NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/business/24markets.html?8au&emc=au


Stock market reacted favorably to Obama's recent plan.

When the Obama administration outlined its plans to stabilize the banking system last month, leery investors panned the proposal as being short on substance and sent stock markets into a tailspin. But investors went on a tear Monday as the administration announced details of its banking rescue plan, hoisting the markets more than 6 percent in one of the biggest buying binges of the year.


I noticed a ton of traffic from our more...right leaning...members about how TEH MARKET HATES SAURON!!!, blaming him for every single time the market took a hit, and yet they are conveniently quiet when the market likes his plans. Whos shocked?:rolleyes:

Anyway, discuss. What does NSG think about the new plan?

you beat me to it.

Not sure how we're going to lower the national debt by buying our own lack of money...

Not sure how we're going to lower the national debt by buying our own lack of money...

I havent heard much talk about lowering the national debt. The deficit, yes, not the national debt.

Where's the change?!?!

But really, you can't credit this to Obama. This surge is a result of REAGANOMICS!

Where's the change?!?!

But really, you can't credit this to Obama. This surge is a result of REAGANOMICS!

Oh God youre right! I see clearly now! All hail Reagan!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g3GRrg2cIM&feature=related

markets like it when they know what the government is going to do. Until the time that they are given a plan, they will assume the worst. They don't necessarily like his plan, they're just glad they don't have to worry about a lot of other things he could have done worse. It nearly says it right in the article:

"leery investors panned the proposal as being short on substance and sent stock markets into a tailspin"

They're just reacting to him giving the details that were missing, and sent the market down in the first place.

Possibly just speculators fueling the market at the moment. In the end it will shake out in the right way.

markets like it when they know what the government is going to do. Until the time that they are given a plan, they will assume the worst. They don't necessarily like his plan, they're just glad they don't have to worry about a lot of other things he could have done worse. It nearly says it right in the article:

"leery investors panned the proposal as being short on substance and sent stock markets into a tailspin"
Translation: In typical right wing fashion, I am planning to blame Obama for all the problems yet give him credit for none of the solutions.

They're just reacting to him giving the details that were missing, and sent the market down in the first place.

Oooooh, thats why the market went down in the first place! I thought it went down months before the election due to many other far more complicated factors!


History must be real easy to remember when you make it up.:rolleyes:

The best part of his plan is that by involving private industry he is providing a double whammy of reducing taxpayer losses and placing a vested interest in further recovery into the hands of people most likely to help it happen. In fact, there's a reaasonable chance the taxpayer might even recover the money, maybe even making a profit.

The worst part of his plan is that banks like it. :(

The best part of his plan is that by involving private industry he is providing a double whammy of reducing taxpayer losses and placing a vested interest in further recovery into the hands of people most likely to help it happen. In fact, there's a reaasonable chance the taxpayer might even recover the money, maybe even making a profit.

Hey, as certain posters have already shown, this is clearly no place for logic!

Translation: In typical right wing fashion, I am planning to blame Obama for all the problems yet give him credit for none of the solutions.

Or you could respond to what I said and not what you wish I did.


Oooooh, thats why the market went down in the first place! I thought it went down months before the election due to many other far more complicated factors!


History must be real easy to remember when you make it up.:rolleyes:

I assumed it was clear I was referring to:
"leery investors panned the proposal as being short on substance and sent stock markets into a tailspin"

By "in the first place" I didn't mean that Obama's plan caused a drop in rough cut stone prices sending the ancient Egyptian economies into crises. Just to be clear :rolleyes:

Hey, as certain posters have already shown, this is clearly no place for logic!

Are you referring to yourself?

*prepares for Mortal Kombat*




...They are saying its largely because he's rehashing a Bush plan....

Or you could respond to what I said and not what you wish I did.

Except you didnt say anything. You just basically went, "Naah the investors dont really like his plan, it just appears that way. Trust me."

Hey, as certain posters have already shown, this is clearly no place for logic!

Fortunately, I brought tacos. :)

*munches*

The worst part of his plan is that banks like it. :(

Of course the banks like it, this plan is helping them out.

I noticed a ton of traffic from our more...right leaning...members about how TEH MARKET HATES SAURON!!!, blaming him for every single time the market took a hit, and yet they are conveniently quiet when the market likes his plans. Whos shocked?:rolleyes:

Hey, hey, hey as a right leaning member I don't think I ever stated that further more, this plan does have good potential to fix up some of these problems that have cause the current crisis. Hopefully this wil mean that banks will be much more willing to lenf to each other.

Except you didnt say anything. You just basically went, "Naah the investors dont really like his plan, it just appears that way. Trust me."

As opposed to your brilliant commentary?

At least I don't have to keep making things up about what people say, or allege what they really mean. "Markets go up, clearly they like Obama's plan. Trust me."

I already gave a mechanism for why they would go up even if his plan wasn't that great.

At least I don't have to keep making things up about what people say, or allege what they really mean. "Markets go up, clearly they like Obama's plan. Trust me."


I was mocking certian members who, for the past months, having been declaring that Obama is a failure because the market has been shitty. My point is, by their logic, Obama's plan must now be great.

Me, I dont really care what the brokers on wallstreet think of his ideas. All though, it is a bit sounder logically to assume that they approve of his plan because they want on a "buying binge" as the article puts it. As opposed to your take, which requires to believe you can read minds, and rely on nothing else.

You clearly have nothing to add. Come back when you do.

I was mocking certian members who, for the past months, having been declaring that Obama is a failure because the market has been shitty. My point is, by their logic, Obama's plan must now be great.

except that you assumed I was one of them, why not just save it for those people.

Me, I dont really care what the brokers on wallstreet think of his ideas.

You clearly have nothing to add. Come back when you do.

Or, I can do whatever I want.

You act as though you've added much at all, beyond posting a link.

except that you assumed I was one of them, why not just save it for those people.

Oh really? When? Did I ever mention your name? No. I just said your "analysis" was crap.

I know exactly who I have in mind.

Or, I can do whatever I want.

You rebel you. Anyway, moving away...

Im kind of in wait and see mode. Its nice to see the government using the money to at least try and help the people who are actually getting screwed, rather then keep big businesses a float.

I was mocking certian members who, for the past months, having been declaring that Obama is a failure because the market has been shitty. My point is, by their logic, Obama's plan must now be great.


Yes 'them'. That doesn't mean you have to keep projecting what those people say onto anyone who disagrees with you.

Yes 'them'. That doesn't mean you have to keep projecting what those people say onto anyone who disagrees with you.

Great contribution to a thread as always Hydesland.
Besides:
Oh really? When? Did I ever mention your name? No. I just said your "analysis" was crap.

I know exactly who I have in mind.

Great contribution to a thread as always Hydesland.
Besides:

So, you weren't trying to "translate" me, you were jsut quoting me for shits and giggles?

Translation: In typical right wing fashion, I am planning to blame Obama for all the problems yet give him credit for none of the solutions.


Oooooh, thats why the market went down in the first place! I thought it went down months before the election due to many other far more complicated factors!


History must be real easy to remember when you make it up.:rolleyes:

Great contribution to a thread as always Hydesland.
Besides:

Oh quit it KoL, you're starting to act like Heikoku. If you don't like Lackadaisical2's assertion, debate it and stop with the fight mentality.

So, you weren't trying to "translate" me, you were jsut quoting me for shits and giggles?

Great, except to flat out said in your own post you quoted that you were blaming him for "when the market fell the first time" yet when it rallies it wasnt due to his policy, because the investors dont really like it.

Do you have an arguement? Because I cant quite tell what it is.
Oh quit it KoL, you're starting to act like Heikoku. If you don't like Lackadaisical2's assertion, debate it and stop with the fight mentality.
Directing a comment at someone is a fighting mentality?

Great, except to flat out said in your own post you quoted that you were blaming him for "when the market fell the first time" yet when it rallies it wasnt due to his policy, because the investors dont really like it.

Do you have an arguement? Because I cant quite tell what it is.

Directing a comment at someone is a fighting mentality?

I already thought I cleared up what was meant by "the first time", no point in continuing on with someone incapable of understanding what I think has been made fairly clear.

Guys, its been a few days. Now I'm as happy as anyone if this thing works out, but, seriously, it might just crash again.

I already thought I cleared up what was meant by "the first time"

No, you made some smart ass comment about Egypt. What did you mean by first time?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/business/24markets.html?8au&emc=au


Stock market reacted favorably to Obama's recent plan.



I noticed a ton of traffic from our more...right leaning...members about how TEH MARKET HATES SAURON!!!, blaming him for every single time the market took a hit, and yet they are conveniently quiet when the market likes his plans. Whos shocked?:rolleyes:

Anyway, discuss. What does NSG think about the new plan?

And they say the media's liberal.

And they say the media's liberal.

And theyre wrong.

Great, except to flat out said in your own post you quoted that you were blaming him for "when the market fell the first time" yet when it rallies it wasnt due to his policy, because the investors dont really like it.

Do you have an arguement? Because I cant quite tell what it is.
I didn't have any trouble deciphering what he meant, so I will translate for you: back a few weeks ago, Geithner was talking about the plan in a hypervague manner, and the market went down at that time because investors hate uncertainty more than anything else. So now, at least they have some certainty about what is going to happen-- and Lackadaisical asserts that the market might well be going up now just because the uncertainty is removed, and not because the investors especially like what the details of the plan have turned out to be.

I didn't have any trouble deciphering what he meant, so I will translate for you: back a few weeks ago, Geithner was talking about the plan in a hypervague manner, and the market went down at that time because investors hate uncertainty more than anything else. So now, at least they have some certainty about what is going to happen-- and Lackadaisical asserts that the market might well be going up now just because the uncertainty is removed, and not because the investors especially like what the details of the plan have turned out to be.

That was basically the impression I got too.

Basically, correlation does not imply causation. It could be any number of factors. I, for one, hope this plan IS positively recieved on it's merits and does the job it's supposed to. And I have enough confidence in Obama's abilities to come up with just such a plan.

Anyone make mention of this yet?
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7014520769
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6331994.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6YFDO5LJO8c&refer=home
http://www.reuters.com/article/usDollarRpt/idUSLN31513120090323
...and, perhaps, this?
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/03/24/ap6203036.html
Yay.

Anyone make mention of this yet?
I suspect people are trying not to think about it. Two articles of yours were about trade in general decreasing - but that's normal during a harsh recession and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with policy for example.

But nonetheless, the biggest service Obama could do the world economy is to put himself at the front of the defenders of free trade. And that means reigning in Congress. I'd like it if he just came out and said he'll veto anything that smells like it has protectionist provisions in it.

the problem with the global economic challenge, is its having stolen the spotlight from the real threat to humanity's future: famine and disease resulting from global climate shift resulting from environmental abuse. by far being the more real and present threat to the future of the human species on planet earth, and to which neither wars nor the collapse of currencies, however dominant, are nearly as pertinent.

only a shift away from methods of transportation and energy away from those that involve burning anything, towards those that do not, and a lowering of excessive human fertility across the board off a real hope of lasting and secure solution.

nor will it even again be possible for one nation, and the people of one nation, or a handful of nations, alone, at the expense of others, to remain secure in any rational sense of the word.

every ideology is tyrannical, no dominant economic interest is any less so.

the big lie is that economics is somehow less dictatorial then politics that has not been usurped by it.

I suspect people are trying not to think about it. Two articles of yours were about trade in general decreasing - but that's normal during a harsh recession and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with policy for example.
Well, a little. I would've "articulated" if i thought i needed to.