Where is the US economy headed?

@okie,

What makes you think I'm not proud of it, Okie? I continually remind you and others that I have socialistic beliefs.

But you intend it as a smear. Don't you?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
cyclops, you are typical of leftists. You address my honest and factual answers and call them a smear.

Fun.

"Bush is a fascist. I have reached this obvious conclusion from looking at his actions, at his philosophy and at his biography prior to becoming President. If you don't agree, then don't, but I see you as one of two possibilities, one you are very naive, or two - you are just like Bush, you are also a fascist but you are not totally honest about who you are, or you are just a very confused person, politically."

See how this works. Oh yes, and if you complain that that's just I smear, I'd have this answer for you:

"You are typical of rightwing nutjobs. You address my honest and factual answers and call them a smear."

oe, that is one of the most pathetic posts you have ever written. Assessing someone as a socialist is not akin to assessing someone as a fascist, you have lost it, totally. rightwing nutjobs, LOL, you are a leftwing nutjob. You call somebody a rightwing nutjob for believing in capitalism, get a life, oe.

Christ, you're dense.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

.... The argument here is based upon the election result being the only factor in play. Which is ridiculous.

That was not my argument, spendius, just so you have that clear.

0 Replies

That's good eh?

One says "get a life." And the other "Christ you're dense." The ubiquitous deployment of the assertion always ends up there. Or in a shoot-out.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What makes you think I'm not proud of it, Okie? I continually remind you and others that I have socialistic beliefs.

But you intend it as a smear. Don't you?

Cycloptichorn

No, I intend it as an honest debate about philosophies, by correctly identifying policies and politicians, in terms of which direction they wish to govern. Come on, be honest, and get off your high horse, and own up to your politics, be honest, if that is possible.

1 Reply

@okie,

Cyclo has no political philosophy okie. If he had, as a socialist, he would be more concerned about Brazilian mothers cutting sugar cane at $2 a 12 hour day so that gas is cheaper and greener in his tank when he drives to the diner or the ball game.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Cyclo has no political philosophy okie. If he had, as a socialist, he would be more concerned about Brazilian mothers cutting sugar cane at $2 a 12 hour day so that gas is cheaper and greener in his tank when he drives to the diner or the ball game.

Cyclops is proud of the fact that he has not owned a car, or commonly drives a car, but maybe he has one now or drives more now, I don't know.

I would like to clarify something I believe about Obama. I think he is a socialist at heart, or some form of Marxist, but he knows that he is hamstrung with the framework given him, so he will be content to try to be an agent of change toward his foundational philosophy but he knows the whole ball of wax will not happen quickly. He also knows that events could change the timetable, either speed it up or slow it down, but he will work within the framework given him. Thus, he will not be totally honest about his foundational beliefs and the endgame that he may desire. That is not only my take on it, but that view is shared by millions in this country who have studied him, a man that is highly problematic in who he is and what he wants to do. He is not an open book, so people are left guessing.

I admit that I could be wrong, but one must judge Obama not by simply what he says, because his actions and associations are not totally explained by what he says. There is an inconsistency in his life, contradictions.

So what do I think Obama will be able to do. I think it will be an incremental encroachment into any or all sectors of activity in this country, including the press. I hope he doesn't accomplish a whole lot, and I hope the responsibility of being president is an awakening experience for him, a transformational thing, wherein he ends up proving me wrong. I would love to be wrong about Obama.

Obama has not been a real doer so far, but if he has a willing press and a willing lopsided Congress, he could be hard to thwart if he actually tries to do anything that he wants to do. As far as I can determine, he does not like anybody in the press that doesn't give him favorable stories, he will not talk to many other conservative pundits, he will not, he is not interested in debate, or any serious questions.

1 Reply

@okie,

you should look up from your partisan bunker Okie, and notice one thing: the American economy is turning to **** at an increasingly rapid rate. You need to pray to what ever God you believe in that Obama can lead a way out of this mess. Whether he is a socialist or not does not matter a all.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

okie must be immune to all the lost jobs, lost homes, lost cars, loss in their retirement plan(s), and loss of logic.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

the alarming thing is not what has happened, but that the numbers all point to a future depression. There is no leadership in Washington to change the direction, thus a depression we shall have. There is a slim chance that after Jan 20 2009 there will be time to save the day, but right now this looks exactly like that last days of the Hoover administration. Between now and jan 20 a lot more destruction will take place, like FDR Obama will be tasked with recovery from depression, there will be no chance to prevent a depression.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

as a taste:

Quote:

FDIC Seizes Three Banks, Expanding Loan-Relief Effort

By Binyamin Appelbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 22, 2008; Page D01

Federal regulators seized three banks last night, including Downey Savings and Loan Association, a large California mortgage lender, expanding what is by far the most expensive crop of bank failures in modern American history and indicating that the pace of failures is increasing.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which took control of the banks, said holders of about $1.9 billion in Downey mortgage loans who have fallen behind on their payments would now be eligible for reduced monthly payments to help them avoid foreclosure. The unprecedented move in connection with a bank failure expands the agency's controversial loan-modification program, which is opposed by other parts of the Bush administration.

Downey, with $12.8 billion in assets, is the third-largest bank to fail this year, after Washington Mutual and IndyMac Bancorp. All three institutions were large mortgage lenders focused on the California market and regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/21/AR2008112104099.html?hpid=topnews

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

you should look up from your partisan bunker Okie, and notice one thing: the American economy is turning to **** at an increasingly rapid rate. You need to pray to what ever God you believe in that Obama can lead a way out of this mess. Whether he is a socialist or not does not matter a all.

Do you think evolutionary principles are in order hawk? A leader is only that--a leader. You all have to lead a way out of this "mess". He has disclaimed Messiah status already.

1 Reply

@spendius,

the American people are more than ever sheep, they will go with whomever has the most compelling persona of leadership. Did you not notice all of the effort recent American presidents have put onto the staging of their acts and words? Looking the part is everything, Americans lack the education and the willingness to look deeper.

It will take a generation of hardship for Americans to regain contact with traditional American traits such as hard work, responsibility for ones behaviour, desire to leave the kids a world better than we found it. If you are expecting a fixing of America from the bottom up you will be disappointed, the masses lack the tools for the job (education, willingness to delay gratification, the ability to suffer hardship with character, the ability to persevere through hardship)

The leadership has been weak and incompetent because the individuals are weak and incompetent....this does not change until there has been an improvement in the American charactor. Only pain over a considerable number of years will teach Americans what they need to learn.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

I heard one reference re the markets big rise today: Obama's apparent appointment of Timothy Guitner (sp?) to Secretary of Treasury. He has served as the head of the Fed Reserve of NY, has not been tainted by working on Wall Street, instead working within the government for a number of years.

rjb, I am one that has blamed the market tanking, only part of it, but particularly the two days following the election where it tanked almost 8 or 900 points as I recall, I blamed it on the election. I was ridiculed by partisan Democrats here.

I picked up the paper this morning, and yes, in accord with your post, the headline said market rises almost 500 points in the last hour, based on the selection of the Secretary of Treasury. Now if AP can do that, I do not recall any headline proclaiming "Market Crashes Following Obama Election." Funny thing, I just never saw any headline like that. Proving again the press is totally biased. No proof is needed, it just continues as an embedded mindset.

I believe the market right now is suffering from many factors, but one big one is uncertainty, uncertainty created by the election, because people do not know what the administration will do, and I stick to my assessment that millions of people are uncertain whether this president actually believes in free market and the ingenuity of American business, and will allow business to reap the rewards of their own hard work and success, or will he continue to espouse an adversarial relationship with business as a result of him thinking any profits belong to his voters and the government.

Other factors brewing for decades have been overpaid union work in Detroit and elsewhere, over regulation and over taxation of American businesses, driving business out of the country, and overspending by government. We now have a government that does not believe in drilling for our own oil, which is a microcosm of the problems that have been created by Democratic congress for a very long time. Call me a partisan, people, but parties espouse policies, and policies have effects, no escaping it. Quoting Rev. Wright, "the chickens are coming home to roost," and have been for decades now.

3 Replies

@okie,

when reporters talk about what is moving the markets they are relaying what the traders are telling them that they care about. The days after the election they said that they were selling based upon fundamentals being lousy, when Obama named his guy they said that the where buying because picking a good guy gives them hope that fundamentals will improve with leadership from Washington.

Your allegation of a Journalistic conspiracy is far fetched. Sometimes a rock is just a rock.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

It's not surprising that the current economic situation is being equated to the Hoover administration. Bush produced the least amount of jobs during his eight years in office, and the conservatives wanted four more years of it with McCain. As the saying goes, there's no cure for stupid. All one needs to do is do a Google search on which party administrations helped the majority in this country, but the conservatives still hasn't learned the simple lessons of history.

As for Obama, he's got a tough road ahead, but he seems to be selecting the best people for his cabinet - those with proven track records. That's the best he can do for now, and his expert advisers to direct his economic agenda. It'll take more than four years to recover from this Bush debacle.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It is not the numbers so much as the psychology. I know that we are coming off of a stretch of incompentence led by Greenspan that falsely believed that psychology does not matter much, that it is always held in check by rational evaluation of the economy (numbers). Our current situation looks like the Hoover years because of the supreme lack of confidence in leadership out of Washington....Washington has no plan on how to get back to stability.

Reports are that Obama has his plan, we are going to spend many hundreds of Billions of dollars fixing the infrastructure of the nation, which is great because it has been neglected for over a generation. It will take a least a year for Obama to show that he has the political muscle to get the job done, only then will the markets calm down.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Cyclo has no political philosophy okie. If he had, as a socialist, he would be more concerned about Brazilian mothers cutting sugar cane at $2 a 12 hour day so that gas is cheaper and greener in his tank when he drives to the diner or the ball game.

This is untrue. I am a Liberal Democrat with socialist leanings. And Okie is correct; I don't drive a car, either to the diner or a ball game. I ride my bicycle or take public transportation. So please lay your false accusations of lack of concern for the plight of the downtrodden on someone else.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

rjb, I am one that has blamed the market tanking, only part of it, but particularly the two days following the election where it tanked almost 8 or 900 points as I recall, I blamed it on the election. I was ridiculed by partisan Democrats here.

I picked up the paper this morning, and yes, in accord with your post, the headline said market rises almost 500 points in the last hour, based on the selection of the Secretary of Treasury. Now if AP can do that, I do not recall any headline proclaiming "Market Crashes Following Obama Election." Funny thing, I just never saw any headline like that. Proving again the press is totally biased. No proof is needed, it just continues as an embedded mindset.

Okie, the AP fell for the same stupid pat explanation that many of you right-wingers have fallen for.

Would you like to know the real reason the market went way up the other day?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081121/fdic_bank_guarantees.html

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The FDIC will guarantee up to $1.4 trillion in U.S. banks' debt for more than three years as part of the government's financial rescue plan.

The directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. voted Friday to approve the plan, which is meant to break the crippling logjam in bank-to-bank lending.

The FDIC will provide temporary insurance for loans between banks -- except for those for 30 days or less -- guaranteeing the new debt in the event of payment default by the issuing bank.

The market started surging up before Obama announced the Treasury Secretary pick. This development has the potential to put the taxpayer on the hook for a whole host of failed banks, loans and other financial devices. It basically guarantees that many private investors will not take huge losses even in this tough environment.

---

This is the folly of assumptions, Okie. You are looking at things through this political lens and assuming that the displeasure or approval of Obama that you feel is reflected in our markets, to the point where people are making decisions involving millions of dollars based upon those opinions. This is irrational and I doubt you could find a single trader who suddenly, once they found out who the new treasury sec. was going to be, decided that now was the time to start buying up stocks.

Please recognize that the president has very little to do with the stock market, and the president-elect even less so. It's not logical to assume that these professionals are making decisions based upon such things as appointments. But that's what happens when you take an opinion and go casting about for evidence to support it, instead of the other way around.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

I would suggest, Okie, that it is naive to attribute one day of the market's volatility to one event. The mass media, with only a few seconds to cover a complicated story does that. And bloggers with a political agenda on both sides are eager to do that also. The appointment of Tim Geithner to be the designated new Treasury guy was probably not as much of a factor as other issues. I would argue that the decline after 11/4 was probably not a function of Obama winning as much as it was some disclosure of a real-time economic event. I personally prefer to stick to the fundamentals of the economic news of the day as the driver.
I am amazed at what has been taking place during the last hour of trading in, for example, the Dow. Both up and down. Tremendous moves in the last hour. Friday could be attributable to investors covering their short position before the weekend. I don't know.

With regards to your last paragraphs about "uncertainty" I have no problem with you being concerned about where Obama's policies might take us in the next few years. I have no problem with you being "partisan" anymore than you should have a problem with my believing that McCain's policies would not have been good had he been elected.
I would differ from you, or would jump to a different thought, on your use of the word "uncertainty." Rather, I would use the word "certainty." Many Americans may not have much formal education in economics, but they probably know someone who has lost a job and can't find a new one. They know someone who has or is in danger of going into foreclosure. They see their bank suddenly change names virtually overnight. That is their "certainty" that something ain't right.

2 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know