Spinning the bad news on the economy is the new strategy to elect Obama!!

[XCALIDEM]

It appears that as long as the economy remains the big issue in everybodys minds, Obama will continue to improve in the polls. It just seems fishy that we're having to deal with the market crashing in the last month prior to elections.

As you may know, much of trading is done based on speculation....

It wouldn't surprise me that alot of this mess in the stock market was created by the media... :

Watch Jim Cramer giving this "dooms day" advice to our country:

 

[neilsimon]

Know what? An economy, regardless of country, goes crazy when there's an election. I wouldn't blow off the theory that the media has blown up several issues just in the tune of "economy: fail"

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It appears that as long as the economy remains the big issue in everybodys minds, Obama will continue to improve in the polls. It just seems fishy that we're having to deal with the market crashing in the last month prior to elections.

Gee.....I guess it must be a Right-Wing Conspiracy.

"Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke predicts the global financial crisis is likely to hold back the U.S. economy well into next year. Recent financial developments suggest that "the outlook for economic growth has worsened and that the downside risks to growth have increased," he said."

Everone say, THANKS, GEORGE!!!!!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Know what? An economy, regardless of country, goes crazy when there's an election.

I'm sure you can show everyone an election that had the same type of economy.

Sounds more like Porky Limbaugh's horsesh!t.

 

[XCALIDEM]

Gee.....I guess it must be a Right-Wing Conspiracy.

Everone say, THANKS, GEORGE!!!!!!!

We've already discuss the issue that it was Barney Frank and his buddies from congress the ones who said that there were no problems with our loan systems...

 

[top gun]

!

It appears that as long as the economy remains the big issue in everybodys minds, Obama will continue to improve in the polls. It just seems fishy that we're having to deal with the market crashing in the last month prior to elections.

As you may know, much of trading is done based on speculation....

It wouldn't surprise me that alot of this mess in the stock market was created by the media... :

Watch Jim Cramer giving this "dooms day" advice to our country:

Or Aliens or Psychic Palin Witches!

George Bush and his Republican allies (like you) just can't hide anymore. You're on your way out because you did just one hell of a bad job... case closed!

Economist Magazine Survey: Economists Overwhelmingly Prefer Obama
__________________________________________________

AS THE financial crisis pushes the economy back to the top of voters’ concerns, Barack Obama is starting to open up a clear lead over John McCain in the opinion polls. But among those who study economics for a living, Mr Obama’s lead is much more commanding. A survey of academic economists by The Economist finds the majority—at times by overwhelming margins—believe Mr Obama has the superior economic plan, a firmer grasp of economics and will appoint better economic advisers.

Does their opinion matter? Economics is just one of the many things the next president will have to worry about. And even on the economy, economists may not have the same priorities as the population at large. Arguably, what a president says about economics on the campaign trail is less important than how he responds to the unexpected challenges that inevitably arise once he is in office.

Yet economists’ opinions should count for something because irrespective of any party affiliation, most of them approach policy decisions with the same basic tool kit. Their assessment of the candidates’ economic credentials and plans represents an informed judgment on how well they will handle difficult trade-offs between efficiency, equity, growth and consensus-building.

Regardless of party affiliation, our respondents generally agree the economy is in bad shape, that the election is important to the course of economic policy and that the housing and financial crisis is the most critical economic issue facing America.

The detailed responses are bad news for Mr McCain (the full data are available here). Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject. “I take McCain’s word on this one,” comments James Harrigan at the University of Virginia, a reference to Mr McCain’s infamous confession that he does not know as much about economics as he should. In fairness, Mr McCain’s lower grade may in part reflect greater candour about his weaknesses. Mr Obama’s more tightly managed image leaves fewer opportunities for such unvarnished introspection.

A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. That is despite praise across party lines for the excellent Doug Holtz-Eakin, Mr McCain’s most prominent economic adviser and a former head of the Congressional Budget Office. “Although I have tended to vote Republican,” one reply says, “the Democrats have a deep pool of talented, moderate economists.”

There is an apparent contradiction between most economists’ support for free trade, low taxes and less intervention in the market and the low marks many give to Mr McCain, who is generally more supportive of those things than Mr Obama. It probably reflects a perception that the Republican Party under George Bush has subverted many of those ideals for ideology and political gain. Indeed, the majority of respondents rate Mr Bush’s economic record as very bad, and Republican respondents are only slightly less critical.

“John McCain has professed disdain for ‘so-called economists’, and for some the feeling has become mutual,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management. “Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.”

On our one-to-five scale, economists on average give Mr Obama’s economic programme a 3.3 and Mr McCain’s a 2.2. Mr Obama, says Jonathan Parker, a non-aligned professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, “is a pragmatist not an ideologue. I expect Clintonian economic policies.” If, that is, crushing federal debt does not derail his taxing and spending plans.

On his plans to fix the financial crisis, Mr Obama averages 3.1, a point higher than Mr McCain. Still, some said they didn’t quite know what they were rating—reasonably enough, since neither candidate has produced clear plans of his own.

Where the candidates’ positions are more clearly articulated, Mr Obama scores better on nearly every issue: promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth. Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s. Given how much focus Mr McCain has put on his plan’s benefits for growth, this last is quite a repudiation.

The economists also prefer Mr Obama’s tax plans. Republicans and respondents who do not identify with either political party see Mr McCain’s tax policies as more efficient but less equitable. But the former prefer Mr McCain’s plans—43% of Republicans say they are good or very good—and the latter Mr Obama’s. Of non-affiliated respondents, 31% say Mr Obama’s are good or very good.

Either way, according to the economists, it would be difficult to do much worse than George Bush. The respondents give Mr Bush a dismal average of 1.7 on our five-point scale for his economic management. Eighty-two per cent thought Mr Bush’s record was bad or very bad; only 1% thought it was very good.

The Democrats were overwhelmingly negative, but nearly every respondent viewed Mr Bush’s record unfavourably. Half of Republican respondents thought Mr Bush deserves only a 2. “The minimum rating of one severely overestimates the quality of Bush’s economic policies,” says one non-aligned economist.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

We've already discuss the issue that it was Barney Frank and his buddies from congress the ones who said that there were no problems with our loan systems...

How convenient that most of the discussions (here), are filled with "conservative"-rhetoric.....devoid of any (and ALL) facts.

"Before your eyes glaze over, Michael Greenberger, a law professor at the University of Maryland and a former director of trading and markets for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, says they are much simpler than they sound. "A credit default swap is a contract between two people, one of whom is giving insurance to the other that he will be paid in the event that a financial institution, or a financial instrument, fails," he explains.

"It is an insurance contract, but they've been very careful not to call it that because if it were insurance, it would be regulated. So they use a magic substitute word called a 'swap,' which by virtue of federal law is deregulated," Greenberger adds.

But he says there was a big problem. "The problem was that if it were insurance, or called what it really is, the person who sold the policy would have to have capital reserves to be able to pay in the case the insurance was called upon or triggered. But because it was a swap, and not insurance, there was no requirement that adequate capital reserves be put to the side."

"Now, who was selling these credit default swaps?" Kroft asks.

"Bear Sterns was selling them, Lehman Brothers was selling them, AIG was selling them. You know, the names we hear that are in trouble, Citigroup was selling them," Greenberger says."

I hope there weren't too-many big words, here, for your discussion-group.

Lets hear it for ALLOWING THE MARKETPLACE TO REGULATE ITSELF!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Re: !

George Bush and his Republican allies (like you) just can't hide anymore. You're on your way out because you did just one hell of a bad job... case closed!

Most people (here) are much-too-young to recognize the present-situation as a RERUN!

1990 - "In many cases, officials attribute it to declining real-estate values, people including well-paid professionals carrying too much debt and the slumping construction industry.

''There's no precedence for the numbers were getting now,'' said Myron C. Weinstein, chief of the foreclosure office of New Jersey Superior Court. ''We're getting 1,400 new filings a month and I don't think anybody knows the upside anymore. No one really knows the cause of the magnitude of the jump, except that this is the worst real-estate market in 50 years.''

"Like most people in Washington, Clinton understood that Ronald Reagan was a figurehead and that it was really the Bush Cabal, which was running things for all of those 12 years. He also understood that the Bush Cabal had perpetrated the greatest fraud ever committed against the American people and that the Bush Cabal had essentially destroyed the economy of the United States - which in fact they had."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It appears that as long as the economy remains the big issue in everybodys minds, Obama will continue to improve in the polls. It just seems fishy that we're having to deal with the market crashing in the last month prior to elections.

As you may know, much of trading is done based on speculation....

It wouldn't surprise me that alot of this mess in the stock market was created by the media...

Yeah....that's a great-way to get Sarah Quayle's lynch-mobs fired-up....but, ends-up being one more simple-answer to further enable a BUSHCO/gambler-economy.

"Here's how to make money flipping a coin. Bet 100 bucks on heads. If you win, you walk away $100 richer. If you lose, no problem; on the next flip, bet $200 on heads, and if you win this time, take your $100 profit and quit. If you lose, you're down $300 on the day; so you double down again and bet $400. The coin can't come up tails forever! Eventually, you've got to win your $100 back.

This doubling game, sometimes called "the martingale," offers something for nothing—certain profits, with no risk. You can see why it's so appealing to gamblers. But five more minutes of thought reveals that the martingale can lead to disaster. The coin will come up heads eventually—but "eventually" might be too late. Most of the time, one of the first few flips will land heads and you'll come out on top. But suppose you get 11 tails in a row. Just like that, you're out $204,700.* The next step is to bet $204,800—if you've got it. If you're out of cash, the game is over, and you're going home 200 grand lighter.

But wait a minute, maybe somebody will loan you the $200,000 you need to stay in the game. After all, you've got a great track record; up until this moment, you've always ended up ahead! If people keep staking you money, you can just keep betting until, eventually, you win big time."

The is what The Idiot Son's MBA got us.

GREAT OVERSIGHT, THERE, SHERIFF GEORGIE!!!!!

 

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

You don't have to spin this story - the problem is not just in the US - it is global.

I have a sign for those who see a MSM conspiracy in this:

 

[XCALIDEM]

You don't have to spin this story - the problem is not just in the US - it is global.

I have a sign for those who see a MSM conspiracy in this:

It is funny that others feel the same as I do. I did not know that Kramer was a big dem contributor... This guy should be banned from TV. He is a terrible commentator and advisor and he mustn't let his personal political views affect the race and most of all, people's pockets. He's an idiot!

Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 6:25:04 PM by vadum

Is TV stock picker Jim Cramer, a longtime Democratic donor, doing his best to spread hysteria in the stock market?

Today before the market opened Cramer sounded almost apocalyptic, and before the trading day was over, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was below 10,000 for the first time since 2004. According to MSNBC.com:

Bullish investors should turn into shrinking violets as the stock market continues its shocking downward spiral, CNBC’s “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer told Ann Curry on TODAY Monday.
In what Curry called a “dramatic statement,” Cramer emphatically urged any investor who has money they may need in the next five years tied to stocks to pull their dough out.

“I thought about this all weekend,” Cramer told Curry. “I do not want to say these things on TV.

“Whatever money you may need for the next five years, please take it out of the stock market right now, this week. I do not believe that you should risk those assets in the stock market right now.”

While the animated Cramer is known for telling investors the best prospects for earning money on the stock market, he’s now saying retreat is the best position in the face of some of the worst financial news in decades. The bank lending default crisis that put financial firms around the country on the brink of collapse could bring “as much as a 20 percent decrease in the stock market,” Cramer predicted. [emphasis added]

Cramer, interestingly, has given at least $260,000 to Democratic causes over the years (and zilch to Republicans), according to the Newsmeat.com database. Is he deliberately talking down the economy for political reasons? It's hard to say but he should definitely explain himself.
As I learned from covering Wall Street-related issues for seven years, prominent market participants are definitely not immune from issuing self-serving statements. In fact, they are sometimes the least reliable sources of information.

Cramer looked ridiculous in March when he told his TV audience: "Don't move your money from Bear [Stearns]! That's just being silly! Don't be silly!" Within days Bear Stearns had collapsed.

Food for thought.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2100980/posts?page=8