Market to Obama: I'm Just Not That Into You

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Rent a car companies http://all-car-rental.com/california/San%20Jose/
Car rental.

Jeaccusia of AL 9:51PM April 07, 2010

aocdEa

Aqfgkjho of TX 2:31PM July 14, 2009

Let's just step back a moment and set the stage for this article. But not the viewpoint of a Wall St. bubblehead. It's the 21st century and the current masters of the universe-the guys with not only the corporate and fiscal power but the guys who really have the political power as well- the guys on Wall St. They've had 8 glorious years of unfettered freedom and are currently busy extorting a few trillion dollars out of the government because they are "too big to fail".. Their sense of entitlement knows no bounds as this article clearly shows. The last 8 years have created a monster in my opinion and I think it's time to have it beheaded by regulation, governance, and criminal prosecution. Personally I don't give a rat's ass about Wall St. When the "investor class" can pony up the few trillion dollars they are so busily extorting from the taxpayer presently I might have a change of heart. Until that time occurs I hope the investor class gets regulated and taxed into oblivion. Just maybe then they will have to back to earning an honest living. The present world financial situation is unprecedented and no one really knows how it is all going to work out but as long as the Wall St bubbleheads continue to have an weighted say in how things should be I guarantee that things will only get worse. 8 years was only enough greed to make most of them into blind automatons endlessly repeating " more!, more! more!...

Mbuna of HI 2:34AM March 04, 2009

THE STOCK MARKET IS SUPPOSED TO BE BASED ON EARNINGS, NOT ON CHEAP MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES, OR GAMBLING WITH SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY. WALL STREET ANALYSTS ALMOST ALWAYS BLAME GOVERNMENT FOR EVERYTHING. THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, HOWEVER, SEEM TO HAVE LOST FAITH IN WALL STREET'S ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING BUT CREATE ASSET BUBBLES. WHEN THESE BUBBLES BURST, WALL STREET IS TYPICALLY USELESS. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY ANSWERS EXCEPT WHINING ABOUT WHY THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T PROPPING UP THE STOCK MARKET. THIS COUNTRY DID QUITE WELL BEFORE THE DOW JONES INDUSTRIALS EXISTED. MOST OF THESE FIRMS AREN'T CAPABLE OF MAKING A PROFIT WITHOUT CORPORATE WELFARE, MILITARY SPENDING, AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE'S EASY MONEY POLICY. WHAT WALL STREET FIRMS NEED IS THE END OF LIMITED LIABILITY, SO THE INCOMPETENT CASINO GAMBLERS DON'T WALK AWAY WITH ANYTHING WHEN THEIR BUBBLES BURST.

Bill Rush of IL 2:00AM March 04, 2009

THE STOCK MARKET IS SUPPOSED TO BE BASED ON EARNINGS, NOT ON CHEAP MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES, OR GAMBLING WITH SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY. WALL STREET ANALYSTS ALMOST ALWAYS BLAME GOVERNMENT FOR EVERYTHING. THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, HOWEVER, SEEM TO HAVE LOST FAITH IN WALL STREET'S ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING BUT CREATE ASSET BUBBLES. WHEN THESE BUBBLES BURST, WALL STREET IS TYPICALLY USELESS. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY ANSWERS EXCEPT WHINING ABOUT WHY THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T PROPPING UP THE STOCK MARKET. THIS COUNTRY DID QUITE WELL BEFORE THE DOW JONES INDUSTRIALS EXISTED. MOST OF THESE FIRMS AREN'T CAPABLE OF MAKING A PROFIT WITHOUT CORPORATE WELFARE, MILITARY SPENDING, AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE'S EASY MONEY POLICY. WHAT WALL STREET FIRMS NEED IS LIMITED LIABILITY, SO THE INCOMPETENT CASINO GAMBLERS DON'T WALK AWAY WITH ANYTHING WHEN THEIR BUBBLES BURST.

Bill Rush of IL 1:57AM March 04, 2009

"Obama is going to be a great president."
Based upon?????
"He is investing for the long term."
By not allowing a single earmark in his Porkulus Package?
"With employment at ~7-7.5 percent and growing, financial system idle, absolutly no manufacturing base, housing market none existing...are you kidding me."
No Manufacturing Base? Better check out the National Manufacturers Association website...there you'll find few thousand companies that would beg to differ.
"The stock market was over valued to begin with i.e. PE's in 30-50... wow."
May be true, but P/E always seem to shoot to the moon whenever profits start to evaporate...With the prospects of taxes increasing guess what happens to profits?
"The past 30 years we have been investing is BS..."
Like your computer, iPod, internet, medical advances, and thousands of things that make your life better?
"No health care and cost rising..."
Stop by any emergency room, they'll supply the healthcare. Costs are rising, maybe excessive regulation and litigation are also responsible?
"Forget about education, ..."
Apparently you have:) Just Rant!!!!!

Bubba Gump of AL 1:32AM March 04, 2009

Obama is going to be a great president. He is investing for the long term. Stock Market only looks 6 months ahead. With employment at ~7-7.5 percent and growing, financial system idle, absolutly no manufacturing base, housing market none existing...are you kidding me. The stock market was over valued to begin with i.e. PE's in 30-50... wow. Wake up! The past 30 years we have been investing is BS... How many B2 bombers do we need... How many wars with no end... No health care and cost rising... Forget about education, and energy. Just consume!!!!
And you want solution from Obama in 45 days!!! Wow, talk about short vision... it must be a stock market crowd. Always looking for a quick fix.

K-force of CA 1:09AM March 04, 2009

Miller's plan is a continuation of the Ponzi scheme that in 1940 had 42 workers taxed lightly for each retiree. In 1950 there were 20 per and now there are three.
Congress now collects about $785 billion in Social Security taxes from about 163 million workers and sends out $585 billion to 50 million Social Security recipients. According to the Social Security trustees, the surplus goes in to a fund for future retirees, but in reality Congress spends it.
Only fools and those looking for government handouts would allow Miller and his cronies to 'confiscate' something they have control over. His plan may look good to people who believe in fairy tales but not to thinking, responsible adults.

harkin of CA 12:58AM March 04, 2009

I believe there were considerable problems in the markets and the economy in 1982 and 1987. Therefore, the markets hated Reagan twice as much as they hate Obama.
And let's not forget that the markets began to slide long before Obama's election. Therefore the markets hated Bush, too.

Panskeptic of MT 12:55AM March 04, 2009

I agree that the problems with AIG were a cause of the market's tumble on Monday. But the market was reacting not only to AIG's problems, but also to the fact that the government evidently does not know how to ameliorate the crisis.
Moreover, the market had also declined significantly even before AIG reported those huge losses/write-downs. Obviously, there are myriad forces to which the market is responding, so to say it is reacting just to Obama is, perhaps, a simplification.
That said, Obama's proposed budget and the stimulus package have done little to instill confidence, and with good reason. The stimulus package is haphazard, with manifold handouts and embedded entitlements. Importantly, it does very little to enhance job security, except for, say, teachers (who already enjoyed enhanced protection because of the monopolistic position of teachers' unions). And Obama's proposed budget will punish small businesses (which are often taxed as individual income earners). Given the economic problems, the top priority should be job creation, not expansion of entitlements.
And businesses create jobs. Obviously, the government can play a role when aggregate demand is sufficiently depressed and there is a severe under-utilization of resources in the economy. But we're not at that point, yet. Thus, the government's response should focus on propping up businesses.
If the government cut the corporate tax rate, that would leave more money in corporations' coffers. When corporations have more money, they can afford to keep their current employees. And, by the way, the employees who are working at a given corporation are presumably somewhat proficient at what they do; in other words, from a societal perspective, the resources of those people are allocated efficiently. If people get laid off and then either don't work or take a job in an area in which they are less proficient, that's not good. If corporations have to pay less in tax, they can afford to keep more people working, which means people will be less fearful of losing their jobs. And job security creates an environment in which people are willing to spend the money they earn, rather than saving it, thereby enabling the people/business whom they patronize to keep their jobs, as well.
Cutting the personal income tax rate accomplishes a similar end: even if people are fearful of losing their jobs, if they can keep more money in their pocket, they'll spend more, assuming they save a constant rate.

J of NY 11:36PM March 03, 2009