We have had 1 good day in the market since Obama was elected

[zhuzhu]

Date: 11/20/2008 7:07:44 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 11/20/2008 7:01:24 PM

Author: zhuzhu

For those of you who are so hateful and fearful of what''s to come, why don''t you pack up and move to a different country and leave the rest of us in peace ?

Perfect!


That might be the single best example of ''tolerance'', ''open mindedness'' and ''inclusionary'' values I''ve yet to see here on PS.


There you have it folks...it doesn''t get better!


Thanks for that!

Oops! Sorry I did not realize how stressed out you are.
It was a joke with a smile, so relax! Who are we going to debate with if you fun Repubs all leave?

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 11/20/2008 7:01:24 PM
Author: zhuzhu
For those of you who are so hateful and fearful of what''s to come, why don''t you pack up and move to a different country and leave the rest of us in peace ?

i remember not too many years ago when pricecopers were telling me to do this because didn''t [and still don''t] support this stupid iraq war......why isn''t it ok for liberals to say this to conservatives?

movie zombie

 

[miraclesrule]

Dang, I should have just come to page 3, so I could spare myself the agony of reading the entire thread.

starsaph: You are correct. The cause of the current market condition is primarily the morgage crisis and the credit default swaps. Many reputable world, and even U.S. economists predicted the mortgage/credit bubble burst as far back as 02 and 03. However, the "mob rule" of bankers effectively drowned the voices of warning. They didn''t want to hear it. Sometimes it takes a crisis of sufficient magnitude to get someone''s attention. Well, this is a crisis of sufficient magnitude. It has finally gotten everyone''s attention. It''s odd that we don''t sometime''s understand the severity of a problem until we hit our knees. An analogy would be a person who, while in denial, will never go to a doctor until the pain is so bad, they can no longer maintain their denial.

I had an interesting conversation with a friend last night who floated an interesting fault line at the appraisers. I must admit, it did have some merit. After all, I know that the appraising of home values was shady as an oak tree ( I hope I got the tree correct). But then again, values are subjective in that it is variable.

Anyway, I just wanted to waste some time before my conference call and wanted to point out that this crisis is not one of politics, but due to timing, politics is certainly a convenient scapegoat.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 11/20/2008 9:06:28 PM
Author: movie zombie

Date: 11/20/2008 7:01:24 PM
Author: zhuzhu
For those of you who are so hateful and fearful of what''s to come, why don''t you pack up and move to a different country and leave the rest of us in peace ?

i remember not too many years ago when pricecopers were telling me to do this because didn''t [and still don''t] support this stupid iraq war......why isn''t it ok for liberals to say this to conservatives?
movie zombie

I remember quite a lot of this too. "If you don''t like it, leave" And I know a couple of folks on this very thread who''ve expressed that sentiment before. But we bleeding heart Obots aren''t allowed to be cynical I suppose. Messes with people''s stereotyping?

I *hate* to disappoint people with my callous, discerning (rather than blind) tolerance.

 

[HollyS]

Just for once, I''d like to see serious discussion that doesn''t devolve into name-calling and the cyber equivalent of ''flicking'' each other. C''mon. Let''s have one big "nonnie nonnie boo boo" from the Dems, and one giant "yo'' mama wears commie boots" from the Reps, and let''s be done with it already.

Moving on . . . . .

 

[goobear78]

I''m sorry, but WHO is president now? Bush. And where is he? Hiding from his own shadow. The man is disgraceful and his incompetence is what got us in this mess.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 11/20/2008 10:36:34 PM
Author: HollyS
Just for once, I''d like to see serious discussion that doesn''t devolve into name-calling and the cyber equivalent of ''flicking'' each other. C''mon. Let''s have one big ''nonnie nonnie boo boo'' from the Dems, and one giant ''yo'' mama wears commie boots'' from the Reps, and let''s be done with it already.


Moving on . . . . .

Agreed. I tried to debate the impact of his policies on stocks but I guess you cant criticize a policy on this board without being viewed as criticizing the man. People erupt. People think he''s a relative and not a politician who works for us. 4 pages in this thread and not one Obama supporter has said how my view of the policies I mentioned (unions, more tax, no free trade) were bullish for stocks. I got a lot of "that has nothing to do with the market because he''s not prez yet". Maybe, maybe not, but that shouldnt stop someone who voted for him for saying why his policies would be good for the economy and for stocks as a result.

Oh well. Change you can believe in....and now Change in your pocket.

 

[miraclesrule]

This famous quote from Apple Computers sums up my feelings about the Obama campaign and those who worked diligently to ensure his victory. The economy should never have been a governmental responsibility, but since Americans have chosen to make it so... Cheers to the crazy ones. Let''s hope the new American government comes up with some crazy policies that have long term positive impact on our lives.

"Here''s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square hole. The ones who see things differently. They''re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can''t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 11/20/2008 10:48:53 PM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 11/20/2008 10:36:34 PM
...4 pages in this thread and not one Obama supporter has said how my view of the policies I mentioned (unions, more tax, no free trade) were bullish for stocks. I got a lot of 'that has nothing to do with the market because he's not prez yet'. Maybe, maybe not, but that shouldnt stop someone who voted for him for saying why his policies would be good for the economy and for stocks as a result.

IMHO, the reason why you did not receive any "satisfactory feedback" is because of the way your arrived at these conclusions.

For an example. The epidemiological data demonstrates that Chinese Americans have on average lower body mass index (BMI)compared to Caucasian Americans, and the percentage of Chinese American who eat with chopsticks are ALSO much higher than that of Caucasians. Does that mean the usage of chopstick is what "causes" Chinese to have lower BMI than Whites? I think not.

This might be why people find it difficult to comment on your rationale that "because stock market did really bad after the election, therefore Obama (and his policies) must be causing this bad economy".

Regarding what Dems think of Obama's policies, all you have to do is do a search in ATW and you will see many, many threads discussing both sides' point of view.

 

[decodelighted]

Other things that have happened in the last 16 or so days (besides Obama''s election) ...

* people holding a positive view of the Republican party drops to 34%
* in-fighting & 2nd guessing makes people wonder if their candidates were outright lying to them in the first place
* highest unemployment levels since 1994
* bailout czar says "oops, I was wrong -- lets switch it up mid-stream!"
* several rates cuts
* incidents of greed publicized & scorned (AIG par-tays, Auto CEO''s private jets)
* world leaders shun Bush, won''t even shake his hand
* Bush *hides*

Wall Street thrives on predictability ... Obama''s election shows that the majority of the country craves change. Change = less predictable that the status quo. IMHO it''s a futile exercise to wish Obama would change his stripes & change all his views and swoop in & attempt to save Wall Street the way some Republicans wish he would. It isn''t going to happen. **shrug**

 

[risingsun]

Date: 11/20/2008 9:07:58 PM
Author: miraclesrule
Dang, I should have just come to page 3, so I could spare myself the agony of reading the entire thread.

starsaph: You are correct. The cause of the current market condition is primarily the morgage crisis and the credit default swaps. Many reputable world, and even U.S. economists predicted the mortgage/credit bubble burst as far back as 02 and 03. However, the 'mob rule' of bankers effectively drowned the voices of warning. They didn't want to hear it. Sometimes it takes a crisis of sufficient magnitude to get someone's attention. Well, this is a crisis of sufficient magnitude. It has finally gotten everyone's attention. It's odd that we don't sometime's understand the severity of a problem until we hit our knees. An analogy would be a person who, while in denial, will never go to a doctor until the pain is so bad, they can no longer maintain their denial.

I had an interesting conversation with a friend last night who floated an interesting fault line at the appraisers. I must admit, it did have some merit. After all, I know that the appraising of home values was shady as an oak tree ( I hope I got the tree correct). But then again, values are subjective in that it is variable.

Anyway, I just wanted to waste some time before my conference call and wanted to point out that this crisis is not one of politics, but due to timing, politics is certainly a convenient scapegoat.

Please listen to what Miraclesrule has to say. It is naive to blame the government--especially the new administration--for the collapse of our economy. It is far more complicated than that. This didn't start two years, two months, or two weeks ago. This has been brewing for years. I mostly lurk here because I don't have the energy to get into these debates, but this one takes the cake

 

[VRBeauty]

Date: 11/20/2008 10:48:53 PM
Author: stone_seeker


Agreed. I tried to debate the impact of his policies on stocks but I guess you cant criticize a policy on this board without being viewed as criticizing the man. People erupt. People think he's a relative and not a politician who works for us. 4 pages in this thread and not one Obama supporter has said how my view of the policies I mentioned (unions, more tax, no free trade) were bullish for stocks. I got a lot of 'that has nothing to do with the market because he's not prez yet'. Maybe, maybe not, but that shouldnt stop someone who voted for him for saying why his policies would be good for the economy and for stocks as a result.

Oh well. Change you can believe in....and now Change in your pocket.

The premise of your thread was not the impact that Obama's policies might have on the market, it was that his election caused the the fall we're seeing in the stock market.

To which I would reply -- remember the mortgage crisis? hedge funds? margin calls? irrational exhuberance?

I suspect many analysts would agree that the sudden decline in the economy -- and concern a lot of people had about the policies that led to that decline -- had a lot to do with the tide turning in Obama's direction.

Anyhow, if you start out with an inflammatory premise, chances are you'll draw some fire!

 

[ksinger]

Well, I''ve read the whole, painful thread.

So in the spirit of the thread, and for those who would love to lay this whole stinkpile at Obama''s feet before they''re actually under him, here''s one. Krugman. Everything old is new again, it seems...only faster these days.

The Lame-Duck Economy

excerpt:

Everyone’s talking about a new New Deal, for obvious reasons. In 2008, as in 1932, a long era of Republican political dominance came to an end in the face of an economic and financial crisis that, in voters’ minds, both discredited the G.O.P.’s free-market ideology and undermined its claims of competence. And for those on the progressive side of the political spectrum, these are hopeful times.

There is, however, another and more disturbing parallel between 2008 and 1932 — namely, the emergence of a power vacuum at the height of the crisis. The interregnum of 1932-1933, the long stretch between the election and the actual transfer of power, was disastrous for the U.S. economy, at least in part because the outgoing administration had no credibility, the incoming administration had no authority and the ideological chasm between the two sides was too great to allow concerted action. And the same thing is happening now.

It’s true that the interregnum will be shorter this time: F.D.R. wasn’t inaugurated until March; Barack Obama will move into the White House on Jan. 20. But crises move faster these days.

How much can go wrong in the two months before Mr. Obama takes the oath of office? The answer, unfortunately, is: a lot. Consider how much darker the economic picture has grown since the failure of Lehman Brothers, which took place just over two months ago. And the pace of deterioration seems to be accelerating.

Most obviously, we’re in the midst of the worst stock market crash since the Great Depression: the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has now fallen more than 50 percent from its peak. Other indicators are arguably even more disturbing: unemployment claims are surging, manufacturing production is plunging, interest rates on corporate bonds — which reflect investor fears of default — are soaring, which will almost surely lead to a sharp fall in business spending. The prospects for the economy look much grimmer now than they did as little as a week or two ago.

** rest of article at link above

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 11/20/2008 11:35:17 PM
Author: zhuzhu

Date: 11/20/2008 10:48:53 PM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 11/20/2008 10:36:34 PM
...4 pages in this thread and not one Obama supporter has said how my view of the policies I mentioned (unions, more tax, no free trade) were bullish for stocks. I got a lot of 'that has nothing to do with the market because he's not prez yet'. Maybe, maybe not, but that shouldnt stop someone who voted for him for saying why his policies would be good for the economy and for stocks as a result.

IMHO, the reason why you did not receive any 'satisfactory feedback' is because of the way your arrived at these conclusions.

For an example. The epidemiological data demonstrates that Chinese Americans have on average lower body mass index (BMI)compared to Caucasian Americans, and the percentage of Chinese American who eat with chopsticks are ALSO much higher than that of Caucasians. Does that mean the usage of chopstick is what 'causes' Chinese to have lower BMI than Whites? I think not.

This might be why people find it difficult to comment on your rationale that 'because stock market did really bad after the election, therefore Obama (and his policies) must be causing this bad economy'.

Regarding what Dems think of Obama's policies, all you have to do is do a search in ATW and you will see many, many threads discussing both sides' point of view.

I went to medical school - studies show the use of chopsticks is a factor in obesity levels because it takes longer to eat with them so you eat less. Americans are rare in their use of a fork as a shovel. Most European nations use forks prongs down to stab at food rather than shovel in so much so fast the body doesnt have time to tell itself that its full. But I digress, and I get the point you are making about causation.

The fact remains that no one can (or at least has to this point) argue that higher taxes, stronger unions and no free trade is bullish for stocks. Maybe these things arent the cause of the loss of a third of American net worth since Nov 4th. But when I meet with CEOs and asset managers, not all of whom are republican, they all say that they expect lower corporate profits as a result of some policies by the new administration. So when someone who manages $11 billion fund on behalf of pensions, etc. tell me that the new policies will negatively impact corporate profits and is selling because of that, I put the correlation greater than the zero many of you are putting it at. It may not be 100%, but the point in my post was Obama could help stocks and he is choosing not to.

As another member posted earlier, if Mccain had won or if the market had improved, i'm sure Obama people would have put the correlation at 2000%. So I'm asking for someone to intelligently explain how those policies are bullish for stocks. All I get in response is insult, outrage, and bull$*&t.

The good news is if stocks go down much further, they probably have no where else to go but up.

 

[tradergirl]

Karen, it's a question of different economic ideology. To a supply sider, Krugman is a buffoon and I don't need to hear about the recent Nobel.

Stone Seeker - you're in enemy territory here ideologically for the most part. Obama will regret he won this election by mid term I reckon

 

[Ellen]

This thread got me thinking, and I wondered if there was any past evidence to indicate the market might actually be doing poorly because of Obama, though I really didn't/don't think so. Most of his policies are the same as past Democratic presidents. So I searched for some historical data, to see just what it might say. Apparently, the problem is that he's not in office yet, there's hope gang!

(some of these articles are not current, but the subject matter is still the same)

And some of these links may contain someoverlapping of info, but I didn't want to post just one link, as I didn't want it to appear as if I just found one link and threw it up as proof positive. I'm sure I could find more, but I think this is enough without tiring the readers. (sorry if this gets really spaced out between paragraphs, when previewing, it spaced things out big time)


http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Plenty of Wall Streeters are Republicans. The party's policies are seen as better for big business and therefore better for the stock market.

"Democrats are seen as being pro-regulatory, and more willing to enact laws against Wall Street and laws against CEOs," said Don Luskin, chief investment officer at Trend Macrolytics. But here's Wall Street's strange little irony -- studies show the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power



http://seekingalpha.com/article/103087-democrats-or-republicans-who-s-better-for-wall-street

Contrary to popular belief and applied assumptions, Democrats are the historical victors to the claim 'better for the stock market'



http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2000_Oct_11/ai_65931682

The old adage that Republican presidents are good for business may be little more than a myth, according to research recently completed by finance professors Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov, of The Anderson School at UCLA. A close examination by the two researchers of the stock market's average performance during Republican and Democratic presidencies reveals that returns are much higher when a Democrat is in office.




This is a great article, do read this one. It has graphs and a great commentary on the history of the market (nothing to do with parties) , and what we can most likely expect. And it also points out the good news in the midst of all this, which I knew there was but didn't think most would be comforted by, so I never mentioned it.

http://www.singularity2050.com/stock_market/



I really appreciated this last article, another must read.

Markets are for people.

Markets and trade have essential roles in a world of just and sustainable societies. It must be clear, however, that they have no legitimate function other than as means to meet human needs. In the end, the most important test of the legitimacy and performance of any economy is the extent to which it assures the right of every person to a means of livelihood adequate to support full and healthy living. By this standard, most of the world's economies are failing miserably, including the U.S. economy. It should not be a difficult standard to meet given present levels of technology and organizational expertise. However, it requires making markets accountable to all people, not simply those with the most money. This means that markets and trade must both function within a framework of rules established and enforced by open, democratically accountable governments.




I searched all this as I honestly began wondering about history, elections, parties, and markets. I'm glad SS made this thread, it made me think (along different lines than 3 boys do)

, and I have simply posted what I found. It wasn't meant to be a "take this" thread, it isn't meant as a quiet "neener, neener". It's simply what I found, and I found it most interesting.

It also makes me think the sky is not really falling, and indeed there is hope. If history repeats itself, there should be good days ahead, and if PE Obama turns out to be the type of president I think he is capable of being, they may not just be good, they may be great.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 11/20/2008 11:51:25 PM
Author: decodelighted
Other things that have happened in the last 16 or so days (besides Obama''s election) ...

* people holding a positive view of the Republican party drops to 34%
* in-fighting & 2nd guessing makes people wonder if their candidates were outright lying to them in the first place
* highest unemployment levels since 1994
* bailout czar says ''oops, I was wrong -- lets switch it up mid-stream!''
* several rates cuts
* incidents of greed publicized & scorned (AIG par-tays, Auto CEO''s private jets)
* world leaders shun Bush, won''t even shake his hand
* Bush *hides*

Wall Street thrives on predictability ... Obama''s election shows that the majority of the country craves change. Change = less predictable that the status quo. IMHO it''s a futile exercise to wish Obama would change his stripes & change all his views and swoop in & attempt to save Wall Street the way some Republicans wish he would. It isn''t going to happen. **shrug**

Change? Is that why he''s chosen more Washington ''insiders'' than other recent presidents to fill his Cabinet seats? Retreads, if you will. They''ve ''been there, done that''. Change?

The current housing crisis, et al, was helped enormously by a Democratic Congress that assured you, the American public, everything was fine. It wasn''t. But it sure lined their pockets, and their buddies pockets. At your expense. Who shall we blame?

The bail out was championed by the Democratic Congress. Who shall we blame? Pelosi? Reid? Barney? Yeah, McCain voted for it . . . and so did your guy. And?

High unemployment levels? Just 4 months ago, unemployment was at one of the lowest points in decades. What do you think is driving unemployment up? Little late in the game to blame the Prez, since for the 7.75 years prior, unemployment was surprisingly low -- surprising to most economists and analysts who track this stuff. Who''s responsible?

The dip in the stock market is something that should concern everyone. Not just those with a 401K. It is what drives your economy, the nation''s economy, the world''s economy. Bush wasn''t President of Ireland, but their 18 year growth has come to a screeching halt for the last two years. Why? According the the NYT, it''s the global stock markets. Who shall they blame?

If the money is in the markets, and it is, then we can''t have people pulling their $$$ out to ensure that they don''t pay higher taxes as promised (threatened) by the president-elect. Yes, it will be a change. We haven''t seen a recession like this in decades. It could become a depression. There will definitely be change.

Can''t you just feel the excitement? Smells more like fear to me. Around the world fear.

 

[strmrdr]

Some interesting articles Ellen.
I don''t buy into the first ones as it is impossible to blame administrations for the stock market without taking into account what else is going on.

The Markets are for people article actually has the right idea but misses the point.
When the market properly works as a meeting place for the people to exchange capital for shares in corporations it works well.
The problem and why it crashed is that it became a playground for crooks to play crooked games.
Because of that stocks like houses got priced way out of line with their actual value.
It destroyed a lot of good companies because they were not allowed to mature and settle down into long term sustainable companies because every time they tried Wall Street punished them for not working in the short term and daring to think long term.
That is the same type of thinking that brought the big 3 to their knees.
Instead of preparing for the long term they spent way to much money boosting the short term.

 

[stone_seeker]

Yes, nice articles Ellen. Like karl, i dont agree with the premise of all of them but I thank you for being one of the few who have done some reading to refute some of my claims. I wish more of Obama''s supporters and Obama himself can go out there and explain this to the market so they dont continue to dump stocks out of fear of what is to come.

have a nice weekend.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/21/2008 9:23:17 AM
Author: HollyS

Change? Is that why he''s chosen more Washington ''insiders'' than other recent presidents to fill his Cabinet seats? Retreads, if you will. They''ve ''been there, done that''. Change?

That bugs me also I had hoped that Obama might surprise me and become a decent president but all the insiders he is bringing in is telling me it is going to more of the same old garbage.

 

[sklingem]

Date: 11/20/2008 8:08:26 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 11/20/2008 7:40:38 PM

Author: rob09

Holly - show me an example of a comparable state of the economy pre-election AND a post-election bounce to satisfy my curiosity and youthful inexperience - that would really strengthen your argument. I am always open to changing my mind given good evidence!

Start here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2008/11/no_post-election_market_rally.html (hardly conservative in viewpoint)
1

Or CNBC (certainly not conservative): http://www.cnbc.com/id/27470047


Google it. Yahoo it. Call it ''post election market rally''. Narrow the search to history about market rallies, if you don''t believe the current experts/pundits/nay-sayers.

Holly - your links (a) state that there is traditionally a post-election bounce (based on day after market data) and (b) quote one person who supports your argument.

Why don''t you have a look at historical data here about post-election bounces

http://interestedamerican.blogspot.com/2008/11/reuters-market-reacts-to-obama-with.html

You will see that going back to 1896 there have been 15 elections with a decline in the stock market after election day, meaning every second election on average!! In addition you have still not shown me a comparable election year in terms of economic conditions pre election and at the same time a post-election bounce. Experts compare our market to the great depression - that was between 1929 and 1932 approx. As you can see there was a 4.5% decline the day after the 1932 election - even if conditions are not exactly comparable to today.
Is it SOOOO hard to accept that the reasons for this year''s decline are multiple, but probably a direct result of the unique mortgage crisis that has been developing over the past years and the ensuing consequences for the credit market/financial sector??? Please?

 

[Ellen]

strm and ss, thanks. I'm glad you enjoyed them.

I guess I'm mildly surprised the historical data (complete with charts and graphs) on who fares better during a Democratic reign didn't at least cause a "hmmm" from you. I mean, they aren't making this up, it is what it is. And in my opinion, it's happened too often and too consistently to be a fluke. But then, you guys are Republican's.... JUST kidding!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/21/2008 9:56:01 AM
Author: Ellen
strm and ss, thanks. I''m glad you enjoyed them.


I guess I''m mildly surprised the historical data (complete with charts and graphs) on who fares better during a Democratic reign didn''t at least cause a ''hmmm'' from you. I mean, they aren''t making this up, it is what it is. And in my opinion, it''s happened too often and too consistently to be a fluke. But then, you guys are Republican''s.... JUST kidding!

Actually I am a constitutionalists who holds his nose and mostly votes republican because they are just a very very very tiny part better than the dems.
If I had my way the federal government would be 1/10000 the size it is now.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 11/20/2008 11:51:25 PM
Author: decodelighted
* world leaders shun Bush, won''t even shake his hand
* Bush *hides*

Man oh man oh man. People love making mountain out of molehills. Flag lapel pin, anyone?
Anyway, Bush wasn''t snubbed.

Bush is hiding? Meeting with world leaders, easing flight congestion over the holidays, signing unemployment benefit extensions, traveling to Peru for the APEC summit, meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister on Monday............

 

[risingsun]

Date: 11/21/2008 10:03:36 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 11/21/2008 9:56:01 AM
Author: Ellen
strm and ss, thanks. I'm glad you enjoyed them.


I guess I'm mildly surprised the historical data (complete with charts and graphs) on who fares better during a Democratic reign didn't at least cause a 'hmmm' from you. I mean, they aren't making this up, it is what it is. And in my opinion, it's happened too often and too consistently to be a fluke. But then, you guys are Republican's.... JUST kidding!

Actually I am a constitutionalists who holds his nose and mostly votes republican because they are just a very very very tiny part better than the dems.
If I had my way the federal government would be 1/10000 the size it is now.

Karl...my husband is a staunch republican, but he held his nose and voted democrat this election. Despite what you write, I think you are more of a centrist. We will welcome you and call you friend

 

[HollyS]

rob: There are many other sites, links, whatever. It is not my job to educate the masses. It''s easy enough to find; but you have to want to read it, and then there''s that whole issue of belief.

try this website for some insight: suite101.com One pretty good article answers the question about why investors are anxious and cautious about Obama''s election, and just why this has now played such a part in the stock market downturn.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 11/21/2008 9:49:22 AM
Author: rob09

Date: 11/20/2008 8:08:26 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 11/20/2008 7:40:38 PM

Author: rob09

Holly - show me an example of a comparable state of the economy pre-election AND a post-election bounce to satisfy my curiosity and youthful inexperience - that would really strengthen your argument. I am always open to changing my mind given good evidence!

Start here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2008/11/no_post-election_market_rally.html (hardly conservative in viewpoint)
1

Or CNBC (certainly not conservative): http://www.cnbc.com/id/27470047


Google it. Yahoo it. Call it 'post election market rally'. Narrow the search to history about market rallies, if you don't believe the current experts/pundits/nay-sayers.

Holly - your links (a) state that there is traditionally a post-election bounce (based on day after market data) and (b) quote one person who supports your argument.

Why don't you have a look at historical data here about post-election bounces

http://interestedamerican.blogspot.com/2008/11/reuters-market-reacts-to-obama-with.html

You will see that going back to 1896 there have been 15 elections with a decline in the stock market after election day, meaning every second election on average!! In addition you have still not shown me a comparable election year in terms of economic conditions pre election and at the same time a post-election bounce. Experts compare our market to the great depression - that was between 1929 and 1932 approx. As you can see there was a 4.5% decline the day after the 1932 election - even if conditions are not exactly comparable to today.
Is it SOOOO hard to accept that the reasons for this year's decline are multiple, but probably a direct result of the unique mortgage crisis that has been developing over the past years and the ensuing consequences for the credit market/financial sector??? Please?

Both examples in the 70s would work fine. Saw a bump after nixon resgined and after carter elected.

Is it "SOOOOO" hard to accept that people want to hear some pro-growth comments from the guy who will run things in a month?

Is it too much to ask to appoint a Treasury Secretary who can start helping out here? That position should have been teed up by now. But he's too busy being a politician and negotiating what role Hillary should play. Which I dont mind by the way. I'm sure she will be a great Sec of State.

But I have an easier time converting red sox fans to yankee fans than I do getting an Obama supporter to be critical of any of his moves.

 

[stone_seeker]

Obama probably read this thread - News just hit the tape that Obama is announcing his economic team on Monday.

About time.

 

[goobear78]

Date: 11/21/2008 3:11:54 PM
Author: stone_seeker
Obama probably read this thread - News just hit the tape that Obama is announcing his economic team on Monday.

About time.

Wow, imagine that. And Bush, the current president is doing???? Oh right, nothing.

Stone-seeker, just for kicks, why don''t you give this guy a chance first, let him get into office and then see what happens before blaming the markets on him. You might be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/21/2008 3:29:06 PM
Author: goobear78

Date: 11/21/2008 3:11:54 PM
Author: stone_seeker
Obama probably read this thread - News just hit the tape that Obama is announcing his economic team on Monday.

About time.

Wow, imagine that. And Bush, the current president is doing???? Oh right, nothing.

Stone-seeker, just for kicks, why don''t you give this guy a chance first, let him get into office and then see what happens before blaming the markets on him. You might be pleasantly surprised.

I know, how lame! Sorry, I couldn''t resist.

Seriously, let''s cut the man just a wee bit of slack. It''s so easy to quarterback/criticize, forgetting the fact that none of us have a clue what''s really going on behind the scenes.