Survey says… Bush administration policies.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Who’s To Blame For The Ailing Stock Market?
March 4th, 2009
52 Comments
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
I’m kind of impressed. Two-thirds of respondents knowing that there’s a time-lag for economic policies taking effect seems unusually high.
Ailing? The market is up 120 points this morning! Mr. Obama must be the greatest economic mind of our time! The market just luuuuvvvs ‘em some economic recovery!
Just one slight flaw.
The stock market is the most accurate indicator of economic confidence and economic future.
The market has dropped 30% since the election.
You can spin and spin and spin BUT,
OBAMA = NO CONFIDENCE
The short answer: Corporate greed and deregulation.
Take a good look at market trends over the past 15 years in conjuction with regulatory trends and you’ll find a definite correlation. Start with Bear-Sterns data.
It’s a simple question with a complicated answer and it needs a lot of study to fully understand but one thing is clear, the Republican congress of the last 8 years own the lion’s share of the stock market decline.
Politics aside, if there are any bankers or economist on this site, chime in.
The stock market is the most accurate indicator of economic confidence and economic future.
The market has dropped 30% since the election.
But today it’s UP! Are you trying to tell us that you have to look at more than just the most recent few hours to gauge market sentiment?
Hey Dennis! Farris! joachin here says you guys are full of old shoes!
Bloody hell! Everyone must have listened to the President yesterday and bought stocks today! We need to pay more attention to this guy when he tells us.
“On the other hand, what you’re now seeing is profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you’ve got a long-term perspective on it.”
I’ll tell ya what, Warren Buffett has nothing on this Obama fella. Freakin genius man. Freakin genius!
OBAMA = NO CONFIDENCE
What did the stock market drops under the Republican president suggest?
Wait, you don’t need to answer. Here’s what you were going to say:
NO CONFIDENCE IN THE DEMOCRAT CONGRESS! NO CONFIDENCE IN THE LENINIST DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE THAT WAS AHEAD IN THE POLLS!
Bush administration policies.
No shit, Sherlock. Harder questions, please.
GM stock at $2.50?
Ford at $1.86?
Citibank at $1.18?
Yeah, if I could, I’d be buying stocks now too.
Duros62,
Citi is bankrupt and GM is close to it. Only Ford has a reasonable expectation of survival. I wouldn’t buy any of those stocks you mention.
My $ is in gold and cash.
Just as I expected, yall missed it.
http://howisthatobamavoteworkingoutforyou.blogspot.com/2009/03/did-he-really-say-that.html
if there are any bankers or economist on this site
oh, Jack, you make me lol
(assuming you weren’t referring to the armchair variety.
Considering the Dow at 15,000 was massively overvalued and basically a MLM marketing scam w/ billion behind it, I’m happy it’s come back down to Earth. It’ll probably settle around 9,500-ish. Ya’ know, the place it would’ve been all along if we would’ve had the consistent stock market growth we had until the bubbles started to be inflated.
My $ is in gold and cash.
Hope you got enough water stored up in your underground lair.
GM is not gonna go under. Neither is Citi. Like I said, if I could, I’d take the risk. Ten years ago, both stocks were over $75 a share. Stock trends tend to only go upwards.
But I’m just a layman.
“Who’s To Blame For The Ailing Stock Market?”
Alright, damn it. It was me. My bad.
Jesse the world renowned Harvard educated economist chimes in with this gem:
“Considering the Dow at 15,000 was massively overvalued”
Wow! Just when you think you’ve seen the apex of the Obama apologist mountain, another brilliant statement sets a new standard.
I would just like to add that, for all Dennis’ and Joaquin’s jumping about crying wolf, a little perspective wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Just when you think you’ve seen the apex of the Obama apologist mountain, another brilliant statement sets a new standard.
And you have something useful to refute it, yes?
Heh. Indeed.
Wow, a liberal survey on a liberal website. I wonder what the survey results would be? Besides the fact the dow has tanked since the messiah has taken over the government, the stimulus package and tax hikes on people that actually have money to put in the market is making sure they sure wont have any to invest soon enough.
The stock market is the most accurate indicator of economic confidence and economic future…Wow! Just when you think you’ve seen the apex of the Obama apologist mountain, another brilliant statement sets a new standard.
Yeah, because no one has ever heard of the phrase “irrational exuberance”.
The stock market is as prone to over confidence and irrationality as a retiree with a bucket of quarters in Vegas.
Joaquin, you linked to a post in which some guy on the internet criticizes Obama for trying to instill a sense of confidence only to follow up with this:
First of all, it’s just a little bit inconsistent to criticize Obama for not properly fluffing investors then turn around and imply that there are no attractive stocks on the market at present. Correct?
Second, are we now criticizing people for suggesting that a long term investment strategy is a bad thing or, at least, so vague as to be meaningless? Really? Are you serious?
I would just like to add that, for all Dennis’ and Joaquin’s jumping about crying wolf, a little perspective wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Yeah, speaking of perspective:
link
Tell us again why Obama wants to spend billions of dollars and potentially cripple the economy further with his crazy “Carbon Tax” plan in an effort to stop something that clearly isn’t a real problem? Crying wolf indeed.
Shorter Dave: LOOK OVER THERE!
In October 2007 the market was over 14,000. The next month, the American voters elected Democratic Congress. 2 years later, the market was at 9,000. Two MONTHS later, its, at 6,800.
Game Set Match.
Or as a buddy of mine likes to say: Call your next case.
an effort to stop something that clearly isn’t a real problem?
Yeah, yeah. And everybody knows there wasn’t really a moon landing. It was all fake and the trilateral commission took all the money to fund a one-world government.
“Clearly” isn’t a real problem? Perhaps your favorite news sources haven’t told you about the many educated folks who hold a contrary view.
Also: the earth isn’t flat.
I did a little Google search on the source of Dave’s “data.”
The exclamation point in the graph was a bit of a red flag for me. That’s not something one sees often in solid science.
Cliff Harris is not a trained scientist
FAIL!
“That’s when the real global warming will come in,” he said. “Those of us who are believers, we’re looking forward to it.”
DOUBLE BONUS EPIC FAIL!
It gets even better. If you go to Harris and Mann’s website and look at their version of Dave’s chart, you’ll see the notation that they take their data from a work by “Dr. Iben Browning.”
Browning was the crank biologist who set himself up in the business of predicting earthquakes.
Triple Epic Fail!
That’s rarely attempted, it’s so dangerous.
Triple Epic Fail!
Invented and perfected in North Korea, I think…
In October 2007 the market was over 14,000. The next month, the American voters elected Democratic Congress.
Joaquin, my memory is a little fuzzy. It would be really great if you could provide us with a link to some news story or something detailing the sweeping Democratic win in the November 2007 congressional elections.
DJIA = 3300 in Jan 1993
DJIA = 10,600 in Jan 2001
It is probably a naive viewpoint and I don’t claim to be an expert in the economy, but I don’t believe ANY president has the vast majority of influence on the economy. Do they have some say? Sure. Thier policies change certian aspects of trade and regulations but does the office control the entire economy? I always question people who solely put an economic success or failure on one president. Alas I may be sorely misinformed and would love to be “educated” to the whole process, but in undergrad I had a real prick for an economic teacher at 7am:)
Say, while you have your googling fingers on, why not try out “credit default swaps” – you know that $62 trillion elephant in the room that few people understand, and fewer will acknowledge as being a big, big part of our problem.
In other words, it’s not only the stock market or mortgages or new car sales, it’s a perfect storm brought about by years (think Reagan) of deregulation and unsound fiscal policy and deregulation. In other words, our collective greed as a society (and individually, thanks to the likes of Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford) finally caught up with us.
Hell, I even bought into it, putting the bulk of my retirement money in stock-based 401Ks with no guarantee of payout. What I didn’t do was listen to the mortgage broker when he told me I could qualify for much more house than I wanted to buy. So I’m only partially screwed.
DJIA = 3300 in Jan 1993
DJIA = 10,600 in Jan 2001
Any questions, wingnutz?
By the way, I forget, what the the Wall Street Journal, Republican Senators, and usual suspect Right Wingers tell us would happen to the Dow after the marginal marginal tax increase in 1993?
freD misses a key data element in his list:
DJIA = 3800 in Jan 1995
Avg. gain with Clinton/Dem Congress: 250 points a year
Avg. gain w/ Clinton/Rep. Congress: 1133 points a year
And just for kicks because you know it’s coming…
DJIA = 8700 in Jan 2003
DJIA = 12500 in Jan 2007
Avg. gain w/ Bush/Dem (and/or tied) Congress: -950 points a year
Avg. gain w/ Bush/Rep. Congress: 950 points a year
Want a healthy economy? Vote Republicans for Congress.
All very well and good, Farris, but I think you and Denny are putting too much faith in a causal relationship between Wall Street and Washington. I’m not at all convinced that the two are linked.
My $ is in gold and cash.
Figures you would pick an investment that’s devalued when someone finds a shiny rock, in the ground.
Want a healthy economy? Vote Republicans for Congress.
I’d rather live in a poor economy than one where homosexuality, abortion, sex outside of marriage, science, and “heresy” are illegal, thank you very much.
And that’s assuming, of course, that correlation = causation.
Until SaveFarris walks us through the exact D and R congressional policies (and dates) which caused the DJIA advances and declines, I blame the president. For fairness, I’ll add in a one year POTUS policy slack factor as well, since economies are too big to turn on a dime
Clinton
Jan 1994 3978
Jan 2002 9920
Bush
Jan 2002 9920
Jan 2010 6800 (est)
I’m can’t find an economic indicator chart that shows a difference between D and R economies. Growth trend curves seem to remain consistent with either. But that was then. The R of now seems to prefer unrestricted boom and bust cycles over the more stable and continuous growth which D prefers. Which is better? Here’s America’s own economic expert, SaveFarris, with the answer.
Uh, Farris?
Farris?
Farris? And why’s it spelled with an “a” anyways?
Farris?
joaquin says: “Just one slight flaw.
The stock market is the most accurate indicator of economic confidence and economic future.”
No it’s not.
No it’s not.
It’s really all one needed to say, isn’t it?
Wow, what a fun game. I wanna play!
If presidential success if measured by the Dow, then Bush W. was a ginormous failure.
Best president of all time? Bill Clinton. Not sure why the wingnuts here hate him so.
That said, feel free to come back in three years and ten months and praise our president for digging us out of a Republican-made mess. In the meantime, please stop hoping for America to fail. It’s pretty disgusting behavior (not that I’d expect any better for our resident bed-wetting chickenhawks).
joaquin writes “The stock market is the most accurate indicator of economic confidence and economic future.”
I’m going to take a wild guess and say you’ve never taken a college-level econ course. Because that’s a pretty dumb statement, even by Republican standards.
Unemployment rate is much more telling, along with average salaries.
Not surprisingly, the unemployment rate jumped under Bush II, and wages were stagnant as they have been ever since Clinton was president.
A healthy stock market is fine to have, but it’s more important for lower and middle class working people, rather than trust fund babies, to have good jobs, buy things from stores, and pay taxes.
Welcome Back, Carter
“Ode to Carter Second Term”
Welcome back,
Your dreams were your ticket out.
Welcome back,
To that same old place that you laughed about.
Well the names have all changed since you hung around,
But those dreams have remained and they’re turned around.
Who’d have thought they’d lead ya (Who’d have thought they’d lead ya)
Here where we need ya (Here where we need ya)
Yeah we tease him a lot cause we’ve hot him on the spot, welcome back,
Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back.
What?
Just curious: what was the DJIA between 1974 and 1976?
Huh. Would’ja look at that?
DJ lost half it’s value in 1975. I guess that means Gerald Ford was a crappy President, yes?
And I guess it would also mean that most of Carter’s troubles were inherited, yes? By a crappy Republican President.
freD: Until SaveFarris walks us through the exact D and R congressional policies (and dates) which caused the DJIA advances and declines, I blame the president. For fairness, I’ll add in a one year POTUS policy slack factor as well, since economies are too big to turn on a dime
Not sure I can find it again (I’ll post a link if I can. I think I did once in another thread.) but I saw an analysis of this once covering something like the last 60 years or so. Economic growth as measured by a number of factors (gov’t spending (including and excluding military), CPI, GDP, tax rates, Dow, etc. for both a president’s term and, as you suggested, a one year lag.
Bottom line: Under Democratic administrations taxes were generally lower, growth was higher, government spending was down. Just about every measure was “better” under Dem leadership than under Republican.
You’re probably right, Sean D. Martin.
Today’s R is full of BS. Their unrestricted (except for morality and military and war against Islam and unions and some other shiny stuff) “freedom and liberty” inadvertently creates cycles of “freedom and liberty” and then ‘slavery and fear’ for most of us. D seems better at trying to limit freedom for the sociopathic and ignorant types who the primary culprits behind such cycles, prefering to try and give the rest of us more consistent “freedom and liberty”.
Until SaveFarris returns, all he’s proven is that R is all about cherry picking facts, and I’m happy to oblige him.
It should be easy enough to regress year-end DJIA on the party in White House and the proportion of Senate and House controlled by Dems (or Reps) with a log as others have suggested to see what’s significant and the percent of variance in DJIA they explain.
The link’s to long to fit here, but the 2/13 edition of TIME has their ‘25 Persons to Blame.’ It seems fairly even-handed.
CNN had it’s top 10 Culprits, and Factcheck.org has a pretty good list of reasons.
I see both lists as containing blind ideologists, sociopaths or enablers of the sociopathic in nature – as in full of ‘those who live for the moment without any fear of consequence or retribution’.
I know that SaveFarris isn’t taking the day off, but really busy right now working on research that’s gonna knock our socks off.