- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 5
- Reactions
- 0
Your post is to quite negative. This is the beginning of new era, or so I hope.
Will there be a rally after the US elections?
- Thread starter Glen48
- Start date
Bloomberg had some stats based on data in markets in the last century that showed that there is likely to be a decline immediate after the election, however in February (Obama takes office in January), there is a good chance the market will begin to recover.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=akRyOGDs1EHI
They say the markets traditionally recover 4-5 months before the real economy does during a recession.
Don't shoot the messenger, but anyhow, I found it an interesting read.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=akRyOGDs1EHI
They say the markets traditionally recover 4-5 months before the real economy does during a recession.
Don't shoot the messenger, but anyhow, I found it an interesting read.
- Joined
- 10 July 2004
- Posts
- 2,913
- Reactions
- 3
Cheesus!
These chumps must be sliding into the doo-doo's themselves to be making insane quotes like that!
IMO
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
After all the hype and hyperbole the "new dawn" has been exposed to the cold light of day. The markets tell the story.
If you needed a final catalyst to tilt the world towards another depression you would elect an economic novice to the position of American President with a mandate to move the country to the left.
If you needed a final catalyst to tilt the world towards another depression you would elect an economic novice to the position of American President with a mandate to move the country to the left.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
I suspect you've hit he nail on the head.
Glen48
Money can't buy Poverty
- Joined
- 4 September 2008
- Posts
- 2,444
- Reactions
- 3
I see Obama helped the down and out in his home town after Uni, I wonder if he was helping the poor get into sub prime Home loans because it is their right to own a home???
- Joined
- 23 September 2008
- Posts
- 919
- Reactions
- 174
Perhaps you would like to elaborate on "the new era"?
- Joined
- 23 September 2008
- Posts
- 919
- Reactions
- 174
Spot on Mr Burns. There will be 'change' but not what people are expecting.
Glen48
Money can't buy Poverty
- Joined
- 4 September 2008
- Posts
- 2,444
- Reactions
- 3
- Joined
- 10 July 2004
- Posts
- 2,913
- Reactions
- 3
Phew!
For a minute there I thought I was watching a comedy!
Then I realised it was the real GWB.
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
While listening to ABC News Radio this morning I heard that the DOW had rallied following Obama's press conference which was mainly about the economy (and a puppy for the kids to keep his middle-aged women supporters happy). Obama told us what the problems are but no answers. Anyway it seems that if his brand of cliches can rally the market, so they serve some purpose.
I am sure that when Mr Rudd gets his ear, he will put him on the right track. It is simply a matter of setting up neverending reviews and enquiries, white papers and green papers and talkfests, and you can go on for ages without actually doing anything. Oh, and of course blaming the previous administration for everything.
I think Kevin may have already told him about the economic stimulus package, in which you send cheques to underachievers in the expectation that they will spend it quickly. He's going to try this one.
I am sure that when Mr Rudd gets his ear, he will put him on the right track. It is simply a matter of setting up neverending reviews and enquiries, white papers and green papers and talkfests, and you can go on for ages without actually doing anything. Oh, and of course blaming the previous administration for everything.
I think Kevin may have already told him about the economic stimulus package, in which you send cheques to underachievers in the expectation that they will spend it quickly. He's going to try this one.
tech/a
No Ordinary Duck
- Joined
- 14 October 2004
- Posts
- 20,400
- Reactions
- 6,317
His plan is to support USA goods and services by making changes to free trade agreements.
Fine for the US but disasterous for the Emerging countries which rely on the US consumerism. We wont be happy either,decreased demand,decreased commodity prices,Increased deficit,Increased job losses,Recessionary economy.
All of which is designed to encourage spending boost un employment and grow economies so the government can make more money to pay their never ending debt due to their in ability to regulate the banking system --- and so the black hole (Terrible pun!---not intended) keeps on keeping on!!
Bandaids treating the symptoms not the cause!
In Australia, the previous administration has a hell of a lot to answer for. Howard was fortunate enough to preside over an unprecedented boom, and enormous sums of cash flowing into the government coffers. The situation was greatly enhanced by the dollar having been floated, centralised wage fixing being dismantled, and an inflation target set of 2-3%, all of which occured under Labor. Howard had the oppportunity to invest in infrastructure and still be able to have a large warchest for the inevitable bursting of the commodities bubble and the similarly inevitable next recession. He chose to squander the opportunity on a ridiculous war, record governmment advertising, massive middle class welfare to get re-elected and outrageous pork barreling (fishing museums and so on). Indeed, he continually neglected the advice of the Reserve, and in the last half of his government, managed to outspend Whitlam, in same year dollars. No easy task. Whitlam was an extraordinary social reformer, however fiscal restraint was not a strength, to say the least. Currently the cashflow is drying up, and the ability to pump prime a slowing economy, which is what economist's agree upon is necessary in a slowdown, is dramaticallty lower than it otherwise could have been. Thanks, John.
In America, as I've pointed out previously, the White House's own figures show the national debt skyrocketing under Reagan and Bush I, declining under Clinton and reaching a 53 year high under Bush II. In short, the record books show the Republicans to be the big spending, big debt party, unless you believe the white house fudged it's own figures. Even most Republicans recognise the economic train wreck Bush has been. Tax cuts to the extremely wealthy, Iraq (which has been more expensive than the bailout so far), and ridiculous deregulation of the financial sector has driven the states to the brink of collapse. The Democrats were supportive of housing loans to the poor and are not without blame, but Bush has been there for eight years, and the responsibility for the lion's share of the turmoil resides firmly on the Republican's shoulders. McCain (92% Bush) has openly stated that he knows little about the economy, his judgement extended to choose a running mate that thought Africa was a country, Russian planes flying overhead were evidence of foreign policy experience, and who is known as more than a little knocked off in the brains department by even a great many within her own party. Do you really believe that that would have been a better recipe for the markets over time?
The expectations placed on Obama are unrealistic. No President could remedy such a dire situation, as if holding a magic wand. As we saw, the markets rallied on the expectation that at least the architects of the fiasco would no longer be in control. They subsequently went in the other direction on the understanding of the enormity of the task and that a nasty recession is inevitable, regardless of a change of government. Obama may be an infinitely better alternative, however the reality of the situation suggests it will not be remedied overnight.
Greenspan himself has admitted that he got it wrong in believing in the extremes of capitalism and the ability of the markets to always self correct in the absence of any meaningful regulation. Australia has universal health, a better regulated financial sector (our institutions are not dropping like flies), greater access to educational opportunities and a minimum wage that is double that in the US. Your argument that a leftwards shift to the centre will end in disaster is not exactly holding a great deal of water, given we're in a better situation than the US. To think that four more years of same in the US is just what the situation warranted is cloud loco on acid.
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
Right here!
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
Nothing there about a "leftwards shift to the centre", except in your fertile imagination.
OK. "A mandate to shift the country to the left" My longer post outlined what a crock of catastrophising it is, to suggest that it will provide a catalyst for a depression. I made the point that for three decades the national debt has skyrocketed under the Right (the Republicans) and declined under the left (the Democrats). The stats speak for themselves. Bangin' on, with nothing to back it up, about movements to the left resulting in depression is about as vacuos as they come.
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
Yes Skint, your long post certainly was a crock. Your problem is that you are so short on ideas that you have to invent things to argue about.
No, all the evidence such as who put policies in place, the White House figures etc..are all fact. BTW, alternative viewpoints are what make the world go round, however you really need to learn how to craft an argument for your perspective.
"Yes Skint, your long post certainly was a crock. Your problem is that you are so short on ideas that you have to invent things to argue about."
You see, you haven't actually said anything here. The sort of stuff you hear from kids in primary school.
I'm done with this. Yawn and Ciao.
chops_a_must
Printing My Own Money
- Joined
- 1 November 2006
- Posts
- 4,636
- Reactions
- 3
Similar threads
