Recovery sees private wealth soaring $9T, thank Obama?

[uscitizen]

Average wealth and total wealth does not mean much to most averave americans.

 

[Avorysuds]

Avory

Tarp was part of a series of programs which the government used to supply liquidity into the financial system. It helped break the back of a deadly downward spiral that threatened the implosion of the financial system. When the First Reserve money market fund was on the verge of breaking the buck, it threatened a massive bank run on the entire cash system. The Fed backstopping the money markets prevented that. It was scary when it was happening but it's even scarier when I talk to colleagues on Wall Street and find out how close we were.

It still shouldn't have happened. Today many argue (from either side) that we teeter on the edge of a Depression... Obama himself claims that "this might be the new normal," living in a never ending recession... Of course it always makes me wonder how he is going to pay for his policies (literally, with revenues/taxes) when he claims this massive deficit spending ear might be the "new normal."

As I have always said, FDR was awesome unless you lived under him, same will be said about Obama. At least FDR and Obama tried, failed but tried. You can’t attack someone that tries right, even if they fail?

Let it all go, let all the bad investments roll over and rich people become poor, poor people become rich… Keeping rich people rich is a bullshit reason to do Tarp.

 

[expat_panama]

Average wealth and total wealth does not mean much to most averave americans.

You're making that up, and I'd bet that if anyone ever looked into it they'd find most Americans pretty savvy when it comes to money.

 

[Wiseacre]

Average wealth and total wealth does not mean much to most averave americans.

You're making that up, and I'd bet that if anyone ever looked into it they'd find most Americans pretty savvy when it comes to money.

Except me apparently, where'd you get the 9 trillion number?

 

[expat_panama]

...where'd you get the 9 trillion number?

Ah, my bad. The page I showed didn't get into quarterly numbers for 2007 because that stuff is posted in their Historical data link. Here they are--

Date - Total Net Worth (Millions)
200701 $65,089,815
200702 $65,796,490
200703 $65,396,533
200704 $64,169,315
200801 $61,651,994
200802 $60,027,921
200803 $57,004,118
200804 $51,369,817
200901 $49,396,600
200902 $50,531,112
200903 $53,214,630
200904 $54,084,110
201001 $55,290,442
201002 $54,023,469
201003 $54,729,846
201004 $57,114,306
201101 $58,057,709


--and the latest $58T is $9T more than Q1 2009's $49T.

 

[expat_panama]

...We had massive bubbles in stocks and housing within a decade. Bubbles cannot occur without excess liquidity, of which both Greenspan and the Bernank have been happy to supply.

That's what people say, and the fact is that Greenspans liquidity came with rising home prices and Bernanke's liquidity came with falling home prices. The talk and the facts don't agree.

 

[expat_panama]

...Stocks was far bigger, and they didn't tank until Obama turned America anti-investor in late '08.

In late '08 Obama had not even taken office. Are you implying that he was still able to make stocks tank?

He wasn't and he didn't.

Obama doesn't do stocks, he doesn't understand stocks, and he hates those who hold them. Stock price support didn't falter until mid 2008 when Obama began his lead in the primaries with a call to 'spread the wealth around' and saying that the "enemy" were the "investment bankers". Stock prices fell because the people who owned stocks accepted that their holdings were loosing value. The drop in value continued as Obama's popularity rose, and in March '09 when Obama's popularity peaked and began a long decline stock prices began a long steady climb.

 

[Toro]

...We had massive bubbles in stocks and housing within a decade. Bubbles cannot occur without excess liquidity, of which both Greenspan and the Bernank have been happy to supply.

That's what people say, and the fact is that Greenspans liquidity came with rising home prices and Bernanke's liquidity came with falling home prices. The talk and the facts don't agree.

Liquidity has been used to prop up markets since. Bernanke admitted such in a WaPo OpEd. That's the point. You asked if Obama is to get credit for the rise in asset prices? Not as much as the Fed. And I don't say that as a compliment. Gold at $1500 isn't there by accident.

 

[Toro]

...Stocks was far bigger, and they didn't tank until Obama turned America anti-investor in late '08.

In late '08 Obama had not even taken office. Are you implying that he was still able to make stocks tank?

He wasn't and he didn't.

Obama doesn't do stocks, he doesn't understand stocks, and he hates those who hold them. Stock price support didn't falter until mid 2008 when Obama began his lead in the primaries with a call to 'spread the wealth around' and saying that the "enemy" were the "investment bankers". Stock prices fell because the people who owned stocks accepted that their holdings were loosing value. The drop in value continued as Obama's popularity rose, and in March '09 when Obama's popularity peaked and began a long decline stock prices began a long steady climb.

Sometime in February or March of 2009, Obama said stocks were cheap and looked like a pretty good buy. He was spectacularly right.

Of course, we can shape our narratives to whatever our political biases are, but if one is on the right and wants to use the stock market to reinforce one's cognitive biases, one might want to think twice when one observes the actual record over time.

FTR, and just for fun, the Venezuelan stock market under Chavez did better than the US stock market under Bush.

 

[expat_panama]

[... Greenspans liquidity came with rising home prices and Bernanke's liquidity came with falling home prices...

Liquidity has been used to prop up markets since. Bernanke admitted such in a WaPo OpEd. That's the point...

--for now. The previous point (bubbles caused by Bernanke's excess liquidity) is dropped.

Bernanke's job is keeping prices stable with changes in liquidity. That's the law and anyone who wants Benanke doing something else has to change the law. Greenspan had home prices soaring had Bernanke had them fall back and stay at long term levels.

 

[expat_panama]

...Sometime in February or March of 2009, Obama said stocks were cheap and looked like a pretty good buy...

That was 9 March 2009 where he botched what his handlers told him about PE ratios and it came out as "profit earnings ratios".

Barack Obama and 'Profit and Earnings Ratios' - The New Editor

How Ignorant Is Obama? - voluntaryXchange

Yahoo! Message Boards - Cray Inc. - profit-earnings ratio????????

Introducing the new Obama P/E ratio
​

His screw up is because he doesn't understand stocks, he doesn't do stocks, and he hates those who own them. A stopped clock has the time right twice a day but Obama's right about stocks only once in three years.

 

[Wiseacre]

...Sometime in February or March of 2009, Obama said stocks were cheap and looked like a pretty good buy...

That was 9 March 2009 where he botched what his handlers told him about PE ratios and it came out as "profit earnings ratios".

Barack Obama and 'Profit and Earnings Ratios' - The New Editor

How Ignorant Is Obama? - voluntaryXchange

Yahoo! Message Boards - Cray Inc. - profit-earnings ratio????????

Introducing the new Obama P/E ratio
​

His screw up is because he doesn't understand stocks, he doesn't do stocks, and he hates those who own them. A stopped clock has the time right twice a day but Obama's right about stocks only once in three years.

I don't think he understands much about the economy and creating jobs, but he sure hates those who run businesses and create jobs. Or if he does he doesn't really care as long as he can redistribute as much wealth as possible to his political base.

 

[expat_panama]

...he sure hates those who run businesses and create jobs...

--and it's never been a secret. Back in ‘Dreams From My Father,’ (page 83) he developed the vision to "show people how much power they have once they stop fighting each other and start going after the real enemy... ...investment bankers." Dec 2009 in TV he says "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street."

 

[Wonky Pundit]

...he sure hates those who run businesses and create jobs...

--and it's never been a secret. Back in ‘Dreams From My Father,’ (page 83) he developed the vision to "show people how much power they have once they stop fighting each other and start going after the real enemy... ...investment bankers." Dec 2009 in TV he says "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street."

Why is it such a sin to prioritize helping ordinary people over helping the already wealthy?

 

[Wiseacre]

...he sure hates those who run businesses and create jobs...

--and it's never been a secret. Back in ‘Dreams From My Father,’ (page 83) he developed the vision to "show people how much power they have once they stop fighting each other and start going after the real enemy... ...investment bankers." Dec 2009 in TV he says "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street."

Why is it such a sin to prioritize helping ordinary people over helping the already wealthy?

It's not a sin, but it's also not his job. He's not supposed to help one group of people over another, with the exception of those who cannot help themselves. I would say the gov't should be vigilant to ensure the law does not discriminate or preclude free and open competition. And I would also say the gov't should ensure no one's rights are abused and that safety is not ignored.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

--and it's never been a secret. Back in ‘Dreams From My Father,’ (page 83) he developed the vision to "show people how much power they have once they stop fighting each other and start going after the real enemy... ...investment bankers." Dec 2009 in TV he says "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street."

Why is it such a sin to prioritize helping ordinary people over helping the already wealthy?

It's not a sin, but it's also not his job. He's not supposed to help one group of people over another, with the exception of those who cannot help themselves. I would say the gov't should be vigilant to ensure the law does not discriminate or preclude free and open competition. And I would also say the gov't should ensure no one's rights are abused and that safety is not ignored.

That's an impossible feat for a public official, no matter what their party or priorities. Any given thing they accomplish is going to help some people more than it helps others.

 

[Wiseacre]

Why is it such a sin to prioritize helping ordinary people over helping the already wealthy?

It's not a sin, but it's also not his job. He's not supposed to help one group of people over another, with the exception of those who cannot help themselves. I would say the gov't should be vigilant to ensure the law does not discriminate or preclude free and open competition. And I would also say the gov't should ensure no one's rights are abused and that safety is not ignored.

That's an impossible feat for a public official, no matter what their party or priorities. Any given thing they accomplish is going to help some people more than it helps others.

There's a difference between doing something that benefits everybody but some people come out better off than others and a deliberate attempt to assist one group at the expense of another. Like spending money for our nat'l security, we all benefit but some people are going to get hired and will therefore be better off as a result.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

It's not a sin, but it's also not his job. He's not supposed to help one group of people over another, with the exception of those who cannot help themselves. I would say the gov't should be vigilant to ensure the law does not discriminate or preclude free and open competition. And I would also say the gov't should ensure no one's rights are abused and that safety is not ignored.

That's an impossible feat for a public official, no matter what their party or priorities. Any given thing they accomplish is going to help some people more than it helps others.

There's a difference between doing something that benefits everybody but some people come out better off than others and a deliberate attempt to assist one group at the expense of another. Like spending money for our nat'l security, we all benefit but some people are going to get hired and will therefore be better off as a result.

Has Obama ever openly proposed doing something to the detriment of a specific group of people? If not, what makes you think his intentions are so sinister?

 

[expat_panama]

"...start going after the real enemy... ...investment bankers." Dec 2009 in TV he says "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street."

Why is it such a sin to prioritize helping ordinary people over helping the already wealthy?

This is key, it's the horrible criminal mistake that says we can help the poor by hating and attacking the rich. It is a lie that's caused untold unspeakable suffering to hundreds of millions.

 

[Wiseacre]

That's an impossible feat for a public official, no matter what their party or priorities. Any given thing they accomplish is going to help some people more than it helps others.

There's a difference between doing something that benefits everybody but some people come out better off than others and a deliberate attempt to assist one group at the expense of another. Like spending money for our nat'l security, we all benefit but some people are going to get hired and will therefore be better off as a result.

Has Obama ever openly proposed doing something to the detriment of a specific group of people? If not, what makes you think his intentions are so sinister?

Can we dispense with the mischaracterizations like sin and sinister? I'm not saying Obama is evil or intentionally wrecking the country or the economy, but I don't know how you can argue that he isn't implementing programs to help some people at the expense of others. Unions vs non-unions for example, surely you can't deny he is openly helping the former over the latter in any way he can.