Log In | Register
55 Comments
PrintStocks likely to recover no matter who's president
Sun Nov 2, 2008 2:45 PM EST
Images 
(showing 1 of 3 photos)
(showing 1 of 3 photos)advertisement
Wall Street prefers Republicans, McCain supporters argue. But stocks have done better under Democratic presidents, Obama supporters fire back.
When it comes to the stock market — especially this turbulent market — does it really matter who is elected president?
Yes and no. Politicians do influence the economy — and they'll play a big role in how the country emerges from this current crisis. But analysts say neither presidential candidate can be a cure for what's ailing Wall Street.
"The economy is a big, big machine, and the president is one government bureaucrat," said Ron Florance, Wells Fargo Private Bank Director of Asset Allocation.
Moreover, most analysts believe the battered stock market has nowhere to go but up next year, no matter who ends up in the White House — and history will probably give the victor credit even if he actually had little to do with the rally.
"The timing couldn't be better," Florance said.
Still, the stock market is just one part of the economy, and under either Barack Obama or John McCain, the United States needs to recover from a downturn whose severity has not yet been determined. And either candidate will face a budget deficit of around $500 billion when he's sworn into office — a shortfall expected to climb to $1 trillion next year.
Because of the deficit, the financial climate might end up affecting the new president's policies more than his policies will affect the financial climate.
"This whole financial crisis will largely serve as an agenda buster for at least the first year," said John Lynch, chief market analyst at Evergreen Investments.
That's not to say, of course, there aren't differences in the impact McCain or Obama would have on U.S. businesses, and in turn, their stocks. Robert Froehlich, an investment strategist at Deutsche Bank, said it's likely that under Obama, the alternative energy sector would do well, and possibly the paper and steel industries if he enforces trade treaties. And under McCain, Froehlich said, it's likely that big energy companies would do better because he does not support a windfall profits tax, and that financial companies could benefit because of his stance on dividend taxes, long-term capital gains taxes, and estate taxes.
"Don't expect the next president to say, 'I'm strapped with this economic crisis, I'm going to throw all my plans away,'" Froehlich said.
There are historical trends one can draw between presidents and how the stock market performs. The question is how seriously to take them.
The Dow Jones industrial average and the broader Standard & Poor's 500 index have posted larger returns during the terms of Democratic presidents. But this statistic doesn't prove that Democratic policies boost the stock market — the major indexes have also done better under a Republican Congress than a Democratic Congress.
Another pattern to take note of is the stock market's apparent four-year cycle, described by market historian Yale Hirsch in his Presidential Election Cycle Theory. The theory says the stock market does well in a presidential election year, badly in the year after the election and then improves until the next presidential election. This pattern has held up for most of the century, although it's being tested by the two terms of President George W. Bush.
However, the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, rather than the influence of the president, can explain this pattern better, according to a 2007 study by CFA Institute Education managing director Robert Johnson, University of Wisconsin professor Scott Beyer and Northern Illinois University professor Gerald Jensen. Their study found that the Fed has tended to lower interest rates during the latter half of presidential terms — and lower interest rates encourage borrowing and spending.
At the end of the day, using the returns under previous presidents to predict the market's performance under another president gets to be like reading tea leaves. You'd probably do just as well basing your investments on next year's Super Bowl — Wall Street's infamous "Super Bowl Indicator" postulates that a victory by a team that was part of the original National Football League, before it merged with the American Football League in 1970, will result in better gains for the stock market. It's actually been right most of the time.
The lesson, of course, isn't to base investment choices on a football game. (Anyone who rushed to buy stocks after the New York Giants' win in 2008 probably got pretty burned). Rather, the point is that correlation isn't the same as causation.
And investors shouldn't get too caught up in the market's short-term reaction after the election results. The Dow surged, for example, after President Hoover was elected in 1928 — and the next year the it crashed, ushering in the Great Depression.
© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
14 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Madlen Read's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Das Krapital, EconVine, Political Economy , US News and Views
- Regions: United States
- Public Discussion (55)
- Das Krapital
- EconVine
- Political Economy
- US News and Views
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
17
5.8
1.0
{"commentId":3836639,"authorDomain":"Wheel"}
this seed shows a graphic representation of how Dems are better for the market historically.
{"commentId":3836639,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"Wheel"}
- 3 votes
#1 - Sun Nov 2, 2008 3:28 PM EST{"commentId":3837145,"authorDomain":"bbednarz2007"}
{"commentId":3837764,"authorDomain":"greenpagan"}
Yes. Very good. Glad I was born a New Deal Dem and a Brooklyn Dodger fan...
See: Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants
(But can we really trust the NY Times...? Aren't Larry Kudlow and Neil Cavuto better sources? No...? )
====
{"commentId":3837764,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"greenpagan"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3838631,"authorDomain":"marksinclair"}
Obama's a zit
{"commentId":3838631,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"marksinclair"}
{"commentId":4041936,"authorDomain":"SonOfLIberty2008"}
So explain to me why I should give a rat"s a$$ about what the stock market does.
{"commentId":4041936,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"SonOfLIberty2008"}
{"commentId":4069371,"authorDomain":"rickace"}
So explain to me why I should give a rat"s a$$ about what the stock market does.
When the stock market is behaving like it's doing now, there's an economic collapse and depression in the near future. Now's the time to prepare for it.
{"commentId":4069371,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"rickace"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3836640,"authorDomain":"eric-albert"}
Time to look at some real economists, not Wall street speculators.
{"commentId":3836640,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"eric-albert"}
- 7 votes
#2 - Sun Nov 2, 2008 3:28 PM EST{"commentId":3837003,"authorDomain":"spookybf"}
Everything that has a front has a back. There is nothing to big to fail.
{"commentId":3837003,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"spookybf"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3837235,"authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
Right, because Wall Streeters are "optimistic" in their own favor.
{"commentId":3837235,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3837725,"authorDomain":"eric-albert"}
I would urge the AP business writer to look beyond the normal pattern and realize we are in some fundamental failures. AP Stories always appear to me as superficial....let me introduce economists to you, who look beyond skin deep trivialities;
{"commentId":3837725,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"eric-albert"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3837807,"authorDomain":"kbd"}
reported as spam eric.
{"commentId":3837807,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"kbd"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3837969,"authorDomain":"spookybf"}
Why is Eric's link spam?
{"commentId":3837969,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"spookybf"}
{"commentId":3838114,"authorDomain":"kbd"}
because it is begging for money.
We're not in the habit of making idle threats and this isn't one. Either we meet our fundraising goal of $75,000 over the next three weeks or we'll be forced to drastically curtail the operation of our website.
{"commentId":3838114,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"kbd"}
{"commentId":3838145,"authorDomain":"spookybf"}
Oh.
I don't think that counts as spam.
{"commentId":3838145,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"spookybf"}
{"commentId":3838273,"authorDomain":"kbd"}
it is a whole page of begging for money and nothing about this topic. not spam?
{"commentId":3838273,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"kbd"}
{"commentId":3838299,"authorDomain":"spookybf"}
The post has been deleted before I could get there...
{"commentId":3838299,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"spookybf"}
{"commentId":3838332,"authorDomain":"kbd"}
it was there a few minutes ago. i guess others reported it too.
{"commentId":3838332,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"kbd"}
{"commentId":3839053,"authorDomain":"eric-albert"}
why was my comment deleted? It was not spam, it was a critique with a link to an economist who digs deeper than AP articles?
{"commentId":3839053,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"eric-albert"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3839101,"authorDomain":"kbd"}
i clicked on it as saw 3 paragraphs of begging for money and a thermometer with their fund raising goals. i clicked on the advertising "button". however, my one click isn't enough to get it deleted so i suppose others did the same.
{"commentId":3839101,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"kbd"}
{"commentId":3839124,"authorDomain":"eric-albert"}
Counterpunch does have a fundraising now....but I was linking to the article....and all of them have that initial page.
{"commentId":3839124,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"eric-albert"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3839181,"authorDomain":"kbd"}
they should change their format then a lot of people wont get past the fund raising.
just post your link again and tell people where to go to get past the fund raising and you shouldn't have a problem.
{"commentId":3839181,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"kbd"}
{"commentId":3839226,"authorDomain":"Wheel"}
yes, post it again. I think some people were a little 'quick on the trigger' with the advertising report button.
{"commentId":3839226,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"Wheel"}
{"commentId":3841993,"authorDomain":"tyler"}
2.3's restored, but it sure as sugar looks like spam.
The headline's 'Misrepresenting the Financial Crisis'.
{"commentId":3841993,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"tyler"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3836990,"authorDomain":"bbednarz2007"}
{"commentId":3837077,"authorDomain":"rickace"}
However, the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, rather than the influence of the president, can explain this pattern better, according to a 2007 study by CFA Institute Education managing director Robert Johnson, University of Wisconsin professor Scott Beyer and Northern Illinois University professor Gerald Jensen. Their study found that the Fed has tended to lower interest rates during the latter half of presidential terms — and lower interest rates encourage borrowing and spending.
An examination of history reveals that the Federal Reserve's interest rates simply follow the interest rates determined by private-sector markets in debt securities. Had the three eminent economists who conducted the study been aware of this, they would have concluded that is not the monetary policy of the Fed, but rather the market participants themselves who drive interest rates lower, making borrowing easier, or higher, making it more costly.
{"commentId":3837077,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"rickace"}
- 3 votes
#4 - Sun Nov 2, 2008 4:07 PM EST{"commentId":3837196,"authorDomain":"gamerk2"}
I disagree with the premise of this article.
If you look at the DOW during the close of every year, you see a pattern: 10 years growth, 18 years of no major growth (usually, the DOW at the end of this period is the same as it was at the start).
The problem is: we are in year 11 of a no-growth cycle. I am argueing based on historic DOW movements, that the DOW will remain more or less flat regardless of who is elected. In 6 or 7 years, the DOW will be around 9500, where it was at the start of this cycle.
Now, what the economy does is another matter entirely. After all, the economy shunk .3%, and stockes went up. Guess that shows how well the stock market is for proving how the economy is doing...
{"commentId":3837196,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"gamerk2"}
- 3 votes
#5 - Sun Nov 2, 2008 4:19 PM EST{"commentId":3847182,"authorDomain":"rickace"}
If you look at the DOW during the close of every year, you see a pattern: 10 years growth, 18 years of no major growth (usually, the DOW at the end of this period is the same as it was at the start).
The stock market does not follow a schedule. Any time-pattern you witness is so likely not to repeat that it cannot be exploited to one's advantage.
Now, what the economy does is another matter entirely. After all, the economy shunk .3%, and stockes went up. Guess that shows how well the stock market is for proving how the economy is doing...
The performance of the stock market on any given day is rarely an indicator of anything long-term. We are in a strong bear market which, similar to the crash of 1929, exhibits violent upswings such as the one on October 13. The stock market is a leading indicator of economic conditions, and it is telegraphing the message that the economy will proceed further into its decline.
{"commentId":3847182,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"rickace"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":3858903,"authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
I completely agree. The day to day incidents on wall st. cannot possibly say anything long term. A line graph is not a flat line, but an upward or downward growth consisting of smaller ups and downs along the way.
When the economy will be upwardly rising again is left to debate at this point, because we haven't even bottomed out yet.
{"commentId":3858903,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4042020,"authorDomain":"SonOfLIberty2008"}
Given that home prices have another 35% or so to fall to conform to standard lending practices regarding median home price vs median income, (assuming that median income doesn't fall) I wouldn't be expecting any sort of a turnaround in the economy any time soon. The only large scale manufacturing we do these days is home building, so it's pretty much going to all hinge on that. If the experts hadn't decided that short term profits were better than long term growth, we'd still be manufacturing things that we could export, and we'd have an easier time digging our way out of the hole we've borrowed our way into.
Funny that we're attempting to borrow our way out of that hole, I guess the experts still don't get it.................or they're just trying to get theirs today, and who cares about the rest of us tomorrow.
{"commentId":4042020,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"SonOfLIberty2008"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4130291,"authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
People are so focused on the gains they get in the present that they don't care about sacrificing a little money now to make long term profits...Which kind of puts every future generation in a precarious spot. We need to invest in production to create jobs and stimulate trade instead of investing in financial institutions and monetary trade.
{"commentId":4130291,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
{"commentId":3837277,"authorDomain":"akittenone"}
{"commentId":3837294,"authorDomain":"bbednarz2007"}
{"commentId":3837340,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
Stocks likely to recover no matter who's president
That recovery should be starting in about 2012; the decline hasn't even had time to bottom out!
{"commentId":3837340,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 3 votes
#8 - Sun Nov 2, 2008 4:32 PM EST{"commentId":3837358,"authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
and it will.
{"commentId":3837358,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3839230,"authorDomain":"gamerk2"}
Look at it this way, housing prices are still double what they were in 2000. We haven't been anywhere near the bottom yet. The only reason things are stabalising is because cheap gas (near an election, what a surprise...) is taking some of the burden off of homeowners.
{"commentId":3839230,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"gamerk2"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3847540,"authorDomain":"rickace"}
cheap gas (near an election, what a surprise...)
The wholesale price of gasoline is set by the international free market. National elections in the United States or anywhere else have little influence over that.
{"commentId":3847540,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"rickace"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3885358,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
The wholesale price of gasoline is set by the international free market.
Not exactly, commodities traders and global producers are a small number with huge influence.
Equilon Enterprises LLC, Motiva Enterprises LLC, Equiva Services LLC, and Equiva Trading are part of an alliance that was formed by Shell Oil Company, Texaco Inc., and Saudi Aramco. This alliance was formed in order to combine major elements of their U.S. marketing and refining operations. Together our mission is to refine and deliver the world’s finest petroleum products nationwide.
Equilon Enterprises refines and markets gasoline and other petroleum products under both the Shell and Texaco brand names in more than 30 states, providing products to over 9,900 Shell and Texaco retail outlets. Motiva Enterprises is a similar joint venture comprised by Shell, Texaco, and Saudi Aramco. Motiva Enterprises refines and markets gasoline and other petroleum products under both the Shell and Texaco names in more than 25 states, providing products to about 14,600 Shell and Texaco branded retail outlets across the U.S.
Equiva Services is the shared Services Company that is jointly owned by Equilon Enterprises and Motiva Enterprises. It now supports the Alliance Companies with a comprehensive range of cost effective, demand based services. Equiva Trading Company is a general partnership, which serves as the trading unit for Equilon Enterprises and Motiva Enterprises. Equiva Trading Company will buy and sell more than 7 million barrels of hydrocarbons per day in physical markets, making it one of the largest petroleum supply organizations in the world.
{"commentId":3885358,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3896917,"authorDomain":"rickace"}
Equiva Trading Company will buy and sell more than 7 million barrels of hydrocarbons per day in physical markets, making it one of the largest petroleum supply organizations in the world.
Commodity traders and global producers and consumers are all participants in the international free market. Commodity exchanges such as the New York Mercantile Exchange are the marketplace.
{"commentId":3896917,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"rickace"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3937234,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
global producers and consumers are all participants in the international free market
Not much of a free market when a handful of producers are the most influential factors.
{"commentId":3937234,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4007977,"authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
But it's basic economics that 80% control 20%. I wonder if this will ever change.
{"commentId":4007977,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4027475,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
I wonder if this will ever change.
We can hope and keep battling!
{"commentId":4027475,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4039944,"authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
Definitely. I've got many years ahead to do so.
{"commentId":4039944,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3837438,"authorDomain":"kbd"}
of course they will, it just depends on your time horizon. figure 2009 recession, first half of 2010 modest recovery, after that back to reasonable growth, by sometime in 2011 stocks should be above where they were before the recent collapse. there you have my optimistic scenario.
{"commentId":3837438,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"kbd"}
- 2 votes
#9 - Sun Nov 2, 2008 4:41 PM EST{"commentId":3837479,"authorDomain":"bbednarz2007"}
{"commentId":3837635,"authorDomain":"greenpagan"}
"Yeah but the rich have grown richer and have gained a stronger stranglehold over the People and the planet under rightwing Republicans! My country Right Wrong and Hallelujah!"
====
{"commentId":3837635,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"greenpagan"}
- 3 votes
#11 - Sun Nov 2, 2008 4:58 PM EST{"commentId":3837847,"authorDomain":"bbednarz2007"}
{"commentId":3837675,"authorDomain":"greenpagan"}
"Markets are interested in profits and profits only; service, quality, and general affluence are different functions altogether. The universal, democratic prosperity that Americans now look back to with such nostalgia was achieved only by a colossal reigning in of markets, by the gargantuan effort of mass, popular organizations like labor unions and of the people themselves, working through a series of democratically elected governments not daunted by the myths of the market."
-- Thomas Frank in One Market Under God
====
{"commentId":3837675,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"greenpagan"}
- 1 vote
#12 - Sun Nov 2, 2008 5:01 PM EST{"commentId":3858977,"authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
In other words, not the "invisible hand" or deregulation?
{"commentId":3858977,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"jms2qc"}
{"commentId":3838391,"authorDomain":"mjpellegrino"}
Of course they love Republicans, they give welfare bailouts so they can spread out to all the execs as welfare checks.
{"commentId":3838391,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"mjpellegrino"}
- 2 votes
#13 - Sun Nov 2, 2008 6:11 PM EST{"commentId":3838543,"authorDomain":"elmalo"}
i am an investor, if the democrats wins the elections, myself and my colleagues will not invest a single penny in the market\\
mr. r suarez
{"commentId":3838543,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"elmalo"}
#14 - Sun Nov 2, 2008 6:28 PM EST{"commentId":3838627,"authorDomain":"rob-han63"}
Of course stocks will recover no matter who is President.
{"commentId":3838627,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"rob-han63"}
- 1 vote
#15 - Sun Nov 2, 2008 6:36 PM EST{"commentId":3847592,"authorDomain":"rickace"}
I'm betting they will go down hard before they recover.
{"commentId":3847592,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"rickace"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3839341,"authorDomain":"notis71"}
This article shows just how deluded the msm is.And that is giving them the benefit of the doubt of not being NWO shills.The global financial market is on life support,else their would not be muchos meetings on a global financial system to replace this one with a segue regional currency and then a cashless one.The comments here are mind-numbing.
{"commentId":3839341,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"notis71"}
#16 - Sun Nov 2, 2008 7:37 PM EST{"commentId":3839477,"authorDomain":"notis71"}
This article shows how deluded the msm is,and that is giving them the benefit of the doubt at not being NWO shills.The global financial system is on life support.And there is no difference between the left or the right in politics.It's a hegelian dialectic to fool those that do not research matters.Wonder what will be remembered by the sheeple when we are told the dollar is dead and we need a new currency.From the comments here,there will be no remembrance by the sheeple of the lies of the msm or politicians the past 40 years.There's not even much of an outcry over the nationalization of banks and the loss of civil liberties each passing year.
{"commentId":3839477,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"notis71"}
#17 - Sun Nov 2, 2008 7:49 PM EST{"commentId":3847899,"authorDomain":"rickace"}
There's not even much of an outcry over the nationalization of banks and the loss of civil liberties each passing year.
That's because the electorate has become as dumb as a fencepost, preferring the slop dished up by the MSM and the feds over thinking critically and researching the issues for themselves.
I don't know what's going to happen to the dollar, but until it's no longer valuable I'm holding onto mine. My portolio hasn't had stocks in it for years, but by the time the bears get finished with Wall Street there will be some good ones available at fire sale prices. Meanwhile, deflation will make things less expensive and consequently dollars more valuable.
{"commentId":3847899,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"rickace"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4058373,"authorDomain":"arejones"}
Equity markets have been up and down for many years with little talk of ditching free market concepts. The election of Senator Obama signals dissatisfaction with President Bush's foreign and domestic policies and a significant shift away from American citizens willingness to compete, especially in the midst of the acts of corruption we are seeing from Washington politicians and corporate executives. The "Don't Tread on Me" ideal of our founders has been replaced with the " hey not fair, I don't want to lose" citizen. The work force is bombarded with reports of the rich getting richer on the backs of their labor. They want their share. They want at the National Treasury. We are all so educated, we work hard, hell we deserve our share of the wealth that our work creates. So capital formation is out of fashion, labor doesn't want to be exploited and the U.S federal government is going to be our salvation. Yeah. Sure. The Federal government that brought us the Korean Conflict ( still brewing after 50+ years, Viet Nam, Bosnia, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan and soon Iran. The same Federal Government that brought FEMA to New Orleans and couldn't deliver liveable trailers for the people left homeless there. Come on!! Federal Government is the problem. Less of it will do us all more good. Think locally and act locally.
So, stocks may recover, or maybe not. The rules to the game in America are changing. Markets don't like uncertaintly and changes to how the game is played is one the worst kinds of uncertainty our American market is facing. Sure the markets canl recover, maybe not in our lifetimes. The addage, "in the long run, we're all dead" comes to mind. It might not be a coincidence that we are experiencing this downturn as babyboomers prepare to exit the workforce and live off their years of retirement investments.
So yes, mutual funds, pension funds, corporations, federal, state, county and city governments will likely get whole with the passage of time. But it is our investment from our hard work that has been taken, by slick corporate executives, stupid politicians, greedy politicians and people pleasing politicians. You would'nt let your drunk nephew near your safe deposit box. Why would you let these people near your paychecks.
In life there are winners and losers. However, there are only winners in the rarified world of Corporate CEO's and Washington Politician/Lawyers. As taxpayers for the ridiculous assortment of politicians and bureucrats representing us, all bought and paid for by corporate America, we are all the losers, as our many generations who follow us. Wow.
And where are the tough questions that our journalists are supposed to be asking? I'll be reading, if I can afford a paper.
I invite you to read The Elliott Wave Theory, an expositon about social mood.
{"commentId":4058373,"threadId":"406933","contentId":"2064900","authorDomain":"arejones"}
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"406933","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2010 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
