There has been an unreality in the reports on the falling stock markets for at least the past 10 days. Each day's plunge seems to have been exclusively due to the "global economic crisis" and/or the supposed "freeze on credit."
Oddly enough, the admittedly small bank where I have my business accounts is having absolutely no problem funding mortgage, home-equity, and other loan applications from qualified borrowers -- a fact I confirmed just before posting this entry. With all due respect to the global business press, if there's truly a "freeze," how can that be?
I've put forth an alternative explanation to the media meme a couple of times this week myself, but an editorial at IBDeditorials.com yesterday brought out a major element of what I have been saying much more forcefully and articulately. Remarkably, though the possibility seems pretty obvious to me, and I suspect many others, I have seen no one in the business press covering daily market events even mention the obvious and quite likely alternative that follows.
The editorial, "Investors' Real Fear: A Socialist Tsunami," teases with the plaintive question, "What is it about the specter of our first socialist president and the end of capitalism as we know it that they don't understand?"
The editorial's body begins thusly:
The freeze-up of the financial system — and government's seeming inability to thaw it out — are a main concern, no doubt. But more people are also starting to look across the valley, as they say, at what's in store once this crisis passes.
And right now it looks like the U.S., which built the mightiest, most prosperous economy the world has ever known, is about to turn its back on the free-enterprise system that made it all possible.
It isn't only that the most anti-capitalist politician ever nominated by a major party is favored to take the White House. It's that he'll also have a filibuster-proof Congress led by politicians who are almost as liberal.
Throw in a media establishment dedicated to the implementation of a liberal agenda, and the smothering of dissent wherever it arises, and it's no wonder panic has set in.
And there's more (bolds is mine):
..... All the while, it ensures that nothing — absolutely nothing — will be done to secure a sufficient, terror-proof supply of our economic lifeblood — oil — a resource we'll need much more of in the years ahead.
The businesses that create jobs and generate wealth are already discounting the future based on what they know about Obama's plans to raise income, capital gains, dividend and payroll taxes, and his various other economy-crippling policies.
The editorial further notes that 100 economists, including five Nobel winners have signed a letter warning against Obama's proposed high-tax, protectionist plans. Have read about that anywhere else?
The editorial's shortcoming, sadly more than minor, is that it does not assign any blame to current actions already taken or under consideration by Congress, the Treasury Department, and the Bush Administration. These would include the passage of the so-called "bailout" bill a week ago, and the possibility that the government will take preferred equity positions in certain banks and insurance companies.
Stock values are fundamentally based on discounted cash flows relating to a company's expected future earnings. Government interventions in companies' operations have almost always led to reduced, if not disappearing, earnings, simply because profit is no longer the primary driving motive. The massive proposals currently under consideration are especially dangerous in that respect. If earnings expectations dive, so do stock prices. Those, more than an economy that grew by 2.8% in the second quarter, seems to be a more plausible explanation for the recent steep declines in the equity markets.
Yet the day-to-day business press seems to be in lockstep ignoring what IBD has plausibly raised. Why?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
backwards
October 11, 2008 - 10:39 ET by nicholas nicklebyEr, Tom, according to most polls, Obama's numbers rose after the economy started to tank.
So, shouldn't it be the other way around--not a socialist president causes the economy to crater, but that a failing economy propels a socialist president?
(Of course, it could be a vicious cycle: bad economy-->socialist pres-->bad economy. But note what came first.)
[Edit: also, I don't suppose you saw this report from the Economist, showing that most economists actually think Obama will do a better job of handling the economy: http://www.economist... --even economists who identified as Republicans think Obama will do a better job, 2-to-1]
Zheesh ....
October 11, 2008 - 10:40 ET by Tom Blumer.... This post is about investors' reactions, not the reactions of those polled.
People with their money on the line tend to act rationally. You're presupposing that voters do too, and that they have the information available to act rationally.
If anyone has failed, it's the government (fan-fred-CRA) and Wall Street, NOT the economy, which when last checked grew at a 2.8% annual rate in the second quarter.
Other commenters can take it from here, since I must run.
ohkay
October 11, 2008 - 10:59 ET by nicholas nicklebyTom,
This post is about investors' reactions, not the reactions of those polled
Investors and voters are often the same people. (True, some foreign investors don't vote, and some voters don't invest, but in the Venn diagram that I'm proposing, there is something of an overlap.)
You noted that investors were nervous because (according to one editorial) Obama might be socialist (not true, but if people believe it they may act as if it were true); I simply noted the obvious first part--investors may be nervous because the economy has not done so well recently, as demonstrated by the unsteadiness of the stock market. The economic woes have not helped McCain, since he's been flailing around, trying to find a message or a plan--but if the polls were running his way, the economy would likely still be facing a problem. Because, no matter who is leading, many investors often wait until a new president is in office.
So, investors, facing a crisis, often wait until they have a firm hand at the tiller. McCain is clearly not the man for the job, as shown by his flailing around, trying to find a message--and, as I pointed out, despite a letter with 100 economists and 5 Nobel winners on it, most economists actually support Obama, saying that his plan is better and he has a better grip on the economy.
(Also, 5 Nobel winners? Obama has been endorsed by 63 Nobel winners in Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine--hardly the bastions of socialist thought--because they think he'll be better in general, and specifically better in terms of science. And since scientific innovation often fuels economic growth...)
Gore was a Nobel winner.....
October 11, 2008 - 11:32 ET by JTPThat point is worthless. See my post below.
"I need more cowbell!" SNL
You are blind, where has Obama ever solved a problem?
October 11, 2008 - 11:34 ET by general companyYou noted that investors were nervous because (according to one
editorial) Obama might be socialist (not true, but if people believe it
they may act as if it were true);
Not true? Give me one exsample were he has ever argued against a socialist program. What problems has he ever solved, are his districts in IL better then when he arrived? He hasnt done squat, just because a bunch of liberal economist claim he will dont make it so. He is a socialist, all of his ideas suggest this.
Obama is a product of this very type of shoddy reporting and cheerleading from the msm. How else can someone with no previous accomplishment be elevated to this stature? Unless you count that thug lawyer job he calls being a community organiser. Obama has never helped anyone but Obama.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Nick... For the first
October 11, 2008 - 11:36 ET by Clear thinkerNick...
For the first time you may have told the truth. Obama may very well not be a Socialist, his is more of a Communist approach!
Obama’s First Cabinet Member
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Socialism run amok
October 11, 2008 - 10:41 ET by mizflame98The fact remains that I don't forsee Obama's economic policies working towards greasing the wheels of capitalism.
“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.”
B.H. Obama
NN another great example of liberal bias
October 11, 2008 - 11:19 ET by general companyA total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as
Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party
breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly
Democrats’ greater propensity to respond
This is there sample, and you honestly think this poll means squat. I also noticed, that this artical says nothing eithers policies. Just another liberal hack job that highlites McCains supposed flaws while praising Obama for winning the very flawed poll as far as I can tell. Mind less reporting and exstreamly flawed polling really should tick off everyone, not just the Right
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
the economist--liberal bastion?
October 11, 2008 - 11:29 ET by nicholas nicklebyHey GC,
Yes, but as I pointed out, GC, of the Republicans, 46% prefer Obama, to 23% preferring McCain--even Republican economists prefer Obama. Now, you might ask why a Republican would prefer Obama's plan, but that's because, as the article notes:
"irrespective of any party affiliation, most of them approach
policy decisions with the same basic tool kit."
And according to that tool kit--the fundamentals of economic research and policy--Obama is the better candidate.
Also, as for the article not commenting on the candidates' policies, you'll notice the graphic of the poll--the lower left corner: "How do you rate the economic plans of":
John McCain leads in (1--Very Bad) and (2) with 30 and 40%; Obama leads in (3) and (4) with 30 and 40%. So, they may not love Obama's policies, but they really don't like John McCain's policies. (And, as you'll note, those are direct comments about their policies.)
Wake up NN,
October 11, 2008 - 12:02 ET by general companyOur survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists. We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down
,A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither.
This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond.
This article is a joke, I have been, as you have I am sure, been watching a whole spectrum of economist on tv and they have NOT been even close to agreeing with Obama, in fact quite the opposite. These economist are putting thier names behind what they say.
Any sane person would had deleted this e-mail as spam, infact 541 one of them did. So what does that tell you about the "Democrats’ greater propensity to respond"?
If I told you I was a liberal, would you believe me? Why? You dont know me. So how is it you take these 142 responders at their word, show me names, then we will continue this conversation
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
NN
October 11, 2008 - 12:24 ET by cocodrieAs usual NN you used a skewed poll to present a flawed argument. The poll you quote was taken fron 46% democrats and 10% republicans. That's why it is liberally skewed and useless.
oy vey: Republican economists support Obama's plans/abilities
October 11, 2008 - 12:42 ET by nicholas nicklebyCoco, more Dems responded, true, but look at the numbers of the Republicans who responded--more (self-identified) Republican economists like Obama's plan--2-to-1, Republican-identified economists think Obama will do a better job. You can't explain that away as bias--unless you want to challenge their self-identification as Republicans. Are these RINO economists? Is everyone who disagrees with you politicall biased? That way, Coco, lies tinfoil-hatted madness.
Who is NN?
October 11, 2008 - 13:01 ET by JWFNumNuts? Wait, oh I see, Nickotene Nicostain. That guy that keeps on with the poll, poll, poll, poll, poll.
Sorry, I got confused. Carry on.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF et al
October 11, 2008 - 13:33 ET by Noel SheppardJWF et al,
I implore folks to examine links posted by shills like NN and NOT just accept the veracity of the statements made by such people. In the next three weeks, shills like this are going to expect that folks won't open links, and will just blindly accept THEIR opinion of what's at those links.
For instance, NN wrote, "Yes, but as I pointed out, GC, of the Republicans, 46% prefer Obama, to 23% preferring McCain--even Republican economists prefer Obama." He later reiterated this, "Republican economists like Obama's plan--2-to-1, Republican-identified economists think Obama will do a better job."
Not true! Let's check the link, shall we? First off, let's understand that only 14 Republican economists responded to this poll. WOW! Now THAT'S a statistically significant sample, isn't it?
Second, NN is misrepresenting the truth here -- which, BTW folks, he often does, and that's why I don't bother responding to him anymore! Anyway, the 46 to 23% stat he referenced dealt with the question "Which candidate strikes you as having a better grasp of economics?" on page 4 of the PDF and NOT which candidate they prefer!!!
Quite the contrary, on page one, when responding to "Please grade John McCain's economic plans. (1=very bad, 5=very good)," these economists gave an average rating of 3.29, or a little better than fair. On the same page, when responding to "Please grade Barack Obama's economic plans. (1=very bad, 5=very good)," these economists gave an average rating of 2.07, or BAD! In fact, four of these folks gave Obama a very bad, and six a bad. He got only one good. By contrast, McCain got five goods and one very good.
As such, NN was lying as usual.
Folks, please open links posted by shills. They very often tell a much different story than what the shill is representing. ns
Poll difficulty
October 11, 2008 - 14:07 ET by nicholas nicklebyNoel,
It's fascinating to me that when asked who has the better grasp on economics, only 3 Republican economists said McCain, and yet, when asked who would pick the better economic team, 8 said McCain. Does that make any sense? Clearly, the poll is a little strange--it seems like there's a bit of cognitive dissonance going on there.
(The sports analogy would be like someone saying, "McCain doesn't understand baseball as well as Obama, but I think he'll pick a better starting line-up." As I said, it's a little strange.)
So, yes, Noel, the poll does have a lot of openness to it. (Not least of all is the openness of self-reporting one's political stance. Are all those Republicans really Republicans?)
And please, I always like when people check out my links for themselves--I've been on these boards for a few weeks, and with one or two exceptions, I've always been willing and able to put up links for others to examine. When push comes to shove, I've also been argued down, and had to tone down some of my claims. (Like, there was that time I claimed the Bush wiretaps were illegal; I was challenged on that, and admitted that they have not yet been ruled on.)
So, here again, Noel, you're right--I said Republicans prefer his policies and abilities, when really I should have toned down my claim: 2-to-1, they merely think he has a better grasp on the economy.
Anyway, I hope to see you around more often, Noel. Frankly, I've thought before that NB should put me on their payroll since I get conversations started.
No honor like I said.
October 11, 2008 - 14:43 ET by JWFA noble man would have slunk away in shame when exposed in a lie, especially by an associate editor of the very site he is lying on. But not a liberal. They just come back and spew even more of their verbal poo.
And he is proud of getting conversations started. Which again proves the point of my earlier comment in another thread.
He like a lot of other liberals wants to debate. Their idea of a debate is to pound you with half truths, propaganda and lies, never actually listening to anything that is factual, evidenciary, truthful or is in fact the law. They pound, move the argument, throw in red herrings, straw men, and in general bury you under such a large amount of garbage that you throw up your hands and scream "enough!" It is a that point they claim victory.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2008/10/09/open-thread#comment-742291
nicknickpoopywickgivethedogabone, go away.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF
October 11, 2008 - 19:23 ET by Noel SheppardJWF,
Can you imagine? The guy gets exposed in a lie, and he seems proud of it. Now you know why he won't get a second of my time. The only reason I posted here was because I wanted folks to know they were being lied to.
It's an extraordinary thing being a liberal. All of these folks are little Machiavellis! :-) ns
I'll be sober in the morning--you'll still be you
October 12, 2008 - 11:00 ET by nicholas nicklebyNoel,
Where's the lie? I was wrong with the fine print; you were right. Better yet, where the "proud of it"? I admitted that you read the fine print better than I did--more Republican-identified economists like McCain's platform.
(Even though some of those same economists think Obama has a better grasp on economic matters--which again is a little strange: it's as if they were saying "I think Obama understands the system better, but I trust McCain to do better with a system that he doesn't understand.")
All this "liberals live in a fantasy land, liberals will do anything to prove their point" is ridiculous. I made a mistake. Mea culpa. Now do you think the McCain campaign will admit their mistake--that their "100 Economists" for McCain is actually "90 Economists" for McCain--2 of whom work for the McCain campaign. (Now, approving of your own plan is kind of like finding yourself innocent in an ethics probe, don't you think?)
Proving my other point.
October 12, 2008 - 11:13 ET by JWFd. Like a typical liberal, they want to debate EVERYTHING. No issue is ever settled. Every little thing is relative. It is all gray. When in fact, 98% of everything is settled. Most of it is black and white, right or wrong. Abortion is wrong. Oswald did do it alone. We did land on the moon. 9/11 was committed by Islamic terrorists. Bush did not lie. 2 + 2 does equal 4. The polls are skewed.
No issue is ever settled. They keep coming back to old dead threads and yapping their yaw.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
double post
October 11, 2008 - 21:04 ET by MrShyMy bad.
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
NichNick
October 11, 2008 - 21:04 ET by MrShy"When push comes to shove, I've also been argued down, and had to tone down some of my claims."
Hahahahaha.... "tone down some of my claims". That collection of words is just too much!!
You need to work for a political campaign. (Hmmm, now which one could that beeeeee....... ???)
:)
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
hmmm
October 12, 2008 - 11:04 ET by nicholas nicklebybut Shy, do you disagree with that self-description, that I've toned down claims? Actually, that's not a good way to say it--I've toned down my claims or abandoned them, as I did on the question of the legality of the warrantless wiretaps. We've crossed paths before, and I'm sure you've seen me bow out of a position or argument.
See, I don't mind being known as a contrarian, or even a troll really, but I don't think it's true to say "nickleby is a shrieking liberal who never admits when he's wrong." I do admit when I'm demonstrably wrong (as I was here). If you know liberals who don't admit when they're wrong, well, there are jerks of every political persuasion.
NN
October 11, 2008 - 21:24 ET by NorthCoasterGame, Set and Match to Noel Shepard. NN, are you saying that you want to be the "Devils Advocate" on the site? It only seems appropriate.
NC... Bulls-Eye... Lord
October 11, 2008 - 21:32 ET by bigtimerNC...
Bulls-Eye...
Lord the guy gets tiring...I don't know how you all do it.
I wished we all could just move on and ignore this piece of work at times, maybe he'd go find a new home and somebody else to bug....but heck, I know how it goes...that is for sure.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
BT
October 11, 2008 - 21:49 ET by NorthCoasterThanks, usually I don't have time to do much more than scan comments, unless a string gets interesting, or is fun to participate in. On occasion something like Noel's reply just jumps out and you can see the following posts light up in recognition of it's validity.
NN
October 11, 2008 - 21:41 ET by TheAssessorNN.. been reading you about 4 wks now. Final diagnosis: You're a jerk.
Psychopaths Anonymous: Where we don't feel your pain.. "Hi my name is Barak"
You are braver than I sir.
October 11, 2008 - 14:29 ET by JWFI won't open their links because I already know it is horse hooey. I prefer vicious mocking, like that guy Nickatnite Nucklefork.
They do not mind getting caught in a lie. There is no honor there, among the many dustbunnies that blow through their tiny brains.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Noel, I am afraid to open their links.
October 11, 2008 - 14:37 ET by R D HelmCuzz my computer might catch something it can't get rid of. :-)
-Dave
If this nation is to be saved, it will be libertarian principles that save it.
double-checking--100 economists for McCain? Looks like 90!
October 11, 2008 - 16:02 ET by nicholas nicklebyAs Noel says here, you should always double-check links.
For instance, I just went to the McCain-Palin website and counted the "100 economists" who have signed a letter of support for McCain--and there are only 90! Ha. Miscounting how many economists you have supporting you? Now that's comedy.
(Please, someone go there and double-check my math, this is almost too funny to be real.)
John McCain has honor.
October 11, 2008 - 16:50 ET by JWFWe don't think a scummy little liar should be visiting the site of an honorable man like Sen. McCain. Now we have to break out the Spic & Span and clean all the servers.
Not only are you a liar but you are now costing people real money to clean off your scum.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Hi Noel!
October 11, 2008 - 16:14 ET by TN MomNo matter what the shills/polls say I'm not buying it! As a small business owner and taxpayer I am telling all of you that Obama's Socialist tax plan is like Jimmy Carter on meth! The first wave of rot will strike at the 'teeth' of our economy: JOBS and will progress downward from there!
BTW, there are a good number of Americans who believe the turmoil on Wall Street has been caused by ECONOMIC TERRORSIM first strike was 9/11 this year.
I agree, unless he's been
October 11, 2008 - 11:21 ET by motherbeltI agree, unless he's been lying all along, because capitalism is NOT what he's been campaigning on.
If his policies are going to be so good for the economy, why is this mess spreading? Shouldn't the world be in a "just hold on for a few more months and everything will be rosy" mode?
Right On
October 11, 2008 - 10:47 ET by JoelCTI believe you to be correct, Tom. There is a man who is saying that he will raise taxes on big business, raise taxes on small business, and raise taxes just about everywhere else, and will freely give that money to unproductive people, who will spend it on cigs and booze. They see no future in that situation. They see the country spinning out of control into a depression.
When Senator McCain wins the Presidency in three weeks, the markets will soar.
Joel... I agree except
October 11, 2008 - 10:51 ET by Clear thinkerJoel...
I agree except for one thing. If McCain wins, all I want is the market to stabilize. We don't need the markets to soar at this point, we need stability.
Obama’s First Cabinet Member
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Oh come one, we have nothing
October 11, 2008 - 11:02 ET by KevpotOh come one, we have nothing to fear from Obama being prez. John said its going to be ok....
urp!
October 11, 2008 - 11:31 ET by mizflame98Yeah, that line made me sick! The only reason now that I'm voting for McCain is because Obama is not a consideration and the 3rd party candidates are a big wacky.
“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.”
B.H. Obama
I think alot of us have
October 11, 2008 - 11:03 ET by Dave DI think alot of us have been saying that when things didn't stop and it became more and more certain McCain isn't winning this thing. An analogy would be like this, suppose you were in a horrid marriage that had went on for say nearly eight years. If you were getting out in 2 months because the divorce papers were finalized you'd be ecstatic. If however you weren't happy but actually depressed people would probably figure something else is going on. (IE the future after the marriage isn't so rosy.)
So the odd thing is that, if things are going to be so much better given what's probably going to happen why arn't the financial markets not merely doing ok but actually doing great?
This "small" business owner's 2 cents worth....
October 11, 2008 - 11:29 ET by JTPI own a small business that will be on the plus side of Obama's tax plan (increased taxes over $250,000). We are doing well and are planning on an addition of a larger building and new equipment based on our customers telling us at the beginning of the year that they will be increasing orders. Within the last month or so those same customers have said (quietly) that they have changed plans and thier expansions have been placed on hold until late fall (aka elections). In turn we have put our building contractor and new equipment on hold. And I am certain he has put his building supplier on hold and so on and so forth all the way down to the portable potty supplier for worksite workers. This is just one instance in our little town of placing all progress in the holding pattern until we know whom is going to be in control of our economy. Imagine how this multiplies across the country and what it is doing to investments in all of these businesses that make this system work. I challenge the media or anyone who seriously wants to do a REAL poll of the people that CREATE jobs to give their opinion on who is better able to manage the economy starting next January. I believe the results will be much different than what is being force fed to us each day now.
By the way.. based on the current market my 2 cents worth is pretty much worthless.
"I need more cowbell!" SNL
Invest your 2 cents in
October 11, 2008 - 11:33 ET by Clear thinkerInvest your 2 cents in 'common sense', nothing else will hold it's value quite like it.
Obama’s First Cabinet Member
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Obama seems to stress
October 11, 2008 - 11:33 ET by jpm100Obama seems to stress stopping 'off-shoring' jobs and not really protectionism. It seals the death warrant to US firms because they now have to compete with foreign corporations that aren't restricted from tapping into the global cheap labor market.
Superficially he'll be 'helping' workers. But in fact he'll cause unemployment and then rescue them with social programs. And I don't think that's an unintended consequence.
There is absolutely something there.
October 11, 2008 - 12:53 ET by JWFI am stunned that a man with so many marxist ties, socialist ties, Ayers, his Frank mentor, his pastor, Alinsky, Acorn, his demanding marxist wife, his serious link to the fan/fred mess that got us here, his promises of instituting serious socialist policies, and his demanding that we change our lifestyle, I am completely stunned that he still has a serious chance of taking the Presidency. What planet are we walking around on?
And we have a press that is absolutely covering for him. They are cheering him on because in their heart of hearts, they are secret little marxists too. Sorry NB, you need to change the motto, this is not bias, this is an outright blockade. Look at the latest stuff, Obama was in a socialist party! Nothing. Ayers very possibly ghostwrote one of Obama's books. Silence.
Fox news is not much help either. They claim balance. But how do you balance something that is 95% right and 5% wrong. You can not throw up the 5% and give the an equal weighting of 50/50 in the name of balance.
I am also mystified that a man spent 5 years of hell at the hands of communists appears to be almost lacking the white hot rage that some of us a feeling at the prospect of giving the reins to a socialist after all this country has gone through fighting it for the past 65 years.
And yes, that includes this fascist Islam religion that sided with and cheered on those other socialists, the nazi's.
I am worried for this country but I do not have enough money in the stock market to completely panic. But I can certainly see IDB's point.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
It's not the economy I worry about.
October 11, 2008 - 13:02 ET by mizflame98As long as we continue to be a capitalist society, the economy will work itself out. I'm more worried about who will be at the helm if another terrorist attack is being planned.
“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.”
B.H. Obama
I agree entirely. All of
October 11, 2008 - 20:24 ET by SmartypantsI agree entirely. All of this talk of the economy is not the point. Barack Obama is going to have his lunch eaten by the likes of Putin, Chavez, Ahmadinejad and others. Barack Obama, for all his smooth talk, still hems, haws and sputters during the foreign policy parts of these debates. He is clueless in this regard. Forget about tax policies, his foreign policy will set up problems that, again, a conservative president (a real conservative) is going to have to fix somewhere down the road; that is if we are so lucky to have the opportunity to fix the problem.
JWF, as I have posted on this site 1,436 times...
October 11, 2008 - 13:32 ET by R D Helm...Welcome to the age of the dumbmAsses.
This is what happens when a free republic turns the education of its citizenry over to the government.
-Dave
If this nation is to be saved, it will be libertarian principles that save it.
either or
October 12, 2008 - 02:17 ET by Wesen"I am also mystified that a man spent 5 years of hell at the hands of communists appears to be almost lacking the white hot rage" Either McCain has his wits and a plan... or the gooks really broke him. For all the Bush bashing, if Barry makes the White House, the Country will look back and miss W and the Lincoln bedroom will go to Barry's half-brother or maybe he'll rotate between Ayres, Wright, Farrakan, Flager, Oprah and the rest. And we thought the House needed fumigating after Clinton.
Trash the Lincoln bedroom
October 12, 2008 - 08:54 ET by mizflame98I think the Lincoln bedroom will fare worse if Obama's buddies stay in there. Remember how the Clinton's friends treated it?
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/10/real-hillary-clinton.html
I think that Obama will let his buddies burn a flag on the bed while they take turns peeing on it.
“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.”
B.H. Obama
Me, too, and I don't know.
October 12, 2008 - 11:13 ET by cheeflo"I am stunned that a man with so many marxist ties, socialist ties, Ayers, his Frank mentor, his pastor, Alinsky, Acorn, his demanding marxist wife, his serious link to the fan/fred mess that got us here, his promises of instituting serious socialist policies, and his demanding that we change our lifestyle, I am completely stunned that he still has a serious chance of taking the Presidency. What planet are we walking around on?"
We are basically considering handing over the keys to our home to a stranger who refuses to identify or define himself and has no clear principles or experience, but who assures us that our lives will be made whole by his identity, principles and experience.
He wants to homogenize us into uniformly unthinking, obedient, and manageable proles who rely on the benevolence and competence of the government for everything. He sees our role in society as merely populating The State.
Praying is something I don't typically do on a regular basis, but I am praying hard that this con man is defeated and that American citizens come to their senses.
I admire your courage, Mr. Blumer.
October 11, 2008 - 13:28 ET by R D HelmYet the day-to-day business press seems to be in lockstep ignoring what IBD has plausibly raised. Why?
Because the business media is afraid that they will be tagged as racist for reporting what most of us have known for well over a week now.
People are cashing out and running for the tall grass because of the impending "presidency" of Barack Hussein Obama.
If I had had any money in the stock market, I would have done the same thing, for exactly that reason.
-Dave
If this nation is to be saved, it will be libertarian principles that save it.
Perfect
October 11, 2008 - 15:31 ET by LedeAgendaThis article said exactly what I have been hearing from my clients, who are pulling their money from the markets at rapid pace. Not due to market worries, no most believe in long-term investing, but rather they are pulling out of fear that the new U.S. economy when this mess is all over will no longer favor a investor receiving a fair return at the time of sale.
The "market" is positioning itself in case Obama wins
October 11, 2008 - 17:38 ET by c5thenThis is individual investors and investment institutions getting their portfolios ready should Obama win. What if capital gains are taxed at a 50% rate? What if small successful businesses are taxed at the expected 69% rate that Obama wants? What if the large financial institutions are nationalized and current investors are simply stiffed out of their shares a la Venezuela? What if the oil refineries are nationalized?
Prediction: the more it looks like an Obama win, the further down the markets will go.
Bush is the Socialist! Bush is part of the problem.
October 11, 2008 - 20:12 ET by PopularTechWho is the one nationalizing the financial and mortgage industries? Who is the one bailing out Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley thanks to the Treasury Secretary being a former CEO of Goldman Sachs? Who is the one who pushed for minorities to own homes they could not afford? Who is the one who keeps expanding government? Bush! Bush is a fiscal socialist. WAKE UP PEOPLE.
Bush the Socialist Destroyer (Ludwig Von Mises Institute)
How Big Is Bush's Big Government? (Mark Brandly, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
Bush's 'American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003' (Lew Rockwell)
Bush 'No Money Down' - Tax Payers Will Pay (Video) (6min)
Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership (USA Today)
Bank of America: 'Paulson Plan Benefits Mostly Goldman, Morgan' (Seeking Alpha)
We are in a real mess for
October 11, 2008 - 20:19 ET by bigtimerWe are in a real mess for years to come...
Time will tell what happens on down the road PT.
People need to wake up...or rise up.
Something has to give eventually..one way or the other.
I thank him (President Bush) for the WOT and standing strong...not backing down with all the enemies against him...here and abroad...along with the military, all of them.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Bush screws Capitalism and empowers economics illiterates
October 11, 2008 - 20:26 ET by PopularTechThanks to this socialist "compassionate conservative" moron economic illiterates are blaming Laissez faire capitalism because these morons think bush supports free markets.
Our problem is a direct result of government intervention in the markets by a combination of the Fed and bigger government socialism.
I
October 11, 2008 - 20:32 ET by bigtimerI agree..totally.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Government Creating an Inflationary Holocaust
October 12, 2008 - 00:27 ET by PopularTechJim Rogers: Government Creating an Inflationary Holocaust (Video) (7min)
If people cannot understand the basic logic of NOT listening to the idiots who have been wrong so far then there is no hope for anyone.
We don't like how you are
October 12, 2008 - 01:11 ET by Carl KolchakWe don't like how you are thinking. You do too much thinking about the past and how it might affect the future. Don't you know you should trust what the government tells you? Who cares if a loaf of bread costs a wheelbarrel full of money, or if a gallon of milks costs 4 hours worth of labor? You will be living under Socialism and your government will be doing all the thinking for people like you. Do not question our motives or means. You just do what the government tells you, and do not question them.
Signed
The Thought Police
Thank you, Tom Blumer.
October 12, 2008 - 00:33 ET by maggieqpublicThank you, Tom Blumer. And thank you, Investors Business Daily.
We often have CNBC on in the background as my husband and I labor at our desks/computers. While much of the discussion goes right over my head, I have noticed that one detail not discussed on the CNBC air is the consequence of undivided liberal government on the economy.
I wouldn’t expect the commentators to talk too much about a socialist president, but the consequences of a combined leftist Congress, a leftist Executive and leftist Supreme Court appointments should be an obvious discussion point in the current economic environment. Some of the CNBC commenters have an agenda, but I believe others are absolutely intimidated and will not address the significance of the voting day to come.
maggie... I believe you
October 12, 2008 - 00:39 ET by bigtimermaggie...
I believe you are 100% correct.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh