The stock market reacts to the hopeful future under a President 0bama with the largest post-election plunge in U.S. history.
Being the optimist that I am I can't help but look for the silver lining.
How's this: Less wealth for President 0 to get his hands on and spread around!
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 05, 2008 05:23 PM | Email ThisIt'd be funnier if it weren't so sad.....
The stock market doesn't wait for something to happen before it goes up or down. It makes guesses ahead of time. Obama was up in futures 90% to 10% on Monday, and the market had already priced the election by wednesday (and probably weeks ago).
Strangely enough, the market went down after ADP reported that the U.S. lost 157,000 jobs in October.
But of course, being a partisan blogger that has to lie to feel good about a horrible loss, you need to reassure yourself.
Yes, it was Obama. Obama will destroy the stock market. We are all doomed.
LOL idiot.
Posted by: Gerald on November 5, 2008 05:40 PMFair point.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on November 5, 2008 05:50 PMI think, Stefan, you're committing a larger fallacy by assuming that the election is the primary factor, here. You can't just take a correlative event and assume causation. Generalized anxiety over economics seems a much more plausible bogeyman than Obama, McCain, whomever.
I mean, realistically -- between you and me -- you really think the election result is what's driving the stock market in these last few weeks? Not all of the negative financial news?
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on November 5, 2008 05:58 PMOne might consider that he is crying for joy. I believe that he is crying for grief, that the basis for a once needed affirmative action program has long outlived any validity for existence. It has been left in place, as another ill-advised racist US Government policy which benefits not financially deprived members of our society; but it has long benefited the racist elite, such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others.
No, most likely Jackson was crying for his days of scamming businesses and industry, of shaking down communities and of riding on the backs of financially disenfranchised black community members for his own benefit is at an end.
Now, the Democratic Party, whose leaders are beholding to the black community's overwhelming support, cannot back away from this racist anti-white male policy, nor can or will the American public continue to condone it. 53% of American voters, about 64 million Americans voted for a black man for president; while 47% of American voters or 57 million Americans voted for a woman for vice president.
As it stands, the children of our multi-millionaire president would gain the benefit of affirmative action hiring, promotion and contracting under federal law, over the children of a third generation, economically disenfranchised white family.
It is here that the albatross of the Obama presidency has little escape, much as the Republicans have had little escape from the fanatic anti-abortionist movement. McCain could not use this hypocritical and tremendously unpopular and immoral affirmative action issue in the 2008 election, however, Obama's commitment to continue this racist policy to his left wing base cannot be hidden in the 2012 election. Americans are a fair people and that is why Obama was elected. In 2012, it is that fairness which will be Obama's demise. He will either break his promise to his base or end affirmative action: or he will be seen as the latest hypocritical supporter of hopefully our last government sanctioned racist policy.
now, what would be the effect of several millions removing their money from the pensions system...the mutual funds and stocks and bonds that they hold?....
plenty of effect... and what would be the effect on the stock market if several millions just stopped funding their 401's?.....
you know the answer...
consequences.....consequences
Posted by: lee on November 5, 2008 06:32 PMGrow up, Gerald.
Posted by: Gerald's Mother on November 5, 2008 07:00 PMSure, I'm beleiving there was a conspiracy, meaning the timing of the stock market melt-down was not likely accidental. It turned the election.
We have many economical problems. Sub-prime was the initial catalyst to melt-down. Sub-prime is a Democrat idea, lending for homes to people who have only one way of paying off the loan (that being property appreciation). Without getting too technical there are many culprits on Wall Street, but none more dastardly than those in Congress who created the opportunity for massive corruption (including their own corruption).
The compliant Main Stream Media began the Chicken Little scene of the sky falling, timed perfectly to aid Obama. It worked, but because their are other economical weakness the situation may be beyond the control of the media or of the politicians at this point. We may have an extended recession with more material deflation. This reduces the value of every (ordinary) man's possessions -- home, 401K, and IRAs, and can ultimately ruin his retirement.
Doesn't look good. Socialistic policies does not make for a good economy. Government does not create anything. It can only confiscate and redistribute. There will be some short term gains for some of the people, followed by long term loss for most of the people.
Posted by: Dick on November 5, 2008 07:38 PMLook, I voted straight Republican this year. For all the good it did. Usually I find a way to spread the cheer around, but not this year. All but one of my proposition votes went down in flames.
This is not the time to be blaming Obama for a stock market dip and calling it a silver lining. Our country needs all of us to get behind our president, and show him respect and support. We might disagree with his polices, god knows I do, but we should all be working to make our country stronger and more prosperous. And making snide remarks from the sidelines does not move us in that direction. Stand in opposition, but don't subvert.
Yeah, that is what the chowderheads on the left have been doing for the past 8 years. But we need to be better than that.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on November 5, 2008 09:06 PMWhy didn't HUSSEIN make the DOW go up 500 points today? This is not the change I wanted.
Posted by: Indy on November 5, 2008 09:25 PMNO! We do not need to be better than that. We have been "better than that" for the past 200 years! No more! This crap of being "better than that" is a one way street.
Those animals will not learn respect for the office no matter who holds it until they have had a taste of their own medicine.
The stock market dip is the natural reaction of the market to the disaster that has befallen us. Jimmy Carter II.
Yesterday afternoon, they started up, and continued to increase. At the time it looked like Obama might win, they plateaued. When he was announced the winner, they all dropped - BIG.
The FTSE, DAX both were down big time. DJIA and NASDAQ dumped today.
And it continues again today...
The market is retrenching, getting ready for the massive change in taxation and liquidity that will happen in 3 months.
Markets are speculative; what's happened is the worst case position has come true, so now it's time to position for the inevitable ruination when That One takes office with his willing comrades in the House and Senate.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 5, 2008 09:47 PMWhether or not all of us get behind this new President (and I wholeheartedly support the idea, and will never pursue the despicable course that the MSM and the Democrats have done against GWB), it's perfectly fair to appraise his future actions to the best of our abilities and take what measures will best defend our own resources against such losses as his policies would likely cause.
And the cause of the stock market drop is just that sort of rational behavior in action - the sum of the free actions of thousands of folks who foresee that Obama's policies, in concert with the current Congressional leadership, will harm their savings and future earnings.
Anyone who's worked most of their life and put aside some savings may well react with alarm when a powerful politician announces intentions to redistribute wealth, no matter how hard gained, from its current owners to someone who hasn't earned it. That's not 'blaming' Obama, it's common sense. And Obama has given no one any clear indications yet what his policies will be, so perhaps some blame can be assigned to those who'd vote for a leader with such well-concealed past actions and future intentions.
Come clean, Mr. President-elect, lay your cards on the table. Then let's see what the stock market does.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 5, 2008 09:59 PM
This is the first I've heard that the DJ is price setting weeks ahead.
Rukeyser always implied that the stock market was driven by hope and fear and the morning news.
By the time he gave his advice each show, it was obsolete. Why didn't he just find out what the market had planned for next week to keep his show current?
I'll admit that I'm a gold bug so I didn't believe much else he said either.
What do you mean that Obama was "up in futures"?
How do I get in on that market? Gold looks flat.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on November 5, 2008 10:23 PMIn fact, Obama was running ahead in polls for weeks! How would you explain that? Or are you just keen on selectively picking your evidence?
Posted by: demo kid on November 5, 2008 10:25 PMThinking that the past 200 years has been "better" means that you're definitely not a student of history. Still, you're a sore loser. He hasn't taken office, and already you've decided to simply be disloyal opposition for a president that hasn't even started the job yet. You've just shown yourself to be s sunshine patriot, and nothing more.
Those animals will not learn respect for the office no matter who holds it until they have had a taste of their own medicine.
Animals? You're psychotic. Bush squandered the goodwill he received after 9/11 to pursue a partisan agenda. He had the respect of 90% of the nation, and he pissed it all away. He could have been one of our greatest presidents, and he failed. And that wasn't because of the "liberal media", it wasn't because of "Marxists"... it was because he ruled as a stark, right-wing partisan on most important issues when he promised to be a bipartisan figure.
Posted by: demo kid on November 5, 2008 10:34 PMAs for us, we're opting OUT. We are going to make any planned discretionary puchases NOW (down in Portland, tyvm) and sit on our CASH starting January 20.... and that includes not funding our IRA's. We are going to be as productive as necessary to get by. We are going to contribute with time and money ONLY to organizations that reflect out principles. We will not buy products or shop at ANY union organization. We will hunker down, get back to basics and wait this lunacy out.
I will not be a willing victim in my own demise. I will not be produtive to fund pie-in-the-sky promises for those unwilling to be productive.
You kiddies got what you wanted, now figure out how to make it work, how to make all those promises come true on your own. When you finally realize you created more hands with their palms out than jobs or money to fill them, we won't be available.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 5, 2008 11:00 PMNEW YORK (AP) -- A case of postelection nerves sent Wall Street plunging Wednesday as investors, looking past Barack Obama's presidential victory, returned to their fears of a deep and protracted recession....Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 5, 2008 11:06 PMBut investors lost their recent confidence about the economy and began dumping stocks again....
Although the market expected Obama to win the election, as the session wore on investors were clearly worrying about the weakness of the economy and pondered what the Obama administration might do. Analysts said the market is already anxious about who Obama selects as the next Treasury Secretary, as well as who he picks for other Cabinet positions.
"The celebration is over. Today we saw a bit of reality," said Al Goldman, chief market strategist at Wachovia Securities in St. Louis. "President-elect Obama is coming into a situation with limited experience, having to handle an economy in serious trouble, a couple of wars and terrorism. It's an extremely tough job."
And that political toddler is incapable of handling it.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 5, 2008 11:10 PM"Our country needs all of us to get behind our president, and show him respect and support."
Can one logically conclude you felt the same way both time GWB was elected?
"If race should not be a factor in our decision for hiring a President, why should it then be a factor in any other hiring decision, or college admissions decision????"
Au contraire, race is a factor if you happen to be Black AND a Republican running for higher office. In that situation they will NOT get support from their "bruthas"
Posted by: Dave on November 5, 2008 11:10 PMThis shows that while others are already choosing to spread their own 'wealth' around, he is not willing to voluntarily spread his. Yet he wants credit for potentially taking others' wealth and giving it to someone else? That's absurd, no other words to describe it. Try spreading your own wealth, Obama, instead of that big, hypocritical pile of manure you're heaving at the rest of us.
Posted by: Michele on November 5, 2008 11:28 PMThen you'll hold President Bush blameless for the current DJIA tumble, right? Thanks for your support of his economic policies!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 6, 2008 12:11 AMLast 5 days of the SSE Composite
Guess what - ALL were trending up right to the moment that the Marxist Messiah was declared the winner. And they're all crashing.
You're a freaking idiot if you can't see the data and the FACTS in front of you.
But then, you voted for the Marxist Messiah so we already know you're well below average in intelligence...
Bark away, moonbat, but the cold hard facts are irrefutable. The markets are judging YOUR actions and you've been found lacking. The coming economic meltdown is laid at the feet of your neocom Slavery Party, it's economic blood on your hands, to match that of the millions of dead babies already dripping from your fingers...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 6, 2008 01:26 AMThe stock market soared the day after Ronald Reagen won in 1980. The stock markets were largely flat for the first two years of the Clinton presidency but took off after the Republican Congressional victory in the 1994 mid-term elections. Long term investors have traditionally showed a preference for Republican econmomic principles of lower taxes on wealth creation, freer markets for trade, less regulation and non-interference in domestic markets.
I suspect that a major resurgence by Republicans in the 2010 mid-terms right before the census leads to redistricting will also give the markets a boost. Another Democratic landslide in 2010 would have the opposite effect as the redistricting would cement a semi-permanent Democratic majority.
Posted by: KW64 on November 6, 2008 02:43 AMWe are buying only necessities. No taxable, big-ticket purchases. No charitable donations except for buying girl scout cookies and donations to the boy scouts. Voting against all local levies for schools and infrastructure (let Obomba fund those). We're paying cash to individuals to do contract work. Using barter where we can (I just wired my neighbor's garage doors and he did a brake job on my car for me). Obtained a gun and ammunition for the first time (private trade, no taxes).
We'll be applying for all of the government programs we can. If Obomba wants to play it that way, fine. See if his socialist paradise system can survive being sucked dry. Maybe it will crash, I don't know. I will apply for every affirmative-action job I can. I won't get them, but I'll at least throw the 'Rats' racism back in their ugly faces. If I lose out on enough job applications, I will file a civil rights lawsuit.
Posted by: Interested Observer on November 6, 2008 06:28 AMObama isn't even in office yet. He hasn't been sworn in, he hasn't announced his advisers, and he hasn't actually discussed his specific policy directions. To believe that Bush (or, more broadly, eight years of a Republican president, and five of the last seven sessions of Congress Republican-controlled) might have anything to do with current market performance is an easy call. Divining the intent of the market from short-term volatility is impossible.
@32-34: Again, shows that when the chips are down, you are not a true American. Just a whiner and a sore loser. Boo-frickin-hoo. The difference between Democrats and Republicans, though, is that President-elect Obama wasn't so small as to get up in front of a press conference after an election and crow about how he had political capital he was "willing to spend". (Even though, of course, Obama won by a larger margin than Bush in 2000 or 2004... 7% versus 0.5% and 2.4%, respectively.)
@36: Bark away, moonbat, but the cold hard facts are irrefutable. The markets are judging YOUR actions and you've been found lacking. The coming economic meltdown is laid at the feet of your neocom Slavery Party, it's economic blood on your hands, to match that of the millions of dead babies already dripping from your fingers...
You are insane. Seriously. You're illogical, and quite stupid, and I really hope that you don't bet serious money with that business acumen that you have there.
The charts that *really* matter are these:
All data for the SSE Composite
And from there, let me tell you why you're so stupid.
First, the Obama election was not a surprise, or at least should not have been a surprise for people watching the markets. Look at the Intrade numbers for the past few weeks if you're interested in a "market-based" measure. One way or another, if people were actually betting money in the market on whether Obama would win or not... well, a fool and his money are soon parted.
Second, folks in the market actually have better things to do than to watch the US Presidential election. Releases of third-quarter reports and news of rate cuts would have MUCH more of an impact than news about an election that has been pretty much decided for a week or two. And for now... Obama has nothing to do with that.
Third, the volatility of the markets lately has been up significantly. If you were to present me with data for longer-term trends, then I might believe that there was a signal... but two days doesn't make a trend. There is NO PROOF that this is not noise.
Fourth, you have no proof about the counter-factual. There is nothing in the market trends that would suggest that a McCain victory would have resulted in a market jump. In fact, I would argue that a McCain victory would have sent consumer confidence way down, and stocks spiralling just a little bit lower.
Finally, have you just decided to start worshipping Mammon? Using terms like "the markets are judging YOUR actions and you've been found lacking" makes me think that the only God that you have is Money. Well... that god is a fickle god! (And apparently, one that defies your understanding.)
Now, hey... I'm a rational kind of fellow, but this is just crazy. You're cherry-picking any information you can get your hands on to prove your point. If, when you've calmed down, you want to have a rational discussion, I'm all for it. For now, though, rant and rave. If you make a point that actually sounds reasonable to folks that aren't afflicted by "Obama Derangement Syndrome" (a much stronger version of "Bush Derangement Syndrome", apparently), I'll give you props for it.
Posted by: demo kid on November 6, 2008 07:08 AMI was surprised at the drop towards the afternoon. Today will be a better test. If the buyers don't see an opportunity to make some quick money from yesterday's drop, we are in big, big trouble.
Posted by: swatter on November 6, 2008 07:23 AM"Rubber. Meet Road." This guy is just not ready.
Posted by: swatter on November 6, 2008 08:05 AMPosted by Firefighter at November 5, 2008 10:05 PM
I agree...with the following caveat:
We must not stand idly by and not hold Obama accountable for each & every action he takes.
That doesn't mean being against everything he proposes. But it does mean speaking out strongly when you disagree.
The Lunatic Leftists showed how awful they could be. I'm not for an "eye for an eye" in that regard. But the 1st bad move Obama makes, he will hear about it.
Silence & complacency are not the answer either.
8:05 Yikes!!!! Down 200. Someone better say something to calm the market down.
We have a president for that, don't we?
@42: Obama Derangement Syndrome. Classic case.
But hey... something that I got a laugh out of:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/89632
Posted by: demo kid on November 6, 2008 08:21 AMNope, merely displaying intellect you obviously lack.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 6, 2008 08:36 AM1) Closing office in downtown Seattle effective December 1, 2008.
2) Half of current staff is being let go immediately. Rest of positons are moving to rental office on East side (Renton) for short term, while we evaluate situation.
3) All planned capital asset purchases are on hold and ongoing service/maintenance contracts for current machinery are all under review with goal of cutting 50% immediately.
4) All corporate travel is on hold. Participation in tradeshows, conferences cancelled.
We're a pretty successful small business, but the mood of the principles is that it's time to divest. Why work hard so the government can take it and squander it.
The hope is that a competitor or supplier might buy core business and save a few of our employees jobs, but if near-term interest is not found, it's pull the plug on things and time to retire.
Posted by: johnny on November 6, 2008 08:40 AMThe DAX down 7%. FTSE down 5.6%. DJIA down 2.8% so far... ALL slides started the literal MINUTE your Marxist Messiah was elected.
And those lifetime graphs? Look at the DJIA PEAK at September 30, 2007.
Why is that significant? That's the last day of the Bush/Republican budgets. You and your Slavery Party hacks took over after that. And it's be a long, continual slide.
This economic mess - and the fall this week - are on your hands. No derangement, but from you a lot of deflection and ignorance and head in the sand...
Numbers don't like, Slavery Party Failed Abortion. And those numbers say that the world's economies fear the Marxist Messiah, and are reacting RIGHT NOW before That One gets in and really starts to ruin things...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 6, 2008 08:44 AMThere goes our 401K... but not to worry..
They are going to take them over too LOL
The Biggest Post Election Drop in HISTORY. Biggest Post Election Change in HISTORY. Welcome to the great stock depression of 2008, thanks to the election of your Marxist Messiah.
We're down 9% in the DJIA since his election, and today we'll break the 10% down. That's $900 BILLION in US capitalization that's vanished. Worldwide, $5 TRILLION in valuation has disappeared.
Economic blood on your hands!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 6, 2008 09:02 AMSeriously the economy is in the tank, recession is here. We're going to have our first Trillion dollar deficit in this country. Everyone was hurting long before Nov. 5th, to blame this drop on Pres-elect Obama is ridiculous.
@48: If the markets wanted to see something "conservative", this mythical entity would have to be incredibly stupid for thinking that the results would be anything but what the polling numbers suggested for the past week. In fact, I would propose that the only time in recent history when the markets might have been affected by the results of a presidential election was back in 2000, when the results were unknown and uncertainty was high.
@49: This is seriously pointless, and you're both stupid AND a liar. You have NO proof that this was the result of an election whose results were known well in advance, and you're being unreasonable for thinking that there is a causal connection. You haven't addressed the fact that third-quarter reports are rolling in right now, which have FAR more of an impact on markets than on the imagined policies of a center-left presidential administration.
But then again... this is par for the course, eh? Clinton inherited a financial mess from Reagan and Bush I, and Obama gets to deal with the financial mismanagement from Bush II. Republicans just cannot take responsibility for their financial mismanagement, can they?
And liberals blame the failing economy on conservative practices. Point?
Posted by: demo kid on November 6, 2008 10:01 AMAnd conservatives are known for EXACTLY the same thing.
I'm not denying the flaws of liberals by any means. But the simple fact is that it is a hard thing to get over our own biases. I'm quite willing to debate and argue, but this is biased rhetoric, not reasoned debate.
Posted by: demo kid on November 6, 2008 10:34 AMThe only parts of the country that embrace the neoconservative interpretations of the Republican party in increasing numbers are MissiTexAppalachiana areas between communication hubs. The other 78% of the country has moved away from it in steps, and leaps in some places. A new pattern is beginning to emerge and transform the conversation.
Posted by: Acid Brain on November 6, 2008 10:54 AMTell me again how Clinton turned the economy around in 1993 and on? My word, man, get your history elsewhere than DU or the Kos.
Clinton inherited lowering gas prices and a recovering economy and lowered interest rates. During his time, Microsoft went bananas as the computer age dawned. Impossible to do wrong. But, for credit to be given, he didn't screw it up like it may have been possible. So, in reality and not in the alternative universe, Clinton inherited a good deal.
Hey, you'll even argue the facts- the stock market has crashed since the election. I have been telling the Obamians at work that the poor guy has an economic situation when he hasn't even taken office.
The market and the rest of us have taken him at his word during the campaign trail- he is going to socialize the country. That means fat cats (fat cat is defined as anyone making more money than you) won't be working hard or investing. Them are the facts of life, kid.
However, Obama has been getting the Clinton guys- Emmanuel and Podesta- which bodes well for the economy. He needs to show up tomorrow and put the world at ease on the extent of what he is going to do. And you should be prepared he is not going to pay your mortgage or fill your cupboards with snacks as he had promised.
Posted by: swatter on November 6, 2008 11:12 AMDepends on what you mean. "Liberal" can mean any one of a number of things. Social liberal? Neo-liberal? Redder than red liberal? What?
Take the current and previous Popes. Would you call them economic conservatives? You certainly couldn't call them social liberals in light of their positions on contraception, abortion, and the like, but the fact that they advocate against war seems to be much more a liberal idea to date. Is professing that damage to the environment is a sin a Republican value as of late?
How about Solidarity? Again, you can talk about how communists were "leftists", but Solidarity was a trade union. Hardly the bastion of free market types when it was formed. It may have changed a bit... but does that sound like strict Republicanism?
Martin Luther King? Yes, he was a Republican when Democrats in the South were segregationists. (I would be too!) But he was supporting striking workers when he was killed in Memphis. A conservative cause?
Teddy Roosevelt? Although he was a Republican, he ran for President with his "Progressive Party", calling for universal healthcare and busting monopolies. Does that follow current Republican policies?
You cannot classify people neatly into categories. Even if you were to try to talk about "well known Conservatives" known for their Wisdom", they probably wouldn't fall into a neat little category either.
Posted by: demo kid on November 6, 2008 11:12 AMSame with Obama. As much as we can argue about who is to blame for the economy, the simple truth is that the war in Iraq has had a dramatic effect on government spending. It will continue to have a dramatic effect far, far into the future as well, as veterans of the war continue to collect benefits. That is NOT fiscal responsibility.
That is the true problem with the Republican administrations in the past: damage the fiscal health of the country, then make cuts that hit the weakest in our society the hardest. I am moderately fiscally conservative, and I don't WANT the government to "fill my cupboards" or "pay my mortgage". I pay my taxes in full and on time, I never took the EITC when I was a poor and starving student, and I believe that paying taxes is a patriotic duty when the money is being used efficiently and for the benefit of the entire country. I also believe that if we think of ourselves as part of a country, we need to make a group effort to combat certain problems, and that takes a contribution from everyone.
The proposed changes to the tax code? Well, there has been manipulation of that for years. Personally, I'd prefer to do away with a significant number of the useless tax credits out there, lower the nominal rates while maintaining the progressive structure, and reduce the opportunities for tax loopholes.
But between the McCain and Obama approaches, Obama's has the better chance of boosting the economy, especially in the short-term. Middle- and lower-class tax cuts are more effective as a means of economic stimulus than upper-class tax cuts... the stimulus checks from earlier this year demonstrate that belief amongst government economists.
And comments about "socializing the country" are overblown. For one, healthcare costs are crippling small businesses, and efforts by the government to intervene and provide some relief would probably do more for small businesses than whatever tax cut McCain might have proposed. The plans that Obama proposes fall well short of a single-payer system, and are NOT nationalization by any means.
Posted by: demo kid on November 6, 2008 11:34 AMDeath by taxes:
Bloomberg (R) to raise taxes.
Schwarzenegger (R) to raise taxes.
Socialism doesn't work. Not in Cuba. Not in Venezuala. The Northern European countries did okay with it for a while when they could get dollars from other European countries, but those are crashing too now.
(Think we've got problems, check out what's going on in Northern Europe where the local currencies losing value so fast in brings pre-war Germany economic woes to mind.)
That's why money is being pulled out of the market and small businesses that depend on month to month bottom line are preparing to shut the doors.
We true conservatives don't like what went on with Bush because he forgot that risk (one component of capitalism) should be real and those that do dumb things in the market should be penalized.
We like what we see with Obama less because he not only also wants to eliminate risk, but also chooses to ignore the fact that providing rewards (the other other component of capitalism) not tied to performance are a recipe for disaster.
The smart money has other places to go - including into offshore accounts, foreign funds, under matresses, real assets (gold, real estate) - and does not need to provide liquidity to a market that does not provide return.
Bloomberg switched parties again. While he was an R to get the mayor's job, he governed like a D. But, he recently switched back and was favored to do aWhite House run.
Oh, did I mention? He is cutting off the welfare checks- you know, those $400 property tax rebates and will soon increase the income tax.
There are several million people who don't think Arhhhnie is an R.
Posted by: swatter on November 6, 2008 01:06 PMWhat rewards? Health care? Restructuring of the tax code? There are strong cases to be made that in each of those cases that the labor market and the economy will BENEFIT as a result. Furthermore, most of what conservatives seem to crow about reveals that they don't have a notion of that what "socialism" really is.
And yes, "socialism" as practiced by Venezuela is not sustainable in the long-run. European-style social democracies have their problems, and efforts to get rid of state monopolies in certain economic sectors is a good move.
But free market doctrine isn't the way to go all the time... Asia in 1997, Russia in 1998, Argentina in 2001, and so forth all show the dangers of the policies promoted by free market idealogues. Free market proponents are rarely frank about the downsides of their policies and their impacts on regular people. Your slavish devotion to free markets and the downsides of risk is fine, but I'd prefer to sacrifice some market efficiency to keep people from losing their life's savings and dying on the street, thank you very much.
Posted by: demo kid on November 6, 2008 01:12 PMWe have done exactly what you described in your post; we have liquidated our stocks and paid off our debts and then kept the rest liquid in an account and halted our 401Ks.
We have a wedding to pay for next year and with the Toddler Kid at the helms now, we see nothing but skyrocketing taxes coming our way. PLUS, Queen Christine just announced her own stimulas package for our state - how much is THAT going to cost us on top of the failed transit package??
We also have an appt with our tax guy to figure out all the loopholes we have never used before in order to keep as much of our after-tax money as possible.
I will 'respect' Obama from afar and wait to see how it handles it all, but his past voting record and all that he has said in the past 22 months makes it pretty clear where he intends to go.
And did anyone ever hear him DENY that he is a socialist?
Posted by: Lauri on November 6, 2008 02:29 PM
Have you read many of the stories of people laying off employees on anticipation of the new tax laws headed our way? If I had a small business, I'd probably be shutting the doors and looking for a job elsewhere.
As it is, one of the larger companies here (MS) was, at the beginning of the year, coming around with an open head count of 6K .. now? They have a hiring freeze since they know their taxes are going thru the roof.
When the biggest companies leave (Boeing) and stop hiring, how long til Seattle no longer has that bubble around it?
Posted by: Anne on November 6, 2008 02:34 PMDid you mean to comment on 35 rather than 36? I see no relationship between your comment on my comment and what I said.
Posted by: KW64 on November 6, 2008 03:49 PMAs for yesterday and today, I think there were a few people who hoped against hope that McCain would rally at the end and when all hope was gone were ready to sell. Even so, the market had other factors in the sell off as well.
Posted by: KW64 on November 6, 2008 04:10 PM@76: As I said, I think some of the down market in October reflected anticipation of an Obama presidency and a bigger democratic congress imposing more regulation, letting the Bush tax cuts expire, raising the cap on the level of income for social security taxes etc.
There is something SERIOUSLY not right with your head if you think that a GLOBAL market problem has been caused by Obama leading in the polls since October. Should we equate the credit problems a year ago with Obama as well?
I should also say that if McCain did become president, by your argument the markets would respond negatively at ANY sign of his worsening health. (And that, my friends, would be quite inevitable.) I also know that the thought of a mismanaged Palin administration after succession would be enough for me to pull my assets from anything even remotely related to the US.
Posted by: demo kid on November 6, 2008 04:35 PMThat bit of lunacy was hatched by Washington Stae's own Jim McDermott. I believe McDimwitt's plan was to require workers to contribute 5% of their gross earnings and the government would "match" that with $500 per year and pay 3% interest. Great deal, huh? McDip$hit just couldn't bear seeing all those earnings benefitting individuals and families without the government skimming even more of the cream off the top.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 6, 2008 05:15 PMOy, its going to be a long four years.. :-/
Posted by: Lauri on November 6, 2008 07:09 PM*-My comments are my personal views and does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Under President-elect Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the fossil fuels industry may face "dark days ahead," while alternative energy sectors are likely to flourish.
Although it will take years to engineer and implement, an Obama administration energy and environment policy marks a tectonic shift for the nation. He would move the U.S. away from petroleum as its primary energy source and towards renewable energy, advanced biofuels, efficiency and low greenhouse-gas-emitting technologies.
Obama won the U.S. presidential race Tuesday evening, sweeping battleground states such as Ohio and Florida.
Sen. Obama's lynchpin policy is a climate change bill that would cap emissions such as carbon dioxide and auction greenhouse gas credits to encourage a fundamental transition away from high emitting industries to low-carbon alternatives. Obama said such a policy would be more aggressive than any other cap-and-trade system proposed.
As part of that policy shift, renewable energy, natural gas, plug-in hybrid vehicles, and advanced electricity transmission are forecast to receive a major boost. Sen. Obama has proposed using $150 billion from the emissions auction to fund such low-carbon alternatives over the next decade.
And to begin cutting emissions, the president-elect is targeting the fossil fuel industry.
Companies such as ExxonMobil (XOM), ConocoPhillips (COP) and Chevron Corp. (CVX) say they're concerned about returning to policies enacted in the 1970s, including Sen. Obama's proposals for a windfall profits tax and market intervention such as tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
"It's pretty clear that if we repeat those mistakes again, we're going to see some pretty dark days ahead," said outgoing American Petroleum Institute president Red Cavaney.
Obama shifted his stance on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf under pressure from $145 a barrel oil prices and $4 a gallon gasoline. But he's largely against extensive new domestic petroleum production. Congressional Democrats could reinstate at least parts of a moratorium on such offshore drilling that expired at the end of September.
With oil prices falling to more than half levels seen in July, there will likely be less political opposition to a new ban. Some Capitol Hill watchers say the moratorium is likely to cover 50 miles off the coast and won't include revenue sharing for the states.
The oil industry says for oil companies to tap domestic production quickly it needs access closer to the shore, and sharing the wealth is necessary to get state approval for exploration off their coasts.
It's unlikely Obama will use all of his new presidential political capital to try and force a contentious greenhouse gas bill through Congress. But the president-elect is expected to start working piecemeal towards a climate change bill early in his tenure.
A federal renewable energy mandate is a central piece of his policy to ax man-made contributions to global warming. Obama wants reductions of 25% by 2025, with a 10% standard achieved early in the next decade. A similar mandate has passed in the House, though it narrowly failed in the Senate. Democrats picked up several seats in the Senate, and with that, "the RPS is almost a certainty," said Dave Hamilton, Sierra Club director of its Global Warming and Energy Program.
Southern utility companies, including Duke Energy Corp. (DUK) and Southern Co. (SO), have lobbied against a federal renewable portfolio standard, though some encourage state mandates.
Wind turbine manufacturers such as GE Energy, a unit of the General Electric Co. (GE), India's Suzlon Energy (532667.BY) and Denmark's Vestas Wind Systems (VWS.OS), as well as solar firms such as Norway's Renewable Energy Corp. ASA (REC.OS), and U.S.-headquartered First Solar Inc. (FSLR) and Evergreen Solar Inc. (ESLR) would benefit under a renewable portfolio standard.
Sen. Obama - as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. - believe spurring the renewable industry would help the country recover from its current economic crisis.
The coal-fired power generation sector, one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, will likely find the investment climate more difficult under stricter environmental regulations.
Longer-term, the president-elect said he plans to funnel federal money to pay for carbon capture and sequestration technology.
The coal industry, however, is concerned that Obama's pursuit of stringent greenhouse gas laws could strangle the industry. Obama has said his cap-and-trade bill would encourage carbon capture and sequestration for coal-fired power plants. Yet he admits that without such technology, new construction of traditional coal-fired power plants could face bankruptcy.
The National Mining Association, whose members include Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) and Consol Energy (CNX), said it feared Obama's climate change policy could destroy the U.S. coal industry, "break(ing) America's energy backbone."
One of the real questions is how quickly Obama and congressional Democrats can move the country swiftly away from petroleum and coal use without damaging the economy. Obama contends a transition to a lower carbon economy will create up to 5 million jobs.
But it will also raise manufacturing, transportation, and material costs because of higher energy prices and put U.S. goods and services at a competitive disadvantage to economies that lack similar emission standards, such as China, India, Russia or the South American and Middle Eastern countries.
It's also questionable whether the president-elect could pass climate change policy early in his tenure amid a focus on rescuing the U.S. economy from a deep recession.
As the oil and coal industries may see their market share of energy production fall, the biofuels, natural gas and nuclear industries could grow.
For the biofuels market, next-generation fuels such as cellulosic and algae-based ethanol and biodiesel will benefit under Obama's energy and environment policies.
Democrats have also warmed to the natural gas industry. The fuel emits half the greenhouse gas pollution that coal producers when conventionally burned, and the U.S. has massive domestic sources that wouldn't require a major change in the sector's transportation infrastructure.
Many Democratic leaders, including Obama, are open to proposals to convert a large portion of the nation's vehicle fleet to run on natural gas.
And though Obama would try to change the current waste storage policy, a long-term expansion of the nuclear power industry is seen as essential to meet the climate change goals propounded by the President-elect.
-By Ian Talley, Dow Jones Newswires, 202-862-9285; ian.talley@dowjones.com
> Dow Jones Newswires
11-05-08 0039ET
On Retail;
Has anyone ever heard of the misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act" Me neither. Apparently, Obama was being creative with his vote buying, with his signature disregard for whether the companies he hurts survive;
By Andria Cheng
Retail shares headed lower Wednesday, as attention shifted from the U.S. presidential election back to the economy and whether an Obama administration will bring tougher regulations.
Retailers from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) to Target Corp. (TGT) have voiced their concerns about passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which makes it easier for workers to unionize. President-elect Barack Obama has said he'd sign the act into law if he became president.
Meanwhile, worries about the economic outlook persist. Companies in the U.S. private sector shed 157,000 jobs in October, according to the ADP employment report released Wednesday. The data come two days before the Labor Department reports on nonfarm payroll growth for October, which could be weak.
The S&P Retail Index fell 1.6% to 295.57, tracking the broader markets, as traders locked in profits and focused on the deteriorating economy that Obama will inherit.
Actually, the stock market was rebounding quite nicely (since the subprime scandal that had Obama & his cronies' fingerprints all over them), having just had the single largest gain in it's history, and now, in the 2 days since the man who trained acorn took over, we have had the worst two consecutive drops in the market's history.
We'll see what tomorrow brings - or takes.
Maybe we'll get lucky and get dead cat bounce.
Coincidence? Not according to the data, nor the analysts.
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Under President-elect Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the fossil fuels industry may face "dark days ahead," while alternative energy sectors are likely to flourish.
Although it will take years to engineer and implement, an Obama administration energy and environment policy marks a tectonic shift for the nation. He would move the U.S. away from petroleum as its primary energy source and towards renewable energy, advanced biofuels, efficiency and low greenhouse-gas-emitting technologies.
Obama won the U.S. presidential race Tuesday evening, sweeping battleground states such as Ohio and Florida.
Sen. Obama's lynchpin policy is a climate change bill that would cap emissions such as carbon dioxide and auction greenhouse gas credits to encourage a fundamental transition away from high emitting industries to low-carbon alternatives. Obama said such a policy would be more aggressive than any other cap-and-trade system proposed.
As part of that policy shift, renewable energy, natural gas, plug-in hybrid vehicles, and advanced electricity transmission are forecast to receive a major boost. Sen. Obama has proposed using $150 billion from the emissions auction to fund such low-carbon alternatives over the next decade.
And to begin cutting emissions, the president-elect is targeting the fossil fuel industry.
Companies such as ExxonMobil (XOM), ConocoPhillips (COP) and Chevron Corp. (CVX) say they're concerned about returning to policies enacted in the 1970s, including Sen. Obama's proposals for a windfall profits tax and market intervention such as tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
"It's pretty clear that if we repeat those mistakes again, we're going to see some pretty dark days ahead," said outgoing American Petroleum Institute president Red Cavaney.
Obama shifted his stance on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf under pressure from $145 a barrel oil prices and $4 a gallon gasoline. But he's largely against extensive new domestic petroleum production. Congressional Democrats could reinstate at least parts of a moratorium on such offshore drilling that expired at the end of September.
With oil prices falling to more than half levels seen in July, there will likely be less political opposition to a new ban. Some Capitol Hill watchers say the moratorium is likely to cover 50 miles off the coast and won't include revenue sharing for the states.
The oil industry says for oil companies to tap domestic production quickly it needs access closer to the shore, and sharing the wealth is necessary to get state approval for exploration off their coasts.
It's unlikely Obama will use all of his new presidential political capital to try and force a contentious greenhouse gas bill through Congress. But the president-elect is expected to start working piecemeal towards a climate change bill early in his tenure.
A federal renewable energy mandate is a central piece of his policy to ax man-made contributions to global warming. Obama wants reductions of 25% by 2025, with a 10% standard achieved early in the next decade. A similar mandate has passed in the House, though it narrowly failed in the Senate. Democrats picked up several seats in the Senate, and with that, "the RPS is almost a certainty," said Dave Hamilton, Sierra Club director of its Global Warming and Energy Program.
Southern utility companies, including Duke Energy Corp. (DUK) and Southern Co. (SO), have lobbied against a federal renewable portfolio standard, though some encourage state mandates.
Wind turbine manufacturers such as GE Energy, a unit of the General Electric Co. (GE), India's Suzlon Energy (532667.BY) and Denmark's Vestas Wind Systems (VWS.OS), as well as solar firms such as Norway's Renewable Energy Corp. ASA (REC.OS), and U.S.-headquartered First Solar Inc. (FSLR) and Evergreen Solar Inc. (ESLR) would benefit under a renewable portfolio standard.
Sen. Obama - as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. - believe spurring the renewable industry would help the country recover from its current economic crisis.
The coal-fired power generation sector, one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, will likely find the investment climate more difficult under stricter environmental regulations.
Longer-term, the president-elect said he plans to funnel federal money to pay for carbon capture and sequestration technology.
The coal industry, however, is concerned that Obama's pursuit of stringent greenhouse gas laws could strangle the industry. Obama has said his cap-and-trade bill would encourage carbon capture and sequestration for coal-fired power plants. Yet he admits that without such technology, new construction of traditional coal-fired power plants could face bankruptcy.
The National Mining Association, whose members include Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) and Consol Energy (CNX), said it feared Obama's climate change policy could destroy the U.S. coal industry, "break(ing) America's energy backbone."
One of the real questions is how quickly Obama and congressional Democrats can move the country swiftly away from petroleum and coal use without damaging the economy. Obama contends a transition to a lower carbon economy will create up to 5 million jobs.
But it will also raise manufacturing, transportation, and material costs because of higher energy prices and put U.S. goods and services at a competitive disadvantage to economies that lack similar emission standards, such as China, India, Russia or the South American and Middle Eastern countries.
It's also questionable whether the president-elect could pass climate change policy early in his tenure amid a focus on rescuing the U.S. economy from a deep recession.
As the oil and coal industries may see their market share of energy production fall, the biofuels, natural gas and nuclear industries could grow.
For the biofuels market, next-generation fuels such as cellulosic and algae-based ethanol and biodiesel will benefit under Obama's energy and environment policies.
Democrats have also warmed to the natural gas industry. The fuel emits half the greenhouse gas pollution that coal producers when conventionally burned, and the U.S. has massive domestic sources that wouldn't require a major change in the sector's transportation infrastructure.
Many Democratic leaders, including Obama, are open to proposals to convert a large portion of the nation's vehicle fleet to run on natural gas.
And though Obama would try to change the current waste storage policy, a long-term expansion of the nuclear power industry is seen as essential to meet the climate change goals propounded by the President-elect.
-By Ian Talley, Dow Jones Newswires, 202-862-9285; ian.talley@dowjones.com
> Dow Jones Newswires
11-05-08 0039ET
On Retail;
Has anyone ever heard of the misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act" Me neither. Apparently, Obama was being creative with his vote buying, with his signature disregard for whether the companies he hurts survive;
By Andria Cheng
Retail shares headed lower Wednesday, as attention shifted from the U.S. presidential election back to the economy and whether an Obama administration will bring tougher regulations.
Retailers from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) to Target Corp. (TGT) have voiced their concerns about passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which makes it easier for workers to unionize. President-elect Barack Obama has said he'd sign the act into law if he became president.
Meanwhile, worries about the economic outlook persist. Companies in the U.S. private sector shed 157,000 jobs in October, according to the ADP employment report released Wednesday. The data come two days before the Labor Department reports on nonfarm payroll growth for October, which could be weak.
The S&P Retail Index fell 1.6% to 295.57, tracking the broader markets, as traders locked in profits and focused on the deteriorating economy that Obama will inherit.
Actually, the stock market was rebounding quite nicely (since the subprime scandal that had Obama & his cronies' fingerprints all over them), having just had the single largest gain in it's history, and now, in the 2 days since the man who trained acorn took over, we have had the worst two consecutive drops in the market's history.
We'll see what tomorrow brings - or takes.
Maybe we'll get lucky and get dead cat bounce.
Coincidence? Not according to the data, nor the analysts.
I said "some" not all. High oil prices and the economic downturn they caused have lowered stock prices over the year. The credit squeeze lowered stock prices as well. But fear of higher taxes on capital gains and dividends clearly hurt stocks as well. More regulation such as cap and trade raising energy prices hurts some as well.
There are no single causes of the decline, but anticipation of a bad business climate in the new Congress and administration does negatively effect stock prices whether or not there is something "wrong with my head" as you say.
Posted by: KW64 on November 7, 2008 06:58 AMSo... by how much? A half a percent? Five percent? Twenty percent?
And how unstable do you think the markets would be if an unqualified Sarah Palin were second in line to an elderly cancer survivor?
Posted by: demo kid on November 7, 2008 07:28 AMIf you look at going from 15% tax rate on dividend paying stocks to 39% the top personnel rate as Obama has indicatd, there is a real after tax impact that erodes the stocks value. I think for dividend paying stocks, a 20% decline is realistic. If only top end taxpayers bought the stock, it would be more like 50% but there are many smaller income investors that would keep such a large decline from happening and likely some dividend paying stocks would stop the dividends so that people could collect their returns under a lower capital gains tax via appreciation of price due to retained earnings.
Posted by: KW64 on November 7, 2008 11:30 AM...about as unstable as an unqualified first in line Obama appears to have made it. The second in line doesn't appear much brighter if he has actually requested a wheel-chair bound man to rise for an ovation.
"stand up Chuck, let 'em see ya!!"~ Joe "Deleware Drunkard" Biden
Free Grammar lesson:
You should never start a sentence with a conjunction. Only newspapers that are written for an 8th grade reading comprehension level actually employ this practice.
Up 200 points today, genius! Is that the result of Obama as well? Right now, the markets are highly volatile, and it's not because of the election.
And, if you want to be a grammar fascist, you prick, why don't you pick on some of your idiot compatriots above? Seems like they might have a need for more than just the third-grade education they have.
Posted by: demo kid on November 7, 2008 08:32 PMUp 248 today, DOWN 900 since his election, overall. So just a 10% slide thanks to his election...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 7, 2008 10:23 PMPay attention DK
If the Bush tax cuts expire, the dividend tax rate goes back to the personal income tax rate and the old top end rate before the tax cut will be reestablished. Of course Obama said he would not renew the Bush tax cuts. 39% stares investors in the face come 2010 when the tax cuts expire; if congress does not act sooner.
Posted by: KW64 on November 8, 2008 08:02 AM@94: Now you're twisting the truth. The HIGHEST rate he was proposing was 28%, but unlike Republicans that just blindly cut taxes without regard for their actual effects, he was arguing that they needed to assess an appropriate and fair rate, probably at around 20%.
Stop being dishonest.
Posted by: demo kid on November 8, 2008 11:25 AM[url=http://78y87yu.com]my page[/url]
my page
http://78y87yu.com