Dow Jones Up 30%..2000 Pts since innauguration

[HUGGY]

Stocks have historically done better under Democrats than Republicans

"Historically" isn't much of a reason. At best it is a trend.... as we say in the machining world.."a witness mark"..

With all of the anger exprssed at the tea bagger protests one would think the world and being part of the world..the stock market would be tanking.

You are correct. "History" is not a good reason.

The reason why stocks have done well over the past several months is because investors realized that the world was not going to end, stocks were dirt cheap, and the Fed is flooding the financial system with liquidity.

Both the Bush and the Obama administrations deserve credit for saving the financial system, which was on the verge of collapse. But this has to do with actions through the Federal Reserve and the Treasury as opposed to the stimulus. The stimulus helps some but Obama's health proposal hurts, so the two are probably a wash.

Stocks are no longer cheap. In fact, they are probably expensive now, given the fragile state of the economy. That probably means stocks won't do much for the rest of Obama's term, though they may bounce around pretty violently.

As for the Fed, its actions have put a floor under pretty much all asset prices, including stocks and real estate. However, its actions have been massive and will almost certainly have large unintended consequences down the road.

The stimulus helps some but Obama's health proposal hurts

If you mean Baucus's proposal I agree. Being a small business owner, a government option or better yet just lowering the age of medicare would be a benefit. As for paying for it ...Yes ...by all means pay for it. The party is over on the super rich tax relief. They will have to go back to paying accountants to weasle thier way out of paying a fair share.

Woah..I know what you are thinkin..Huggy is no damn republican not kow towin to the rich...Hey believe it or not the rich will be ok with a few %'s more taxes. How do I know this? Cuz they are already rich!

 

[Paulie]

The stock market typically does better after the federal reserve takes steps to lower interest rates. This time around, they created more money than they ever have before, and lowered the rate to a historically low level.

It stands to reason that people would put their money to work now, because next year it'll be worth much less in cash. And that pattern looks like it may continue exponentially for a while.

Except the Fed set this historically low rate on Dec 16, 2008 and stocks continued down until the end of February 2009. So this rise in stocks since the end of Feb has nothing to do with a change in the Fed rate.

This is retarded on many levels. To think that the very moment the Fed lowers the rate, stocks will take off and gain 50% like they have this time around is ridiculous. There were still unanswered questions about what the government was going to do with some of the more worse off banks.

It was when the final word on Citi and BoA came out from Geithner that they weren't going to completely nationalize, that the market started to calm down and buy again. After that last bit of major worry was over, investors jumped back in. And why not? Have you seen the monetary base lately??

Once it was realized that the Fed was going to do anything it had to to sure up bank balance sheets, investors were comfortable going back in.

Now, it's the excess liquidity that's driving the market.

I mean, you could analyze the situation intelligently like that, or you could just be another one of the idiots and chalk it up to fucking democrats or republicans, and which one is currently sitting in which office. Be my guest if you'd like to be another moron.

 

[edthecynic]

The stock market typically does better after the federal reserve takes steps to lower interest rates. This time around, they created more money than they ever have before, and lowered the rate to a historically low level.

It stands to reason that people would put their money to work now, because next year it'll be worth much less in cash. And that pattern looks like it may continue exponentially for a while.

Except the Fed set this historically low rate on Dec 16, 2008 and stocks continued down until the end of February 2009. So this rise in stocks since the end of Feb has nothing to do with a change in the Fed rate.

This is retarded on many levels. To think that the very moment the Fed lowers the rate, stocks will take off and gain 50% like they have this time around is ridiculous. There were still unanswered questions about what the government was going to do with some of the more worse off banks.

It was when the final word on Citi and BoA came out from Geithner that they weren't going to completely nationalize, that the market started to calm down and buy again. After that last bit of major worry was over, investors jumped back in. And why not? Have you seen the monetary base lately??

Once it was realized that the Fed was going to do anything it had to to sure up bank balance sheets, investors were comfortable going back in.

Now, it's the excess liquidity that's driving the market.

I mean, you could analyze the situation intelligently like that, or you could just be another one of the idiots and chalk it up to fucking democrats or republicans, and which one is currently sitting in which office. Be my guest if you'd like to be another moron.

Well, obviously I proved you were wrong when you first attributed the gain in the stock market to a cut in the Fed rate even though there was no rate cut in Feb., you resorted to typical CON$ervative arrogant condescension and then attributed it to Geithner's plan. The market usually reacts immediately to changes in the Fed, many times just before the Fed announcement if the direction is leaked.

Of course Geither's TALF plan was not announced until the end of March 2009 after many delays, in fact when the preliminary version was announced on Feb 10 the market tanked, so that doesn't explain the turn around starting the end of Feb. when Obama called the bottom. But please try again.

 

[Toro]

Ed

The Federal Reserve is flooding the financial system with liquidity. There is a delayed reaction between when the liquidity begins to be created and when it starts flowing back into financial markets and the economy.

 

[Paulie]

Except the Fed set this historically low rate on Dec 16, 2008 and stocks continued down until the end of February 2009. So this rise in stocks since the end of Feb has nothing to do with a change in the Fed rate.

This is retarded on many levels. To think that the very moment the Fed lowers the rate, stocks will take off and gain 50% like they have this time around is ridiculous. There were still unanswered questions about what the government was going to do with some of the more worse off banks.

It was when the final word on Citi and BoA came out from Geithner that they weren't going to completely nationalize, that the market started to calm down and buy again. After that last bit of major worry was over, investors jumped back in. And why not? Have you seen the monetary base lately??

Once it was realized that the Fed was going to do anything it had to to sure up bank balance sheets, investors were comfortable going back in.

Now, it's the excess liquidity that's driving the market.

I mean, you could analyze the situation intelligently like that, or you could just be another one of the idiots and chalk it up to fucking democrats or republicans, and which one is currently sitting in which office. Be my guest if you'd like to be another moron.

Well, obviously I proved you were wrong when you first attributed the gain in the stock market to a cut in the Fed rate even though there was no rate cut in Feb., you resorted to typical CON$ervative arrogant condescension and then attributed it to Geithner's plan. The market usually reacts immediately to changes in the Fed, many times just before the Fed announcement if the direction is leaked.

Of course Geither's TALF plan was not announced until the end of March 2009 after many delays, in fact when the preliminary version was announced on Feb 10 the market tanked, so that doesn't explain the turn around starting the end of Feb. when Obama called the bottom. But please try again.

I condescended because you actually think that parties affect the market in any kind of real way. That's dumb, and I hope you don't invest based on it.

Real investors look at monetary policy. That kind of information is far more important than who occupies what office in congress or the WH.

And who said anything about TALF? I merely said that as soon as the government said that BoA and Citi were not going to be nationalized, the market took off. I'm sure TALF had something to do with it, but not until nationalization was off the table. I was trading financials right before and right after the bottom, I saw the market sentiment. Nationalization was THE NUMBER 1 issue that investors were worried about. After that was taken care of, financials rallied and never looked back, and the rest of the market followed along.

I'd also throw in Barney Frank's statement about the uptick rule being reinstated "within a month", which never happened of course.

But investors looked past that, and saw the newly created liquidity in historic amounts, and jumped in.

Or would you rather attribute it to Obama's "prediction" of a bottom?

 

[edthecynic]

This is retarded on many levels. To think that the very moment the Fed lowers the rate, stocks will take off and gain 50% like they have this time around is ridiculous. There were still unanswered questions about what the government was going to do with some of the more worse off banks.

It was when the final word on Citi and BoA came out from Geithner that they weren't going to completely nationalize, that the market started to calm down and buy again. After that last bit of major worry was over, investors jumped back in. And why not? Have you seen the monetary base lately??

Once it was realized that the Fed was going to do anything it had to to sure up bank balance sheets, investors were comfortable going back in.

Now, it's the excess liquidity that's driving the market.

I mean, you could analyze the situation intelligently like that, or you could just be another one of the idiots and chalk it up to fucking democrats or republicans, and which one is currently sitting in which office. Be my guest if you'd like to be another moron.

Well, obviously I proved you were wrong when you first attributed the gain in the stock market to a cut in the Fed rate even though there was no rate cut in Feb., you resorted to typical CON$ervative arrogant condescension and then attributed it to Geithner's plan. The market usually reacts immediately to changes in the Fed, many times just before the Fed announcement if the direction is leaked.

Of course Geither's TALF plan was not announced until the end of March 2009 after many delays, in fact when the preliminary version was announced on Feb 10 the market tanked, so that doesn't explain the turn around starting the end of Feb. when Obama called the bottom. But please try again.

I condescended because you actually think that parties affect the market in any kind of real way. That's dumb, and I hope you don't invest based on it.

Real investors look at monetary policy. That kind of information is far more important than who occupies what office in congress or the WH.

And who said anything about TALF? I merely said that as soon as the government said that BoA and Citi were not going to be nationalized, the market took off. I'm sure TALF had something to do with it, but not until nationalization was off the table. I was trading financials right before and right after the bottom, I saw the market sentiment. Nationalization was THE NUMBER 1 issue that investors were worried about. After that was taken care of, financials rallied and never looked back, and the rest of the market followed along.

I'd also throw in Barney Frank's statement about the uptick rule being reinstated "within a month", which never happened of course.

But investors looked past that, and saw the newly created liquidity in historic amounts, and jumped in.

Or would you rather attribute it to Obama's "prediction" of a bottom?

You are condescending because you are a CON$ervstive. Just as you practice MIND READING because you are a CON$ervative.

Nowhere did I say anything about Parties. I only pointed out that the Fed rate had not changed since Dec 16, 2008 and therefore the rise in the market must have been for some other reason which I did not name, the rest comes purely from YOUR imagination.

 

[Paulie]

Well, obviously I proved you were wrong when you first attributed the gain in the stock market to a cut in the Fed rate even though there was no rate cut in Feb., you resorted to typical CON$ervative arrogant condescension and then attributed it to Geithner's plan. The market usually reacts immediately to changes in the Fed, many times just before the Fed announcement if the direction is leaked.

Of course Geither's TALF plan was not announced until the end of March 2009 after many delays, in fact when the preliminary version was announced on Feb 10 the market tanked, so that doesn't explain the turn around starting the end of Feb. when Obama called the bottom. But please try again.

I condescended because you actually think that parties affect the market in any kind of real way. That's dumb, and I hope you don't invest based on it.

Real investors look at monetary policy. That kind of information is far more important than who occupies what office in congress or the WH.

And who said anything about TALF? I merely said that as soon as the government said that BoA and Citi were not going to be nationalized, the market took off. I'm sure TALF had something to do with it, but not until nationalization was off the table. I was trading financials right before and right after the bottom, I saw the market sentiment. Nationalization was THE NUMBER 1 issue that investors were worried about. After that was taken care of, financials rallied and never looked back, and the rest of the market followed along.

I'd also throw in Barney Frank's statement about the uptick rule being reinstated "within a month", which never happened of course.

But investors looked past that, and saw the newly created liquidity in historic amounts, and jumped in.

Or would you rather attribute it to Obama's "prediction" of a bottom?

You are condescending because you are a CON$ervstive. Just as you practice MIND READING because you are a CON$ervative.

Nowhere did I say anything about Parties. I only pointed out that the Fed rate had not changed since Dec 16, 2008 and therefore the rise in the market must have been for some other reason which I did not name, the rest comes purely from YOUR imagination.

I will stand corrected about that. You did not mention parties. The thread's direction was mainly about parties affecting the market, and that's where my mention of that was coming from. It is certainly noted that you did not particularly mention parties, although you did mention Obama calling a bottom, which I really hope you don't see as anything of meaning to the market's rise.

Notice how you also put words in my mouth though, about TALF. I never brought TALF up, you did. When I mentioned the Fed doing whatever it would take to sure up bank balance sheets, I wasn't talking about any one specific Fed program, I was talking about ALL of them. There are many more than just TALF.

At this point, we might as well just agree to disagree, as this is going nowhere.

 

[Rozman]

I don't get it. How can the Dow make all these gains under the thumb of a Marxist?

Your thoughts?

The Obama administration is patting themselves on the back because the market is up?
Maybe the market is up partly because Wall Street sees some pretty good numbers from
companies bottom line.....

Maybe the reason is not Obama's policies but the fact that companies had to let A GAZILLION
people go thereby improving the bottom line.

I think I need to see a few more positive reports before I start to sing Obama's praises.:
Like lets get a few 100,000 people back to work!!!!

 

[Maple]

Well, because they are still down about 20 -30% from the fannie and freddie crisis, people are still not in the money, not the long term holders anyway.

 

[rubberhead]

Dems taking credit for the current upswing in stock prices is a bad move politically. In another 3-6 months every bit of that 30% gain (and more) will evaporate. Stock valuations are based on EARNINGS. The S&P 500 price to earning ratio (P/E) is now at 130. there is one word to describe this - OVERSOLD. It will fall, and it will fall hard. Earning are going to remain poor for the next 4-6 quarters as a minimum. If the Dems take credit for the "upswing" they will take the entire blame for the inevitable crash. The smartest thing to do is to say nothing.

Is Obama starting to take responsibility for the economy? Or is it still Bush's economy? I'm lost in all the campaign-style rhetoric. I guess if your predictions are correct, then we'll fall back to Bush's economy, but while we're up we'll call it Obama's.

Obama is definitely a Socialist (social justice is a codeword for socialism), and Marx believed that socialism was the transitional phase from capitalism to communism. From this perspective calling Obama a socialist is not any more ridiculous than calling him a capitalist. Besides, the Fed's actions (which are not really overseen by any branch of government, by the way) have more influence on Wall St. than the white house.

 

[HUGGY]

Dems taking credit for the current upswing in stock prices is a bad move politically. In another 3-6 months every bit of that 30% gain (and more) will evaporate. Stock valuations are based on EARNINGS. The S&P 500 price to earning ratio (P/E) is now at 130. there is one word to describe this - OVERSOLD. It will fall, and it will fall hard. Earning are going to remain poor for the next 4-6 quarters as a minimum. If the Dems take credit for the "upswing" they will take the entire blame for the inevitable crash. The smartest thing to do is to say nothing.

Is Obama starting to take responsibility for the economy? Or is it still Bush's economy? I'm lost in all the campaign-style rhetoric. I guess if your predictions are correct, then we'll fall back to Bush's economy, but while we're up we'll call it Obama's.

Obama is definitely a Socialist (social justice is a codeword for socialism), and Marx believed that socialism was the transitional phase from capitalism to communism. From this perspective calling Obama a socialist is not any more ridiculous than calling him a capitalist. Besides, the Fed's actions (which are not really overseen by any branch of government, by the way) have more influence on Wall St. than the white house.

I did not say Obama has taken personal credit for anything. I was drawing a contrast from those that insist Obama is a MARXIST and the performance of the DOW. I am not a democrat although I did vote for him considering the alternaive. Contemplating Palin being a heartbeat from the oval office was unacceptable. I am thoroughly done with morons in our government.

 

[garyd]

Actually the dow is down nearly thirty percent from the record high it had under the previous administration shortly after the Dems took over congress and everything began to go to hell in a hand basket.

 

[Paulie]

Actually the dow is down nearly thirty percent from the record high it had under the previous administration shortly after the Dems took over congress and everything began to go to hell in a hand basket.

The market was on that path whether Dems took control or not.

The banking problem existed regardless.

 

[rubberhead]

Actually the dow is down nearly thirty percent from the record high it had under the previous administration shortly after the Dems took over congress and everything began to go to hell in a hand basket.

The market was on that path whether Dems took control or not.

The banking problem existed regardless.

The banking crisis was caused by predatory lending. A problem that was caused by what basically amounts to securities fraud and advocacy groups like ACORN 'fighting for the little guy' and helping people who can't afford it get mortgages that they can't afford. This is everyone's problem. Just like the evil rich white men wickedly tried to collect on the loans that they so wrongfully gave to those poor underdogs, ACORN vigorously advocated this predatory lending with forceful protesting and then broke into houses once they were foreclosed upon. The whole situation is fucked and we need a comprehensive investigation into ACORN just as much as we need bank regulation.

 

[driveby]

I don't get it. How can the Dow make all these gains under the thumb of a Marxist?

Your thoughts?

The market was dumping with the anticipation of this yoyo taking office and we've had a bear market rally, along with an insane amount of money pumped into the economy with minimal positive results.

What's your thoughts on the unemployment rate the king promised would not go above 8% if his sooper dooper stimulus passed ? .....

 

[HUGGY]

I don't get it. How can the Dow make all these gains under the thumb of a Marxist?

Your thoughts?

The market was dumping with the anticipation of this yoyo taking office and we've had a bear market rally, along with an insane amount of money pumped into the economy with minimal positive results.

What's your thoughts on the unemployment rate the king promised would not go above 8% if his sooper dooper stimulus passed ? .....

Well everyone must work in a marxist economy.

 

[Toro]

I don't get it. How can the Dow make all these gains under the thumb of a Marxist?

Your thoughts?

The market was dumping with the anticipation of this yoyo taking office and we've had a bear market rally, along with an insane amount of money pumped into the economy with minimal positive results.

What's your thoughts on the unemployment rate the king promised would not go above 8% if his sooper dooper stimulus passed ? .....

Well everyone must work in a marxist economy.

I would never hire a money manager who said that the market fell last fall because it was anticipating Obama winning. They have no idea what they are talking about.

The market fell because the housing market was collapsing from insane levels and the debt that was used to prop up the housing market was imploding. The collapse of Lehman was the trigger that took us down.

 

[Paulie]

The market was dumping with the anticipation of this yoyo taking office and we've had a bear market rally, along with an insane amount of money pumped into the economy with minimal positive results.

What's your thoughts on the unemployment rate the king promised would not go above 8% if his sooper dooper stimulus passed ? .....

Well everyone must work in a marxist economy.

I would never hire a money manager who said that the market fell last fall because it was anticipating Obama winning. They have no idea what they are talking about.

The market fell because the housing market was collapsing from insane levels and the debt that was used to prop up the housing market was imploding. The collapse of Lehman was the trigger that took us down.

Eh, let the morons in this thread enjoy their partisan fantasies.

It probably helps them sleep better.