Sunday, February 01, 2009
Worst January Dow Close Ever
May we have more porridge while you dine on Waygu, arugula and goat cheese?
From WSJ.com: Worst January on record for stocks:
Stocks wrapped up their worst January on record with a final plunge on Friday.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average finished January down 8.84% on the month. Perviously [sic], the worst January for the Dow had been that of 1916, when it fell 8.64%. Friday, the Dow dropped 148.15 points to 8000.86 after briefly dipping below the 8000 mark. The Dow has fallen five straight months and in 12 of the last 15.
A slew of layoff announcements, skepticism of the Obama stimulus plan, and a series of bleak earnings reports all crunched U.S. stock markets over the course of the week. Those developments left investors who exited stocks last year with little desire to put their money to work in the markets, limiting any stock rallies.
Pbama will prolong the depression, just like FDR's Socialism prolonged the Depression.
Whatever Pbama says, understand that he means the opposite:
Prosperity = Hard, economic times
Freedom = Slavery
Volunteerism = You will join the
Power To the People = Power in the hands of small, Elitist group of Marxists
Stimulus Package = Sky-High Pile of Pork Projects, mostly paybacks to groups that helped him steal the election
Worst January Dow Close Ever and it's on Pbama's Watch.
This economic data - along with all the job losses and lay offs - should make all the Pbama Cultists happy. Remember, they hate corporations and businesses. They hate big employers like American Automakers, Caterpillar, Starbucks, Home DePot and others. Big businesses are evil, say The Left. So The Left should be happy has hell about the state of the economy.
"Corporatist," that's the buzzword The Left likes to use when describing those in the Free Market Sector that make a profit.
Well, be happy Liberals! All those people are losing their jobs and surely, they're all Republicans, not a Democrat in the bunch.
Delighted to hear from you!
Any logical economist knows that the Janaury market response is a reflection of the lack of action of the Bush admin.
No it isn't. The market response we see today was fomenting or simmering during the last Q all in reaction to a reality of Pbama being the president.
The rest of your comment is pure cut and past from Liberal Politburo Central Daily Talking Points, and they are old TPs.
Please allow those who believe in a conspiracy surrounding the oath to enjoy their conspiracy. (I'm not one of them), but it's really no different than the Bush haters conspiracy that Bush and Cheney would throw a coup, declare Martial Law and barracade themselves in the White House.
Free Market Capitalism - it depends how you define that. No market is purely free, saftey measures are built in, FDIC, govt standards regarding saftey, etc.
I beg to differ that "the deregulation and laissez faire ethos promoted by Bush and his cronies" is why we're in the current recession. I am saying stimulus packages laden with pork doesn't work. How many stimulus packages has Japan given itself and how many times has it been successful?
Many, many, many economists (and I never said I am one) who are far more knowledgeable than I am, have written extensively that FDR's eco policies extended and prolonged the depression
I think using a measuring tape based on the amount of vacation a president took as a comparison to - in the eyes of someone like you who has a liberal bias - their success or lack of it cannot be objectively stated. I'm not saying your not entitled to believe what you want, I'm just saying I can't accept the premise you would be able to be neutral enough to assess Bush or anyone else who doesn't agree with your political slant.
I know you won't post this -- like most self professing "real Americans" you fear open debate and an exchange of differing views . . .
I don't why you'd write the above. I don't at all fear open debate. You must be thinking of all those Fringe Liberal sites where, if you're not a Pbama Cultist, you are vilified and ostracized from posting comments.
Oh, and try not to be to tough on the Anonymous Liberal, at least not right away, if he/she responds to me or if you want to address their comment.
I'm surprised the Anony commenter took the time to - what almost seems like - think through their comment (as best as a Lib can) and not resort to gutter mud-slinging, name calling, poop slinging apes that they are, so for that, I gave the person some credit. Not a lot, just some. Heh!
I bed to differ that GW Bush was about "deregulation and laissez faire." If if the two ways to look at markets are classical(suply side) or keinsian(command and control) I don't think you can call the Bush Government classical at all. I'm not saying he was bad, haven't seen anything being blown up in America in 7 years... I just don't think you could argue that Bush was truely conservative in his ecconomic policies.
A few points of difference/clarification . . .
1. I said there was a direct correlation between time away from the oval office on the part of the Chief Executive and deep depressions. Check what I wrote. You can't refute that. It is not a measuring tape -- as you claim I made it -- it is statistical fact. David, you are either trying to twist my words (thereby revealing your own neo-con slant that does not let you read any commentary that differs with yours in a non-biased way) or you are not as smart as you claim to be . . .
2. I agree with you that our economy is not a free-market system. There is regulation and there are safety nets. These were largely installed following the last great collapse of the system -- or at least the foundation therefore was. Let's face it, the middle class was on the verge of collapse in 1929 and most of the 1930s, and the regulatory system was founded to save capitalism. "Save capitalism from the capitalists," is what FDR said. And he had to say and do what he did because Coolidge had no ideas and did nothing and Hoover, who had good ideas, did nothing because he was afraid of direct government action. You hate FDR because he did that. Not all conservatives do/did though. Ronald Reagan was one of FDR's biggest fans. But I digress . . .
3. I agree with you that a stimulus package laden with pork is a bad thing. Doing nothing is also bad. Using Japan as an example completely nullifies your own arguments or shows your ignorance -- have you ever heard of METI? (The Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry) During the 1980s we read all about it -- as it literally shaped a good portion of the industrial strategy for Japan. Talk about government intervention in business . . . The existence of METI (which you seem to overlook) nullifies any assertions (direct or implied) you make about the lack of Japanese government involvement in the Japanese economy. They are one in the same . . . As for a stimulus; we need something that gets the market moving minus pet projects. I do not think planned parenthood funding or arts funding belong in the package. And there are other elements that should be in it that are not. But we need a stimulus package.
4. You are correct. There are many economists who have criticized FDR's New Deal. There are also many who have praised it. I actually believe (based on reading both form of analysis) that the New Deal decreased the effects of the Depression, but it did not completely resolve the woes associated therewith. It took a world war and the massive government expenditure associated therewith to pull us out of the depression. The kind of expenditure that would have never been tolerated had we not been attacked by Japan. Here again we see the merits of massive government action and action by Japan! Let's just hope we do not need a war of that magnitude to convince people (some of whom seem to post here) that we need to expend resources . . .
5. On the topic of war, I respond to the person who claimed Bush was not that bad because we have not been attacked in 7 years. Start with Richard Clark -- who worked for Reagan and G. H. Bush before he worked for Clinton -- who said Bush fell asleep at the wheel. It was Bush Jr. who removed Clark from cabinet meetings and it was Bush Jr. who took the emphasis off Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 and kept emphasis on Iraq post 9/11 even though it was soon shown there were no WMDs and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. (Remember, Saddam – who was a sadist – was also opposed to Islamic extremists. He went to war with Iran – with our backing – for almost a decade in part due to this kind of opposition.) Clark and every moderate analyst thereafter show that the biggest attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor was a direct by product of Bush Jr.'s lack of attention to our real threats. In short, Bush (as CEO) is the reason for the intelligence failure that directly led to the 9/11 attacks. Saying otherwise means that the "buck stops" only on the desk of Democratic presidents. (That's a Truman reference for you in case you missed it because you were too busy listening to Hannity.)
6. I did not know that there was a liberal bible. I never got one -- you must have mine. I read an array of sources -- more than just "all the newspapers" from which Palin gets her prescient knowledge. These sources include the likes of Adam Smith, William F. Buckley, and Bill Bennett. I do not agree with all their points -- but my views are shaped by them. If their writings constitute "the liberal bible" then you must draw your own doctrine from the likes of Mein Kampf . . . .
Gotta get back to work now -- to do my part to keep the economy moving and pull us out of recession. Looking forward to coming back in a few days to see if you posted this in its entirety and (if you did) what you have to offer. I value the exchange, David . . . .
Well, if we assume you're a flaming liberal could it be that that's how you come across?
I dislike going through numbered talking points. It's so mundane.
I'm not trying to twist anything you wrote. I only said that skepticism from the business world about Pbamanomics was in play months before Inauguration day and stressed that Markets react days and weeks and months ahead depending on the stock, item or commodity. As for "Statistical facts", they are only as valid as the numbers being input. You or I can determine what we'd want our result to be and then plug in the required numbers to get the desired result. Give me break. I'm not trying to slant what you wrote on the original comment, only explaining mine and what I wrote on the post and reply to you.
"...or [I'm] not as smart as I claim to be." Where did I ever claim to be a guru or genious? I am educated, good upbringing (i.e. parents encouraged me to read everything, current events, history etc), I stuided and did well in school and college, I read both pro and con on issues that I want to learn more about and decide which sources I can trust and which to dismiss in reaching my conclusions. You act as if there's something wrong with that? If you have a Degree in Economics, hey, more power to you. You've mastered a degree in an area where experts who've been around for decades will disagree with the own fundamentals. If you're the Grand Puba of Economics, congratulations.
I have no idea why you conclude that I "hate FDR." Where'd you get that from? Because I and others (other who know far more about economics than I do) agree that his politices prolonged the Depression? That's somehow hating the man not his policies? From where do you get that?
"It took a world war and the massive government expenditure associated therewith to pull us out of the depression." There are many theories by scholars who would disagree that the world war helped pull us out of the depression. Here's one- http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/3643
Robert Higgs wrote similar in The Depression and Cold War.
Japan: Yes I know what METI is, which is why I don't understand why you say METI somehow nullifies Japan's failed attempts to stimulize itself.
This is from the NY Times Feb. 5, 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06japan.html
Japan’s experience suggests that infrastructure spending, while a blunt instrument, can help revive a developed economy...
Japan spent too much on increasingly wasteful roads and bridges, and not enough in areas like education and social services, which studies show deliver more bang for the buck than infrastructure spending.
“It is not enough just to hire workers to dig holes and then fill them in again,” said Toshihiro Ihori, an economics professor at the University of Tokyo. “One lesson from Japan is that public works get the best results when they create something useful for the future.”
In total, Japan spent $6.3 trillion on construction-related public investment between 1991 and September of last year, according to the Cabinet Office. The spending peaked in 1995 and remained high until the early 2000s, when it was cut amid growing concerns about ballooning budget deficits. More recently, the governing Liberal Democratic Party has increased spending again to revive the economy and the party’s own flagging popularity.
Your item 5: Been all through your talking point, done that. Why would anyone believe anything Clark says? Why? Because Clinton-loyalists and Bush haters will believe anything said by anyone like Clark. Jamie Gorelick had her wall in place so one intel agency couldn't talk to other intel agencies and she put her wall up to stifle any investigation of the Clinton Admin.
The Clinton Admin was cheerleading the case against Saddam Hussein for two year before W became a candidate. You argument has no validity at all.
Clark and every moderate analyst thereafter show that the biggest attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor was a direct by product of Bush Jr.'s lack of attention to our real threats. I'm amused at your broad and sweeping generalization, but I'm not buying it.
Uh...what am I forgetting. Oh, The Liberal Bible. That's a comment from Molson. You can take that up with him. The only Liberal Bible I know is the NY Times.
I don't listen to Hannity, can't stand his radio show. Gave it a try here and there, but all he does is talk about himself, repeat his name over and over again and his endless self-promotion. Can't stand him. But thank you for demonstrating that you have the uncanny ability and knowledge to pigeon-hole people (like me) that you know nothing about. I though the Left of Center Crowd wasn't "into" judging. Are you sure you're in the correct political mindset? Or an escapee from an insane asylum?
I may agree with you that the U.S. should spend some kind of money at the federal level for a economic stimulus. I disagree the one being authored will do anything of the sort. Considering Pbama is talking a THIRD STIMULUS package, he must not be all that convinced either.
I'll also bring up something Arc asked you to defend, "the deregulation and laissez faire ethos promoted by Bush and his cronies". If anything, the banking and private sector is overregulated from years of a Democrat-heavy Cogress (except '95-'07) and their relationship with tort law, suing every and any manufacturer for any injury, which all results in more regulations and the price of the product or service being passed onto the consumer.
I might be wrong, but I have several suspects in mind of who you may be. Gisher? You can't possibly be Clif because you actually do possess some knowledge. Then there was that guy from Colorado who commented back and forth forever on a post I did two years ago ridiculing Al Gore. Oh, and then there was Josiah or Josieh. Oh, what a hoot he was. It's all good.
I don't know if you're committed Marxist Liberal, Slightly Left of Center or a provacateur on my blog. Not that it matters. The quirk is that you expect me not to publish your comment, and I do. And I respond. And then a few other commenters chime in. Then you reply and again question whether or not I will publish your comemnt in its entirety. You claim to value the exchange, yet those good old fashioned Democrat family values don't come across in your writing, which leads me to distrusting your sincereity and genuine. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because I write my blog for myself. I try to be as accurate as possible backing up what I write with facts, links to those facts and other references on which I base what I write. When I write Op/Ed, it's clear it's presented as such. I don't try to pass off my Op/Ed as empirical facts.
Links to this post:
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.