Gamblers don't behave rationally.

Well, the issue that I wanted to address is being settled. The futures are down -- S&P are -4.6 vs fair value and NASDAQ is -9.80. Clearly, Obama didn't inspire a rally.

How many more points will the markets drop by the end of the day?

Ah, so the economy is Obama's "responsibility" but it wasn't Bush's? Strange rules indeed.
Did absolve Bush of any responsibility for the economy? If that's what you think, show me. Otherwise, quite these childish projections. He could have vetoed any of a number of huge spending bills, but failed, as well.

Certainly, there must be SOME rational reason why we tax one kind of income but not another? Oh, right, it's because investment income is generally made by people who have the spare money to gamble in the stock market. Right. Those are good wholesome folks. We can't tax good wholesome folks.
Do you participate in a retirement plan? If you do, you're like millions of others that also 'gamble' in the stock market. If you don't have a plan for retirement that includes long term investments, then you're foolish. The point is that your retirement portfolio would improve remarkably, if the risks associated with investments were rewarded with more of what you gain. That's the rational -- higher risks should yield higher rewards.

In truth, no income should be taxed.

Well, the issue that I wanted to address is being settled. The futures are down -- S&P are -4.6 vs fair value and NASDAQ is -9.80. Clearly, Obama didn't inspire a rally.

How many more points will the markets drop by the end of the day?

You specifically mentioned the DOW. How did the DOW do?

And do you have that evidence I asked for?

Well, the issue that I wanted to address is being settled. The futures are down -- S&P are -4.6 vs fair value and NASDAQ is -9.80. Clearly, Obama didn't inspire a rally.

How many more points will the markets drop by the end of the day?

the market hasn't even OPENED yet.

You specifically mentioned the DOW. How did the DOW do?

And do you have that evidence I asked for?

the DOW hasn't done anything. The market doesn't open for another...50 minutes. It closed yesterday up 231 points though.

You specifically mentioned the DOW. How did the DOW do?

And do you have that evidence I asked for?
Right. Down 7.00.

Pardon me, down 17.00

the DOW hasn't done anything. It doesn't open for another...50 minutes. It closed yesterday up 231 points though.
Ever hear of futures?

If we don't get our act together soon, meaning get the government out of the picture, we'll be talking about the lost generation in the US economy, rather than the lost decade that Japan experienced.

Let's count how many times PrezBO mentions the free market or anything that sounds like economic liberty. My guess is that we won't have to use more than one finger, if that.
PrezBO is a democrat, so of course he won't mention economic freedom. i have reservations cause i think he's a radical, all his change talk. i've called him BO before. it's better that hussein cause that's confusing and the other is just his initials.
i made a thread about calling him BO. some people just think of it as pronounced, not spelled.beau and bo just should not sound the same. the former should should like it does in beautiful.

Ever hear of futures?

I'm well aware of what futures are. They're an agreement to buy and sell securities at a future time, for a fixed price.

They are also absolutely irrelevant to the discussion of market price when the market isn't open yet

I'm well aware of what futures are. They're an agreement to buy and sell securities at a future time, for a fixed price.

They are also absolutely irrelevant to the discussion of market price when the market isn't open yet
So maybe you aren't familiar with the practice of pre-market trading, aka, stock futures? They do represent the prices of stocks and are relevant. But, we only have half an hour to confirm what I say, so I'll wait, rather than argue.

And now, the DOW is at -32... Good day to sell short.

Yes, of course, how foolish of me, the stock market troubles are all related to the one month that Obama's been in office, not the year long recession and the four month economic meltdown that proceeded it.

I mean, it's not like the dow had already dropped 2,000 points in the 3 months before he even took office or anything...

Which just goes to tell you how long he's had to prepare... And what's happened?

....


^this^

So maybe you aren't familiar with the practice of pre-market trading, aka, stock futures? They do represent the prices of stocks and are relevant. But, we only have half an hour to confirm what I say, so I'll wait, rather than argue.

I'm well aware of the pre-market trading. The funny think about pre market trading is that it's pre market. They don't represent the price of stocks. They represent what futures brokers are betting stocks will be.

Which is something entirely different. You're trying to argue the dow is down, based on what futures traders are doing. It's sort of like saying you've won the lottery merely by picking the numbers.

Again, just because traders are unsure, who cares, they're unsure by nature at the moment and there's no magic bullet to suddenly make them confident again, especially when job losses are dropping, consumer confidence is low and companies are reporting losses.

When will people understand the depth of this problem, if anything, one might only measure how little the market will drop.

If it plummeted off this news and traders started jumping out of windows, I might lend some credence to people's claims.

To base the effectiveness of what was essentially a speech on the markets is about as ignorant as one can get, so ignorant one would almost suspect it isn't, it's plain carping.

Even if he'd said, 'hey, we're dropping all taxes on traders, invest as you please', and the markets went up, is that really fixing the underlying problems?

No, it isn't.

I'm well aware of the pre-market trading. The funny think about pre market trading is that it's pre market. They don't represent the price of stocks. They represent what futures brokers are betting stocks will be.

Which is something entirely different. You're trying to argue the dow is down, based on what futures traders are doing. It's sort of like saying you've won the lottery merely by picking the numbers.

Whatever... You're certainly ignoring the common use of a term that has been widely used to describe the closing vs new value of a market for many years, now. But go ahead, it doesn't bother me... The NSYE and many trading firms might be upset.

Whatever... You're certainly ignoring the common use of a term that has been widely used to describe the closing vs new value of a market for many years, now. But go ahead, it doesn't bother me... The NSYE and many trading firms might be upset.

I'm not the one shifting goalposts. You made a claim about the DOW. The DOW hasn't moved since 4pm yesterday, because the market upon which the index is based has not opened yet.

I'm not the one shifting goalposts. You made a claim about the DOW. The DOW hasn't moved since 4pm yesterday, because the market upon which the index is based has not opened yet.
Okay, you're word mincing. I did clearly state that the futures were at -xx, not the value, but I certainly expect that the opening value of the DOW is going to be yesterday - xx.

And today, -xx is really -50. Not what I expected, but not a rally, either.

Let's see how it closes.

Right. Down 7.00.

Pardon me, down 17.00

You know what, since you seem to be completely unable or unwilling to provide any evidence that Obama has a measurable effect on the stock exchange, I'm just going to call bullshit on you.

And your bullshit about a catastrophic recession after the tax cuts are gone? That's a big piece of bullshit too.

So, now that we've established that you cannot (or won't) support the central premise of this thread, what's the point of this thread?

Well 5 minutes in and the DOW is down...35 points. Not quite the "100 to 200 point fall" predicted. Especially since, I'll grant, in the opening minute, it dropped 65 points. Within 5 minutes it's erased half of the drop since yesterday's close, and has, essentially, made little change overall at all.

edit: sorry, 27 points now.

either way, convention states that the "opening" price is usually settled within the first half hour. I'll check back in 20 minutes, see if the dow has indeed plunged 100 points since yesterday's close.

You know what, since you seem to be completely unable or unwilling to provide any evidence that Obama has a measurable effect on the stock exchange, I'm just going to call bullshit on you.

And your bullshit about a catastrophic recession after the tax cuts are gone? That's a big piece of bullshit too.

So, now that we've established that you cannot (or won't) support the central premise of this thread, what's the point of this thread?
If I could provide proof-positive that ANY SINGLE EVENT had a correlated effect on stock prices -- other than being closed for the day -- I would be in a place that the internet couldn't reach -- This time of year, my beach house in the Caymans would be suitable.

Stop asking for unrealistic things.

As far as the economy goes, don't worry, I'll take care of you. And I'll take care of the rest of y'all that think Obama will fix things, too.

If I could provide proof-positive that ANY SINGLE EVENT had a correlated effect on stock prices -- other than being closed for the day -- I would be in a place that the internet couldn't reach -- This time of year, my beach house in the Caymans would be suitable.

Stop asking for unrealistic things.

As far as the economy goes, don't worry, I'll take care of you. And I'll take care of the rest of y'all that think Obama will fix things, too.

You're hoping things will be bad to score political points...

That's anti-American...

Well, the issue that I wanted to address is being settled. The futures are down -- S&P are -4.6 vs fair value and NASDAQ is -9.80. Clearly, Obama didn't inspire a rally.

How many more points will the markets drop by the end of the day?

You didn't say that Obama would or wouldn't inspire a rally, you said he would inspire a massive sell-off. Two very different things.
The issue that you "wanted" to address is not the issue that you did address.

You didn't say that Obama would or wouldn't inspire a rally, you said he would inspire a massive sell-off. Two very different things.
The issue that you "wanted" to address is not the issue that you did address.

moreover it's arguing with ghosts. Of course nobody is expecting Obama to get up there and go "hey guys, everything's going to be alright." and have everyone response "oh, well..ok then".

We're in the middle of a massive fucking recession. Lawyers and doctors and accountants are looking for jobs as servers in restaurants. Blue chip bulwarks of our economy are folding. The second largest electronics retailer has collapsed. Shit is going down the fucking toilet.

I mean, what kind of argument is it to scream "WE ALL GONNA DIE!" be disagreed with, then act like you merely clamed things would continue to get worse for a while, and anyone who disagreed with you was arguing that we'd all suddenly be all fixed this morning?

You're hoping things will be bad to score political points...

That's anti-American...
Hey, the Democrats waged an eight year battle against America regarding the war in Iraq. I think that culminated in Harry Reid's statement that the war was "lost". His word, not mine. That's far more anti-American than wanting a different kind of stimulus. But I think you're being a little cute...

Well it's hit the half hour mark and the market has officially been "opened". We're down 82.

A substantial chunk, certainly, but below the "minimum 100, probably 200" estimate.

Of course market OPENINGS aren't all that crucial, it's the CLOSINGS that matter.

If I could provide proof-positive that ANY SINGLE EVENT had a correlated effect on stock prices -- other than being closed for the day -- I would be in a place that the internet couldn't reach -- This time of year, my beach house in the Caymans would be suitable.

Stop asking for unrealistic things.

As far as the economy goes, don't worry, I'll take care of you. And I'll take care of the rest of y'all that think Obama will fix things, too.

Whatever.

Stocks rose Tuesday after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke gave Wall Street reassurance that the recession could end this year, and that the government does not plan on nationalizing banks. The market was also hopeful ahead of a Tuesday night speech by President Barack Obama.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iteXPH-enX2UcFEfcTz7YZRjtVRgD96I7HN01

Do you even make an effort?

More to point, I gave you a full half hour to meet your estimates, most would say the market "open" prices are set in the first 15 minutes. In which case your claim that the market would OPEN at least 100 points lower was wrong by 48 points.

Well it's hit the half hour mark and the market has officially been "opened". We're down 82.

A substantial chunk, certainly, but below the "minimum 100, probably 200" estimate.

Of course market OPENINGS aren't all that crucial, it's the CLOSINGS that matter.
Pretty darned steep line, too. I've got it down 92 at 10:00. I'll be back at 4:00 to recap the day.

Hey, the Democrats waged an eight year battle against America regarding the war in Iraq.

Wow. That's not anti-American, that's plain clueless.

Pretty darned steep line, too. I've got it down 92 at 10:00. I'll be back at 4:00 to recap the day.

oh it's certainly a drop, my personal estimation was about a 150 points below the high at its lowest today. I have the feeling we'll close somewhere in the 100 point range from 50 below to 50 above...we'll see.

More to point, I gave you a full half hour to meet your estimates, most would say the market "open" prices are set in the first 15 minutes. In which case your claim that the market would OPEN at least 100 points lower was wrong by 48 points.

I don't particularly mind being wrong. In fact, I'd love to see the market top 8000 today. But it won't and the general trend will continue to be down, as long as the federal government continues to do exactly what has never worked and what will not work now.

I don't particularly mind being wrong. In fact, I'd love to see the market top 8000 today. But it won't and the general trend will continue to be down, as long as the federal government continues to do exactly what has never worked and what will not work now.

Do you have evidence for this?

No, you probably don't. So stop saying things you can't back up.

Whatever.



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iteXPH-enX2UcFEfcTz7YZRjtVRgD96I7HN01

Do you even make an effort?
Not sure what you mean... Maybe the market was hopeful. Maybe this drop is just temporary as winners from yesterday sell. Maybe this drop means that the "hopeful market" of yesterday was disappointed by what they heard.


Do you make an effort?

I don't particularly mind being wrong. In fact, I'd love to see the market top 8000 today. But it won't and the general trend will continue to be down, as long as the federal government continues to do exactly what has never worked and what will not work now.

we agree, I think, about a general trend downwards, at least for the time being, we disagree as to the reasoning.

For what it's worth, all said and done, I do believe the market, at its lowest, will hit about down 150 today, but I think we'll see a rally in the pre closing afternoon, round...2:30ish. If i had to guess, we'll probably see a level off at around 150 down in the next half hour, about four hours of fluctuation up down, and a slow but steady climb up in the afternoon.

We'll see...got the ticker running here on my desktop.

Not sure what you mean... Maybe the market was hopeful. Maybe this drop is just temporary as winners from yesterday sell. Maybe this drop means that the "hopeful market" of yesterday was disappointed by what they heard.


Do you make an effort?

I mean that I can spend seconds. literally seconds, doing some research and I find out that you're simply saying things that are untrue.

Do you have evidence for this?

No, you probably don't. So stop saying things you can't back up.
Pal, just go away... You're clearly in over your head.

This kind of spending during the Great Depression resulted in as many jobless in 1939 as there were in 1932. Protectionism didn't help, either. And we were far less globalized in the '30s.

The bottom line is that just digging holes doesn't build wealth or inspire the kind of confidence that is needed to recover from this sort of recession. And that's all that the Democratic party has proposed. We should build a few pyramids and dig a few holes -- as long as we do enough, then everything will be fine.

Wrong.

we agree, I think, about a general trend downwards, at least for the time being, we disagree as to the reasoning.

For what it's worth, all said and done, I do believe the market, at its lowest, will hit about down 150 today, but I think we'll see a rally in the pre closing afternoon, round...2:30ish. If i had to guess, we'll probably see a level off at around 150 down in the next half hour, about four hours of fluctuation up down, and a slow but steady climb up in the afternoon.

We'll see...got the ticker running here on my desktop.
Well, I can see the day's trading when I come back. Time to go do productive and wealth producing work. Too bad it's for Italy and France and not for the US.

Pal, just go away... You're clearly in over your head.

Clearly. By pointing out that you have actually no evidence for your claims, I am showing that I am incapable of debating with you intelligently about this.:rolleyes:

This kind of spending during the Great Depression resulted in as many jobless in 1939 as there were in 1932. Protectionism didn't help, either. And we were far less globalized in the '30s.

If you're arguing that stimulus spending was responsible for unemployment during the thirties, provide evidence for this claim.

The bottom line is that just digging holes doesn't build wealth or inspire the kind of confidence that is needed to recover from this sort of recession. And that's all that the Democratic party has proposed. We should build a few pyramids and dig a few holes -- as long as we do enough, then everything will be fine.

Wrong.

Please don't misrepresent the Democrat economic plan as something that it isn't. If you're suggesting that they are only focussing on improvements to infrastructure (pyramids and holes), then you obviouslty haven't been reading anything about it.

Personally, I think that if Barack Obama was able to be honest he'd do nothing, accelerating the drop might well be the best thing rather than wasting money trying to prop up an economy that is fundamentally fucked.

Whereas it might have bottomed out in April, it may stagger on through uncertainty to July or August.

Job losses are simply plummeting, industrial output as well, we still don't know how much value has been lost on property, the bets upon bets upon bets will take some time to unwind.

Placing any value whatsoever on what the markets do over the next few days is completely missing the point, the same sort of thinking that led to massive over-investment in the markets in the first place.

Given so many people don't even know if they'll have jobs in the next 3 months, it's hard to believe people think that a rising stock market means we're all in happy days again.

A huge market correction needs to take place, no one, not even traders know how to value the market correctly, meanwhile more jobs are lost, less money movement, the best thing to do is hold on to what you've got, not speculate in the market unless you can afford to hold on indefinitely.

Judging success on the market reaction to a speech, seriously.

Personally, I think that if Barack Obama was able to be honest he'd do nothing, accelerating the drop might well be the best thing rather than wasting money trying to prop up an economy that is fundamentally fucked.

Here's my question.

The one thing that powered our economy to the 14,000 Dow and was ostensibly fulfilling the dream of home ownership for millions of people who otherwise would never have qualified for a home loan - and at the same time powered house flippers and people spending money hand over fist after they took out home equity loans on their overvalued houses - is borrowing.

In fact, it's lending - lending at a completely irresponsible and unsustainable level.

A lot of those loans end up as the toxic assets that banks now want to be rid of. Assets that brought down the likes of Bear Stearns, et al.

On one hand, people say, "we have to get the banks lending again at that level" - something the banks are now unwilling to do, because even if they have the money, they now only want to lend to you if your credit rating is 700 or higher (a small minority have that sort of good credit), and they want to see income verification (unlike a couple of years ago, where if you could fog a mirror, they would loan you money).

It's not practical, desirable, or possible to keep loaning money like that. So, even if the banks are healthy, we're not going to see them loaning money like crazy people - and it would be irresponsible to insist that they do so, especially with what is now essentially the taxpayers' money - because that money, if loaned in that manner, will be lost.

People had better get used to the idea that not everyone can afford a house - or a second home loan - or to be involved in house flipping.

Borrowing money is not a right - it's a privilege that should only be granted to those who are truly creditworthy.

While markets, when the economy is reasonably stable, have a lot to do with market sentiment, in that no one can accurately predict the future so it's all betting to some extent, it's all, at heart, based on an actual economy.

One can bet round a poker table with cash all one likes, but we've put down the car keys, put down the house and still lost, we're pretty much at the point of selling our wife.

The real problem is that everyone else has bet on our betting, part based on the fact that our house is worth a perceived value, others have betted on those betting on us and so on.

Basing an economic plan on how the markets might react would be foolhardy in the extreme, essentially hoping they'll just keep on betting in the desperate hope that a royal flush comes through, yet that can only be a productive economy.

Over the last 30 years, the economy has shifted from being production driven to financially driven, there's little left underlying, it is, to extent an analogy, a house of cards.

Over the last 30 years, the economy has shifted from being production driven to financially driven, there's little left underlying, it is, to extent an analogy, a house of cards.

Go ahead and say it - a Ponzi scheme.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wall-St-falls-as-Obama-speech-rb-14464125.html

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks added to losses on Wednesday after data showed the pace of existing home sales unexpectedly fell in January, while bank shares slid on continuing worries over the fate of the sector.

The tone was set early by disappointment President Barack Obama shed little new light about how his administration would stabilize the economy in a major speech before Congress.

The Dow Jones industrial average (DJI:^DJI - News) fell 141.46 points, or 1.92 percent, to 7,209.48. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index (^SPX - News) lost 15.88 points, or 2.05 percent, to 757.26. The Nasdaq Composite Index (Nasdaq:^IXIC - News) was down 28.26 points, or 1.96 percent, at 1,413.57.

News flash: Obama appears to not have magic wand. Fails to fix economy overnight.

News flash: Obama appears to not have magic wand. Fails to fix economy overnight.

Despite his promises, and the fervent wishing of his supporters.

Oh, and he also gets the facts wrong...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fact_check_obama_6

A lot of those loans end up as the toxic assets that banks now want to be rid of. Assets that brought down the likes of Bear Stearns, et al.

Fact is, the banks themselves were all in debt, they simply didn't have the money to cover their bets, hoping for that Royal Flush to come through, driving themselves deeper and deeper to cover the fact that they needed to invest more to raise value so they looked good on paper.

Bear Stearns could have continued, they were just called on the bet by other banks.

We still don't know the value of the remaining banks.

Ponzi scheme, to all intensive purposes, yes.

Despite his promises

Now is where you show he promised to do that.

Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to. Now is the time where YOU duck out of the thread, ignore the question, and come back later pretending you were never asked.

Now is where you show he promised to do that.

Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to. Now is the time where YOU duck out of the thread, ignore the question, and come back later pretending you were never asked.

See the whole election. See why people voted for him - because they were worried about the economy and were hoping he would save them.

See his urgency to pass the stimulus - if we don't pass it in a few days, we're fucked.

See where if the economy doesn't turn around in about a year, or if it gets significantly worse, the American people ride him out of office on a rail.

See the whole election. See why people voted for him - because they were worried about the economy and were hoping he would save them.

See his urgency to pass the stimulus - if we don't pass it in a few days, we're fucked.

"I'm the better person to fix the economy" doesn't equate to "I will fix it overnight" no matter how much you want to lie and pretend it does.

See where if the economy doesn't turn around in about a year, or if it gets significantly worse, the American people ride him out of office on a rail.

Ah now we're in crystal ball land. I see.

You obviously don't get it. Money from labor is fair game. Logically, how could it be any other way? However, investment money is money from labor (if you have even the remotest respect for the understanding successful investment requires) that, apparently, shouldn't be taxed because...

I'm sorry even when I'm trying to be sarcastic I can't finish that statement. Obviously, the only rational reason anyone can come up with not taxing investment is that taxes discourage investment just like taxing work discourages wor... wait, that's not rational either.

Certainly, there must be SOME rational reason why we tax one kind of income but not another? Oh, right, it's because investment income is generally made by people who have the spare money to gamble in the stock market. Right. Those are good wholesome folks. We can't tax good wholesome folks.

Sub Good and wholesome for people of relative wealth and we got a winner. Income is income and should be treated as such. Shifting the balance so that wealthy people, who have the ability to invest, can get out of paying taxes on that income is just bullshit. That's what TDA and IRA's are for.

"I'm the better person to fix the economy" doesn't equate to "I will fix it overnight" no matter how much you want to lie and pretend it does.

Exactly, I, for one, thank whoever needs thanking that Barack Obama is at the helm as opposed to the alternative.

"I'm the better person to fix the economy" doesn't equate to "I will fix it overnight" no matter how much you want to lie and pretend it does.

Why do you think people voted for him?

People can't wait, you know.

I'm rather glad that the Democrats are in power during this crisis, because no matter who was in charge, they would be completely fucked.

No one is going to give them a second chance.

Did absolve Bush of any responsibility for the economy? If that's what you think, show me. Otherwise, quite these childish projections. He could have vetoed any of a number of huge spending bills, but failed, as well.

It's called implied consent. I need not point to your direct quotes because I know who your pom poms have bounced for in the past. If what you say here is true then great. GWB is both responsible and a great cause of the current recession. He is far more a cause than BO is with a month in.

"I'm the better person to fix the economy" doesn't equate to "I will fix it overnight" no matter how much you want to lie and pretend it does.

Ah now we're in crystal ball land. I see.

This is after all, someone who admits the warning signs dated well back to Dear Leader's Glorious Revolution in 2004 but was having too much fun Muslim-baiting then and is only now conveniently griping about the economy.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14546427&postcount=9

I was having fun being on about Muslims.

Now, the economy is the big issue.

Do you participate in a retirement plan? If you do, you're like millions of others that also 'gamble' in the stock market. If you don't have a plan for retirement that includes long term investments, then you're foolish. The point is that your retirement portfolio would improve remarkably, if the risks associated with investments were rewarded with more of what you gain. That's the rational -- higher risks should yield higher rewards.

In truth, no income should be taxed.

IRA's and TDA are already tax deferred so you are already gaining an advantage. These plans are different than traditional stock and bond trading. I have a 401k, and Roth IRA, and a small pension account. All of these defer any tax on the money until later when I am at a lower rate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fact_check_obama_6

OBAMA: "Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."

THE FACTS: While the president's stimulus package includes billions in aid for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone.

In 2007, the U.S. produced 8.4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydroelectric dams, solar panels and windmills. Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take more than two decades to boost that figure to 12.5 percent.

If Obama is to achieve his much more ambitious goal, Congress would need to mandate it. That is the thrust of an energy bill that is expected to be introduced in coming weeks.

This is interesting.

Why do you think people voted for him?

People can't wait, you know.

I'm rather glad that the Democrats are in power during this crisis, because no matter who was in charge, they would be completely fucked.

No one is going to give them a second chance.

So, you're happy the Democrats are in a crisis the Republicans created, and then claim to be in favor of personal responsibility.

The mind boggles.

So, you're happy the Democrats are in a crisis the Republicans controlled, and then claim to be in favor of personal responsibility.

The mind boggles.

Bushevism 101 from Kimchi. You expected anything else?

So, I said we might hit the worst of it by about 10:30 at around -150 and see a slow clime up with a rebound in the morning.

The worst of it came at about 10:35 at -170 and so far an hour and change later we're back up to -85. So we did have a morning crunch, but it seems to be picking back up. I think we'll see a level off on the rise at about -50 or so, until the afternoon, where we will see a slow rise, to more or less erase the early morning losses.

Bushevism 101 from Kimchi. You expected anything else?

I guess not.

So, you're happy the Democrats are in a crisis the Republicans created, and then claim to be in favor of personal responsibility.

The mind boggles.
The cause is far from being the sole responsibility of the Republican party. As I recall, lending institutions used to red-line certain zip codes and refuse to lend in those areas. Why? The borrowers were bad risks. A different party and administration, not the Republicans, nor GWB, passed a law called the Community Re-investment Act. (1977) That may not also be the sole cause of this recession, but it certainly figured in to it.

That being said, the responsibility for the state of the economy rests in the office of the President.

It's called implied consent. I need not point to your direct quotes because I know who your pom poms have bounced for in the past. If what you say here is true then great. GWB is both responsible and a great cause of the current recession. He is far more a cause than BO is with a month in.
I'm going to borrow a page from my Brasileiro pal and demand that you either show me the quotes where I cheered on GWB's handling of the economy -- except for tax cuts, those I freely admit to supporting -- or shut the fuck up! Better yet, apologize. I'm getting damned tired of you and your binary vision where it concerns political support. Not supporting the Democratic party does not mean I like the Republican party any more.

The cause is far from being the sole responsibility of the Republican party. As I recall, lending institutions used to red-line certain zip codes and refuse to lend in those areas. Why? The borrowers were bad risks. A different party and administration, not the Republicans, nor GWB, passed a law called the Community Re-investment Act. (1977) That may not also be the sole cause of this recession, but it certainly figured in to it.

That being said, the responsibility for the state of the economy rests in the office of the President.

Your bolded claim is simply wrong, according to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm).

Some critics of the CRA contend that by encouraging banking institutions to help meet the credit needs of lower-income borrowers and areas, the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending. We have not yet seen empirical evidence to support these claims, nor has it been our experience in implementing the law over the past 30 years that the CRA has contributed to the erosion of safe and sound lending practices.

FDIC Chairman and Republican Sheila Bair also disagrees (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-home-front/2008/12/17/sheila-bair-stop-blaming-the-community-reinvestment-act.html) with you.

Not for nothing, but I did say my own theory was that the market would slump downwards, hit bottom at around 10:30 at about -150, fluctuate up and down for a few hours, then begin a slow rise in the afternoon, closing out at somewhere between -50 and +50

And god damn if I haven't been right so far (http://money.cnn.com/data/markets/dow/?)

I wish people would leave party politics out of economics.

God, the level of stupid in this thread is suffocating.

God, the level of stupid in this thread is suffocating.

How dare we criticize Obama!

How dare Wall Street not rally back to 14,000 and show some confidence in Obama!

How dare they!

I wish people would leave party politics out of economics.

Except when of course the people whose party had been in power, profited the most from the party in power and contributed to the mess in the process of profiting from the party in power are the same people now out of power and have no real creative ideas other than to bitch and project the economic downturn on the party currently in power.

Except when of course the people whose party had been in power, profited the most from the party in power and contributed to the mess in the process of profiting from the party in power are the same people now out of power and have no real creative ideas other than to bitch and project the economic downturn on the party currently in power.

This sentence needs to be taken out and shot.

I'm going to borrow a page from my Brasileiro pal and demand that you either show me the quotes where I cheered on GWB's handling of the economy -- except for tax cuts, those I freely admit to supporting -- or shut the fuck up! Better yet, apologize. I'm getting damned tired of you and your binary vision where it concerns political support. Not supporting the Democratic party does not mean I like the Republican party any more.

No, you supported GWB on a great deal of things. The foul language is really not necessary either. You did cheer on the tax cuts, which I love cuts when they are in the right places. Cutting taxes for those already possessing great wealth is not always a great choice. I already conceded that if you agree that GWB didn't do a good job of handling the economy and applaud you for that. I do not have the time to go back and find quotes right now so I will apologize for blanket labeling your support. I personally do like the Republican party more. However my support for them usually is limited to state and local governments where they do a great job. I tend to vote for Democrats nationally because they present a better case. Perhaps I am mixing you up with another poster regarding GWB's performance, so once again I will offer my apology in that regard. As a man I can admit when I might be in error. I will assume that this is one of those cases. Good day Sir.

How dare we criticize Obama!

How dare Wall Street not rally back to 14,000 and show some confidence in Obama!

How dare they!


You know what DK? Itd be nice, I mean, really nice, if youd stop pretending that on NSG critism of Obama isnt allowed. It is. Valid critism is very much allowed. Howling at phantoms, imaginary arguments, and flying off to, as Neo Art called it, Crystal Ball Land, is (rightly) mocked and ignored.

Now, either you can tell the difference between real arguements and the trolling and talking out your ass you usually do, or you cant. If you can, act your age and start talking about real issues. If you cant, GTFO. I know youre more intellegent then this. Stop doing yourself a disservice and show it.

You know what DK? Itd be nice, I mean, really nice, if youd stop pretending that on NSG critism of Obama isnt allowed. It is. Valid critism is very much allowed. Howling at phantoms, imaginary arguments, and flying off to, as Neo Art called it, Crystal Ball Land, is (rightly) mocked and ignored.

Now, either you can tell the difference between real arguements and the trolling and talking out your ass you usually do, or you cant. If you can, act your age and start talking about real issues. If you cant, GTFO.

This is Kimchi after all, who somehow managed to take a thread on a death in the Cameron family and squeeze out a tiny drop of Liberal Abortion Rant from it.

He's suffering from Ebil Mozlem Withdrawal. Someone'll do something stupid in the Mid-East before a couple weeks are out and he'll be back to his old self.

we agree, I think, about a general trend downwards, at least for the time being, we disagree as to the reasoning.

For what it's worth, all said and done, I do believe the market, at its lowest, will hit about down 150 today, but I think we'll see a rally in the pre closing afternoon, round...2:30ish. If i had to guess, we'll probably see a level off at around 150 down in the next half hour, about four hours of fluctuation up down, and a slow but steady climb up in the afternoon.

We'll see...got the ticker running here on my desktop.

My god, it's almost to the freaking minute

http://money.cnn.com/data/markets/dow/?

Though if I had to revise, the 2:30-3:30 climb was more rapid than I expected, I still suspect my target will be right, but I think we'll stop climbing, or have a brief raise above the high end of the target, then a fall. I don't think we'll sustain upwards momentum for the next hour, it'll either level off, or rise then dip in the final closing half hour.

My god, it's almost to the freaking minute

http://money.cnn.com/data/markets/dow/?

It'll kick down as the closing bell approaches, but if it can stay green, you have to view it as a coup, right?

It'll kick down as the closing bell approaches, but if it can stay green, you have to view it as a coup, right?

yeah, I edited it to say that. I think my overall estimation would be right, but the rise was more rapid than I expected, which will trigger a some fluctuation and leveling out starting...well...nowish. I still think my end target is right though. Hell, if it's red at less than -50 I'm calling it a moral victory.

This is Kimchi after all, who somehow managed to take a thread on a death in the Cameron family and squeeze out a tiny drop of Liberal Abortion Rant from it.
Eh, where?

Eh, where?

Kat separated out all of it into a thread titled something like "Hotwife's need to mention liberals in every thread" and then locked it after taking a shot at him.

Kat separated out all of it into a thread titled something like "Hotwife's need to mention liberals in every thread" and then locked it after taking a shot at him.
Aha.

Tea got in the way.

oof, what a final half hour. Still good overall though, it seemed like it was a profit cash in and not a paniced sell off, can't have an upswing like we had after the day's trading without that happening.

oof, what a final half hour. Still good overall though, it seemed like it was a profit cash in and not a paniced sell off, can't have an upswing like we had after the day's trading without that happening.
I'd rather have it this way, than to see a 1000 point drop. My favorite Telecoms closed up, as did my favorite utilities.

I didn't care for the housing report and I think that's going to lead to another down market tomorrow, but that's another thread for another day.

I'm pretty much done here, having been proved wrong by my faithful indicator of all things -- the market

Your bolded claim is simply wrong, according to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm).



FDIC Chairman and Republican Sheila Bair also disagrees (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-home-front/2008/12/17/sheila-bair-stop-blaming-the-community-reinvestment-act.html) with you.
So are you going to tell me that if companies were still allowed to red-line areas and just refuse to lend to anyone in that area, we would still have this problem?

Now, I won't argue that the fact that GWB weakened enforcement of the CRA, but it takes both elements to have a crisis.

I'm pretty much done here, having been proved wrong by my faithful indicator of all things -- the market

Honorable. I like.

However...

Would now be a bad time to point out that the right word is "proven"?

Honorable. I like.

However...

Would now be a bad time to point out that the right word is "proven"?

No. You started off with a compliment and that should entitle you to a criticism. Especially a constructive one. It was a poorly written sentence, anyway.

No. You started off with a compliment and that should entitle you to a criticism. Especially a constructive one. It was a poorly written sentence, anyway.

Yeah, but it felt a bit "kick-when-you're-down"-ish, so I sorta had to ask.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4806253/US-stock-fades-as-Barrack-Obama-speech-disappoints.html

Obviously, Wall Street is not impressed. Perhaps it's because they don't have the blind faith that most Obama supporters have.

"The market is starving for something tangible on which to hang its hat," said Andre Bakhos, president of Princeton Financial Group in New Brunswick, New Jersey. "There was little of anything tangible in Obama's speech to bring hope to the market today."

Empty words - "we'll do this, we'll do that" without any specifics about how it's actually and realistically going to take place.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4806253/US-stock-fades-as-Barrack-Obama-speech-disappoints.html

Obviously, Wall Street is not impressed. Perhaps it's because they don't have the blind faith that most Obama supporters have.



Empty words - "we'll do this, we'll do that" without any specifics about how it's actually and realistically going to take place.

The only thing that would have impressed the markets would have been if Barack Obama has said 'Listen guys, we've unwound every position, gone through all the deals and, you know what, we're pretty damn rich, banks are floating in money and will soon be depositing $1, 000 cash into everyone's account, just because...'

Anything else and the markets remain clueless and if there's anything they hate it's not only seeming clueless but actually being clueless.

The only thing that would have impressed the markets would have been if Barack Obama has said 'Listen guys, we've unwound every position, gone through all the deals and, you know what, we're pretty damn rich, banks are floating in money and will soon be depositing $1, 000 cash into everyone's account, just because...'

Anything else and the markets remain clueless and if there's anything they hate it's not only seeming clueless but actually being clueless.

What he needs to say is "You guys suck, we arn't giving you any more money, well we arn't giving you any more to dick around with. We are buying all you shitty banks, stripping you down to barebones, and then tossing you out to the healthy bank wolves to snap up at bargain basement prices." It's a concrete action, which is what Wall Street wants - they will tank at first, and then rebound, and we only put a shitload of money into the banks once, instead of over and over for the jackass playboy CEOs to mess around with.

What he needs to say is "You guys suck, we arn't giving you any more money, well we arn't giving you any more to dick around with. We are buying all you shitty banks, stripping you down to barebones, and then tossing you out to the healthy bank wolves to snap up at bargain basement prices." It's a concrete action, which is what Wall Street wants - they will tank at first, and then rebound, and we only put a shitload of money into the banks once, instead of over and over for the jackass playboy CEOs to mess around with.

..and even if he did, the markets would still drop for the moment, just perhaps not remaining as unsteady as they will by trying to cushion it.

However, cushioning it will keep a few more people in jobs, the simple thing is that people still need jobs and just saying, 'fuck it, we'll take the pain', just isn't the right thing to do.

Still, one can sit around moping or take advantage of some amazing deals going on, I'd bet Craigslist is a goldmine right now, on a similar site over here there was a BMW going for HK$15, 000, about $1, 800, expat bankers are fleeing HK now that they have to cover their own rent, schooling and etc.,

TVs, furniture, the lot, the best business is arbitrage and there's wild variance in prices right now.

Of course, you need some money in the first place, see if you can borrow some from the banks - ha!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4806253/US-stock-fades-as-Barrack-Obama-speech-disappoints.html

Obviously, Wall Street is not impressed. Perhaps it's because they don't have the blind faith that most Obama supporters have.



Empty words - "we'll do this, we'll do that" without any specifics about how it's actually and realistically going to take place.

The issue with wall street is clarity. Obama said he was going to put in place a lot of plans. However he didn't go into detail. So investors do not want to invest until they know what the plans exactly are and exactly how they affect them.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wall-St-falls-as-Obama-speech-rb-14464125.html
fascinating how you highlighted one sentence and managed to ignore the one preceding it. To wit:
Stocks added to losses on Wednesday after data showed the pace of existing home sales unexpectedly fell in January, while bank shares slid on continuing worries over the fate of the sector.
Or stock drops due to no-one buying houses a month before he became president is also somehow Obama's fault?

Wow! First we have a so-so day in the market following Obama's big speech, but then we have a week of steady decline.

Anyone bet that continuing these market-unpopular policies is going to result in a bottom around 5000? Lower?

If Warren Buffet is right and the bad times continue for "a while", maybe we can restart at around 2000.

I guess that really begs the question about when all of this stimulus should start stimulating the economy. For the price we're paying, I would expect results sooner than later.

Wow! First we have a so-so day in the market following Obama's big speech, but then we have a week of steady decline.

Anyone bet that continuing these market-unpopular policies is going to result in a bottom around 5000? Lower?

If Warren Buffet is right and the bad times continue for "a while", maybe we can restart at around 2000.

I guess that really begs the question about when all of this stimulus should start stimulating the economy. For the price we're paying, I would expect results sooner than later.
yeah its been almost a week!

there is not much the president can do about the stock market reacting to the overwhelming amount of bad assets out there. we cant fix worthless paper. what he might be able to do is stabilize the system enough that the rest of us dont have to starve for the bad decisions of the financial class.

So are you going to tell me that if companies were still allowed to red-line areas and just refuse to lend to anyone in that area, we would still have this problem?

Now, I won't argue that the fact that GWB weakened enforcement of the CRA, but it takes both elements to have a crisis.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the CRA had anything to do with the financial crisis? Because I found this with only a few minutes of searching:

Mira Marshall, Chief Compliance Officer for Policy at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.—one of the regulatory agencies responsible for the CRA—said, "We have looked into assertions that the CRA was somehow responsible for the current crisis, and have found that they have no factual basis."

"The CRA statutes require that banks lend prudently. In fact, a Federal Reserve study conducted last year concluded that CRA banks were much less likely to make the higher-priced loans that have sent so many borrowers into foreclosure," Marshall continued.

"Lending by CRA banks has remained one of the bright spots throughout the crisis," added Warren Traiger, an attorney at Traiger & Hinckley, a law firm with expertise in CRA compliance. "While some of the thoroughness of CRA examinations was lost in the push for deregulation by the Bush administration, our studies suggest only that strong performances by CRA banks could have been even better."

So, I would argue that if companies were still allowed to redline (i.e. be racist in their lending practices), we would still have this problem. It might even be worse.

EDIT: http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2570.html

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the CRA had anything to do with the financial crisis?

I'm going to repeat a post I wrote here a few days ago:

And before someone starts screaming about the Community Reinvestment Act, here's the funny thing.

Mortgages made under the guidelines of the CRA were, taken as a whole, no less profitable than traditional bank mortgages. It's when banks ignored those guidelines, and started issuing subprime mortgages without taking them into consideration, is when this mess started.

I suppose CRA could be blamed, in a very round about fashion, by showing banks that they could, in fact, lend to poor people and still make money. The fault, however, lies with the banks in doing so, WITHOUT following the CRA guidelines which, when implimented, allowed those mortgages to be profitable in the first place.

But hell, don't take MY word for it:

Some economists, politicians and other commentators have charged that the CRA contributed in part to the 2008 financial crisis by encouraging banks to make unsafe loans. Others however, including the economists from the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, dispute this contention. The Federal Reserve and the FDIC holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis.

. . .

San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank Governor Randall Kroszner has stated that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending". In a Bank for International Settlements ("BIS") working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust," relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event. Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the current financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan, Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress, Robert Gordon of the American Prospect, Daniel Gross of Slate, and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.

Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton, stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight". According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis. A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.

Anyone bet that continuing these market-unpopular policies is going to result in a bottom around 5000? Lower?

If Warren Buffet is right and the bad times continue for "a while", maybe we can restart at around 2000.

Because your predictions in the OP were spot on.

I'm going to repeat a post I wrote here a few days ago:

And before someone starts screaming about the Community Reinvestment Act, here's the funny thing.

Mortgages made under the guidelines of the CRA were, taken as a whole, no less profitable than traditional bank mortgages. It's when banks ignored those guidelines, and started issuing subprime mortgages without taking them into consideration, is when this mess started.

I suppose CRA could be blamed, in a very round about fashion, by showing banks that they could, in fact, lend to poor people and still make money. The fault, however, lies with the banks in doing so, WITHOUT following the CRA guidelines which, when implimented, allowed those mortgages to be profitable in the first place.

But hell, don't take MY word for it:
No one should argue that the GWB Administration did a great job of enforcing the CRA guidelines. But a previous administration did much the same the with Fannie and Freddie...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260


Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
...
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''


And guess what happened. What do we have? Means, Motive, Opportunity? I do believe that Fannie and Freddie may be the real suspects here.

Because your predictions in the OP were spot on.
So what sort of rally did y'all predict? I may have been off, but it's been in the right direction. No investor in his right mind would trust the policy that's been proposed so far. So they're gonna pull capital out of investments and business will continue to suffer with plant closings and layoffs. But this is the hope and change we wanted, right?

And don't believe me... IBD says pretty much the same thing
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=320892987513114

The editorial concludes quite accurately with the statement...

His stimulus package is little more than a down payment on a socialist economy. It raises taxes on the successful, brings back the welfare state, hands out favors and cash to friends of one political party, while imposing government control over the entire free market in ways that just a year ago would have seemed unimaginable.