• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BREAKING: Dow Jones Closes Above 13,000 For The First Time Since May 2008

Sheik Yerbuti said:
What you are calling a "sell off" was really the market collapsing in response to the economy collapsing. Something turned that around in early 2009. What was it?
Click to expand...

The same thing which happens at the bottom of every selloff. :shrug:
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
What you are calling a "sell off" was really the market collapsing in response to the economy collapsing. Something turned that around in early 2009. What was it?
Click to expand...

QE1 and QE2.
 
Tucker Case said:
Time had passed.
Click to expand...

Yep. Do I think a President can have an impact on the economy? Absolutely. However, I think that save for some massive exceptions, the impact is generally not much greater than a great number of other factors. The Senate and House both can have an impact on the economy. The media and the way things are reported can have an impact on it. The price of gas itself can impact all kind of parts of the rest of the economy. Not to mention random factors like the bursting of the housing bubble or the tech boom of the 90’s and on and on. I think in general a President has a better ability to affect short term fluctuation in the market than anything else. And I think, as shown by Bush, that trying to declare that a President’s policies singularly, or largely, are responsible for economic recovery without having any knowledge of what the future will bring is a questionable venture.

I’ve had a variety of issues with Obama, and in general I don’t believe that his polices have significantly aided in helping the economy recover. That said, the fact our economy was bad and got worse as he came into office or the fact there are still significant troubling economic factors are not things that are a large reason for my opposition to him because I don’t place those type of things on the President to such a level that would make it greatly significant.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
What you are calling a "sell off" was really the market collapsing in response to the economy collapsing. Something turned that around in early 2009. What was it?
Click to expand...

‘Sell off’ or ‘market collapse’ is merely a semantic description. What caused the reversal? That’s simple, the bear market forces yielded to the bull market forces, nothing more. EVERYTHING influences this political environment, financial issues, foreign issues (military, fiscal, social, etal), the weather, etc. You can cherry pick the one you feel most substantiates your opinion but the causes are broad.
 
Errr, the lower the stock market goes, the more viable investment becomes, which, of course, shoots up the stock market.

Eventually, the potential for investment is reached. Almost every knowledgeable investor sells stock when it's value stagnates or goes down. This then reduces the market's value. The stock goes as the tide. There are, of course, influences, such as investors not wanting to purchase say Banana stock if there is a threat that bananas are going to be outlawed or regulated more heavily, but often these changes are as temporary as the threat that sparks them.

So basically, no president has anything substantial to do with the stock market. And no, I'm not being a partisan hack, I said the same thing when other conservatives were celebrating the market under Bush. Of course, Bush wasn't even a conservative but that's beside the point.
 
Dickieboy said:
The end of the selloff by those who were protesting the results of the ’08 election...which coincidently happens every presidential election year…get ready for the next one...;)
Click to expand...

The selloff started well before the election. From it's high point from Oct 9, 2007 to Oct 9, 2008 the DJIA had dropped from about 14,165 to about 8,579 a total drop of 5,586 points.

The bottom of the market occurred March 9nd, 2009 and that low point was about 6,547 points. This means that overall there was an additional drop of 2032 points form Oct 9 2008 to March 9 2009. I don't think protesting the election results can actually be blamed for much here. The market was tanking well before the election was even really being discussed.
 
Zyphlin said:
The price of gas itself can impact all kind of parts of the rest of the economy.
Click to expand...


The price of gas is related to how good the economy is doing these days. Generally speaking, the better teh economy's doing, the higher gas prices are. The worse it's doing, the cheaper gas is.

High gas prices aren't really a bad thing, economically speaking, since hte price of gas is driven by the investor market.
 
Tucker Case said:
The price of gas is related to how good the economy is doing these days. Generally speaking, the better teh economy's doing, the higher gas prices are. The worse it's doing, the cheaper gas is.

High gas prices aren't really a bad thing, economically speaking, since hte price of gas is driven by the investor market.
Click to expand...

The economy has not improved anywhere near the rate that oil has risen.
 
Tucker Case said:
The price of gas is related to how good the economy is doing these days. Generally speaking, the better teh economy's doing, the higher gas prices are. The worse it's doing, the cheaper gas is.
Click to expand...

Which is kind of my point.

So much of our economy is tied together. Corn prices go up, the cost of feed could go up, which could make the amount of meat produced possibly go down, which could cause the amount of meat being shipped on trucks decrease, which would reduce consumption of gas, which could lead to higher gas prices, which could lead to people driving less, which could lead to fewer people visiting tourist locations, which impacts local businesses, and on and on...

The various sectors of our economy aren't a bunch of stand alone parts that are disconnected. Get a few on a downslope and everything gets drug down along with it. However, on the flip side, a few things getting up and rolling again can pull all the rest along with it. That's part of what I meant by the engine of the American Economy and why I don't tend to give huge props or huge slams against any particular externral entity for its success or failure. There are SO MANY interconnected factors at work that trying to largely put the success or failure of it on a singular source is ridiculous narrowly focused.
 
1Perry said:
The economy has not improved anywhere near the rate that oil has risen.
Click to expand...

True, but the DJIA has risen at approximately the same rate because both things are driven by investing.

But oil, as a commodity, will increase with or without the economy improving. If the economy had not tanked, our gas prices would be a good deal higher right now than they actually are.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
True, but the DJIA has risen at approximately the same rate because both things are driven by investing.
Click to expand...

No, they have been driven by Fed policy. The fundementals are not there for the percentage of rise we have had in the markets.

But oil, as a commodity, will increase with or without the economy improving. If the economy had not tanked, our gas prices would be a good deal higher right now than they actually are.
Click to expand...

Not because of fundementals.
 
1Perry said:
No, they have been driven by Fed policy. The fundementals are not there for the percentage of rise we have had in the markets.



Not because of fundementals.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by fundamentals (because I think we are saying the same thing, just in different ways)?
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
What do you mean by fundamentals (because I think we are saying the same thing, just in different ways)?
Click to expand...

Could be. I agree that oil would rise no matter what. It's no longer simply a commodity but an investment vehicle. It's going to go up not because there are shortages but rather, it's an easy buck.
 
1Perry said:
Could be. I agree that oil would rise no matter what. It's no longer simply a commodity but an investment vehicle. It's going to go up not because there are shortages but rather, it's an easy buck.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We're on the same page.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I remember when the stock market boomed under Bush and all the libs said it meant Bush was helping the rich and everyone else was flipping burgers, talk about flipping, LMAO.
Click to expand...

Really???? Bush stock market boom. Hmmmm.... I must have been fishing that day and missed it. My stocks went to **** wihen Bush was sitting in the oval office in Crawford. But, they're back now and going strong.

Thank you Obama The Chosen One. :2rofll:


I miss my 19% returns I was getting when Monica was blowin' Bill.
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
I remember when the stock market boomed under Bush and all the libs said it meant Bush was helping the rich and everyone else was flipping burgers, talk about flipping, LMAO.
Click to expand...

Yeah it boomed, but it also did this...

bush_stocks1.jpg
 
wait its back down below 13K, what did the President do to cause the drop?
Nothing. The market has a mind of its own.
I will bet it go back up, then it will drop, then go back up.

Thanking Obama is not needed.
 
1Perry said:
It isn't as simple as that. It's none of my business what a bank does with their money. It also should not be my responsibility when they screw up. If they want to risk their money, fine, but don't ask us to insure their depositors.
Click to expand...

By removing the half century firewall that separated investments banks, we allowed the creation of banks too big to fail. If the firewall had still been in place, we could have let the investment banks fail without risking the commercial banks and the economy.
 
Ikari said:
It's not libertarian, it's just math. As soon as the **** hit the fan, look at how quickly Congress in a bipartisan movement came together to take our tax dollars and give it to the very people who cause the mess in the first place. Look at how quickly that occurred. The banks were hurting, Wall Street was hurting, and BAM! Government bailout.
Click to expand...

There was no choice, as we had stupidly allowed investment banks and commercial banks to combine.

But Middle Class was still hurting Lower Class was still hurting. And what happened then? Once their buddies in the Banks and Wall Street were taken care of, back to partisan bull****, back to bickering, back to pointing fingers at each other relentlessly, back to not doing anything for the very People they’re to represent. And for YEARS this continued, YEARS we endured, YEARS we tried to recoup and move on. And after YEARS of Congress and the President doing NOTHING to help the Middle Class, the Lower Class, the People who were actually suffering; the economy finally starts recovering. Not because of anything Government did, but rather because given enough time it would have recovered on its own.

Take a positive and make it a negative? Hell no. If someone is applying an inverse amplifier of unity gain, it’s those who think Obama or Congress or any of those bastards had anything to do with this recovery. They left us out in the rain, kicked us to the curb and let us fend for ourselves. The Banks and Wall Street…they got the attention, they got the reaction, they got our money. The rest of us…treated as cattle and nothing more. Some infinite supply of tax payer dollars to be dolled out at their convenience to their buddies when they see fit; that’s it. And this economic downturn has proven just that.

I honestly do not know how anyone can look at the actions of government and the Banks and Wall Street during our economic meltdown and NOT see who government is beholden to. It’s not the People, not anymore. It’s all their richer buddies running the financial districts. That’s it. And that was well demonstrated by both the left’s and the right’s reactions to the economic disaster.
Click to expand...

Apparently you have missed HR 1489 with 58 co-sponsors that would once again establish the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks, and you missed the tax cuts for the middle class and the extension of unemployment benefits, and the American Jobs Act, and the Stimulus funds to the states that saved millions of middle class jobs.
 
Fletch said:
I think the average time between recessions is around six years. Since the last one ended three years ago, the next president will likely have to combat a downturn while simultaneously struggling to reign in the massive debt that was the response to this past recession. That should be fun.
Click to expand...

We had no major financial meltdowns the half century the Glass Steagall Act was in effect.
 
Catawba said:
There was no choice, as we had stupidly allowed investment banks and commercial banks to combine.
Click to expand...

Free market says they made their choice and the winds of fate swept them upon the rocky shores of reality. Not "Well if you screw up and have to face the music for us, I don't care how many billions of tax payer dollars it takes to keep you afloat....we'll do it!". We had a system set up to handle this sort of thing, bankruptcy can be handled through the courts.

Catawba said:
Apparently you have missed HR 1489 with 58 co-sponsors that would once again establish the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks, and you missed the tax cuts for the middle class and the extension of unemployment benefits, and the American Jobs Act, and the Stimulus funds to the states that saved millions of middle class jobs.
Click to expand...

We'll see if Glass-Steagall is ever fully reestablished. As for the rest, those were band aids at best. They had to extend unemployment because we had severely high unemployment sustained over a very long period of time.
 
Now, let's look at the S&P 500 since Obama took over...

Capture.JPG
 
Catawba said:
By removing the half century firewall that separated investments banks, we allowed the creation of banks too big to fail.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. We should note, those actions were bi-partisan.

If the firewall had still been in place, we could have let the investment banks fail without risking the commercial banks and the economy.
Click to expand...

No, we could have anyway but we chose not to. What would have happened is that they wouldn't have made the mess to start with.
 
Ikari said:
Free market says they made their choice and the winds of fate swept them upon the rocky shores of reality. Not "Well if you screw up and have to face the music for us, I don't care how many billions of tax payer dollars it takes to keep you afloat....we'll do it!". We had a system set up to handle this sort of thing, bankruptcy can be handled through the courts.
Click to expand...


The courts couldn't fix the economic collapse that would have occurred if we had allowed commercial bank failure. What we learned from the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act is that the free market does not keep adequate checks on greedy investment bankers that don't mind risking peoples life savings and taxpayer dollars to fatten their pockets.

We'll see if Glass-Steagall is ever fully reestablished.
Click to expand...

I think a better approach would be that we demand it be reestablished.
 
1Perry said:
I don't disagree. We should note, those actions were bi-partisan.
Click to expand...

As should be its reestablishment, but the reality is that of the 58 co-sponsors in the house, only one is a Republican.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom