Claims Obama is tanking the markets are partisan hyperbole, and it is obvious if you look at the figures on the economy. That doesn't keep the right from propagandizing that it's Obama tanking it though, of course. Anyone that believes in the liberal media hasn't been paying attention. All you see is Obama this, Obama that, but in truth, the economic news continues to be abysmal, and it wouldn't matter who was warming Obama's seat, when the economy is itself abysmal. This slide didn't start with Obama, but hopefully, it will end with him. As Warren Buffet said on CNN the other day, "The nation's leaders need to clear up the confusion before anyone will become more confident, and he said all 535 members of Congress should stop the partisan bickering about solutions." Finally someone says it like it is. As for Obama causing this slide, I suggest you read this Article, and take a look at what's really driving the tobogan down the hill.
|
|
|
|
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 42
Truly you are right. Anyone in his position wouldnt be able to clear up this economy overnight.
That especially holds true if you can link your truth to a right wing blog.
I would hardly consider the Huffington Post as an unbiased source. The source you cited would lead one to believe that the stock market was a trailing economic indicator. If fact it is a leading indicator.
I am not sure who you are lumping me in with when you say “You guys like to call him the magic negro, and then bitch because he isn't.” Obama was my Senator. I voted for him three times (once for US Senate and twice for president).
When Tim Geithner announced his bailout plan on February 10, John Kerry and Barney Frank criticized the plan for its lack of detail.
According to the New York Times: “As the day wore on, Mr. Geithner faced growing skepticism from Democratic and Republican lawmakers, …” “Even Democrats who are supportive of the administration said that it had failed to provide more information about how it would be spending the remaining money in the bailout program.”
Paul Krugman called it the Rorschach plan, saying “It’s really not clear what the plan means; there’s an interpretation that makes it not too bad, but it’s not clear if that’s the right interpretation.” … “So what is the plan? I really don’t know, at least based on what we’ve seen today. But maybe, maybe, it’s a Trojan horse that smuggles the right policy into place.”
The stock market tanked.
As to leading economic indicators, please see A Beginners Guide to Economic Indicators: “Leading economic indicators are indicators which change before the economy changes. Stock market returns are a leading indicator, as the stock market usually begins to decline before the economy declines and they improve before the economy begins to pull out of a recession. Leading economic indicators are the most important type for investors as they help predict what the economy will be like in the future.”
Sources:
New York Times: Bailout Plan: $2.5 Trillion and a Strong U.S. Hand
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/business/economy/11bailout.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
New York Times: Paul Krugman, The Rorschach plan (wonkish, or at least hard to read)
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/the-rorschach-plan-wonkish-or-at-least-hard-to-read/
A Beginner's Guide to Economic Indicators
http://economics.about.com/cs/businesscycles/a/economic_ind.htm
From the BEA:
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and propertylocated in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 6.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008,(that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to preliminary estimates released by theBureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP decreased 0.5 percent.
From the BLS:
Nonfarm payroll employment continued to fall sharply in February (-651,000), and the unemployment rate rose from 7.6 to 8.1 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Payroll employment has declined by 2.6 million in the past 4 months. In February, job losses were large and widespread across nearly all major industry sectors.
From the Federal Reserve:
Reports from the twelve Federal Reserve Districts suggest that national economic conditions deteriorated further during the reporting period of January through late February. Ten of the twelve reports indicated weaker conditions or declines in economic activity; the exceptions were Philadelphia and Chicago, which reported that their regional economies "remained weak." The deterioration was broad based, with only a few sectors such as basic food production and pharmaceuticals appearing to be exceptions. Looking ahead, contacts from various Districts rate the prospects for near-term improvement in economic conditions as poor, with a significant pickup not expected before late 2009 or early 2010.
Consumer spending remained sluggish on net, although many Districts noted some improvement in January and February compared with a dismal holiday spending season. Travel and tourist activity fell noticeably in key destinations, as did activity for a wide range of nonfinancial services, with substantial job cuts noted in many instances. Reports on manufacturing activity suggested steep declines in activity in some sectors and pronounced declines overall. Conditions weakened somewhat for agricultural producers and substantially for extractors of natural resources, with reduced global demand cited as an underlying determinant in both cases. Markets for residential real estate remained largely stagnant, with only minimal and scattered signs of stabilization emerging in some areas, while demand for commercial real estate weakened significantly. Reports from banks and other financial institutions indicated further drops in business loan demand, a slight deterioration in credit quality for businesses and households, and continued tight credit availability.
From the FDIC:
Expenses associated with rising loan losses and declining asset values overwhelmed revenues in the fourth quarter of 2008, producing a net loss of $26.2 billion at insured commercial banks and savings institutions. This is the first time since the fourth quarter of 1990 that the industry has posted an aggregate net loss for a quarter. The ?0.77 percent quarterly return on assets (ROA) is the worst since the ?1.10 percent in the second quarter of 1987. A year ago, the industry reported $575 million in profits and an ROA of 0.02 percent. High expenses for loan-loss provisions, sizable losses in trading accounts, and large writedowns of goodwill and other assets all contributed to the industry's net loss. A few very large losses were reported during the quarter-four institutions accounted for half of the total industry loss-but earnings problems were widespread. Almost one out of every three institutions (32 percent) reported a net loss in the fourth quarter. Only 36 percent of institutions reported year-over-year increases in quarterly earnings, and only 34 percent reported higher quarterly ROAs.
I could go on, but you you get the idea. The news of the underlying economy has been terrible (at best). And that's what's causing the problems."
Wonderful for who? It's what, the second largest bank in the USA? What a mess to clean up that would be, probably harder to clean it up with the doors closed than it is now with the doors open.
I don't envy Obama in his job. But I will agree with you Ron that those who want to blame him for the stock market slide are unrealistic. He was handed a situation that was so covered with band aids that you could not see anything but band aid. He could have lied some more, but instead he told the truth, and the market did not like truth. Yes the situation is bad. yes it will take a bunch of money to fix it. Yes it will get worse before it gets better. What do you want, lies? Sorry, no can do.
Don't get me wrong I am a big supporter of Obama. But there is always room for improvement.
I believe Citigroup is the largest and Bank of America is second behind them. Both banks are ready for the slag heap.
((Current Value) - (Beginning Value) + (Income)) / (Beginning Value), where
(Current Value) = (the current total shares) * (the last price),
(Beginning Value) = (number of shares held prior to the period - any shares sold) * (the closing price prior to the period) + the "Cost Basis" of any shares added in this period (Buys, Reinvest, Add Shares, etc), and
(Income) = any income events such as Dividends/Interest (not Reinvested) and Realized gain/loss from Sells in this period.
For example, assume that on 1/1/99 you owned 1000 shares of MSFT (which had been purchased prior to this date), the last price (on 12/31/98) was $69 11/32, and you still own the 1000 shares and the current price is $90 1/8. The ROI (YTD) for MSFT would be calculated:
((1000 * 90.125) - (1000 * 69.34375)) / (1000 * 69.34375) = 20781.25/69343.75 = 29.968%
If you had purchased 200 additional shares at $75 each during this period, the formula would be modified as follows:
((1200 * 90.125) - (1000 * 69.34375 + 200 * 75)) / (1000 * 69.34375 + >200 * 75) = 23806.25/84343.75 = 28.225%
For 2008 stock market returns were -37% and are not the same as the index. Figures on the first quarter of 2009 are not even available yet, for craps sakes. I hardly think the stock market looked at the stock market 2008 returns, when they came out in January, and prices went up. If anything speculation that the Obama Administration was going to "fix" the financial markets kept prices up artificially, and when it became clear they were playing it close to the vest, the market did what it would have done, anyway. You can choose to blame Obama for the bad market, but it's hardly the only, if even part of, the reason the market is in the toilet. I know the Wall Street types want to put pressure on Obama for further bailouts, and assistance that he won't promise, but I don't believe he's to blame for this mess, Bush is.
Thanks. It is possible to dissagree with the administration and not be a right wing fanatic. It is not possible to have a dialogue with fanatics on either side of the political spectrum. I agree that George Bush was the worst president of my life time. (see Standard Political Disclaimer) The economic mess we are in right now is the result of a lot of bad decisions made over many years. There is plenty of blame to go around.
The market anticipates economic news and reacts violently when the news is not what was expected. It also tends to tank and recover before the general economy. What it hates most is uncertainty. Your quote from Warren Buffett confirms this. Right now the market is not getting clear signals from Treasury, which is a contributing factor to the continued plunge. It is not the only, or even the main cause, but it doesn't help.
I figure that if one pres can redefine oral sex as not sex really surely President Obama can become King Midas and turn all this sh** into gold.
Right.
Yep, sounds like the Easter bunny is coming to town to bring Ron and Buddy some big eggs.
That means that the joke has gone way over your head. He's a magic negro because he was raised by whites, went to an almost all white exclusive private school in Hawaii, thinks like a white liberal, talks like a white person, and he can pass as a negro because his dad was an interloping African whore monger and he has enough pigment to pass the test.
Interloping African whore monger, huh? That's a nice explanation of what conservatives consider racial tolerance, lol.
I don't know about the Easter Bunny, and eggs, but Santa sure left your party some nuts.
Well in America they are called "dead beat dads" but since there isn't a term for men who impregnate women all over the world, I improvised. I realise that to be an esteemed liberal you have to ignore flaws of those you idolize, along with their families, and attach names like "racist" to those who disagree with you but how many kids did Obama's father have with how many different women in how many different countries? You are an expert in moonbat liberalism so do me a favor and find me a political correct definition of Obama's father, along with his behavior, and I will try to be less offensive in the future.
"""I know, Jeff, what you all mean when you say that, though that tirade was an especially vehement discourse on it"""
It wasn't a tirade and there was no vehemental emotion attached to what I said. Your observations are exaggerated as usual.
The fact that I don't find it a little over the top means that I don't think like you. Doesn't mean your world view is right and mine is wrong or vise verse. It's just opinions.
My whole point was that the only African American part of Obama SHOULDN'T reflect on him because it doesn't! He's a white liberal with dark skin, hence the magic negro. Man you learn hard Ron......
I knew exactly what you meant, but us "thinking different" on that part of your comment that would be insulting to most blacks, is why most African Americans are Dems, not Repugs. There's a reason they call it "politically correct". Think about it.