Where is the US economy headed?

LOL

The gains for the last 6 years have been based on speculation and not the 'actual health' of the companies involved. Where have you been?



This is exactly why we are seeing what the article describes: lots of movement in small, low-value stocks. People are looking for investments which are not as flashy as the 'big boys' but still post solid gains. In fact, this has not been a bad thing at all for many smaller companies and businesses.

Cycloptichorn

okie, What does this chart on the S&P 500 tell you which shows activity for the past two years?

It tells me it corresponds to the election and activities of Obama. What does it tell you?

Or that things went down hill after we voted out an incompetent GOP majority and voted in a more incompetent Democrat majority?

You can't even interpret graphs correctly! It shows that the current financial crisis began with Bush, and continued into Obama's term.

It also conflicts 100-degrees from your interpretation of "people waiting in the wings" to get involved in the stock market.

You really are ignorant!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Is-Another-Market-Meltdown-etfguide-1339500003.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=

Includes a look at S&P trends, which this author concludes are onimous...

Well, read Hawkeye's post and link, which I think pretty much agrees with my take, we have investors that want to be optimistic, but the market can't quite get traction due to current malaise, and overshadowing the current situation is a long term outlook that could be even worse.

I would add an observation I have posted numerous times before. If we had a president and a Congress that would reign in spending and provide a favorable non-intrusive climate to the business world, the business world would pull us out of this mess. Government should not have the authority to try, nor does it have the power to turn it around. Just a basic fact and philosophy for which there is no fix until we elect new leaders that understand this.

okie, How do you arrive at such a conclusion? People are losing jobs and their homes; how are they waiting in the wings to buy into the stock market?

Wages are being cut if they're lucky enough to have jobs; many are cutting back wages and work days. How does that translate into more people having money to buy stocks, when many more middle class families and the poor are waiting at food kitchens to have a meal?

You have no common sense or logic; most have lost 40% of their investments last year. How does that translate into "people are waiting on the side lines?"

Your brain needs a tune-up or make-over; probably both.

I think there is alot of money in cd's and other low interest bearing places to park money, and there are people with money that would be willing to put money into the market if they believed it was market driven, not government driven, if they believed business could once again believe that they could reap the fruits of their work. Also, the people that currently are in the market, you need those people and entities to stay in there instead of jumping out constantly in order to establish more long term stability in the market.

Although I am not rich, I have a little money to play with, and that is my mindset, I am very skeptical of investing in alot of businesses or sectors, given the meddling by the government. I know other people with the same attitude. Example of meddling, I heard of another one today, Obama is going to give money to people to buy new cars, which is another monumental case of meddling, and I would not put it past him to skew it to GM, government motors. Stuff like this has unintended consequences now and later. And it opens things up for more corruption, people in the know in government can use their knowledge to make a killing with investing, a form of insider trading, which has alwayes been around, but is now expanded exponentially with more government intervention.

okie wrote:

Please explain to us in plain English how the government is "meddling in businesses" to effect our total economy? How much of the government meddling effects our GDP for the worse? Please list the names of companies by government meddling, and how they are negatively impacted, and how much worse off our economy is? And finally, how that impacts the stock market?

There are many examples, but one the energy business. It is difficult to know exactly all the incentives that will be going to various energy sources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal, vs nuclear, oil and gas. It is also difficult to know how much more the profitable sectors of the energy business, and companies, how they will be taxed further to either take away profits or reward things that the government wants. The energy business is now being manipulated in ways outside normal market driven factors. Cap and trade could be very tough on coal companies, but it is difficult to know how much of Obama's initiatives will be enacted.

I realize there are always uncertainties in the market, but historically most of those uncertainties were market driven, with some minimal ones coming from tax policies, etc. But in the past, tax policies were more unbiased than they are now becoming, or promise to become under an Obama administration, wherein they seem to be picking and choosing which technology is most attractive, to them personally. With one stroke of a pen, Obama can cause drastic changes in the value of a business.

I heard today that Obama wants to pay $4,500 to anyone buying a new car. What if he comes out a few months from now to tax SUV's an extra $5,000. Nothing is beyond this man's imagination, nothing is off limits, in my opinion.

I am trying to be nice and offer an opinion to you, but I suspect you won't accept it because it doesn't fit your template. Sorry, facts are stubborn things, ci, and almost everyone should agree this president has his hand in business more than any president in history. It is unprecedented, and that is very clear. If you can't see, then its your problem, not mine.

Is there any real evidence to back this up, or are you just sort of extrapolating your personal worldview to America at large?



You don't say.

Cycloptichorn

okie wrote:

What facts have you actually presented? You use words like "it's difficult to know exactly; it's also difficult to know; and how they will be taxed further..."

Those are your facts? You also stated:
How so, compared to the past? Please provide us a list of a) how they're being manipulated, and b) a list of what you consider "outside normal market driven factors?"

I don't want "nice." I want reasoned, common sense, explanations of your claims and counter-claims.

I gave them to you. Read the posts, ci. Also, I would recommend you start reading and absorbing all the news out there, as the information is abundant in regard to the subject. I cannot write a book for you, not enough time, but I have given you an outline. Absorb it, then further educate yourself on the subject.

Yeah, about that? Studying history and the available information in the news today didn't support your stated position. That's where we get confused.

See, I wonder if you have bothered to do much research on the history of the energy industry, and the sorts of claims they made about how regulation would 'kill the industry' and 'raise energy prices' on every single piece of regulation which ever had anything to do with them.

For some reason you seem to pretend that this time, the industry that cried wolf is telling the truth. Why do you believe this?

Cycloptichorn

okie's brain has already absorbed all the false information on energy, and thinks he's capable of providing better plans for our country over Obama's team of experts.

He doesn't answer questions I ask, because he's not capable of providing us with reasoned, well thought out, realistic answers.

okie's so-called "outline" provides no solution on anything. My education, compared to many of you who babble on these threads, were top-notch.

You (okie) lack the most basic understandings of economics or politics, and your posts are based on your personal misguided, uninformed, ignorant, opinions.

When I post any opinion, I try to explain the basis for them, and provide the best I can links of articles or what I consider based on how I view the issue/topic from reading many materials and my education.

Yours' are born out of your imaginary brain that provides no common knowledge from the real world.

I worked in the industry at one time, long time ago, and in fact the tree huggers did shut down building of more nuclear generating facilities in this country, and further regulations and controls pretty much shut the progress down.

The industry told the truth then, and still is, when they say restrictions on where you can drill will cause oil and gas to rise in price faster than they would otherwise.

If you want accurate information about the energy business, do not consult a Chicago community organizer, I would suggest instead you go talk to the people that know something about it. Bush and Cheney would be a couple of examples.

"Jobless pain continues in most states in May

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Signs unemployment pains may be easing in individual U.S. states in April disappeared by May, when jobless rates jumped in 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to data released on Friday.

Michigan again reported the highest unemployment rate of 14.1 percent, followed by Oregon, which notched 12.4 percent, its greatest on record, the U.S. Labor Department said.

Not only did Michigan hold the highest spot in terms of unemployment, a position it has had for 25 of the last 26 months, but the state also experienced the largest monthly increase in its rate as two American auto behemoths -- General Motors and Chrysler -- struggled."

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE55I58K20090619

Okie- Note the polls. They are beginning to turn away from Obama's policies.

JUNE 18, 2009 Public Wary of Deficit.
By LAURA MECKLER -_Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON -- After a fairly smooth opening, President Barack Obama faces new concerns among the American public about the budget deficit and government intervention in the economy as he works to enact ambitious health and energy legislation, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

These rising doubts threaten to overshadow the president's personal popularity and his agenda, in what may be a new phase of the Obama presidency.

"The public is really moving from evaluating him as a charismatic and charming leader to his specific handling of the challenges facing the country," says Peter D. Hart, a Democratic pollster who conducts the survey with Republican Bill McInturff. Going forward, he says, Mr. Obama and his allies "are going to have to navigate in pretty choppy waters."

The poll suggests Mr. Obama faces challenges on multiple fronts, including growing concerns about government spending and the bailout of auto companies. A majority of people also disapprove of his decision to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Nearly seven in 10 survey respondents said they had concerns about federal interventions into the economy, including Mr. Obama's decision to take an ownership stake in General Motors Corp., limits on executive compensation and the prospect of more government involvement in health care. The negative feeling toward the GM rescue was reflected elsewhere in the survey as well.



See the full results of the poll Archive: Previous WSJ/NBC News polls More interactive graphics and photos A solid majority -- 58% -- said that the president and Congress should focus on keeping the budget deficit down, even if takes longer for the economy to recover.

Laura Zamora, 40, of Orange, Calif., voted for Mr. Obama but says she is frustrated by the economy and finds her support for the president waning. She says she's facing a possible layoff as a local government worker in California.

"He's bailing out the private sector. He's putting all kinds of money into the private sector," says Mrs. Zamora. "The money should be going to social programs, not to bailing out banks and GM. It should go to people who are unemployed."

The survey of 1,008 adults, conducted Friday to Monday, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points for the full sample.

The results come after weeks of Republican hammering of Mr. Obama for spending too much and taking on too many issues, arguments that appear to be resonating with some voters.

Mr. Obama's overall job approval and personal ratings have slipped, particularly among independent voters. His job approval rating now stands at 56%, down from 61% in April. Among independents, it dropped from nearly two-to-one approval to closely divided.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, President Obama acknowledged the toll.

"If you have an argument made frequently enough -- whether it's true or not -- it has some impact," he said Tuesday. "If you want to attack a Democratic president, how are you going to attack him? Well, you're going to talk about how he wants more government and he wants to socialize medicine and he's going to be oppressive towards business. I mean, that's pretty standard fare."

Mr. Obama ran down some of problems he said he had been forced to deal with, and said the real argument is about whether to take on health care and energy.

"I suppose we could just stand pat and not do anything on either of those fronts...That's been tried for four or five decades. And in both energy and health care, the problems have gotten worse, not better," he said.

By some measures, the public seems to agree. Only 37% of people said that Mr. Obama is taking on too many issues. A solid majority -- 60% -- said that he is focused on many issues because the country is facing so many problems.

The president and his advisers appear to be aware of the peril they face over the deficit. That helps explain why Mr. Obama has emphasized his effort to cut health-care costs over his effort to expand health-insurance coverage, and why he has promised that the cost of any health-care package will be covered by spending cuts or tax increases.

When asked what the most important economic issue facing the country is, 24% cited the deficit, vs. just 11% who named health care.

On the economy, the poll had some bright spots, with a rising expectation of recovery. The portion of people who think the economy will improve over the next 12 months rose to 46% from 38% in April. And 20% predicted the recession would end in six months to a year, nearly double the comparable figure from April.

Still, overall, the public finds the economy in dreadful shape today, and people living in the Midwest were much less likely to express optimism about the future than those on the coasts.

On health care, the public remains open to persuasion. Without being told anything specific about the Obama plan in the survey, about a third of people said it's a good idea, about a third said it's a bad idea and the rest had no opinion. When given several details of his approach, 55% said they favored it, versus 35% who were opposed.

There was also support for the Democratic push to let people sign up for a public health-care plan that would compete with private companies, one of the toughest issues in the health-care debate. Three in four people said a public plan is extremely or quite important. But when told the arguments for and against the plan, a smaller portion, 47%, agreed with arguments in support of the plan, with 42% agreeing with the arguments against it.

At the same time, nearly half the participants said it was very or somewhat likely that their employer would drop private coverage if a public plan were available.

But majorities oppose plans to tax health benefits, even if the taxes only apply to particularly generous plans. The public is divided about cuts to Medicare.

Regarding Mr. Obama's pick to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, half the public said she's qualified for the post, versus just 13% who said she's not qualified. That's equivalent to numbers in November 2005 for Samuel Alito, Mr. Bush's nominee who was subsequently confirmed to the court.

One in three people said her decisions and views seem out of the mainstream, vs. 28% who say they are in the mainstream. The rest had no opinion. But overall support for her confirmation is strong.

Rassmussen Reports show that Obama is losing support slowly but surely.

Note:

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 34% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-three percent (33%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of +1. Only once (two weeks ago) has his rating been lower (see trends)