Welcome to PatsFans.com

FTW's Answer For the Stock Market Drop

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by shmessy, Nov 7, 2008.

  1. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,127
    Likes Received:
    515
    Ratings:
    +1,319 / 9 / -7

    #75 Jersey

    FTW, read and learn:

    Unemployment rate leaps to 14-year high of 6.5% - MarketWatch

    "WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The U.S. unemployment rate jumped to a 14-year high of 6.5% in October as nearly a quarter million jobs were lost, the Labor Department reported Friday.
    U.S. nonfarm payrolls fell by 240,000 in October following a revised decline of 284,000 in September, which was the largest job loss in seven years."
    __________

    "Largest (monthly) job loss in 7 years". Hmmm, what happen 7 years ago in September?????

    W. Bush is his own Economic 9/11. The bastard terrorist could never hurt our nation as deeply as this incompetent President did.

    That's REAL economic fact, FTW.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2008
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    217
    Ratings:
    +512 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    I think most of us know this - however nothing is ever one thing and this isn't either. A close to 1,000 point drop the day after the election shows a lack of confidence that Obama can magically turn things around; not that he should be expected to but I think a good number of people who voted for him think he can lift his magic wand and have the economy do a 180.

    I think it's three things :

    - The economy. Duh.
    - Lack of confidence that Obama will help.
    - A message not to do anything anti-business right off the bat.
     
  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,083
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    I think the main reason people chose Obama was because they knew he would proioritize the concerns of the middle class and needy in a difficult economic climate, while McCain would rely on the same ideas that got us into this mess, ideas that most people no longer have much faith in.

    The fact that the new unemployment numbers are what they are suggests to me that some investors tried to prop up the market to help McCain, and then moved quickly to protect themselves once the election was over. They would have done the same thing whether or not McCain won because they had a sense of what the economy was in store for.
     
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    217
    Ratings:
    +512 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    No-one was trying to prop up the market to help McCain - it's been a brutal year for investors/traders, they couldn't be long in the market just to try to help McCain then get killed.
     
  5. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,127
    Likes Received:
    515
    Ratings:
    +1,319 / 9 / -7

    #75 Jersey

    "Buy on the rumor, sell on the fact".

    The Tuesday rumor: Obama election

    The Wednesday, Thursday Fact: Job reports

    Today? I always say I have no idea where the market will be in 10 minutes, and I don't even try. People should keep their investment timeframes in order, their risk tolerances disciplined to what they have been no matter the market and should rebalance to be in model. Today could be either very ugly or very positive (if the market sees this report as a "colon cleaning").

    Judging stock market performance on one day, one week, one month or even one year is a foolish and ignorant exercise. A 4 year trendline on economic indicators is a much different story. That should and can be judged.
     
  6. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,127
    Likes Received:
    515
    Ratings:
    +1,319 / 9 / -7

    #75 Jersey


    I agree with you. I can't see anyone "propping up the stock market" to help McCain - - it would be far easier, less expensive and more productive to merely fundraise instead of throwing one's good money into a bad investment.

    That being said, the September job-loss report numbers from Elaine Chao's Labor Dept that have been DRASTICALLY revised up (from 157,000 newly unemployed to 284,000)??????
    ---Yes, that one smells very, very fishy, coming three days after the election.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2008
  7. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    217
    Ratings:
    +512 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    I'm not really too concerned about the market for myself - while we've all "lost" a ton, most of us are at an age where we can look back at this as a good time to buy even if the Dow only gets back to, say, 12K in five to ten years. But I do feel bad for people who had everything in the market and didn't have enough that they could afford this drop; yeah, they were stupid and I guess you could say greedy. But this has been a crazy drop and I do wish we could get back to 11K or so just to pare the losses of those who simply couldn't afford them.
     
  8. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,667
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +387 / 3 / -15

    There would be a lack of confidence no matter who was elected since any reasonably smart investor knows that a president can't fix the economy.

    You know this, don't you BF?
     
  9. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,667
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +387 / 3 / -15

    Most of you know I love to give updates on what I read/see happening on the economic front. Last month I reported that most experts were predicting unemployment to reach 8-8.5% in 2009. I also wrote that I see it easily going to 10% by the end of 09.

    Now we see an unprecidented number of layoff announcements this week and the rate of unemployment increases are accelerating. The grim fact is, the markets have not yet hit bottom. I don't know when it might happen, but I think we will see the Dow drop below 8,000 at some point.

    There has been one of the most complicated economic chain of events happening since last year as I have ever seen and the fact that it's on a world wide scale makes it look even more bleak.
     
  10. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,879
    Likes Received:
    88
    Ratings:
    +172 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey


    Well Obama sure campaigned like he could fix the economy and a record number of voters bought into that. I sure hope you're wrong.
     
  11. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    217
    Ratings:
    +512 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    This President will have a very big say in the economy given that he has Congress on his side so he'll be able to get the basics of what he wants on taxes, spending, bailouts, incentives all passed. Sure, maybe Obama and Congress will disagree on the amount of each and not get exactly what they want but the economic plan that Obama wants will largely go through. Can any President fix this economy ? Maybe, maybe not. But the election clearly has a big effect on significant economic policies.
     
  12. BSR

    BSR In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -0

    And yet aren't you judging the economy on a couple of months results? What was the four year trend on economic indicators if you looked at in July?
     
  13. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,127
    Likes Received:
    515
    Ratings:
    +1,319 / 9 / -7

    #75 Jersey

    Reread those last two sentences I wrote very carefully.

    You're confusing the ECONOMY with the MARKET.

    I distinctly wrote there is a difference. The market goes up and down in the short term like a crazy rollercoaster based on herd mentality and flip emotions. The ECONOMIC indicators are far better gauges of actual national economic performance as the long-term trend. TREND. What has been the trend in this economy after two major tax cuts in the early part of this decade that "sugared up" the economy? Even with all the stimulae, the economy has trended downward. War spending, deficit spending, tax cuts, stimulus checks, Helicopter Ben Bernanke lowering interest rates to 1% and STILL we have this awful economic indicator?

    Sorry, but there is no excuse for that. Bush made sure he had the wind at his back to sugar up the economy and this is the result?
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2008
  14. BSR

    BSR In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -0

    I was not confusing the economy with the market. I was refering to economic indicators. From 2004 (four years ago) until 2007 Unemployment was treding downward, inflation was relatively flat and GDP growth was only slightly decling. Prior to the last several months the trend was not as dire as you are indicating. Therefore, it would seem that you are going against your own advice and reacting to the short term indicators rather then the long-term trends.

    The last few months are a result of fundemental changes in the housing and mortgage markets. We will have further future decreases because of fundemental changes in the automotive and credit card industries. No amount of tax cuts or deficit spending are going to stop that from happening. It has more to do with irresponsible spending by consumers and short term profiteering by lenders.

    So no I don't accept you putting this entirely at the feet of Bush, nor will I blame Obama for not immediatly pulling us out of what is sure to be a long term slump. Anyone that thinks that this problem is a result of poor fiscal policy and can be solved with the same is kidding themsleves. It goes well beyond that and there is tons of blame to go around, and honestly I don't really care. I would rather think about how we are going to fix it.
     
  15. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,127
    Likes Received:
    515
    Ratings:
    +1,319 / 9 / -7

    #75 Jersey

    We'll just have to agree to disagree. 2004-2007 we were coming out of a recession with MUCH tax cut wind at our backs - - once again "SUGARED UP ECONOMY". Did it provide a LONG-TERM strength? No. BTW, at NO POINT in that sugared up economy did the UE rate get as low as it was when W. took over. So let's summarize: W. put in all the short-term sugar and could not even match what the RESPONSIBLE previous President had handed over to him. FURTHER, previous President (the one who was IMPEACHED for a bj!) had UE rates go down EACH AND EVERY YEAR he was in office - - that's 8 straight.....and he did it using FAR more responsible government spending policies than W. Bush.

    I fully respect your right to disagree. And I agree with your point on Obama. There is no way for us to predict what the economic performance will be in advance. We'll have to wait and see. In the meantime, yes, we CAN judge the previous performances.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2008
  16. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,667
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +387 / 3 / -15

    The sentence in bold above is not a question BF. It's a known fact that our entire gov't, never mind just the president can NOT fix an ailing economy. The only thing that will fix it is RECESSION.

    Recession is the cure for what is ailing our economy. I don't think you need me to prove my statement since we all know it was our gov't that screwed up the economy. I'll say this 1,000 times...the best thing the gov't could do to help is nothing...or at least very, very little.

    The problem is, people will suffer more in the short term is the gov't does nothing. And so, politicains will come up with 100 different ideas and proposals. Some that "may" help and certainly some that will hurt it even more.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2008
  17. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,127
    Likes Received:
    515
    Ratings:
    +1,319 / 9 / -7

    #75 Jersey

    I partially agree. As we have, unfortunately, seen, a President can more easily screw up an economy than fix one - - that is true.

    However, "doing nothing" is not a panacea either. Targeted investments in infrastructure and future technology, a more efficient and lethal military, cleaning up Gov't waste, etc. are all important jobs the Gov't needs to do to help keep us competitive in the world marketplace.
     
  18. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,667
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +387 / 3 / -15

    Ok, you got me...you're right. I guess by "do nothing" I was referring more to not bailing out every failing company or industry. But your comments on infrastructure and technology (fuel) are right on the money and I guess that can help a great deal in the long wrong.

    But we just can't forget amount the mounting deficit as our politicians and Obama's team begin to plan their strategy. They can not spend without a plan to deal it with and that needs to happen soon other wise the dollar could become worthless currency on the world market and that can lead to the dreaded hyper-inflation some are speculating about. That would ruin America's reputation forever.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2008
  19. BSR

    BSR In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -0


    "Sugaring up the economy", as you call it, is nothing more then basic fiscal policy, and is the basics of what a President can do to stimulate the economy. Cutting taxes and spending. Thats about it. Now I will say that I take fault in how Bush chose to spend, but again, I think that has little to do with curbing current econmic events.

    As for comparing unemployment rates to the late 90s that is a ridiculous standard to hold him against. Unemployment during those years were at unusually low levels that have only occured a handful of times in our modern economy. Unemployment levels have been good by most economic standards. Additionally, if you are going to play this partisan game, please explain to me how with a Democratic House and Senate Clinton has unemployment levels higher then they are today, but much lower levels with a Republican House and Senate? The answer is the real reason that unemployment levels were as low as they were, which is the result of expanded technology centered around the internet and nothing to do with the fiscal policies of the governemnt.

    But if you want to lay blame for our current crisis, I guess Bush can take some blame for it due to his war spending, which ties up to many government funds that could have been used for other things at this time, and the contribution to lack of consumer confidence. However, I think a far bigger share of the blame pie can be tied to consumers and their spending habits, lawmakers encouraging banks to lend to subprime borrowers, the fed for not forseeing this and curbing lending with increased intrest rates, investment bankers for not properly measuring their exposure to sub prime mortgages, rating agencies for not doing the same, domestic auto manufacturers being too busy cashing in on their SUV cash cows instead of anticipating a pending gas crisis, etc and I won't even go into the international economic effects.

    Trying to come up with an easy answer to pin it to, like its Bush's fault, is really underestimating the problem and unfair to those that have to fix it. Afterall, if it were that simple, it would be just as simple for Obama to reverse it all a few days after he steps into office. We all know that isn't going to be the case.


    If you really want me to judge what is happening here, I would say it is a shift in the overall global economy. For a half a century now, the U.S. has enjoyed a healthy lead over other countries because of its superiority in higher education, capital, and a free market economy. While most of the rest of the world was rebuilding its infrastructure from WWII the US was developing new technolgies, putting capital into these ideas and marketing them to the world. Now, the rest of the world has caught up with those basic fundementals and is competing on a much more level playing field then in years past. All of a sudden our lead isn't so big and we are losing out in many of the mature industries. Without another infusion of technological advancement that we can creatively market (our true specialty) then we will continue fall back to the pack. At least thats my amatuer take on it.
     
  20. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,127
    Likes Received:
    515
    Ratings:
    +1,319 / 9 / -7

    #75 Jersey

    So much to respond to!

    1) "Now I will say that I take fault in how Bush chose to spend, but again, I think that has little to do with curbing current econmic events."

    What?????? Gov't spending has little to do with curbing current economic events????? OK, let's move on.

    2) "As for comparing unemployment rates to the late 90s that is a ridiculous standard to hold him against. Unemployment during those years were at unusually low levels that have only occured a handful of times in our modern economy."

    You mean the 90's - when fiscally RESPONSIBLE Presidents like George H. W. Bush (who lost in 1992 because he reneged on "Read my lips" even though it was the courageous and responsible thing to do) and Bill Clinton BOTH raised taxes and cut spending? You mean that economic decade? Yeah, that IS a ridiculous standard to hold good ol' W. to.

    3) "Additionally, if you are going to play this partisan game......"

    See my #2 regarding "partisanship"

    4) "The answer is the real reason that unemployment levels were as low as they were, which is the result of expanded technology centered around the internet and nothing to do with the fiscal policies of the governemnt."


    Two reactions to this:
    a) Balancing a budget I guess doesn't matter?
    b) So, now that we have the internet, there are no new technologies to transform our economy????? God forbid an Administration stops coddling big oil and starts encouraging alternative energy!!!! That would never transform our economy!!!!!! I guess we just got lucky in the 90's because the internet was the last frontier technology available to help our economy.

    5) "Trying to come up with an easy answer to pin it to, like its Bush's fault, is really underestimating the problem and unfair to those that have to fix it. Afterall, if it were that simple, it would be just as simple for Obama to reverse it all a few days after he steps into office. We all know that isn't going to be the case."

    The only people putting that "a few days" crapola out there are Hannity, OReilly, and the right wingers etc. Obama, in his own words, says it will take YEARS to climb out of this ditch. So please quit insulting everyone's intelligence with saying that to be a success he has to solve our problems "in a few days after stepping into office".

    W. Bush, however, had EIGHT FREAKING YEARS! Let's not make "a few days" the equivalent of 2,920 days.

    6) "All of a sudden our lead isn't so big and we are losing out in many of the mature industries."

    "All of a sudden"?????? Nope. It took several years of a national nervous breakdown after 9/11 and a $1 trillion dollar+ war to siphon our budget away from future technologies and the transportation/energy infrastructure of the future to put us at risk of falling behind better run, more efficient nations that are NOT wasting their treasuries on unnecessary wars, 19th century energy industries or tax breaks for sport stadiums.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2008

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>