question everything
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-29-08 11:17 AM
Original message |
S&P (a better index than the Dow Jones) had the best week since Oct. 1974 |
|
up 12%.
The Dow Jones Index rose five sessions in a row, first since July 2007.
What happened in these last days? The economic news are still bad, however Obama provided his economic plans and future practically every day.
If this is "redistribution of wealth" that the Republicans were harping before the elections - I will take it.
|
Unsane
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-29-08 11:18 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Axelrod & Emanuel know what they're doing. |
|
It was smart to put Obama out there frequently. His demeanor calms the markets.
|
livetohike
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-29-08 11:23 AM
Response to Original message |
2. The realization that we have a President-elect who is intelligent |
|
and will get things done is inspiring confidence. Bush has been AWOL on the economy for years. Plus he is an idiot.
|
gravity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-29-08 11:26 AM
Response to Original message |
3. It is up 19% if you count the past 5 days |
|
The markets were way oversold, and it looks like they are correcting themselves. In short, they ran out of sellers.
Obama's economic team has given confidence to the market. I don't think he could have picked better people to lead it. One of the main problems recently was the lack of leadership during this crisis from Washington, and it looks like Obama is going to restore it.
|
ozone_man
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-29-08 11:28 AM
Response to Original message |
4. So when the market goes up, Obama gets credit? |
|
Who gets the blame when the market goes down?
|
Unsane
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-29-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
question everything
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-29-08 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. So far, Bush and Paulson |
|
The Republicans will always say that the economy would have expanded no matter who was in the White House in the 90s. But whoever is in charge gets the credit or the blame, and Clinton got it. Had he presided over an economic downturn he would have taken the blame.
Now, with Bush and his buddies the blame is firmly on their laps. They promoted de regulations and the "ownership society." No one was in charge when NINJA (No Income, No Job, (No) Assets) were distributed like hot cakes. Even when many of us, regular folks knew that the housing bubble was going to burst, in 2007 and in 2008 for all the subprime mortgages issued in 2005 and 2006 with a two years teaser rate - no one on top was doing anything or even sounding the alarm.
So, yes, when Obama appears every day to promote his economic team, and the market responds positively, he takes the credit. And all this when all he does is really just talks. He does not have the authority to actually do anything.
|
Lasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-29-08 11:45 AM
Response to Original message |
7. Since Junior took over, all you hear is Dow. |
|
Before that the S&P 500 was cited most often, and appropriately so, as the better indication of how stocks were doing. The switch was yet another shell game to make it appear supply side economics and other GOP economic idelolgies don't suck.
But not to worry, the Worst President Ever (not just of the USA, of everything) cleared all that up for us. Going by either index, he has presided over an eight year net loss. This is so, even if you don't adjust for inflation. This has never happened before.
Republicans have criticized Jimmy Carter for years as a terrible President, partly to perpetuate the Saint Ronnie of Reagan myth. But even Carter delivered an average S&P 500 gain of 7% for each of the four years he was in office. And the average annualized performance of all Presidents since Carter (except for the WPE) has been better than that: Saint Ronnie = 9.9%, Poppy = 12.6%, Clinton = 15.9%.
This is a clear indication of a colossal failure of Biblical proportions.
|
question everything
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-30-08 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. I think that I saw some stats somewhere where the market was doing better |
|
under Democratic administration than a Republican one. And when one realizes that since 1952, Democrats controlled the White House for only 20 years, it is significant.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 30th 2024, 07:05 PM
Response to Original message |