Comments on: How stocks react to the macroeconomy A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: silliness Sat, 06 Aug 2011 18:29:42 +0000 The house always wins.

By: bxg6 Sat, 06 Aug 2011 00:47:13 +0000 > So how do we fix it? Recover the $2 Trillion in value lost over the last 2 weeks, $800 Billion just yesterday?

“Recover”, or “re-transfer?” _America_ lost essentially no real wealth in a stock-market shift like Thursday’s (exactly how many factories were destroyed, pray tell?) although there was indeed some wealth redistribution from significant equity owners towards the rest of us.
Trying to sell your interesting economic plan by promising to give money back to the wealthy class, at the expense of yesterday’s beneficiaries, seems tactically unwise.

By: showmerancher Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:27:39 +0000 So how do we fix it? Recover the $2 Trillion in value lost over the last 2 weeks, $800 Billion just yesterday? That’s money straight of peoples 401K plans, pension plans, stock portfolios, etc. Would it be worth $750 Billion (less than yesterday’s loss) restore that $2 Trillion (and more) in market value to peoples accounts, put 5 million Americans back to work where they are paying taxes instead of drawing from government resources, provide businesses a way to lower costs to enter into and compete in the world market with American jobs?

Then please read Item #3 (Jobs) at

Using a program based upon that premise, we could (have) put 5 million people back to work in a matter of weeks or months; certainly before Christmas. They would be paying taxes instead of drawing government resources. They would begin consuming thus creating even more jobs. Businesses would have extremely competitive labor costs for the next few years allowing them to competitively establish themselves in emerging markets with American labor. Just the mention of implementing the program might bring the markets roaring back to recover the $2 Trillion recently lost, and more. All for a cost of $750 Billion, less than the original stimulus, less that even what was lost on the markets yesterday.

If we can’t get Congress to do it, perhaps creating an entity on Wall Street to do it would work. Would investors put invest $750 Billion (actually less for reasons explained in the referenced document) to get back their $2 Trillion the markets lost and probably more? Once their investment is expended, they can take the loss on their taxes, but would have regained the value of their other investments quickly, something that might not otherwise have happened.

Just think of where we would be today, had anybody actually listened to me back in February of 2009… Where would our economy be? Where would the world economy be? We certainly would not have needed to raise the debt ceiling yet! But that is past, this is now.

I wonder what an appropriate “finder’s fee” is for saving the world? :-)

By: FBreughel1 Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:50:14 +0000 Maybe it has something to do that in fact the U.S. gov PROMISED TO RECKLESSLY KEEP OVERSPENDING THE NEXT TEN YEARS.

By: _Raghunath Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:45:50 +0000 All this because The biggies in the financial market are planning a new game and they are using this pretext to offload their positions post the fantastic run upto 13K.

Effectively Financial biggies are blackmailing governments
Obama is not in control of financial markets and neither oil which he himself has acknowledged.

By: ptiffany Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:43:48 +0000 Calling a recession or depression:

There are a number of economic measures tht determine whether there is a recession. ONE of them is two quarters of decline in the Gross National PRoduct. Obviously, this is artificial since it could be one quarter or three or four.

Most economists have acknowledged for decades that the breakeven point for economic growth is somewhere in the range of three to five percent. Last year the Council of Economic Advisors – in the midst of a downturn – set the number at 2.75% without any specific justification. Even using this low number for breakeven growth, the United States has essentially been in recession since 2007.

What is a depression? Most say that a recession that lasts more than two years is a depression. Paul Krugman is right – the United States is in a depression. Some choose to ignor a Nobel Laurette in Economics and dismiss his unhappy evaluation as left-wing economics. What is that?

The point is that we’re having entirely the wrong discussions since their isn’t general acknowledgement by the pseudo debaters that we are in a depression. However, most Americans know we’re in a depression and investors are coming to the same realization.

If you compare housing or stock market prices at the beginning of 2007 and now, it is readily apparent that we have not come close to a recovery. If the DJIA was over 14,400 in early 2007 and it’s now below 12,000, maybe soon to be 11,000, that means we’re more than 20% below where we were four and a half years ago.

Our consumer-driven economy isn’t going to recover for years, now that one of its biggest sources of debt, the mortgage interest deduction – has been decimated.

What is being done to bring our economy above a 2.75% breakeven point in the GDP? Everything we can to lower it. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

By: Fufi Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:18:31 +0000 Cash is King.

By: TFF Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:08:06 +0000 No, it has EVERYTHING to do with Obama. And the Tea Party. And the rest of the politicians who put ideology and the next election ahead of common sense and the good of the country.

When they caucus, do you really think they ask themselves, “What policies will help the country forward?” Or are they spending their efforts manufacturing disaster to try to make their political opponents look bad?

Anybody who supports EITHER party is part of the problem.

By: Fufi Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:06:53 +0000 Back in 2009 everybody was caught with their pants down. Now, everybody is acting in fear of the same thing. The Markets have become more about emotions than rules. Why? Because it is driven by POEPLE PERSCEPTIONs.

By: Blackers Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:04:00 +0000 This has noting to do with Obama. It has to do with a longggg list of previous governments who overspent, simple as that.