Spin this, PoliticalChic & RW nutters!

[Toro]

People shouldn't use the market to reinforce their own political beliefs.

The market has a rhythm unto itself that is often separate from politics.

 

[007]

For those IGNORANT cock suckers in here pretending the shit stain kenyan in the white house has ANYTHING to do with the stock market. It is ALL FED MONEY being PUMPED into it called "QUANTITATIVE EASING," and it won't LAST FOREVER.

Can the Fed Cause a Stock Market Crash?

Stock markets shudder at prospect of 'easy money era' ending

A Federal Reserve program that buys bonds to spur economic growth could begin tapering off soon. The stock markets' reaction shows how important 'QUANTITATIVE EASING' became.

 

[Freemason9]

I realize that these facts completely escape you. Hence the use of economically inept. If you dont think that pumping 85 billions dollars a month into market sectors plays no role, then you are the perfect candidate to repeat the claims in the article you cite.

Interestingly, there is an overall trend within those "grapihs" or shall we say info-graphics. That trend tells the biggest tale of them all. And it doesn't in anyway, shape or form merit hyperpartisanship such as that you wish it does.

You're, in short, clamoring in favor of the very policies that have caused recession after recession in our country. Of course, if you can score a few imaginary partisan points, all that is really of no consequence.

Reagan tripled the federal debt during the time he was in office, and he began the modern system of keeping taxation low by running high deficits.

Everything is relative.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is also a historical record of today's naysayers claiming Obama has worsened the Great Recession he inherited form Bush. Do you deny that too? You accusing anyone of hyper-partisanship is a classic pot kettle comment.

He has. Simply by expanding and ramping up previously perilous monetary policies that caused "the great recession" in the first place. Although, I didn't really expect him to change that...or change anything for that matter. What you're saying is a recovery, is artificially induced by the federal reserves actions. Actions that can not be maintained, adn once they are tapered and stopped, will result in yet another, deeper reversal in "recovery". That's a fact.

The economy is on the mend and our recovery would have been greater if the Republican leadership had worked with the twice elected president than against him. Do you deny that too?

No, it is not. There is a bigger bubble being created that will inevitably burst. When that occurs, all these "gains" artificially induced will come crashing down. Republicans have nothing to do with it, and frankly neither does Obama. BOTH like the federal reserves policies.

Housing is in recovery, do you deny that this helps millions of Americans too?

Housing,by your own articles admission, is in a state of artificial flux. Form your own link, wry:

The recovering housing market has been a big part of the nation's economic recovery since the Great Recession. But many fear that rising mortgage rates could put a damper on that growth.

Rates have risen more than a full percentage point since May, when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke indicated the Fed may soon ease its bond buying program that's helped keep interest rates at record lows.

Do you understand what this means? Let me try to break it down for the inept ont he subject. Artificially low interest rates creaate artificial demand, when those rates are moved up, that will be the end of the trend of "recovery". Mortgage rates are already rising due to...wait for it....wait for it...the federal reserve indicating that it will back off its QE policies. Which are what keep this "recovery" moving. It's not a sustainable course of action. They know it. You should too. But alas....

Do you deny Reagan increased the national debt by building swords, and Obama by building plowshares? Or is that two abstract for you?

Why woudl I deny facts? Reagan increased the debt. Obama is increasing the debt. Neither action is good for the american people. COntrary to dulardish assertions.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

People shouldn't use the market to reinforce their own political beliefs.

The market has a rhythm unto itself that is often separate from politics.

The federal reserve dictates the "rythm" of the market. That's what central planners do. Although, these two things are separate. But only to the extent that the federal reserve policies aren't subject to political influence. They are a private 12 member charter. With two mandates. Two mandates that they have failed to accomplish in epic proportions.

 

[Wry Catcher]

People shouldn't use the market to reinforce their own political beliefs.

The market has a rhythm unto itself that is often separate from politics.

True, and that rhythm is called psychology. The more the naysayers do the Henny Penny Opera ("The sky is falling, the sky is falling) the less confidence consumers and investors have.

 

[Toro]

People shouldn't use the market to reinforce their own political beliefs.

The market has a rhythm unto itself that is often separate from politics.

The federal reserve dictates the "rythm" of the market. That's what central planners do. Although, these two things are separate. But only to the extent that the federal reserve policies aren't subject to political influence. They are a private 12 member charter. With two mandates. Two mandates that they have failed to accomplish in epic proportions.

It's not just the Fed.

Sorry.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For those IGNORANT cock suckers in here pretending the shit stain kenyan in the white house has ANYTHING to do with the stock market. It is ALL FED MONEY being PUMPED into it called "QUANTITATIVE EASING," and it won't LAST FOREVER.

Can the Fed Cause a Stock Market Crash?

Stock markets shudder at prospect of 'easy money era' ending

A Federal Reserve program that buys bonds to spur economic growth could begin tapering off soon. The stock markets' reaction shows how important 'QUANTITATIVE EASING' became.

I wonder what real conservatives feel when they read your stupid and vulgar comments.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is also a historical record of today's naysayers claiming Obama has worsened the Great Recession he inherited form Bush. Do you deny that too? You accusing anyone of hyper-partisanship is a classic pot kettle comment.

He has. Simply by expanding and ramping up previously perilous monetary policies that caused "the great recession" in the first place. Although, I didn't really expect him to change that...or change anything for that matter. What you're saying is a recovery, is artificially induced by the federal reserves actions. Actions that can not be maintained, adn once they are tapered and stopped, will result in yet another, deeper reversal in "recovery". That's a fact. No, that's an opinion.

The economy is on the mend and our recovery would have been greater if the Republican leadership had worked with the twice elected president than against him. Do you deny that too?

No, it is not. There is a bigger bubble being created that will inevitably burst. When that occurs, all these "gains" artificially induced will come crashing down. Republicans have nothing to do with it, and frankly neither does Obama. BOTH like the federal reserves policies. Answer this: Why does the Fed exist?


Housing,by your own articles admission, is in a state of artificial flux. Form your own link, wry:

The recovering housing market has been a big part of the nation's economic recovery since the Great Recession. But many fear that rising mortgage rates could put a damper on that growth.

Rates have risen more than a full percentage point since May, when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke indicated the Fed may soon ease its bond buying program that's helped keep interest rates at record lows.

Do you understand what this means? Let me try to break it down for the inept ont he subject. Artificially low interest rates creaate artificial demand, when those rates are moved up, that will be the end of the trend of "recovery". Mortgage rates are already rising due to...wait for it....wait for it...the federal reserve indicating that it will back off its QE policies. Which are what keep this "recovery" moving. It's not a sustainable course of action. They know it. You should too. But alas....

What you say has a grain of truth, but, the less foreclosed properties, the less empty houses and neighborhoods = greater consumer spending and less crime. Simply looking at one index and projecting your bias isn't science and isn't convincing. Yes, I posted one index in the OP, but there are many more aspects to the economy than that one. Keep in mind we can both find 'economists' to support our biases.

Do you deny Reagan increased the national debt by building swords, and Obama by building plowshares? Or is that two abstract for you?

Why woudl I deny facts? Reagan increased the debt. Obama is increasing the debt. Neither action is good for the american people. COntrary to dulardish assertions.

If both actions kept us from the abyss, the debt is the lesser of the consequences. Keep in mind a nation is not an individual - real or corporate - and we will (hopefully) elect adults to Congress who work for the nation and not themselves or their owners.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Presidential Stock Market Scorecards: Reagan to Obama | Wall St. Cheat Sheet

Tell me again how much quantitative easing, Reagan employed to get the stock market to grow, Catcher? This stock market is almost completely driven by Fed. money being pumped into the economy at almost 0% interest rates. Every time that the Fed. even HINTS that QE might be halted the market goes into a nosedive. You're building an economy on a foundation made of sand. At the first sign of that easy money drying up Wall Street is going to run for cover.

Why even waste board space with this nonsense?

Almost eveything in the economy is based on a foundation of sand. The only real exception is production of products that are created in this country with natural resources available in this country. Everything else is based on whims, trends, schemes, fraud and corruption.

Interesting and refreshing comment. Thanks.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, that's an opinion.

Sure, it's an opinion backed by dec aades of observable fact. Contrary to central planner assertions, these boom cycles always bust. Always. Thats' a fact, not an opinion.

Answer this: Why does the Fed exist?

because congress breached the constitution and passed off its duties to a private entity. A private entity that has done nothing but rob the american people of wealth for 100 years now. over and over again. With their disasterous policies.

What you say has a grain of truth, but, the less foreclosed properties, the less empty houses and neighborhoods = greater consumer spending and less crime. Simply looking at one index and projecting your bias isn't science and isn't convincing. Yes, I posted one index in the OP, but there are many more aspects to the economy than that one. Keep in mind we can both find 'economists' to support our biases.

it's not a projection. This is EXACTLY what happened in the last crisis. Low interest rates, cheap M2 and once the rates went up, the party was over. I dont need an economist to support my "bias". Observation of the facts says it all. No need to go to a pundit ove rit at all.

If both actions kept us from the abyss, the debt is the lesser of the consequences. Keep in mind a nation is not an individual - real or corporate - and we will (hopefully) elect adults to Congress who work for the nation and not themselves or their owners.

now that is a an opinion. One full of hyperbole at that.

 

[Rshermr]

No, that's an opinion.

Sure, it's an opinion backed by dec aades of observable fact. Contrary to central planner assertions, these boom cycles always bust. Always. Thats' a fact, not an opinion.

Answer this: Why does the Fed exist?

because congress breached the constitution and passed off its duties to a private entity. A private entity that has done nothing but rob the american people of wealth for 100 years now. over and over again. With their disasterous policies.

What you say has a grain of truth, but, the less foreclosed properties, the less empty houses and neighborhoods = greater consumer spending and less crime. Simply looking at one index and projecting your bias isn't science and isn't convincing. Yes, I posted one index in the OP, but there are many more aspects to the economy than that one. Keep in mind we can both find 'economists' to support our biases.

it's not a projection. This is EXACTLY what happened in the last crisis. Low interest rates, cheap M2 and once the rates went up, the party was over. I dont need an economist to support my "bias". Observation of the facts says it all. No need to go to a pundit ove rit at all.

If both actions kept us from the abyss, the debt is the lesser of the consequences. Keep in mind a nation is not an individual - real or corporate - and we will (hopefully) elect adults to Congress who work for the nation and not themselves or their owners.

now that is a an opinion. One full of hyperbole at that.

Yes. You do need a studied source. Because you are a con tool. And therefor, delusional.
By the way, I want to pay my portion of the national debt back. How much do I owe and to whom, me boy. And if I and all the rest of us refuse to pay it back, THEN WHAT???

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes. You do need a studied source. Because you are a con tool. And therefor, delusional.
By the way, I want to pay my portion of the national debt back. How much do I owe and to whom, me boy. And if I and all the rest of us refuse to pay it back, THEN WHAT???

This subject is too advanced for you, dullard. .

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is the Stock Market good or Evil?

 

[Wry Catcher]

No, that's an opinion.

Sure, it's an opinion backed by dec aades of observable fact. Contrary to central planner assertions, these boom cycles always bust. Always. Thats' a fact, not an opinion.

Answer this: Why does the Fed exist?

because congress breached the constitution and passed off its duties to a private entity. A private entity that has done nothing but rob the american people of wealth for 100 years now. over and over again. With their disasterous policies.

What you say has a grain of truth, but, the less foreclosed properties, the less empty houses and neighborhoods = greater consumer spending and less crime. Simply looking at one index and projecting your bias isn't science and isn't convincing. Yes, I posted one index in the OP, but there are many more aspects to the economy than that one. Keep in mind we can both find 'economists' to support our biases.

it's not a projection. This is EXACTLY what happened in the last crisis. Low interest rates, cheap M2 and once the rates went up, the party was over. I dont need an economist to support my "bias". Observation of the facts says it all. No need to go to a pundit ove rit at all.

If both actions kept us from the abyss, the debt is the lesser of the consequences. Keep in mind a nation is not an individual - real or corporate - and we will (hopefully) elect adults to Congress who work for the nation and not themselves or their owners.

now that is a an opinion. One full of hyperbole at that.

It is an opinion, based on evidence. When Obama took office the die was cast and no script existed for him to follow. Of course the supply side crowd had an answer, few of whom expressed their concern as Bush acted out the role of a drunken Marine on leave and the Republican controlled Senate and House passed bills increasing the debt limit a number of times to build and use swords.

It is my opinion that we have ignored rebuilding, repairing and replacing the infrastructure of our nation since the Vietnam fiasco. I agree with many who believe we should spend more on rebuilding America, not less.

Greed is what caused the housing bubble, and the ones most culpable were those MBA's, not those who believed 'master's of the universe' and bought homes they couldn't afford or borrowed the equity soon to disappear. The crash occurred when they couldn't meet the five year due date and interest rates ballooned. By then the bankers and brokers had made $$$$ Billions and the new home owners had not only been sold a home but a pack of lies. There homes had stopped growing in value and began to decline at an enormous rate.

And what happened next. The wealthy began to buy houses which once were homes with cash, and the only losers were the working men and women who got scammed. The banks got richer and under the guise of being fiscally responsible added points and fees to all new mortgages.

So, in the final analysis we disagree on everything. I'm fine with that. Why you're so defensive suggests you're not very sure of yourself.

 

[Oldstyle]

You're building an economy on a foundation made of sand.

Lot of tall buildings in Florida are built on sand.

Not really...any substantial buildings that they put up in Florida they drill down to where they hit limestone. You'd have to be an idiot to build a big building on anything less...kind of like you'd have to be an idiot to base a contention that the economy is sound on a stock market artificially pumped up by quantitative easing.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It is an opinion, based on evidence. When Obama took office the die was cast and no script existed for him to follow. Of course the supply side crowd had an answer, few of whom expressed their concern as Bush acted out the role of a drunken Marine on leave and the Republican controlled Senate and House passed bills increasing the debt limit a number of times to build and use swords.

Ok, the partisanship is noted. But again, the federal reserves policies aren't decided by the president. That character can only appoint someone. Presumably someone who will carry out the type of policy that will allow for "drunken sailor spending". Is is the case. Otherwise this "point" is irrelevant to the topic. Completely irrelevant.

It is my opinion that we have ignored rebuilding, repairing and replacing the infrastructure of our nation since the Vietnam fiasco. I agree with many who believe we should spend more on rebuilding America, not less.

OK, that too is irrelevant to the topic. I knew you were pulling chain when you made this thread. it's all about partisanship sans any economic understanding. Should we borrow more money to "build america"? Of course the answer will be yes...

Greed is what caused the housing bubble, and the ones most culpable were those MBA's, not those who believed 'master's of the universe' and bought homes they couldn't afford or borrowed the equity soon to disappear. The crash occurred when they couldn't meet the five year due date and interest rates ballooned. By then the bankers and brokers had made $$$$ Billions and the new home owners had not only been sold a home but a pack of lies. There homes had stopped growing in value and began to decline at an enormous rate.

Wrong. Congressional hoemownership policies coupled with federal reserve monetary policies is what caused the last bubble buirst. This is indisputable fact, ans has been gone over ad neaseum here. You can look at any of the 2 dozen threads in the economic forum on it. the greed meme is dead and gone. Your bitter cling to it doesn't change the facts.

And what happened next. The wealthy began to buy houses which once were homes with cash, and the only losers were the working men and women who got scammed. The banks got richer and under the guise of being fiscally responsible added points and fees to all new mortgages.

Yes, the unseen consequences of inflationary monetary policies coupled with congressional bullshit home ownership legislation. Then added more legislatiion on top, along with mandates formt eh fed regarding lending policies after they fucked up. So?

So, in the final analysis we disagree on everything. I'm fine with that. Why you're so defensive suggests you're not very sure of yourself.

Actually, we probably agree on more than you think. The difference is that i understand the reasons for a boom/bust cycle and blame the root cause of it instead of the symptoms. Otherwise, I'm not defensive at all. Where you dig that out from is anyones guess. But I'd imagine it has something to do with belief bias and partisanship.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're building an economy on a foundation made of sand.

Lot of tall buildings in Florida are built on sand.

Not really...any substantial buildings that they put up in Florida they drill down to where they hit limestone. You'd have to be an idiot to build a big building on anything less...kind of like you'd have to be an idiot to base a contention that the economy is sound on a stock market artificially pumped up by quantitative easing.

Limestone and sink holes seem to go together.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is an opinion, based on evidence. When Obama took office the die was cast and no script existed for him to follow. Of course the supply side crowd had an answer, few of whom expressed their concern as Bush acted out the role of a drunken Marine on leave and the Republican controlled Senate and House passed bills increasing the debt limit a number of times to build and use swords.

Ok, the partisanship is noted. But again, the federal reserves policies aren't decided by the president. That character can only appoint someone. Presumably someone who will carry out the type of policy that will allow for "drunken sailor spending". Is is the case. Otherwise this "point" is irrelevant to the topic. Completely irrelevant.

It is my opinion that we have ignored rebuilding, repairing and replacing the infrastructure of our nation since the Vietnam fiasco. I agree with many who believe we should spend more on rebuilding America, not less.

OK, that too is irrelevant to the topic. I knew you were pulling chain when you made this thread. it's all about partisanship sans any economic understanding. Should we borrow more money to "build america"? Of course the answer will be yes...



Wrong. Congressional hoemownership policies coupled with federal reserve monetary policies is what caused the last bubble buirst. This is indisputable fact, ans has been gone over ad neaseum here. You can look at any of the 2 dozen threads in the economic forum on it. the greed meme is dead and gone. Your bitter cling to it doesn't change the facts.

And what happened next. The wealthy began to buy houses which once were homes with cash, and the only losers were the working men and women who got scammed. The banks got richer and under the guise of being fiscally responsible added points and fees to all new mortgages.

Yes, the unseen consequences of inflationary monetary policies coupled with congressional bullshit home ownership legislation. Then added more legislatiion on top, along with mandates formt eh fed regarding lending policies after they fucked up. So?

So, in the final analysis we disagree on everything. I'm fine with that. Why you're so defensive suggests you're not very sure of yourself.

Actually, we probably agree on more than you think. The difference is that i understand the reasons for a boom/bust cycle and blame the root cause of it instead of the symptoms. Otherwise, I'm not defensive at all. Where you dig that out from is anyones guess. But I'd imagine it has something to do with belief bias and partisanship.

So tell me wise one, what should Obama have done in January 2009?

What is your plan to fix our economy?

Would you eliminate the FED? What would be the consequence of that, in your opinion?

I see you, and those, who rely on smart ass remarks and personal attacks as unable to articulate a comprehensive post. Maybe you will in your answers to the above.

 

[flacaltenn]

The OP itself is a pretty hefty excersize in spin.

Here is a commited lefty CELEBRATING the "recovery" of the Stock Market in an economy where Prez policies are consistently widening the gap between the rich and poor.

As tho -- this zombie of market is the ultimate measure of where the jobs went. Or why MILLIONS are getting laid off into part time positions -- or why the price of ground beef is sky high..

That's pretty good "spin" right there. But then -- we have the link starting at Reagan and not Nixon. As tho -- the Carter years didn't exist. So much phoney witchcraft between POLICIES and market performance tossed in for good measure..

I'll take the Reagan years where Silicon Valley BLOOMED in a healthy way. And capital was allocated to risk in the form of 100s of new companies being formed every year. Compared to the wicked stagnation of watching Groupon, LinkedIn, Solyndra and newest IPhone being the only "new ideas" worth risking capital on in an economy under seige from leftist policy... There is a DROUGHT of new ventures coming onto the market. And the reasons for that seem to escape our leftist buds.

With 10K folks retiring EVERY DAY --- we ought to be DROWNING in jobs --- but WryCatcher just wants to ignore the shrinkage and contraction that HIS heroes have brought upon us..