Obama = Epic Failure - Updated Daily for your convenience!

[Glasgow Gold]

Originally Posted by MG FAS157 in action http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...mOM&refer=home Amazing to me how LITTLE has been said about FAS157 as a key trigger behind the collapse. And, remember Obama fanboys, all those bureaucrats opposed to suspending 157 are doing so on the Savior's watch. How much longer can you blame Bush for everything? Change you can MAKE believe in!

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[Mister Brenton]

I think you guys are missing the plot. Obama is attempting to restore order by smoothing the imbalance of power led by a hundred years of Republican Oligarths dominating the countries assets. The Rockefellers and Dukes of the world unfairly hoarded control by exploiting the working class. The move is on to re-balance this natural order.
It may surprise most of you, but in short time, we will see a recovery that will shock you.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by MTI

Rev, the belief that "the street" is an oracle of the state of the nation's economy ignores the basic truth that "the street" is never right when the bubble bursts. How accurate was it back in August 2008?

It's easy to see that investors are very weary of investing in this market. There is no confidence, and the government has yet to do anything to spur that confidence. Most investors are sitting on losses right now, some with little to no hope of making that up. As an investor myself, I don't see anything from the Obama campaign that would lead me to believe that any company would be worth investing in right now. And quite frankly, there are lots of companies who's stock price is very undervalued right now. In fact, all I see are anti-investor, and anti-business talk coming from the administration. If you deny any of this, you are living in an Obama utopia and refuse to address the reality of the situation.

So the bottom line is that it is not about whether or not the street is right or wrong. But it IS about what the street is doing. And right now, the street is divesting and not investing. And the administration is doing little (nothing really) to encourage them to change.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Mister Brenton

I think you guys are missing the plot. Obama is attempting to restore order by smoothing the imbalance of power led by a hundred years of Republican Oligarths dominating the countries assets. The Rockefellers and Dukes of the world unfairly hoarded control by exploiting the working class. The move is on to re-balance this natural order.
It may surprise most of you, but in short time, we will see a recovery that will shock you.

The days of exploiting the working class are long gone. Today, its those with wealth who are providing the jobs for those workers, as well as providing a customer base for the companies which employ them to do business with. The "natural order" is that some people are smart and hard working; they succeed. Some are lazy and don't want to work hard (or work at all). They will not succeed.

The market will recover. It will. However, it probably won't recover as a result of any action by the Obama Administration, but rather by the free market correcting itself. What the Administration can do is takes step to "stimulate" things by making more money available to the companies and to the individuals to be used in the market. "Social Spending" does nothing to help the market, and in fact, may have even hurt it more.

[Mister Brenton]

Those with wealth do not create jobs. It is the unions of this country that produce the value-add, which is then siphoned by the wealthy. So you have it backwards.

The expansion of the money supply will ensure the masses (the most productive sector) have cash to further stimulate the economy. Congress should be adding several more trillion in stimulus to hasten this effect, not throttle it by withholding.

Edit: And furthermore, the lack of universal education and healthcare is severely stunting the growth of value-add sector.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Mister Brenton

Those with wealth do not create jobs. It is the unions of this country that produce the value-add, which is then siphoned by the wealthy. So you have it backwards.

The expansion of the money supply will ensure the masses (the most productive sector) have cash to further stimulate the economy. Congress should be adding several more trillion in stimulus to hasten this effect, not throttle it by withholding.

Edit: And furthermore, the lack of universal education and healthcare is severely stunting the growth of value-add sector.

Now I know you're joking.

[Mister Brenton]

I was looking for a net large enough to haul in the giant fish I had on the hook.

[MG]

Originally Posted by revstriker

It's easy to see that investors are very weary of investing in this market. There is no confidence, and the government has yet to do anything to spur that confidence. Most investors are sitting on losses right now, some with little to no hope of making that up. As an investor myself, I don't see anything from the Obama campaign that would lead me to believe that any company would be worth investing in right now. And quite frankly, there are lots of companies who's stock price is very undervalued right now. In fact, all I see are anti-investor, and anti-business talk coming from the administration. If you deny any of this, you are living in an Obama utopia and refuse to address the reality of the situation.

So the bottom line is that it is not about whether or not the street is right or wrong. But it IS about what the street is doing. And right now, the street is divesting and not investing. And the administration is doing little (nothing really) to encourage them to change.

Anyone who believes that the stock market indices are "Oracles" has no clue what they are talking about thinks Economics is akin to Voodoo. Stock markets buy and sell against performance or underperformance to preset expectations. They look at leading economic indicators and company performance indicators and buy or sell accordingly. That's it, it's not magic.

[Mister Brenton]

Originally Posted by MG

Anyone who believes that the stock market indices are "Oracles" has no clue what they are talking about thinks Economics is akin to Voodoo. Stock markets buy and sell against performance or underperformance to preset expectations. They look at leading economic indicators and company performance indicators and buy or sell accordingly. That's it, it's not magic.

Well, in theory, the price of the stock is supposed to be based on the present value of future earnings. But day traders, speculators, and emotional investors killed that idea.
You remember the fun of calculating Black Scholes formulas by hand.

[Mister Brenton]

And by the way, I know the Reverend disagrees with me, but I think mature public companies should all be paying out profits in the form of dividends, that which is not used for R&D reinvestment.

Call me old fashioned.

[MG]

Originally Posted by Mister Brenton

Well, in theory, the price of the stock is supposed to be based on the present value of future earnings. But day traders, speculators, and emotional investors killed that idea.
You remember the fun of calculating Black Scholes formulas by hand.

Brownian motion!

[whoover]

Originally Posted by Mister Brenton

Well, in theory, the price of the stock is supposed to be based on the present value of future earnings. But day traders, speculators, and emotional investors killed that idea.
You remember the fun of calculating Black Scholes formulas by hand.

You could have made 50% in less than a week on GE. GE!

[SteveHI]

Originally Posted by revstriker

The market will recover. It will. However, it probably won't recover as a result of any action by the Obama Administration, but rather by the free market correcting itself.

I agree that the market will eventually recover. There's no quick fix here, as the fundamental problem is that our economic growth was unsustainable because it was driven by ridiculous leverage at all levels - consumer, corporate, and government.

That doesn't mean the feds should take a laissez faire approach here, let the market do its thing, and hope for the best. Japan did not begin to recover from its lost decade until the government stepped up spending and ran up a sizable deficit. Not an ideal situation, but after floundering for 7+ years, it beat the alternative. Our stimulus package is an attempt to minimize the duration of this downturn, taking a lesson from what happened in Japan. I'm not under the impression that any government action at this point can shock the economy back to health - there's no such thing as an economic defibrillator here. My guess is that the steep downturn will continue through a good portion of 2009, followed by 24+ months of flat (at best) growth -- this should allow housing markets to stabilize and consumers to de-lever and be in a position to spend again, driving sustainable growth.

One of my concerns with the Republican economic platform is that it's really only centered on one thing: tax cuts. It seems that wherever we happen to be in the economic cycle, and whether we have a budget surplus or deficit, they insist that it's always the right time to cut taxes. And I get how supply side economics works -- I just don't agree that it's a magic potion to solve all economic woes.

[MG]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

That doesn't mean the feds should take a laissez faire approach here, let the market do its thing, and hope for the best. Japan did not begin to recover from its lost decade until the government stepped up spending and ran up a sizable deficit. Not an ideal situation, but after floundering for 7+ years, it beat the alternative.

WHAT?

Holy crap you have that backwards. Zombie banks? Heard of them? Japanese government spending created the lost decade, it didn't end it.

Our stimulus package is an attempt to minimize the duration of this downturn, taking a lesson from what happened in Japan. I'm not under the impression that any government action at this point can shock the economy back to health - there's no such thing as an economic defibrillator here. My guess is that the steep downturn will continue through a good portion of 2009, followed by 24+ months of flat (at best) growth -- this should allow housing markets to stabilize and consumers to de-lever and be in a position to spend again, driving sustainable growth.

24 months of stagnation when we could have done it in 4. Wow, thats an amazing benefit there, thank bob for Obama. (and the stimulous package was a load of socialist pent up spending, there was no attempt to stimulate anything other than duration of power retention).

One of my concerns with the Republican economic platform is that it's really only centered on one thing: tax cuts.

And cutting government spending.........very important oversight.

It seems that wherever we happen to be in the economic cycle, and whether we have a budget surplus or deficit, they insist that it's always the right time to cut taxes. And I get how supply side economics works -- I just don't agree that it's a magic potion to solve all economic woes.

More government taxes and more government spending is never the solution to any economic woes, unless you consider suicide the solution to life.

[S55inPA]

Originally Posted by Mister Brenton

Those with wealth do not create jobs. It is the unions of this country that produce the value-add, which is then siphoned by the wealthy. So you have it backwards.

The expansion of the money supply will ensure the masses (the most productive sector) have cash to further stimulate the economy. Congress should be adding several more trillion in stimulus to hasten this effect, not throttle it by withholding.

Edit: And furthermore, the lack of universal education and healthcare is severely stunting the growth of value-add sector.

i need your address to send you the bill to get the hook removed from
my mouth

[S55inPA]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

I agree that the market will eventually recover. There's no quick fix here, as the fundamental problem is that our economic growth was unsustainable because it was driven by ridiculous leverage at all levels - consumer, corporate, and government.

That doesn't mean the feds should take a laissez faire approach here, let the market do its thing, and hope for the best. Japan did not begin to recover from its lost decade until the government stepped up spending and ran up a sizable deficit. Not an ideal situation, but after floundering for 7+ years, it beat the alternative. Our stimulus package is an attempt to minimize the duration of this downturn, taking a lesson from what happened in Japan. I'm not under the impression that any government action at this point can shock the economy back to health - there's no such thing as an economic defibrillator here. My guess is that the steep downturn will continue through a good portion of 2009, followed by 24+ months of flat (at best) growth -- this should allow housing markets to stabilize and consumers to de-lever and be in a position to spend again, driving sustainable growth.

One of my concerns with the Republican economic platform is that it's really only centered on one thing: tax cuts. It seems that wherever we happen to be in the economic cycle, and whether we have a budget surplus or deficit, they insist that it's always the right time to cut taxes. And I get how supply side economics works -- I just don't agree that it's a magic potion to solve all economic woes.

if things keep going the way they are the "tax cut" portion of the
Republican platform won't matter. most won't be paying taxes....what
the hell will they care about tax cuts

when everyone is sitting comfortable in the wagon.....who is going to pull it?

[vraa]

Originally Posted by S55inPA

if things keep going the way they are the "tax cut" portion of the
Republican platform won't matter. most won't be paying taxes....what
the hell will they care about tax cuts

when everyone is sitting comfortable in the wagon.....who is going to pull it?

Cyborgs

[Mister Brenton]

Originally Posted by S55inPA

i need your address to send you the bill to get the hook removed from
my mouth

I had two fish on and didn't land either one.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

I agree that the market will eventually recover. There's no quick fix here, as the fundamental problem is that our economic growth was unsustainable because it was driven by ridiculous leverage at all levels - consumer, corporate, and government.

That doesn't mean the feds should take a laissez faire approach here, let the market do its thing, and hope for the best. Japan did not begin to recover from its lost decade until the government stepped up spending and ran up a sizable deficit. Not an ideal situation, but after floundering for 7+ years, it beat the alternative. Our stimulus package is an attempt to minimize the duration of this downturn, taking a lesson from what happened in Japan. I'm not under the impression that any government action at this point can shock the economy back to health - there's no such thing as an economic defibrillator here. My guess is that the steep downturn will continue through a good portion of 2009, followed by 24+ months of flat (at best) growth -- this should allow housing markets to stabilize and consumers to de-lever and be in a position to spend again, driving sustainable growth.

One of my concerns with the Republican economic platform is that it's really only centered on one thing: tax cuts. It seems that wherever we happen to be in the economic cycle, and whether we have a budget surplus or deficit, they insist that it's always the right time to cut taxes. And I get how supply side economics works -- I just don't agree that it's a magic potion to solve all economic woes.

I was under the impression that the Japanese tried unsuccessfully to spend their way out of their economic woes. From an article:

Economists tend to divide into two camps on the question of Japan's infrastructure spending: those, many of them Americans like Geithner, who think it did not go far enough; and those, many of them Japanese, who think it was a colossal waste.

Among ordinary Japanese, the spending is widely disparaged for having turned the nation into a public-works-based welfare state and making regional economies dependent on Tokyo for jobs. Much of the blame has fallen on the Liberal Democratic Party, which has long used government spending to grease rural vote-buying machines that help keep the party in power. ...

And yes, there is almost never a bad time to put more money into the hands of people. Our economy is based on people spending money for goods and services. Contrary to what Obama believes, this is how jobs are created and how companies, and the economy grows. The stimulus package does not meet this need.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by MG

Anyone who believes that the stock market indices are "Oracles" has no clue what they are talking about thinks Economics is akin to Voodoo. Stock markets buy and sell against performance or underperformance to preset expectations. They look at leading economic indicators and company performance indicators and buy or sell accordingly. That's it, it's not magic.

In a nutshell, yes, this is how it works. But currently, there are other things at play here. Someone who may normally invest X amount of dollars each month has now transferred that money into more liquid investments. People are also trying to deal with their "nest egg" which in a lot of cases, took a beating. They are pulling out and transferring to cash, which is causing the market to go down. It is a snowball, rolling down a hill gaining momentum while getting bigger. The less money people spend, the more the companies that depend on those sales will suffer. The more these companies suffer, the worse their performance will be. The worse their performance will be, the more people will divest, and the more the jobs at that company will be at risk. The more risky the job market, the less money people spend....

What the government can do is something which will help people gain confidence. Instead, you had Obama go on TV and talk about going over a cliff, and getting to a point where the problem was beyond repair. In other words, he did his chicken little dance.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Mister Brenton

And by the way, I know the Reverend disagrees with me, but I think mature public companies should all be paying out profits in the form of dividends, that which is not used for R&D reinvestment.

Call me old fashioned.

In a normal growth economy, yes. However, today those companies need to retain those profits and retain liquidity which will bridge them out of this crisis. Even good performing companies are at risk.

[SteveHI]

Originally Posted by MG

24 months of stagnation when we could have done it in 4.

If you honestly believe that there was a potential 4-month solution to our economic crisis through some combination of tax cuts and reduced government spending...

[Fast55]

Originally Posted by S55inPA

if things keep going the way they are the "tax cut" portion of the
Republican platform won't matter. most won't be paying taxes....what
the hell will they care about tax cuts

when everyone is sitting comfortable in the wagon.....who is going to pull it?

An excellent analogy. No Government can give anyone, anything, that they have not already taken from someone else.

[vraa]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

If you honestly believe that there was a potential 4-month solution to our economic crisis through some combination of tax cuts and reduced government spending...

Psh, it wouldn't even be a problem

Step 1 - Eliminate income tax

Step 2 - Kill all incoming pay ins to SS

Step 3 - Start reducing conventional warfare spending

Step 4 - Start a new welfare replacement system with very strict public oversight, stop all new persons entering old system, and then kill the old system, anyone who gets kicked out can reapply (effectively cleaning up the entire mess)

Please note: no where in my system does the problem of great debt get solved by adding more debt.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by SteveHI

If you honestly believe that there was a potential 4-month solution to our economic crisis through some combination of tax cuts and reduced government spending...

You suggested that this would bottom out sometime later this year, and then not grow for another 24 months after that. While the crisis can't be fixed in 4 months, the economy could have been stimulated, consumer spending could have been increased, and unemployment could have been decreased. Yes, in 4 months, easily, and yes with immediate, significant cuts to corporate and personal income taxes, and yes with less spending than the Obama stimulus package (spending a million dollars a day for over 700,000 days).