Welcome to PatsFans.com

Weak Economy Points to Obama’s Constraints - NYT (LMFAO)

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patradomous, Jun 3, 2012.

  1. Patradomous

    Patradomous Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,975
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +78 / 0 / -9

    #87 Jersey

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/us/politics/obamas-hands-tied-on-weak-economy.html

    What fxckin joke the NYT is. Think Obama would be getting the credit from the NYT if the economy was booming?
    The reason I posted this piece is to show what laughable schills these morons are.
    What the best part is, is reading the comments to the article and its about 10-1 against what they are selling.
    [​IMG]
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2012
  2. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,255
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +373 / 1 / -9

    He's a true "socialist liberal" nothing bad is ever their fault, when they do screw up and it is reported they shift the blame to the messenger for reporting it, the socialist liberals on this forum do it every day.

    :bricks:
    "it's not my fault, it's the other guys"
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2012
  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,066
    Likes Received:
    114
    Ratings:
    +199 / 7 / -24

    So I guess you believe that there are no other factors to be considered in this current conundrum..
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2012
  4. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    They may be shills when they want to be, but what part of the article do you disagree with? Do you think the NYT is the only media outlet that is biased? (The question is rhetorical, of course. No insult intended)
  5. chicowalker

    chicowalker On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,888
    Likes Received:
    102
    Ratings:
    +160 / 2 / -2

    Along with wistah's question re. what you disagree with, what kind of "laughable schills" would say his pointing fingers at Congress makes him look powerless?
  6. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,968
    Likes Received:
    93
    Ratings:
    +211 / 3 / -10

    The bottom-line here is that now is not the time to approve another economic stimulus. That can only work if you know things are going to turn around soon.

    What did the first $900B stimulus do for us other than artificially inflate the stock market for a while? Our deficit is already beyond catastrophic...
  7. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,485
    Likes Received:
    161
    Ratings:
    +332 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    How is the stock market "artificially inflated"?????

    The S+P 500 P/E ratio is at historic norms:

    S&P 500 PE Ratio

    In fact, the only time the stock market was "artificially inflated" regarding P/E's was during the last months of W.

    In fact, the table shows the P/E's of the past two years are well below ANY of the eight W years. ANY. Whose stock market was "artificially inflated"???????

    http://www.multpl.com/table


    Company current earnings are right in line with historic norms with their stock prices. There's nothing "artificial" about that - - - unless you believe the private sector is uniformly cooking their books also.
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2012
  8. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,968
    Likes Received:
    93
    Ratings:
    +211 / 3 / -10

    To your point, it would be nice if people invested in the stock for solid reasons like P & E ratio's, but that's no longer the case. People dump money into the stock market when they believe a bull market is upon us and get out when they think it's a bear market.

    Therefore, the public's perception of our economy is now the main-driver of bear/bull market runs. The fact the the $900B stimulus temporarily created the perception that our ecomomy was recovering, drove people back into stocks and artificially inflated it.

    Even P & E ratio's aren't that believeable any more. Our banks are allowed to keep bad debt "off the books" thereby over-inflating or mis-stating their true financial condition.

    If your statement that P&E ratio's are back to historical norms and stocks are a good value, why has the stock been tanking lately?

    Now how much would you like to bet that Bernanke is loading up for another round of quantitative easing? And if that happens, watch the stock market rise again....and that would also be a temporary artificial inflation, wouldn't it?
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2012
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,664
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +131 / 7 / -13



    So your against QE 3 to prop up the economy?
  10. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,968
    Likes Received:
    93
    Ratings:
    +211 / 3 / -10

    We all are...it's would be a stupid mistake to "Prop-up" the stock market.

    Moving forward, I'm in favor of letting all markets settle to their natural level...think about that for a minute and then ask yourself....

    "Shouldn't all markets be allowed to find their natural value/price?"

    Of course they should!
  11. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,485
    Likes Received:
    161
    Ratings:
    +332 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    Your post shows that you judge markets on short-term bases - - "Why has the stock market been tanking lately?" Markets don't move at exactly the same time as P/E ratios in the short-term.

    I don't get distracted by the short term noise. Your first paragraph above is all about emotions. The ocean is vast. Don't judge it by the .15% that is the current at the surface.

    Last year's summer downturn was all about emotion and fear. Once investors stopped reading the screaming media headlines and started reading the balance sheets and P/E ratios again, the market recovered, and then some. This is the same cycle. Unless the May jobs report shows a continuing trend in June, July and August, this too will be overtaken by the fundamentals. At some point investors will see the P/E's and decide that investing in income stocks at 3.5%-5.% dividends makes much more sense than the 10 yr bond at 1.47%. Rationality always wins out in the long-term.

    BTW, I love the short-term emotional irrationality of the markets. It makes disciplined, quarterly asset allocation rebablancing so much more beneficial and profitable.
  12. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,485
    Likes Received:
    161
    Ratings:
    +332 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    At this moment, yes.

    The flow (flight to safety) of international assets into our treasury bonds the past few months, thus bringing down the yields to historic lows IS an "Operation Twist", thus doing what QE3 would have done anyway.
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2012
  13. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,485
    Likes Received:
    161
    Ratings:
    +332 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    Your error is that you completely misunderstand the aim of what QE3 would be.

    It isn't to prop up the stock market.
  14. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    which is precisely what people like me said four years ago the first time they started up the printing press under the Neocons. The fundamentals clearly insisted TARP wouldn't do much of anything, that risk was FAR too exposed at the time... and that these institutions should have been allowed to fail. Then face ultimate accountability for their woeful assumption of "ever more tomorrow." And yes, even AIG.

    it's interesting that the two people who 'like' this post are me and 13.

    undoubtedly we "like" it for very different reasons.

    but gotta ask: was TARP not "the first stimulus" within the context of what you just said? Sure was to me. Maybe not by literal definition, but TARP stopped a bank run (game over) - and it did so to the tune of $700 billion. I'd call that stimulating.
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>