MSNBC's Brewer cropped Dow to suggest current decline began on Election Day
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, Contessa Brewer stated, "Since Election Day, the Dow Jones industrial average has dropped nearly 3,000 points. It's shed a quarter of its value in just the past two months." But the Dow was on a downward trajectory months before the election, dropping 3,738 points from May 2, 2008, to November 3, 2008.
During the March 3 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Contessa Brewer stated, "Since Election Day, the Dow Jones industrial average has dropped nearly 3,000 points. It's shed a quarter of its value in just the past two months." But the Dow was on a downward trajectory months before the election, dropping 3,738 points from May 2, 2008, to November 3, 2008, and the drop did not start on Election Day, as MSNBC suggested.
During the segment, Brewer reported that CNBC's Jim Cramer "is sounding the alarm again. The host of Mad Money says investors are in for more days of gut-wrenching losses unless President Obama gives the markets a chance to recover." Brewer continued: "The numbers are staggering. Since Election Day, the Dow Jones industrial average has dropped nearly 3,000 points. It's shed a quarter of its value in just the past two months. And Cramer says at this rate, there's no end in sight."
Brewer also showed a graph of the Dow's decline since the beginning of November 2008. However, had Brewer extended the chart six months prior to Election Day, it would be evident that the current downward trend began well before November 3.
Chart showed by MSNBC:
The Dow from May 2, 2008, to the present:
From the 10 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on March 3:
TAMRON HALL (co-anchor): CNBC's Jim Cramer says the White House needs to put its budget plans on hold. Contessa Brewer is live at the politics desk to explain more from Cramer.
BREWER: Yeah, Tamron, Cramer is sounding the alarm again. The host of Mad Money says investors are in for more days of gut-wrenching losses unless President Obama gives the markets a chance to recover. The numbers are staggering. Since Election Day, the Dow Jones industrial average has dropped nearly 3,000 points. It's shed a quarter of its value in just the past two months. And Cramer says at this rate, there's no end in sight.
CRAMER [video clip]: He won't stop until stocks reach absurd levels, and too many people do this. It won't stop until we get some recognition from the president that the agenda has caused some horrible reaction.
It's weird. They blame the slide on the agenda of the Obama administration instead of the horrific economic numbers being released daily. If that's the case, the stock market is indeed a gauge on the state of rich people.
the stock market is indeed a gauge on the state of rich people.
Well said.
If that's the case, the stock market is indeed a gauge on the state of rich people.
That's about all it is. And I love Cramer's anger about Obama not getting the reaction--like it's the only one that counts.
"They blame the slide on the agenda of the Obama administration instead of the horrific economic numbers being released daily."
I wonder who gets credit for taking the dow to unattained heights of over 14,000 during his presidency? Will Bush get that credit or will Clinton get that credit? BTW, who created the policies that allowed the housing market to trade loan values? Will that get any mention when blaming Bush for 'the mess we are in'? Or who caused the unrealistic oil price spike? Sorry, folks, but when you blame the condition of the nation on the president....I've been told many times to blame the current one, not the past ones. It's his job to fix it, and he has failed misserably so far.
I see mmfa cropped the dow numbers to show only the slide since May 08. If they truly wanted to be honest, they would post the number from the beginning of Bush's term. But, the reason the numbers being used are from election day is because from that point on, everyone knew Obama would be president and started reacting accordingly. Kind of embarrassing that the financial markets have NO faith in Obama's false message of "hope". Maybe if he starts hiring people that are qualified for the job of fixing the economy (like he promised) instead of hiring crooks like all other politicians do, the market would go the other direction. It is obvious Obama isn't qualified to be president, yet. And it shows in his performance to this point. That's what right wingers have been saying since the day he announced his intentions. Now we have the proof.
Gee, phlippy, maybe MMFA should just show a graph starting the VERY FIRST DAY the market went public. Would that satisfy you? Are you saying the market fluctuates by who is the prez? I thought it had to do, you know, with economics and stuff.
You can't be serious " I wonder who gets credit for taking the dow to unattained heights of over 14,000 during his presidency?". What does it matter what the market reached at it's peak, that money is gone. After that point we had the global credit meltdown and the closing of 30 some odd banks. Oh let em guess that is Obama fault.
"I see mmfa cropped the dow numbers to show only the slide since May 08. If they truly wanted to be honest, they would post the number from the beginning of Bush's term." The DOW was at about 10500 when Bush came into office and about 7600 when he left. The largest drop in points of the DOW during any president in the last 40 years. So if they would have gone back that far it would have looked even worse for Bush. If if you went from the 14K timeframe it is much worse.
Please provide proof that President Obama is not qualified and name crooks that he has put in place. Last time I checked the last administration official to be found guilty of criminal activity was Scooter Libby.
When are you people gonna start using facts in your arguements instead of now we have proof that Obama would not be prepared.
What is that the right wingers are suggesting should be done that would fix this mess. Can you prove that their ideas would even work? I would say that based on the performance of Bush, the right wing has no grounds to stand on.
Here's an idea, stop listening to Rush and Sean. They are "entertainers" with no experience in economics or ploitics.
"The DOW was at about 10500 when Bush came into office and about 7600 when he left"
Not according to snoopy's chart. You liberals better get together and discuss what "data" you plan on using and what you plan on claiming.
"Please provide proof that President Obama is not qualified and name crooks that he has put in place. "
When did tax evasion become legal?
" When did tax evasion become legal?" philib
tax evaision eh? well what national security violations become legal? and then allow a communtation of a sentence that would normally carry oh a few years in prision?
Oh phil, how'd ya like to see just how well the market did under bush?
Oops!
Well, there you have it. Bill Clinton wins the award for the most capitalistic period of Corporate greed and fraud amongst all these presidents. Thank you Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, anderson Cooper. etc. Celebrate, Celebrate - dance to the indictments. Of course he left us with an historic crash as well - His dot.com bubble dropped 57%(+/-) during his last year in office.
Folks - one cannot look at the performance of the stock market from day one to the last day of any administration and learn anything.
FOX News did the same thing this morning....showed a chart starting at election day....on their America's Newsroom at 9:33 ET.
Neither Hemmer or the guest, Brian Sullivan of the FOX Business Network, mentioned that the market has been going down well before election day. They did mention that GE (Bill O'Reilly's nemisis and favorite company for those at FOX to kick around) stock is at a 16 year low. No mention that News Corp, FOX News' parent company, is also near its 17 year low (as per streetinsider.com) with regards to its stockprice.
isn't news corp's stock lower than GE?
Well, it did not start going down on Election Day MMFA got that right; it started to go down when the Market saw that Obama was going to be the Democratic Nominee. Those on Wall Street started selling then and the smart ones seemed to get out when it was still time to sell, others waited too long and we have since lost 3 Trillion of Americans Wealth since.
So you're saying people on Wall Street hate America?
That's my take on it.
No he's just repeating a talking point thats being pushed today by Rush , Hannity and Fox News. Mark your faithful parrot. Do you ever have an independent thought...what a sucker!
Congero, here is a independent thought, you are unaware of the market and the importance it has on this great nation, are you even sure you know what the a stock market is? To be more honest with all you non-capilist is that the market really started to drop when the Democrats took over as the majority. SO, we can really say, ever since the Dems took office they have dragged America down. Which means you all now are the ones to blame for the mess we are in? Since the dems took over you are taking America down the drain.
mark could you explain how the market drop was caused by democrats taking power again? by your premise you seem to be saying that stock markets only like republican presidents. and there was a large growth in stocks during clinton's time in office.
You thought of that all by yourself eh,,,? Too funny!
You thought of that all by yourself eh,,,? Too funny!
I think he's saying that some Americans are smart enough to recognize a fraud when they see one.
and george bush was a patriot......
right and im big foot.
I think he's saying that some Americans are smart enough to recognize a fraud when they see one.
Yes, hence the results of the last two elections promptly and swiftly kicked out the frauds.
We WERE smart enough to identify a fraud, but you foolish people elected the ratpack that led this country to destruction anyway. I guess we can ultimately thank our reactionary Supreme Court for this, since they stole the election from Gore. He would never have got us into the sorry mess we are in. You'd better quit your whining, and get used to the fact that President Obama is going to be around for a while, because WE THE PEOPLE elected him.
Yes, his name is Obama. Only thing I have seen Obama do well so far, is give a good speech that is on a teleprompter. So far, everthing Obama has touched has not worked out.
well to be fair he has been in office for only 1.5 months.
whats the problem with giving oh say 6 months to try and sort this mess out?
well the most logical point i think he is implying is that wall street hates democrats......even though they have done better under such administrations
Well, he said Wall Street pulled their money out and it resulted in the loss of 3 trillion American dollars. That sounds to me like hatred of America if I ever heard it.
Oh of course that is what I am saying. Mrs, I think you have used that line at lease once a week. Please expand yourself.
and pray tell, what would have happened had mccain won? everything would have been the opposite effect?
So Wall Street's house of cards constructed of derivatives of mortgage-backed securities had nothing to do with it?
Idiot. Or rather, blind partisan idiot.
"constructed of derivatives of mortgage-backed securities"
Gee, who was responsible for that one? Can anyone say CRA?
cra?
Community Reinvestment Act...like other GOP parrots he's blaming an over 20 year old program for problems today. Nevermind that the CRA had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the problems of mortgage based securities that underpin this recession. It's a "parrot talking point" and he predictably regurgitated it.
Fog, how many times a day do you use the word "Idiot"? I think expanding your vocabulary would be recommended. You are the perfect example of an individual that Obama spoke of in his speech to the nation, those that should take more educational classes. I would say starting with the 8th grade, that is about the age group that stops using words like "idiot".
Idiot is overused. I think imbecile is a better descriptor for you.
Oh, Oh, wow, you are so quick, so funny. Wow did you really come up with that yourself, or did you get a focus group together, talk about it, then break up into sub committees then come back, discuss, and then type? I mean "Once you go Barack" that is what he would do. Also, I like your racist name. We all know the background of the phrase.
If you want to get technical, the DOW started its decline in October of 2007. I really don't know how you can blame Obama for any of this unless you are delusional.
Look at his posts--anybody who defends Bush's econonmic policies, at best, doesn't know what they are talking about. Delusional, lying, disconnected from reality, take your pick.
or they benefited greatly and dont want the good times to end
Of course, Mark, that makes perfect sense. Don't you remember 1992, when it became clear that Bill Clinton was about to win the Presidency, and the market lost 50% of its value?
Of course you don't, you probably weren't born yet.
If you remove your head from the sand (or your butt), take a course in Econ 101, and find out the real reasons for the market collapse, then maybe we can talk.
And tell us, oh great seer of unknowns, what caused the oil prices to rise $110 per barrel 4 months before the election then fall back down $110 per barrel 1 month after the election? Please tell us why we paid $5 a gallon of gas in July, but only $2 in January. Tell us what affect that had on the American economy. Please, oh please ... tell us what are the REAL reasons? Or is you head still stuck somewhere, too?
was it because oil compaies jacked oil prices when they could since before bush left office, fearing a democrat might look into what they were doing?
Actually I'm kinda hoping someone with a little knowledge will answer. Maybe I expect too much from participants of the liberal theology.
Well, lets see, if I were to think like phil, I'd make some claim about democrats not allowing offshore drilling and ANWR were to blame, and then suggest that those republican temper tantrums were responsible for bringing the price back down, because, well, somehow the perception of doing something while leaving the results exactly as they were before is more powerful than actually changing the expected outcome. Is that what you wanted to see, oh great carnak?
Let me try to think like snoop; ... duhh ... which way did he go? duhhh ...
Like I said, maybe someone with a little knowledge (that leaves snoopy out) will answer.
again and im completly serious and not trying to be sarcastic, can you give an answer?
No, I see NO reason the oil/gas prices rose and fell like they did. But, I figured you ultra smart liberals would know why the prices 'convieniantly' rose then fell coinciding exactly with the election. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if that event hadn't happened, Obama would not have won.
Oil prices rise every summer. They also rise around big holiday weekends. Something about perceived/expected supply and demand I believe.
how many times to i have to tell you im a republican and conservative....just not the aparently mainstream brand that is around currently
ok so your bashing me for being hyperbolic and then turn around anchuck insults....
i askeda serious question and you give me that? ok. well done
quite whining like a little girl. snoopy has lots of tissues, if you need them.
whining like a little girl? a good answer. but you still have yet to answer my question.
so ill ask it again in a different way. if you feel there is some connection between president obama getting elected and oil/gas prices rising/falling. please explain. i admittedly don't know why they did. all im asking for is if you have an answer please provide it.
You're the whiner. Projection.
That has got to be the stupidest response yet. Now the oil execs secretly manipulated oil prices so Obama would win? No wonder you think liberals are stupid. Here though we call what you are doing "projecting" as in projecting your ignorance onto others in the vain attempt to make you feel smarter about yourself. Keep up the insults, little boy, no one here cares about your temper tantrums.
Snoopy, help me out here, where is ANWR? Do you know? Where do you think the best oil deposit are these days? What do you think the cost of getting oil from thos deposits cost? Snoopy, have you taken up the concept of not using any oil based products since you depise the oil industry so much?
Alaska.
OYGB, Alaska is a big state, go to google and look, also, tell me the avg temp of the ANWR region? also, what does ANWR stand for? I like how you did not answer the other questions.
Funny. Maybe we could compromise. Maybe we could socialize the profits from ANWR for rest of the country, just like Sara socializes oil profits in Alaska.
What do ya think? Meet us half way?
Since you need help, it's the artic national wildlife refuge (like that's somehow important to the point you think you're about to make). And as to your last part, where do you have any proof that I despise the oil industry? More silly projection on your part. I wouldn't have been running a diesel truck hauling goods and services if I "despised" the oil industry as you claim. And just so you know, there's more oil in shale than anything else, but it's not feasable to get in large quantities without strip mining. There's a few pilot plants out there trying a few new ideas but it will still be years to get them operating in large quantities.
Now what was your lame point, you silly projectionist?
Well, I would say they went up because the oil holders saw they could get away with it. And they went down when the economy tanked and the oil holders saw they couldn't sell as much at those outrageous prices anymore. And your point?
Louee, did you know the teacher Unions are Oil Holders?
ummm im not a liberal. but im not the garden variety neo con that you seem to be.
and if your asking for some knowledge from someone.....well why don't you provide us with an asnwer then?
"ummm im not a liberal."
You are a liar, then.
Hey Kyle, the difference between Clinton and Obama is that, Clinton did not talk about socialism. So, I accept your apology of the usual name calling around here. Read the WSJ, they will explain why the market has not faith in this administration, and the Democrats. Kyle, you have to be one of the most uneducated person here. 1992, we were starting the technical bubble, you know the one that fall fast. You know the market that Clinton was so excited about. The type of industry that was built on NOTHING. Even with such problems with the Housing market, this current market is scared of Obama's Socialism, and that he is not into capitalism, that he is talking about houses not gaining value. The government taking over banks, the idea of socialized medicine. This
The tech bubble didn't start in 1992. Read your history. The Internet didn't get rolling until about 1995-1996 and before that the tech industry was struggling.
You have demonstrated your ignorance day in and day out. I'm not sure what the cons think they can accomplish by coming on here and spouting unsupported talking points. Here's a clue: It works with ditto heads but not with reasoning logical people. You'd be much better off plying your dishonest wares somewhere else.
Once, I know your young, but technology has been around for some time, the internet is not the only technology around?
Hey Kyle, the difference between Clinton and Obama is that, Clinton did not talk about socialism. So, I accept your apology of the usual name calling around here. Read the WSJ, they will explain why the market has not faith in this administration, and the Democrats. Kyle, you have to be one of the most uneducated person here. 1992, we were starting the technical bubble, you know the one that fall fast. You know the market that Clinton was so excited about. The type of industry that was built on NOTHING. Even with such problems with the Housing market, this current market is scared of Obama's Socialism, and that he is not into capitalism, that he is talking about houses not gaining value. The government taking over banks, the idea of socialized medicine. This why this market
Hey Kyle, the difference between Clinton and Obama is that, Clinton did not talk about socialism. So, I accept your apology of the usual name calling around here. Read the WSJ, they will explain why the market has not faith in this administration, and the Democrats. Kyle, you have to be one of the most uneducated person here. 1992, we were starting the technical bubble, you know the one that fall fast. You know the market that Clinton was so excited about. The type of industry that was built on NOTHING. Even with such problems with the Housing market, this current market is scared of Obama's Socialism, and that he is not into capitalism, that he is talking about houses not gaining value. The government taking over banks, the idea of socialized medicine. This why t
Hey Kyle, the difference between Clinton and Obama is that, Clinton did not talk about socialism. So, I accept your apology of the usual name calling around here. Read the WSJ, they will explain why the market has not faith in this administration, and the Democrats. Kyle, you have to be one of the most uneducated person here. 1992, we were starting the technical bubble, you know the one that fall fast. You know the market that Clinton was so excited about. The type of industry that was built on NOTHING. Even with such problems with the Housing market, this current market is scared of Obama's Socialism, and that he is not into capitalism, that he is talking about houses not gaining value. The government taking over banks, the idea of socialized medicine. This why this
Hey Kyle, the difference between Clinton and Obama is that, Clinton did not talk about socialism. So, I accept your apology of the usual name calling around here. Read the WSJ, they will explain why the market has not faith in this administration, and the Democrats. Kyle, you have to be one of the most uneducated person here. 1992, we were starting the technical bubble, you know the one that fall fast. You know the market that Clinton was so excited about. The type of industry that was built on NOTHING. Even with such problems with the Housing market, this current market is scared of Obama's Socialism, and that he is not into capitalism, that he is talking about houses not gaining value. The government taking over banks, the idea of socialized medicine. This why this market has
Brought to you by the Department of Redundancy department.
OYGB, MMFA program has issues,
Yeah, it's called user error.
Do coservatives think it is all or nothing when it comes to tax policy. The Right acts like they don't have to pay taxes when Republicans are in the White House. This whole fake country club populism charade put on by the left is all over 4.5% of the salary of wage earners over $250K. So right now if you make 250K and you pay 35% income tax, unless is it 15% because your income is from capital gains, you pay $87,500 in fed income taxes. Under Obama's proposal you pay $98,750. $11,250 more in taxes. How will you survive without that 4.5%? The horror!!!
That's not exactly how the tax code works. If you make 250K you'll pay the same amount you're paying now. This website explains it:
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
Try again, you forgot the Obama wants to also cap itemized deductions which is addtional tax besides the brackets.
You're wrong. Your talking point has already be debunked here. Try again.
loonz, where do you get $250K from? The limit is $200K. Are you another provider of false information?
You apparantly are. Test the link, it actually works.
Seeryer, the only people I think that are not paying their taxes are those high level Democrats that Obama seems to be picking. What are we up too now 5 or 6? Seems the Dems are the one avoiding paying taxes.
HA! I knew that was coming. I just wasn't sure from where.
Someone should have told McCain that he was written off before he even had a chance in the general election campaign.
That's your most ridiculous line of thought yet. Just when I think you can't get more obtuse, you suprise me.
OYGB, the said part is the Main Stream Media was behind him. If we had picked a real conservative, we would have won. Why I did not vote for McCain. I would rather Obama win so we could get a real Conservative in 4 yrs. Obama will have this nation so messed up, even the Dems will beg for him to leave.
it started to go down when the Market saw that Obama was going to be the Democratic Nominee.
Oh, so they're like little kids then, who take away their toys when they don't like how the game is going for someone else.
boo hoo.
Yes
even though that has been debunked as a republican talking point?
Why not go back to plagiarism? At least when you lift someone else's work, it's not as flat out preposterous as your claim about fear of Obama causing the financial collapse.
Worrie, go do some research and you will see that the market went down on Oct 9th, you know when Democrats were in the majority, and it really started to go down after the election. at the end of 2006 the market was around 12,900. End of 2007 around 12,000 and now looking at what 6700. Ever since the Dems have been in control, the market has not been looking too good.
Ever since Bush has been in there, the market has been unstable. This is an unrefutable fact.
OYGB, you are a lost soul. Really, The market was unstable with Bush. We had some of the lowest unemployement rates under Bush, the market went from 8235 after 9-11 up to 14000 under his Presidencey, wow I would take the unstable market now. This was done with not a single word of Social take overs.
Really, lowest unemployment? Try again, the graph says differently.
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
Stock market? Oops, another bomber for you. Looks like the verdict is the market sucked under bush...
that was lifted word for word from Limpball's site. I'm gonna make a prediction here - tomorrow, whatever the headline at MMFA is, if Limpball has something on his site that is even vaguely considered a response, marky will post it word for word here for all to see.
What are you talking about? Lost three trillion? The stock market is not the economy.
And why would traders be afraid of Obama unless they knew that he was going to make them play the rules?
Hey Round, if you were to look and read WSJ, you would see this number. Not lifted, just common knowledge, but since you do not have any money to invest, it is not your concern. Just think of all the 401Ks that Obama and the Dems have ruined. For folks that hate talk radio, you all sure do listen alot. Dang, you all must be out of work, as much radio you listen too.
You're deeply disturbed. Seek help.
Round you are correct, the more I talk to folks like yourself, the more I understand how far this country is going to fall under Obama. I mean in just 1.5 months we have a new logo from his office. At this rate there will be 48 plus logos around for us to know what our leader has created for us.
If I'm correct and you're disturbed, why are you wasting time posting? You need to get help. If we're lucky they'll commit you for a few years, when you get out you'll be able to see how wrong you are... about everything.
obama ruined? how did he ruin it? y getting elected? by running his campaing? explain please
You're merely pointing out that the market is an irrational beast.
Obama didn't become the presumptive nominee until June 3rd.
And, mmfa provided a chart showing the dow going down starting in May. What's your point? Or, are you like all the rest ... you have no point.
Duh! The 'point' is that Obama has nothing to do with the stock market collapsing!
Yeah, right. Keep telling yourself that. Just like you tell yourself that Bush caused the entire fiasco.
well i will say this you make a point that bush didn't cause this whole thing....but he sure as hell didn't do much to either prevent it. or make it any better after everything went down.
i point to the first half of the tarp money that was given out with little to no oversight that companies refuse to say what they did. even though some of them paid out divdends to their shareholders.......since when was it legal to use tax money to pay shareholders?
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article6785.html
No it started to go down from when it was @ 14000.
so it had nothing to do with the housing market starting its fall?
I do not think Obama understand anything about the market period.
I do not think you understand anything about grammar.
OBYG, thanks, you are worth something. SO Proud of you.
I LOVE It!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUSH, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND WALL STREET LIED AND STOLE FOR 8 YEARS AND GOT US IN THIS MESS AND PEOPLE LIKE BREWER AND THE REST OF THE BRAIN DEAD MEDIA WHO STOOD BY AND SAID NOTHING CAN PUT EVERYTHING ON OBAMA NOW. THAT IS WHY I'AM SO GLAD PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR THIS FOOL BUSH HAVE LOST THERE JOBS AND MONEY ON WALL STREET. SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LISTEN TO PEOPLE LIKE RUSH, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, ABC, CBS AND NBC.
Dude, WebTV is so 1990's...
Don't expect a serious argument or any in depth discussion from Markfootinhismouth, he doesn't have one. He's just regurgitating what he's heard Rush,Hannity,and Faux have been saying. "ThinkProgress.com":
Right Wing Claims Stock Market Declined Because Obama Was Nominated For President
Since the presidential election last November, the right wing has seized nearly every opportunity to link any sharp decline in the stock market (without any basis in fact) to Barack Obama. Yesterday, losses on Wall Street forced the Dow Jones industrial average to close “below 7,000 for the first time since 1997” and like clockwork, the right (and some on Wall Street) jumped to blame Obama. The Wall Street Journal claimed today that “Obama’s policies have become part of the economy’s problem.”
Laura Ingraham said today that Obama’s policies “are not giving us the confidence we need to get back into the market.” Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity touted the line as well, but added that the market’s problems started when Obama was nominated to be the Democratic Party’s candidate for president in the middle of last year:
Even if the stock market did decline because Obama was nominated, all that does is tell you about how flaky it operates.
In the end, if these people want to keep making money, they will have to re-enter the market, on whatever terms exist.
So let them buy their overpriced collectibles right now, or whatever it is they are doing instead, and watch the values decline, as they always do in time when things in general get better.
Gold and art-works may be going up now, but they will go down when the money shifts elsewhere. Just ask all those 'investors" who bought coins and stamps in the late 70s!
it so true. the reach of the democratic presidents is well known and suitable to any situation. a prospering economy under clinton? a result of reagan's policies. the fact that eight years of bush produced almost no net jobs, not even enough to keep up with population growth? now that was indeed clinton's doing.
the republicans really have no answers and no consistency on anything, you name it. their only program is get in power, lower taxes, deregulate business, and then hand the mess to a democrat. reagan-bush to clinton and bush 2 to obama.
LOL. So you are recurgitating Think Progress. What's the difference?
Obama is killing the stock market because of his insane obsession with carbon trading and overtaxation in a deep recession. Here's a tip for him. You can't tax people more if you destroy their wealth.
What? Tax cuts for 95% of Americans isn't good enough for you? The biggest middle class tax cuts in our history aren't good enough for you?
Are you really so enamored with the reprobate behavior and loose morals of people like the commodities traders who bundled bad paper and sold it that you would fight to the death to save them from a 4% tax increase? Are you so in love with the CEO's who took Paulson's no strings attached public gift basket and doled out bonuses to each other that you would cry over a tiny increase in their taxes?
You're just plain old screwed up Leather.
Cons hate the middle-class. Of course they despise Obama's polciies that focus on helping them.
Naturally. They believe in a ruling elite, not democratic equality. It's all part of that with us or against us thinking, there is no gray, it's all black or white. Good or evil, rich or poor.
Leatherhead, if you can't see the difference , I can't help you . Troll on chump!
Oh, for goodness sake ... This is straight from our friend Drudge!
Here is a BIG PICTURE look at what happened to the Dow during Bush's last year:
http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1232485200000&chddm=98532&q=INDEXDJX:.DJI&ntsp=0
THAT is where the problem stems. This is obvious, simple stuff. Can't the MSM hire anyone with half a brain??
His approval rating is going to start to suffer if we don't see a stabilization in the markets soon.
No, only of repub propaganda works. But it won't be a rational response. Even if, what are people going to embrace instead? Rush Limbaugh?
People respond to what is happening to them. Obama will own this economy by the end of the year for better or worse.
Don't kid yourself. They will embrace the other guy in a heartbeat, whomever that is. Even Obama has said that if his plan doesn't work he will be defeated.
I don't think so. Americans don't trust republicans with the economy so they'll stick with Obama. Also, republicans can't just wish for Obama to fail. They would have to present a feasible plan and explain how and why their plan will work. Americans won't switch gears if they think your policies won't work.
Own or Owe? At this rate, he will owe a lot to China.
Well, they did invent paper and papermaking, woodblock printing and movable type printing, the early lodestone and needle compass, gunpowder, toilet paper, early seismological detectors, matches, pound locks, the double-action piston pump, blast furnace and cast iron, the iron plough, the multi-tube seed drill, the suspension bridge, natural gas as fuel, the escapement mechanism for clocks, the differential gear for the South Pointing Chariot, the hydraulic-powered armillary sphere, the hydraulic-powered trip hammer, the mechanical chain drive, the mechanical belt drive, the raised-relief map, the propeller, the crossbow, the cannon, the rocket, and the multistage rocket. Sounds like you and I do owe a lot to China.
Middle America doesn't care about the stock market. That's a casino for rich people. Middle America cares about jobs. Obama's stimulus plan will create jobs. Who cares if investors in the market get soaked. It's a fool's game anyway.
That is not true. So many people have 401K's in the market it is not just soaking the rich. Not by a long shot. The middle class is heavily invested in the markets.
That's the old Reagan dodge, Bruce. Convince people that their investments (401k's) are more important than their wages.
I'm not trying to say that investments are not very important, but many people who punch a clock these days don't have a lot left in their 401k. It's all well and good to think about retirement but we've got to have food and shelter until we start cashing in the retirement plans and it seems like a lot of people won't have that.
I know many people who have to decide between retirement and today.
Working people fell for it in the eighties but not today.
I'm responding to the nonsense that the market decline is only affecting the rich. Total nonsense.
Retired people are getting crushed, thinking they had enough to retire only to see their nest egg cut in half over the last year and a half. Honest hard working people are getting crushed.
Others will be working an additional 5 years + more than they thought because 12 years of investment income has been wiped out.
I'm not making this stuff up. I can't believe the nonchalonce I read about the markets on these threads. It's just wrong.
No one said that even though for the most part it's true.
Scratch the above comment. I just saw OYGB's post.
I didn't say that it only affects the rich. I just said that it's a secondary concern after jobs. My father never went near the stock market because he knew that it was simply legal gambling. He was a very wise man. Most Americans are the same way. They know that the valuation of the market does not reflect real intrinsic value. Instead, they want a steady job. Meanwhile, the cons have shipped all of their jobs overseas.
People have to realize that policies and trends that make the stock market go up, like outsourcing of jobs overseas, are counter to the interests of working people.
I'm responding to the nonsense that the market decline is only affecting the rich. Total nonsense.
Retired people are getting crushed, thinking they had enough to retire only to see their nest egg cut in half over the last year and a half. Honest hard working people are getting crushed.
Others will be working an additional 5 years + more than they thought because 12 years of investment income has been wiped out.
I agree with bruce here. I had no choice when I lost my job but to wipe out my 401K. If I had done it while I was still employed last year I could have paid off every single piece of debt and still have money left over. I did it in January, and while I am in a better position for it, I still have a mortgage over my head. Huge difference.
Best of luck to you Snoopy.
I actually didn't think about the unemployed who would need to take it out.
If they had a job, they could ride the market out. It all comes down to jobs and stability in the workforce. The market will move on a whim.
"Retired people are getting crushed, thinking they had enough to retire only to see their nest egg cut in half over the last year and a half. Honest hard working people are getting crushed.
Others will be working an additional 5 years + more than they thought because 12 years of investment income has been wiped out."
Another stellar argument against privatization of anything that needs to be kept stable and relied upon by people in their retirement.
Sound financial advice states that retirees should be in more conservative investments and maximize guaranteed income. However, many people don't invest their money that way.
Well, that's fine but predicated on an idealized concept that the stock market is rational and stable. It's essentially insane to advise people to invest their retirement in a market this topsy-turvy and will remain crazy advice until rules are set in place that restricts these Wall St. lunatics from selling things like debt, etc.
Now, what if most people invested their money in the manner you say is sound? Would they have been protected in this financial market meltdown? No. Not really. They still would have been at the mercy of the river boat gamblers on Wall St and their conservative legislative enablers. You really are just proposing more, "you're on your own," conservatism.
There must be protections for our shared future and simply telling people to go forth and invest wisely comes up far too short.
I agree, and that was going to be my response to Bruce. That said, I also agree with him completely. From personal experience, my mom's teacher's retirement lost over $20,000 this year, and has certainly changed her retirement/work plans.
But it's just proof that people relying on 401k's and not rising up against their employers/the government for suckering them into it is the real problem.
What Bruce says is true in as much as people are getting crushed. However, it's not just rapidly deflating 401k's that's feeding our misery. The reasons for this intensified suffering are many. It's the torn fabric of our society that conservatives have been working so hard to shred for the last thirty years that is exacerbating this current recession. The grinding down of unions that not only raise the living standards of their members, but force non union employers to offer competitive compensation that has left workers on their own and overwhelmed. It's the disinvestment in our commons, through tax cuts, and transfer of our wealth to private interests that has left people with a crushing price tag on every aspect of their lives, from healthcare to education to transportation, we are left exposed in the ruthless get rich conservative utopia.
"Retired people are getting crushed, thinking they had enough to retire only to see their nest egg cut in half over the last year and a half. Honest hard working people are getting crushed."
I'm not doubting this statement, but regardless of whether we're in bull or bear market, anyone who is retired or is close to retirement and still has their nest egg invested in stocks is either foolish, uninformed, or is getting fed some very s****y advice.
According to Currents and Undercurrents, by the Survey of Consumer Finance (Federal Reserve, Department of Treasury, 2006) 70% of the wealth in this country is controlled by 10% of the population. I got news for you, If you aint in that top 10% the stock market is alot less important then jobs. Most working people rely on social security for their retiremnt as opposed to 401K, IRAs or pensions. Again the wealthy are far and away more effected by the stock market, that is why Republicans are so worried about it.
In addition people that are with in 5-10 years of retirement should not be heavily invested in the stock market. At that point in your life capital preservation is far more importnat than growth.
If you have a 401K you're invested in the market for the long term. The current downturn won't affect most people.
People forecast retirement income based on average rates of return over a long period of time. A general rule of thumb is that a "normal" market will double your money every 7-9 years. We have just wiped out 12 years of investment income. That means a persons money is going to double at least one less time than they were anticipating if things go back to normal earnings starting right now.
That's a huge huge difference.
I don't expect it; why would other people expect it?
It's the historical average return over the past 100+ years. If you can't get that kind of return, you're really not beating inflation by very much.
Financial planners say you need about 70 to 85 percent of your income at the time of retirement to live comfortably. I'm trying to do that without my 401K. I really don't expect that much out it. I'll be happy if I get back the amount that was put in.
My company has a good 401K plan with matching. I'm glad now that I've never brought myself to invest in it. I did get stock options and I got lucky and sold my allotments at peaks and got completely out last summer. Amazingly, because I work for a good company with a solid business strategy, I'd still get a double return the options I received five years ago even though it's lost some value over the last six months.
Bruce, the market decline STARTED back in 2008 when Bush was president.
Our sub-prime housing crisis started back in 2006, yet Bush did nothing to address the problem.
In the summer of 2008, our financial crisis started, and Bush decided to let Lehman Brothers fail. Their failure FINALLY revealed the TRUTH about this economy.
Banks were failing because they CHOOSE to gamble with depositors money. Brokerage firms were failing because they CHOOSE to gamble with investors money. Mortgage lenders failed because they were lying, cheating and stealing other folks money.
All most every industry in this country has either failed, close to failing or hanging on by a thread . The economy lost 1.9 MILLION jobs in 2008 and 2.6 MILLION since Bush became president.
To blame Obama for inheriting this mess and expecting him to fix it in 60 days is unrealistic and unfair.
The country is d*mn close to a depression and it's going to take more than 60 days to fix it.
Nowhere on this thread or anywhere else have I blamed Obama for this mess. I am surprised that it has gotten significantly worse since he took office but I have not blamed him for that.
I did say that things will need to stabalize and start improving this year or he will start to lose support.
He'll probably lose support among conservatives but that's expected.
Why would you be surprised that things have gotten worse?
The problems this country faces will take time to fix. It's not like there is only one problem. We have a housing problem, a financial problem, a jobs problem, a war problem, along with soo many others.
I figure by the end of the year, some of the problems won't be as severe, but we will still have a lot of problems to deal with.
Wall Street, is another issue. With the massive job loss, massive cuts in consumer spending, companies are not making money. Companies not making money cause investors to not invest, causing the market to continue to decline.
No one, yourse;f included, should be surprised by the continued market decline, since everything connected to the market has declined.
And I'm sorry for using the word blame, you did not blame Obama.
That is the risk of the market. The housing market had never had a negative year and look where we are now. You are not gaurunteed a return on your investment.
How so?
I lost my job and while my debt was considered reasonable when I was employed, it was clear that I was over my head when I was unemployed. I don't have a fancy house, but even at $140K I need $1300 a month just to pay the mortgage. Did you know the maximum unemployment pays is $392 a week? My whole unemployment check barely covers the mortgage. I had no choice but to cash out my 401K to pay off the cars, my credit, a small business loan (I had a semi rig that I leased until diesel went to $5 a gallon last year) and a few other items.
So know you know. Try to put everything extra into a 401K, you will be a slave to the market. Don't, you are still a slave to something. Seems the only real bet is to hoard your money under your mattress and hope to hell no one knows you have a bundle in bed.
I hope things get better for you. It's too bad the republicans are hoping things get worse for all of us.
I think you have to seperate the two and take a long view and a short view. This is what i mean. The unemployment rate in Calif. is over 10% those people may have 401k's or not but I'll bet among certain groups and areas that number is alot higher ,THEIR immediate concern is not about retirement but the here and now The stimulus may put alot of them back to work. That is the short view. On the other hand those in middlle-class who are worrying about their 401k's and have a job may take relief that the stimulus will help them keep their job while the other legs(mortgage relief,bank stabilization) of his program. which may take longer to show effects starts to work. In the mean time none of this will problably have any instant effect on the stock market, this is a classic over-production crisis, it's going to take a little while to relieve this glut of the market, and that gives room for the liars to manuever. I agree with you that people respond to what's happening up to a point. They respond based on what they know, if all they hear is the trash spwed by Limpballs not only us but the world is in trouble. If the US economy completely collaspes so does the world as we know it, and I don't think any of here would like it. The republican Party has tried to wrap itself around the middle-class while doing everything in it's power to destroy it. Just look at their tax-policies and who they benefit. This sleight of hand fools alot of people I agree(Joe the Plumber)but thats why we have to counter their lies and misrepresentations with reasoned passion pointing out that THEY don't support the middle-class. Again their tax-cuts benefitted the top 2%, the failure and attack on universal healthcare primarily benefits the insurance giants while robbing us.You can take issue after issue and show the difference between their rhetoric and who actually benefits. Dang, their whole philosophy is trickle down, give more to the rich and the rest of us work hard and maybe someday we too could be...? I don't think they are being shy about it; how many times have you heard:"The rich pay all the taxes, or have you ever gotten a job from a poor person?" When it comes down to it we are just cannon fodder, the Republican Part's focus is on their class employers the rich. Lets expose them every step of the way.
Clearly people who are unemployed have immediate concerns beyond what the market is doing.
You want a healthy middle class? Having a plunging DOW won't accomplish it and I think the callous view of that situation is pathetic.
Why not?
Are you serious? You think having a plunging market is good for the middle class?
Make the connection for us. Why and how is a plunging DOW hurting the middle class?
After that you can square your explanation with the fact that the DOW has been doing pretty good up until the last year or so, yet we still have the greatest wealth inequality in the history of the world, right here today. We have stagnant wages, good middle class jobs leaving the country, healthcare costs that bankrupt middle class workers daily as they slip into poverty. This didn't happen overnight. All those years the DOW was doing just fine, the middle class was shrinking. So lay it on us, bud. Go.
Sorry if you're having a tough time financially, but the data don't support you. If you look during the post-war period, rising markets correlate to middle class incomes. The Nixon-Ford-Carter era had stagnant middle class incomes. The Reagan era had increasing middle-class incomes. Bush I had declining middle-class incomes. Clinton had increasing incomes, and Bush II were basically flat. Can you guess when the market went up and when it went down? Yep, middle-class incomes went up during bull markets and down during bear markets.
Maybe you'd care to explain how declining markets don't hurt the middle class through busted pensions or insurance plans that fail to pay? Know anyone with a PBGC pension check? If so, they would quickly tell you how bankrupt companies aren't good for the middle class. Do you have life insurance? Its not FDIC insured, you know.
If you want to look it up (data since 1967): http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h01AR.html
Your link shows no correlation to the stock market, it's just raw numbers. If you look at the post war period, based on the census data, it's just as easy to correlate the expansion of the middle class with the strength of organized labor. And don't pretend that pensions weren't getting raided in bull markets, or that insurance companies only renege in bear markets.
Try again.
Exactly, it is raw numbers, and raw numbers mean a lot more than your hand-waving assertions. Use your inductive reasoning to put two and two together. Market up = middle class income up. It isn't that hard.
Organized labor is a positive piece of the puzzle too, although I'd like to see your data?
Tell me how a declining market makes the plight of the middle class better?
Your turn.
You keep insisting that middle class expansion is correlated to strong markets, except you give only half the equation. You provide a chart of incomes and say see, told you so. You told us what, exactly? That you believe you are right?
Go find the historical record that actually shows the market fluctuations in relation to middle class expansions and contractions.
You really don't think you're going to come here, insist your right and have everybody believe you? Do you?
Really, all you're doing is repackaging trickle down economics. You're saying that when Wall St. does well, we all do well. But you don't prove it. You don't present the actual correlation. You just say look, here's a set of numbers, I interpret them this way.
Do a little better next time.
Are you actually reading anything I've written?
The correlation is self-evident to those who bother to look at it. Income and market returns have a high positive correlation, and you have shown nothing to disprove that. Your only arguments are your own assertions, which I'm coming to learn, are grossly misinformed.
"Go find the historical record that actually shows the market fluctuations in relation to middle class expansions and contractions. " The link a few posts back is pretty clear: the core of the middle class, quintiles two, three, and four, all gain income duing bull markets. Even the lowest quintile, the lower class one might say, follows the same pattern. Why do you think that is?
Where did I say anything about tricle down economics. That is a system of tax and/or policy benefits directly to the upper class, which you will never find me encouraging. My issue with prior posts began with loonz' reply to:
That is ignoring the obvious: that a declining market helps no one. As you took issue with my post, you seem to disagree, yet you provide no evidence to support the thesis that a declining equity market won't hurt the middle class.
Where's your data? To this point, you have posted none, meaning you must have none. Prove that you're not intellectually lazy and actually come up with some evidence to support your positions.
And I repeat, "show me where I can find data that pension and insurance distributions go up during bear markets."?
"The link a few posts back is pretty clear: the core of the middle class, quintiles two, three, and four, all gain income duing bull markets. "
No, it's not. Your link has nothing to do with markets, it only shows income levels over the years, so why is anyone supposed to believe your assertion that middle class expansion hinges upon bull markets? Talk about lazy, dude. Conjure up your proof.
You're funny, by the way, you tell me to pull up some data to support my argument when all you've done is link to a spread sheet devoid of context. As if that means something. Unless you think we all have trend lines of the market emblazoned in our memories and can graph spread sheets at a glance and overlay them on each other, then you are doing a poor job of making your point.
Markets fluctuate all the time, bubbles burst, but the constant through it all is stagnated wages and growing economic inequality. So, apparently, strong markets and weak markets don't do much for the rest of us.
(Sorry for the massive graphics, folks. I'm sill learning how to do this.)
Thanks for finally putting up some data, although it doesn't support your point. Your data supports the concept of stratification, exacerbated by tax and anti-union policies during this period, but it doesn't have anything to do with correlation of middle class wages to the markets, which is the issue at hand. If you want to talk about stratification, fine, go to another thread.
It is funny that, if anything, your chart supports my point. During the longest, most sustained, and steepest bull market during the 1979-2005 period, 1992-2000 (+300%), wages of the middle third (as well as for the other two thirds) increased faster than during any other period on this chart.
At no point did I say that middle class wage growth "hinges" on bull markets. Wage growth is dependent on factors requiring a propsering economy with productivity growth, and when there is a sound economy and productivity growth, equity markets usually go up, hence the correlation. As I said in my previous post, my criticism of this thread is based on the idiotic premise that bear markets don't hurt the middle class, as presumed by loonz's doubt (sorry loonz if I misinterpreted your question) of bruce1ace's point and subsequently defended by you. And I'm stating that only someone who is delusional would argue that equity asset declines don't adversely affect the middle class, even independent of the correlated economic data. Besides the obvious losses in retirement portfolios, there are the future losses anticipated in pension payouts and insurance defaults (or premium increases). And there are many other "hidden" consequences that will play out over time: less business investment (fewer jobs) and longer "work-life" duration because of pension and 401(k) losses (older people won't retire as planned, making fewer jobs available to younger workers).
As a result of equity declines, public pensions are facing a crisis in meeting future obligations: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/03/pensions-another-trillion-dollar.html
And the scope of the travails of private pensions is still largely to be determined, depending on the duration of the economic declines and the performance of the pension's investments. Healthy companies are obligated to compensate for investment losses in their pension plans, but usually not if they file for chapter 11 bankruptcy. And if the company liquidates, sorry, you're out of luck. Whatever assets remaining go to the bond and secured debt holders. In both cases, the pension plan gets dumped on the PBGC, which is already underfunded as of the end of last year, and is only obligated to pay out a percentage of the original pension. http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1871258,00.html
Please show how a bear market helps or at least doesn't hurt the middle class?
As for being intellectually lazy, you're the one who can't be bothered to analyze a table or to use a calculator. Is it that hard to see that $32,000 is less than $40,000? That's about all the interpretation that table required. And it took you four posts to finally come up with something other than tired boilerplate assertions, however ill suited to your argument and off topic.
Thanks for your analysis.
People can accept the truth or not.
"Is it that hard to see that $32,000 is less than $40,000? That's about all the interpretation that table required. "
It is if those numbers aren't adjusted for inflation. Indeed, 40,000 in 1990 dollars is less than 32,000 in 1980 dollars.
You're using statistical sophistry. The simple truth is that, despite anything the market has done over the decades, the constant trend is not that of an expanding middles class. It's the opposite.
You are so lazy! Are you able to scroll? The link had 2007 inflation adjusted wages at the bottom of the page. So yes, in that case $40,000 IS greater than $32,000. Shocking!
Hilarious, "statistical sophistry".
Again, you are talking about stratification and not wage increases. I assume you know the difference. Nice attempt to divert the topic when you know you can't make a cogent argument.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of your exhaltation over the decline of equity markets -- how does that help the middle class?
Fair enough, I'll concede I missed the inflation adjustment, had I not glanced over that, I would not have accused you of obfuscation. So blow your insults out yer a-hole.
On a kinder note, how do you explain, exactly, that income/wage increases are different from stratification?
Increased/decreased wages typically result in a movement from one strata to the next.
And would you please post a graph that tracks the trends in the market over the decades so we can see if you are right about markets boosting income/wages for the middle class? Middle class investment is a fairly new phenomenon, so it would be interesting to see how the middle class in the 70's and 80's were affected by the market strength.
Also, we know that strong pensions and 401k's are related to strong markets, but they are not a form of wage increases. Maybe we have a disconnect on this point. Perhaps you view them as income. If so, how?
I won't pretend to be a financial wizard, but I do know that while middle class income was stagnant during 43's reign, our costs went up dramatically. Hence, we lost groud. But nobody gave a damn. The rich got tax breaks and we got bupkus (sp?)
I agree that the Bush tax cuts were atrocious public policy. You're absolutely right that nominal wages went up, but inflation adjusted wages for the bottom 60% wage earners went down -- about 3% during the period. These numbers are based on official inflation numbers from the government.
Your perception may be even more accurate than the "official" inflation numbers. Back in the late 90's the government started calculating inflation differently, some would say underestimating inflation. There is a group, Shadow Government Statistics, that calculates inflation based on inferences from other economic data, and their data suggest the government consistently understates consumer inflation.
It isn't that interesting, but if you're really curious: http://www.shadowstats.com/
Oh yeah, and show me where I can find data that pension and insurance distributions go up during bear markets.
Obviously the sinking market effects everyone, the arguement is that it effects the wealthy ina disproprotionate way. The largeer impact is felt on those that are losing jobs or facing decrease in income and yes alot of it is innerconnected. I made 112K last year and I could care less about that stock market per se. I need the housing market to turn around so that I can sell mor emortgages and feed my family and pay my bills. I am 36 years old and don't make enought to put in anything more than my 401K money in the market. I do not look at my statements because they do not effect me now, but I do look at my pay stubs.
I see your point, but I think disproportionality depends on your perspective. Yes, the rich are losing huge amounts of money today, and what you and I lose in our retirement accounts is puny (at least in mine) in comparison. For the rich a 50% drop in their net worth just lets them be "less rich." If I had lost 50% in my retirement account from the peak, but if I still want the same post-retirement income as planned, I'll have to work another 10 years longer than planned (assuming a historical inflation-adjusted 7% annual return on my investments). To me, even though the rich may be losing 1000X more money, postponing my retirement 10 years is a more significant quality of life issue for me than it is for the rich to have to cut back and sell one of their vacation homes. And there are millions of middle class in that situation. Do I think the government should spend taxpayer money to artificially pump up the markets? No, definitely not, but the point I was making above is I think a healthy economy, which is reflected in a healthy stock market, is good for everyone, investors and non-investors alike.
I think you misse the point I was making. I'am not arguing with you about people's 401k's. This is a mess for sure but what can Obama do that he is not doing? He is applying a multi-pronged attack. Some with immediate relief and others that may take sometime to show benefits, that will give liars plenty room to distort and obstruct. I feel the stimulus should be larger but the politics of the day, it's something to start with. What I was trying to point out was that the policies of the conservatives are not aimed at protecting the middle-classes 401k's and that must be the starting point for the fight back against their attempts to win over the middle class. I agreed they fooled Joe the Plumber and their demagoguery knows no bounds, but what is the alternative? There is no magic fix, their is no instant repair to this economy that was put into overdrive by the conservatives the lst 8 yrs. Obama inherited this economy, remember that. The real robbers of the middle class 401k's was not Obama's policies but the conservatives. Was Obama president when ENRON failed. G Bush left us with a mess, and the conservatives are doing everything they can to run away from it. Tell me how will furthering Bush tax-cuts save my 401k? Tell me how continuing policies that have caused this crisis cure it? The republicans are trying to sell us snake oil , tryingto suck more out of us and give it to the rich. Wasn't that what happened with Bush's tax-cuts? He took the surplus gained by raising taxes on the middle and gave it and more to the upper 2%. Redistribution up! He created a phony bubble that was bound and waiting to bust , now they want to try and run the same scam on us again. I'am sorry but there is no quick fix now, but there is a battle brewing, more of the same or change the course, changing the course may take awhile to show benefits but what is our alternative?
Ron Paul said the economy would magically get better if we did nothing at all.
I'am not going to sit by and watch you eat with nothing on my plate and call myself a diner.
I'am not economist, but looking at the daily fluctations of the dow and acting accordingly is not the answer. What those on the right or saying Obama should do is cut spending and lower taxes on the rich, they say this threw the market into a tizzy, I think that's bull and more of the same old tired song. Listen to their rants; Cramer and that other tool on CNBC Santelli it was class driven against the working class. I don't know what else to say>
dean Baker said it best, congero.
"The Stock Market Is Not the Economy #4238
The Washington Post told readers that "Stock Sell-Off Spurs Fears That Slump Will Worsen." Among whom did it raise such fears?
Anyone who bases their expectations for the economy on the stock market has no idea what the economy will do. As should be apparent at this point, the stock market can often be driven by irrational exuberance. Remember, it was almost three times as high in 2009 dollars back in 2000 as it is today. Did that make sense? Obviously if it can be driven by irrational exuberance it can also be driven by irrational pessimism. There is no obvious reason to believe that the market has suddenly become a better judge of the economy's prospects now than it had been in times past.
Of course even in principle the market is not reflecting the economy but expectations of future profits. An announcement that the government will shut down Social Security in order to make Citigroup, Bank of America, and other banks fully solvent would probably send the market soaring, even though it would likely be really bad news for the economy.
Of course there are grounds for thinking the economy is looking very bad. Recent data on existing and new home sales, durable good orders, and construction all indicate that the downturn will be even worse than most forecasts predict. But the public would be much better advised to make its assessments of the economy on economic data than the stock markets fluctuations.
--Dean Baker"
And you have to remember the Dow was soaring to new heights while we had Americans underemployed; Americans working longer hours or multiple jobs to make up for loses in wages; Americans falling into poverty, Americans losing their health and pension benefits; Americans savings rate plunging coupled with the expansion consumer debt and the greatest inequality of wealth since the Great Depression. The Dow focuses on the state of rich people.
And you'll recall that around the same time, Bush was telling a lady at a town hall meeting, in Disconnect City, USA, that he thought it was great she had to take three jobs to get by.
"The Dow focuses on the state of rich people."
Agreed. And meanwhile, the commodity traders are on tv reciting think tank written rants blaming poor people for the market collapse.
Have we stepped through the looking glass?
"The Dow focuses on the state of rich people."
...and everyone else too! Even if you don't have a brokerage account or 401(k), virtually every pension, life insurance policy, and disability policy has equity exposure. Do you have one of those or know someone that does? Also, increasing the cost of capital by a declining market causes companies to reduce investment expenses, which in turn reduces jobs. None of this is to suggest we should or shouldn't do the uber-bailouts we're seeing, but when making a decision about policy, it is shortsighted to believe that declining markets don't affect your financial health.
Then why didn't rising markets expand the middle class?
See the comment above
We did see your comments. You didn't make your case.
Thanks for the post, right to the point!!
I'm not criticizing what Obama is doing. He deserves some time to turn things around.
My posts are in response to those who don't see the vast negative impact that the market decline has had on the middle class.
Jobs jobs jobs. Too many people have been seduced in using the market to make a quick buck. This speculation has created the instability we've seen. If people have jobs, they can buy products and the market goes up. It all comes down to what leads what. Trickle-down has been proven to be a failed economic strategy. It's time to restore trickle-up once again.
I think most would concur that the stock market dropping is bad but it is not the overall baorometer of the economy. As Congero points out we can't look at the daily fluctuations in the market a s barometer and the fixes should not be geared towards fixing wall street rather stimulating growth and the market will follow. Wall Street does an awful job of predicting, most analysts have were calling bank stocks a buy up until the bail out. They had no idea what was going on with the bank balance sheets.
I high DOW can hide a bad economy just as a lagging down may not be reflective of the overall economy.
And people forget that the stock market is basically gambling. And the ups and downs of the DJIA is often based on that nebulous thing called confidence. It's only a barometer of whether or not the rich people believe they can get richer.
"So many people have 401K's in the market it is not just soaking the rich."
Sounds like a good argument against privatization. Sounds like a good reason to do everything we can to bolster social security. Because, say what you want about SS shortfalls, it is still healthier than the alternative.
Will you guys ever learn anything? Will you ever learn you've been lied to about the role of government in preserving and protecting our common wealth?
I'm not in favor of every conservative idea that comes along. Clearly privatization of a portion of Social Security would not have been a good idea.
True. You're not a lockstep Republican. But as with most conservative ideas, it would have been a terrible idea to privatize SS.
Being the owner of a 401(k) that ain't worth squat, I hereby advise you that I blame the repubs (see Gramm, who called us all "whiners"), and their agenda to turn the wall street dogs loose on the rest of us. No amount of deflection by the wingnut hoards is going to change the reality of that statement. If I end up with nothing for my retirement, I will still know who to blame. Why anyone would ever vote for a republican again after this mess is completely beyond me.
I'm going to say this one more time. Nowhere on this thread or anywhere else have I tried to deflect blame from the Bush administration for the economy or blame Obama for what is going on. It's way too soon to draw conclusions about the stimulus bill or the budget proposals or other ideas that Obama intends to put in place. America is going in a different direction with Democrati leadership and if it works out then Democrats will control Government for a long time.
My response was to those who see a disconnect between the stock market decline and the problems in the middle class. The middle class is not unaffected by the market decline. That is money that people are counting on to grow through compounding of earnings over time that they will have for retirement. Or it is held for a shorter period of time for college funds, home repairs, vacations, living, whatever.
The government cannot pay for everyones retirement. Social security alone is not going to give you a very high standard of living. Companies are offering less in the way of guaranteed pensions. People need to save on their own.
The market is a huge part of most peoples investment strategy. Wake up if you don't believe a 50% decline in the DOW is killing the middle class. Wake the hell up.
Well, proponents of the stock market have noted that even though there are localized losses, the value out performs more stable instruments such as bonds. Well, if that's the case then the market decline is a paper loss to everyone who is holding for the long-term and only a problem for people who plan to short sell. The retirement argument doesn't hold water, unless you think the market will be permanently depressed.
Market decline is a paper loss until such time as the transaction to withdraw is realized. That is true. Your argument would be true if everyone was 25 years old and were just going to leave their money in there for the next 30 years. Those people have the luxury of time.
I'm in my early 40's so about mid-career. I'm not looking to withdraw any of that money for another 20 years. I also know that 12 years worth of earnings have been wiped out. Unless the market has a series of years at 25% or higher, I will not have what I thought I would have when I retire based on historical returns. That means either working more years or retiring with less.
And I'm lucky because I'm still 20 years out. Consider the ones who are within a few years or who are already retired and watching this happen. They don't have the luxury of time to wait for the rebound. They will have to start withdrawing the funds or keep working. It's a terrible situation.
Yea Ok we see the markets play a huge part in peoples investment strategy. So what is your point? Obama has a plan he is trying to implement, what is your dang point? He's been in office how long? I thin k you are in a backhanded way saying his policies are causing the fluctuation in the the stock market just don't want to admit here?
but that's the thing, they are using the old "people are saying" transition to move from reporting (delivering facts) to editorial (opinion pulled out of cramer's a$$).
Just testing.
The dow has been in decline since May, what significance does Obama have to do with that? Only if the market believed his election was sure could he have had influence over it then. His nomination was secured in June 6. On that day the dow was at 12,200, was all that his fault? The dow was actually up about 1000 in May, was that his doing? No way, the blaming needs to be more accurate.
Philib, no one's gonna convince you of anything because it's obvious what your agenda is. But anyone with any modicum of sense knows the market is dropping because of the negative indicators. You and your fellow tools are making a very inane attempt to use the market against the President. Ain't gonna work babe. The rest of us are on the case. We're through with your side's half-truths, innuendo and obfuscation. We are on the case. If you are actually open to a new way of thinking (which I doubt), I suggest you abandon the wingnut press you've been listening to, and try something more constructive.
Remember how the 14,000 point market was Bush's genius, but when it dove that was the fault of the Democratic congress. Like the banks, Republicans privatize the profits of glory and outsource the losses of misery.
Randy
The daytime MSNBC anchors are real bottom feeders. Ignorant, shrill and detached from reality, they regularly pose such insightful questions like "Why doesn't Obama understand the markets are connected to him body and soul?" Seriously, this level of stupidity is a bigger threat to America's future that global warming or financial upheavals.
Randy
excellent mark.....so let me ask you this....can you name the other two guys who are there aside from Stalin and Lenin?
Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, Vladimir Lenin , Josef Stalin,
Bomb, would you like more history information. I am happy to help, I am sure you went to public school and were unaware of who these men were or they were the heros of your teachers one of the two. They are the fathers of Socialism / Communism, that is why I gave you definitions. Just to help you out.
You left out the hero's of the right wing...
Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race. Fascist movements promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist and militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of evolution. In the view that violence is a natural part of survival, fascists believe only the strong can and should survive by being healthy, vital, and aggressive through conquering and eliminating people deemed weak and degenerate.
thanks but i don't need your help, i knew very wellmarx and engels were in that. i was simply curious if you knew. and sure as heck know about capitalism and socialism, even communism, since one of my college courses was on european history from 1848-until 1919. but i appreciate the sentiment.
Why are they in that order? You know that when you throw that BS about "communism" around your just admitting you have no argument. I could care less about engaging you in your asine exercise in mental mastubation, or what you think you know about socialism, what does that have to do with paying the mortagage or putting food on the table.There is no way you can say that that Obama's policies represent anything that Marx,Engels, Lenin, or Stalin has written or done! Instead of answers you throw back tired old lines about "socialism" and "communism" when people want answers, try providing some instead of whinning about how the media doesn't like you, or how an idea is socialist, the system is not working provide ideas are get out of the way of those trying to lead. You can show-off to your girl but I'am unimpressed.