quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy First, I'm getting tired of the inability to read/understand what's being said about this topic. No one is saying that Obama destroyed the market. They're saying that the he's taking a crippled market and either a) is not making it better or b) making a bad situation worse.

Great point.

And just to play devil's advocate, Opus. Whose fault (if any) is the 80% drop the Nasdaq (and 50% in the S&P 500, 40% in the Dow) saw from 2000 to 2002? I don't think these discussions are helpful.

We are wringing out the excesses of at least 20 years right now and there is not a ready and apparent bubble to pick up the slack like housing and easy credit picked up after the last recession. It's nasty, but there is lots of blame to go around on all sides, starting with Greenspan (who yes, was a Reagan appointee).

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Great point.

It's really frustrating and I'm finding it everywhere. How can you have a debate with someone when they don't even understand the question being debated? Just take a trip over to Digg and read the comments on any business news over there. It's mindblowing.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

It's also frustrating that he clearly has the INTENT to help the economy, I mean he has been saying that for how long, yet he is not making decisions that reflect that intent.

What I meant earlier about "seeing it" is that, we are all following this on the news right? I mean, we are actively reading/hearing what's happening right? That being said, if you see the news about whatever policy or law or bill was passed or whatever and you can't see what effect it might have on public confidence (it's hard to not sound condescending here, although I really don't mean it that way), I really don't feel I can convince you otherwise.

I'm not a huge Cramer fan and I know he makes a ton of bad calls, but this is all sorts of correct.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

For the life of me I can't understand why people are more fixated on the stock market than things like inflation, GDP, or unemployment - you know, actual macroeconomic indicators of an economy's health. I'm not saying that a declining stock market isn't a bad thing - it is. But it's significantly less important than a decline in consumer demand and GDP growth.

Josh Marshall is on point in explaining how the general consensus about the economy is now founded on a unhealthy obsession with the market:

quote:

The financial sector has grown far out of proportion to the function it is supposed to serve in the economy (the efficient allocation of capital) and has, for what it's worth, demonstrably failed in that core function. This swollen and unhealthy condition has led to vast concentrations of money, which have in turn purchased great political power in Washington. As DZ says, not based so much on specific contributions or transactions or the purchase of people, but the purchase -- or at least the long-term leasing -- of minds, the basic mentality about whose interests are the key ones in the economy, how the economy is supposed to function and where its leadership should come from.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ar...nomy_stupid.php

For something that was created merely to allocate capital, we've grown far too accustomed with the notion that it somehow produces it.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov For the life of me I can't understand why people are more fixated on the stock market than things like inflation, GDP, or unemployment - you know, actual macroeconomic indicators of an economy's health. I'm not saying that a declining stock market isn't a bad thing - it is. But it's significantly less important than a decline in consumer demand and GDP growth. Josh Marshall is on point in explaining how the general consensus about the economy is now founded on a unhealthy obsession with the market: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ar...nomy_stupid.php For something that was created merely to allocate capital, we've grown far too accustomed with the notion that it somehow produces it.

you'd have a point, if inflation, GDP, and unemployment were improving. everything is tied together.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov For the life of me I can't understand why people are more fixated on the stock market than things like inflation, GDP, or unemployment - you know, actual macroeconomic indicators of an economy's health. I'm not saying that a declining stock market isn't a bad thing - it is. But it's significantly less important than a decline in consumer demand and GDP growth. Josh Marshall is on point in explaining how the general consensus about the economy is now founded on a unhealthy obsession with the market: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ar...nomy_stupid.php For something that was created merely to allocate capital, we've grown far too accustomed with the notion that it somehow produces it.

The stock market indexes ares a supposed combination of all of those items. The market's already priced in 10% unemployment.

If you look at the market reactions the day that unemployment comes out, it hasn't been that bad lately if it's in line with expectations. We've been shedding 600K jobs a month, but by the time it's announced, the market's already priced it.

As for Josh Marshall's thing, why should it be of so little impact? I mean, it's the primary investment tool of most Americans, having a great impact on their net worth. If this doesn't turn around soon, how is the Democratic Party going to tell union workers that their pension funds are wiped out because we didn't care about the "day to day fluctuations in the stock market," which haven't been fluctuating up, just down.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by delobbo you'd have a point, if inflation, GDP, and unemployment were improving.

Right, because we would expect GDP growth to instantaneously skyrocket in the time between when the stimulus was signed into law and the first dollars are disbursed...

You've lost me.

___________________

So wait, are you guys arguing what the progressives have been arguing? That the output gap is larger than anyone has thusfar come to terms with, and therefore the stimulus was far too small?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Right, because we would expect GDP growth to instantaneously skyrocket in the time between when the stimulus was signed into law and the first dollars are disbursed... You've lost me.

you made it sound like I was ignoring those 3 things - I'm just saying I'm not. that's all.

quote:

Originally posted by delobbo you made it sound like I was ignoring those 3 things - I'm just saying I'm not. that's all.

I'm just saying that there's a culture in this country of pinning the entire economy on the Dow... and that's simply not an accurate snapshot. Obama isn't worried about putting in place policies designed to stimulate the stock market (or at least he shouldn't be) - he's looking to stimulate demand in order to prop up GDP growth and limit the rise in unemployment. That's how you rebuild the economy, and that takes more time than the seven weeks he's been given.

___________________