The stock markets aren't happy with the election results.

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

No, it isn't. This rally is entirely predicated on the previously unprecedented infusion of billions of dollars by the FED (which is now the norm) and keeping interest rates low.

If Romney were elected, it is likely that Bernanke would have quit or someone new in his position. The likely outcome was actually trying to stop the QE program which should have hurt the market, in the short term..but kind of mitigated the impending destruction of the US economy.

The market will correct after QE is stopped. However, through it, its been inflated so greatly that when it does crash its going to actually going to have been better for the election results to result in an immediate negative correction versus what is basically going to be a big crash.

This is going to end worse than the previous financial crisis/housing bubble when its all said and done. Obama and the FED are just keeping the QE and low rates going until 2015 so whoever is coming next will get the blame.

This. Without some serious changes and/or luck along the way.... there are some saying we're all fucked in a few years. Everyone I know in the financial industry insists that we're on the brink of a major crisis that will make the struggles of the last few years look like a minor hiccup.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I guess I'm in the minority. I found it very odd because everyone is piling on the Republican Party, and blaming them for the mess we're in.

So, let's see. The people are split on Obama's approval; the people are overwhelmingly disapproving of the Congressional Republicans and blame them for the current gridiron and the overall mess we're in.

Yet, they favor the Congressional Republicans' approach to the budget deficit. Maybe I'm comparing apples to oranges, but it just doesn't add up to me (as you have suggested). It just seems it's a bit irresponsible to lay these things out together in the same article, as many people would probably take the stats the way I just did I(not that the media has ever been irresponsible).

I mean, we're talking about this whole deficit issue. At first glance, when I see stats on who is responsible for the mess and who has the better approach, readers are likely going to assume we're comparing apples to apples.

But all this BS is why I generally avoid politics in the first place. A whole lot of manipulation, bitching, and finger-pointing; this then gets used to get one side a deal in their favor while the other party looks like a shit head. You'd think they'd learn to work together to find solutions that make them all look like winners, and ultimately, benefit the American Public. But that just makes too much fucking sense. And common sense is something lacking with our politicians and media.

<jumps off soapbox>

\endscene

Fuck politics.

Where you lose me is who are all these people blaming republicans for gridiron and over all mess. Did I miss that in the article?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

No, it isn't. This rally is entirely predicated on the previously unprecedented infusion of billions of dollars by the FED (which is now the norm) and keeping interest rates low.

If Romney were elected, it is likely that Bernanke would have quit or someone new in his position. The likely outcome was actually trying to stop the QE program which should have hurt the market, in the short term..but kind of mitigated the impending destruction of the US economy.

The market will correct after QE is stopped. However, through it, its been inflated so greatly that when it does crash its going to actually going to have been better for the election results to result in an immediate negative correction versus what is basically going to be a big crash.

This is going to end worse than the previous financial crisis/housing bubble when its all said and done. Obama and the FED are just keeping the QE and low rates going until 2015 so whoever is coming next will get the blame.

So your argument that the results of the stock market would be different if Romney were elected is based on that it is likely that Bernanke would have quit or someone new in his position AND that the likely outcome was actually trying to stop the QE program which should have hurt the market, in the short term..but kind of mitigated the impending destruction of the US economy.

That is a lot of "likelys" to be assuming. And interesting enough, even if you are right, this title would have fit if Romney was elected President.

Sounds like you got thios all figured out which will soon make you a billionaire as you short the market knowing the bubble is going to burst.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Most people were thinking it. And it was probably likely.

http://blogs.ft.com/the-a-list/2012/10/16/how-romney-could-end-quantitative-easing/
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...o-dump-bernanke-sparks-anxiety-on-wall-street

But the concern among market watchers is that if Romney dumps Bernanke, whose term expires at the beginning of 2014, he would remove the person who some believe is the weak economy's primary lifeline.
"There's a view that the economy cannot sustain itself, that it's really the Fed that is fueling economic growth, and that a post-Bernanke Fed is just not as favorable to growth," said Brian Gardner, senior vice president of Washington research at Keefe, Bruyette and Woods.
Gardner wrote in a note to clients Thursday that a Romney win could lead to a market decline, operating on the premise that Bernanke’s vow of long-term economic stimulus would then be short-lived.
The Fed chairman has not won any friends among Republicans for his efforts to boost the economy, which have included three rounds of "quantitative easing."
The massive bond purchases have sent stock markets soaring, but conservatives fret that the Fed's rapidly-expanding portfolio is going to be a nightmare to unwind and could result in severe inflation.
Bernanke's Fed agreed in September to buy $40 billion of mortgage bonds a month, and to continue doing so even after the labor market picks up the pace.
The Fed has also stated it expects to keep interest rates near zero until mid-2015.
But a Romney win could throw those plans into question, and signal to markets that the days of easy money are dwindling.
There are several variables still at play, however.
Even if Romney wins and replaces Bernanke, he will only do so at the beginning of 2014. By then, the economy could be in much better shape.
Furthermore, replacing Bernanke does not automatically alter the trajectory of the Fed, since it sets policy based on the votes of the 12 members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC).
The seven Fed governors are joined by a rotating group of five heads of the regional Fed banks.
The current members of the FOMC approved the latest round of “quantitative easing” by a vote of 11-1, so any Romney replacement as Fed chairman would have some convincing to do to change course.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...e-sparks-anxiety-on-wall-street#ixzz2NN3na3Kh
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Where you lose me is who are all these people blaming republicans for gridiron and over all mess. Did I miss that in the article?

Uh, perhaps you don't read this board as closely as I suspected. That's been the general opinion here. Shit, my facebook feed is the same way. The media is the same way.

Oh, and by the way.... The article DC posted, which is the same one you posted in one of your posts...... The stats on the side, where the question "Who is to blame for the current gridiron?" is asked...... 45% of Congressional Republicans vs. 37% Obama. Clearly, everything I see, read, hear about on TV, etc. The majority of everything points the fingers at the Republican Party.

 

[Further]

Prior to election I started talking politics here, and pulled away after the election. I think this is the first political thread I have posted in recently, and I think it's better that way. Debating which old car we would like to restore, or even the existence of God, is much less cumbersome than politics. EL PRESIDENTE knows he is correct, I know I'm correct, BG and Denny know they are correct. But on most issues the four of us account for five different views. Treaty of Batum, you are the only person on this forum whom I have seen open enough to new ideas in a political thread to actually change his views, I just repped you for that. Most of us are so dogmatic in our views that we do not waiver. I believe I am open to change, but in all honesty I must conclude otherwise because I have never been swayed by political banter on here. So peace, I'll keep reading, and occasionally post. But you are more likely to find me in the funny pages.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Prior to election I started talking politics here, and pulled away after the election. I think this is the first political thread I have posted in recently, and I think it's better that way. Debating which old car we would like to restore, or even the existence of God, is much less cumbersome than politics. EL PRESIDENTE knows he is correct, I know I'm correct, BG and Denny know they are correct. But on most issues the four of us account for five different views. Treaty of Batum, you are the only person on this forum whom I have seen open enough to new ideas in a political thread to actually change his views, I just repped you for that. Most of us are so dogmatic in our views that we do not waiver. I believe I am open to change, but in all honesty I must conclude otherwise because I have never been swayed by political banter on here. So peace, I'll keep reading, and occasionally post. But you are more likely to find me in the funny pages.

Honestly, you're completely wrong about me, but I get your overall point. When it comes to politics, I don't think I'm right at all. I'd say I'm more wrong than right. I don't follow politics very closely, so when I ask questions or make my opinions, they come from a place of wanting to learn, wanting to gather information and other opinions. I'm very much a fence-sitter, and that is evident by my "Indepdendent" registration. I don't agree with the two-party system, as I believe it is a bit archaeic/outdated and overly simplistic. But I don't join either party because, one, for the reasons just listed, and two, because I don't consider myself well-enough informed and entrenched in either point of view to join a party, and that given these bits of info, it would be irresponsible for me to join either party.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Politics and religion are two things I try to avoid, for the most part. I believe they are two huge things that can keep two people who would otherwise be friends from being friends. They can be that polarizing, that hate-inducing (hate may be a strong word, but you get the point). I try to understand politics so that I can understand what I need to know about what's going on in the world, the economy, etc. But aside from that, I have no interest in politics.

 

[Further]

Sorry BG for mischaracterizing your openness. I try to be open, but those that argue with me are often so far away that they don't notice that I actually am changing. I assume that is actually the case for others as well.

It is true that politics and religion are far and away the most difficult things to discuss on a forum, but they can also be quite enjoyable and educational. Mags and I have had many discussions on religion, god, science, atheism and our views are often diametrically opposed, but we are both polite and respectful to the others views and simply talk openly on these subjects. And I love those threads and in particular the posts by Mags.

But for some reason, whereas in the religious threads most people try and be respectful of the other side, in the politic threads we often show disdain for the alternate views. I include myself. I think that's too bad, because if we could be less dogmatic in our approach to political threads, then a more rewarding thread might arise. I have tried to start a few threads in the past aimed at doing this, like one where I asked people which politicians they liked on their opposing side. Designed to get people to be magnanimous. But it went quite poorly. Too bad, but I will not assume you are unreachable in the future, that was my mistake.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Prior to election I started talking politics here, and pulled away after the election. I think this is the first political thread I have posted in recently, and I think it's better that way. Debating which old car we would like to restore, or even the existence of God, is much less cumbersome than politics. EL PRESIDENTE knows he is correct, I know I'm correct, BG and Denny know they are correct. But on most issues the four of us account for five different views. Treaty of Batum, you are the only person on this forum whom I have seen open enough to new ideas in a political thread to actually change his views, I just repped you for that. Most of us are so dogmatic in our views that we do not waiver. I believe I am open to change, but in all honesty I must conclude otherwise because I have never been swayed by political banter on here. So peace, I'll keep reading, and occasionally post. But you are more likely to find me in the funny pages.

Hey thanks for the kind words and the rep (right back at you). Hopefully you can't take back the rep because if you want to know why I change views . . . it's because I don't much when it comes to politics (don't to take that rep back).

I actually think I'm more democrat and to help me realize that: BG thinks this board is mostly about blaming the Republican Party and I read it as more like attacks on Obama. Maybe if you lean one way or the other, you tend to take more notice of the posters that you disagree with? Like this thread title, it looks like a silly attack on Obama to me, but maybe BG reads the contents and thinks it is more of an attack on the Republican party.

Anyways, I wish I could say I study this stuff and be this open to opinions, but that is not true. I voted for Romney because my gut (don't trust either sides experts) said he would be better for the economy which was far and away my number one concern in this ever changing global economy. That is how simplistic I am on the topic, so I'm here to see what other thoughts are out there.

That takes me to a different thought the reason I'm open to changing views and come here for political talk is I think this board has a lot of knowledgable people. I also think this board has a lot of people who like to debate/banter through posts, but I'm not ashamed to admit I get a lot of knowledge from the posters on this baord in a variety of areas. Good group of people here!

 

[Denny Crane]

Why should a person of conviction compromise his positions? To make public opinion polls better for their party?

I ask these questions because I consider myself a person of conviction and I don't at all want to see even one iota of Progressive policies implemented. So even a teeny weeny little compromise is the start of death by 1,000 cuts.

I happen to believe in people and that the vast vast vast majority of people are good. By whatever moral compass they are guided.

The power of governing belongs with the individual. We may choose to associate into groups of common interest, but it should be entirely voluntary. The government is granted its power FROM us, it doesn't grant our Liberty TO us. The only exceptions to this are where there is so compelling a government interest - such as we don't have the right to our own personal atomic weapons. The barrier here is extraordinarily high.

I believe in the constitution, as written. Don't like it? Amend it. If we don't strictly go by it, then there are no guarantees of our Liberties.

I cannot think of anything more polar opposite than Progressive policies. The idea there is that unelected committees of "experts" choose how we live (for the most part). All those 3-letter agencies (FDA, EPA, etc.) are perfect examples of such committees.

The constitution is outdated, or it's a living document, or maybe we should get rid of it. These are all things I've actually seen Progressives say or write. None of it is true.

The bigger and more powerful government is, the bigger the bribes its workers seek to extract. The corporations have to be big to pay the bribes. My idea of government is that common people serve for a short while and then go home to their previous line of work or business. Instead, we have the best government money can buy and I do mean "buy" in the bribe sense.

Sorry for the rant. God knows I'm right.

 

[Further]

As you are against anything progressive, I am against any strict ideology, Libertarian Communist, Anarchist, etc... I believe the best that can can be done is to always walk a balance. This is also the hardest position to take because a balance is always teetering back and forth, trying to do better.

 

[Denny Crane]

As you are against anything progressive, I am against any strict ideology, Libertarian Communist, Anarchist, etc... I believe the best that can can be done is to always walk a balance. This is also the hardest position to take because a balance is always teetering back and forth, trying to do better.

Libertarianism is the balance. If half the people in the country want to give up their Liberty, they can. Just leave me out if I don't want any part of it. The other half will be happy, too.

Unfortunately there's about half the voters want govt. to reach out and touch everyone, no matter how unrelated (far away) or if they want any part of it.

 

[Further]

Libertarianism is the balance. If half the people in the country want to give up their Liberty, they can. Just leave me out if I don't want any part of it. The other half will be happy, too.

Unfortunately there's about half the voters want govt. to reach out and touch everyone, no matter how unrelated (far away) or if they want any part of it.

I want govt to heavily invest in scientific research. I want govt to encourage and support all levels of education. But I understand my desires in these areas go much further than most. You, I imagine, would like none, or minimal involvement in these areas. Between us there is likely a balance to be struck.

Libertarianism is not a balance, even if you can use it in a sentence.

 

[Denny Crane]

I want govt to heavily invest in scientific research. I want govt to encourage and support all levels of education. But I understand my desires in these areas go much further than most. You, I imagine, would like none, or minimal involvement in these areas. Between us there is likely a balance to be struck.

Libertarianism is not a balance, even if you can use it in a sentence.

I don't want to pay for govt. to invest heavily in scientific research. The beauty of Libertarianism is that you can contribute whatever money and time (and other resources) you want toward that end. If there's enough like minded people, you can raise as much money as you think you need for the research.

 

[Denny Crane]

The model I describe is how Jonas Salk developed the Polio vaccine. He was funded by the Mellon family to do his research at the private University of Pittsburgh on a private March of Dimes project.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Sorry BG for mischaracterizing your openness. I try to be open, but those that argue with me are often so far away that they don't notice that I actually am changing. I assume that is actually the case for others as well.

It is true that politics and religion are far and away the most difficult things to discuss on a forum, but they can also be quite enjoyable and educational. Mags and I have had many discussions on religion, god, science, atheism and our views are often diametrically opposed, but we are both polite and respectful to the others views and simply talk openly on these subjects. And I love those threads and in particular the posts by Mags.

But for some reason, whereas in the religious threads most people try and be respectful of the other side, in the politic threads we often show disdain for the alternate views. I include myself. I think that's too bad, because if we could be less dogmatic in our approach to political threads, then a more rewarding thread might arise. I have tried to start a few threads in the past aimed at doing this, like one where I asked people which politicians they liked on their opposing side. Designed to get people to be magnanimous. But it went quite poorly. Too bad, but I will not assume you are unreachable in the future, that was my mistake.

No apologies ever needed. It's a message board. Just don't like being characterized as something I'm not. I'm pro-USA, and my stance is we need to quit pointing fingers and do what's necessary to heal our country as a whole. Unity. We need to work together to grow as one unit. Pointing fingers solves nothing, ultimately.

That's what I believe, anyway. Unrealistic or BS as it may seem.

 

[barfo]

I don't want to pay for govt. to invest heavily in scientific research. The beauty of Libertarianism is that you can contribute whatever money and time (and other resources) you want toward that end. If there's enough like minded people, you can raise as much money as you think you need for the research.

What if there aren't enough like-minded rich people? What if all the rich people are selfish sons of bitches?

barfo

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

What if there aren't enough like-minded rich people? What if all the rich people are selfish sons of bitches?

barfo

What if? They mostly are, at least from my experience.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I don't want to pay for govt. to invest heavily in scientific research. The beauty of Libertarianism is that you can contribute whatever money and time (and other resources) you want toward that end. If there's enough like minded people, you can raise as much money as you think you need for the research.

Does it work like that for public school?

 

[Further]

The model I describe is how Jonas Salk developed the Polio vaccine. He was funded by the Mellon family to do his research at the private University of Pittsburgh on a private March of Dimes project.

This type of investment is great for a sharply targeted goal, just as big pharma is great for sharply targeted goals. But if science only tries to solve these easy to reach goals pretty soon progress halts.

Example, right now companies employ the shotgun method to solve issues like inflammation. They may design a way to test 100,000 samples at a time to see if pro IL1 beta is cleaved, signifying inflammation. Then they go through a catalog of every owned molecule to see which ones cleave. Those that do, are then moved on to further research. This is great to come up with a new medication and it makes sense financially.

However, they are not researching the mechanism that leads to the cleavage of the pro il1beta. Why, because this is a much longer term project that requires new techniques and much trial and error with far less likelyhood of success. However, over the long haul, it is this type of research that will lead to understanding of how to manipulate the inflamasome and cure issues like septic shock.

You may find a billionaire, company or devoted group that will invest in highly targeted science, but not in the basic sciences. And it is not the because people are uncaring or stingy, it's because science is hugely complicated and even a fellow scientist that did not work on a specific area could not understand the minutia in that area.

Both types of investments are needed to keep the USA a top scientific nation. Govt needs to be involved for the benefit of the nation, the economy, the future, the health, and the innovative structure our society is built on.

 

[Denny Crane]

What if there aren't enough like-minded rich people? What if all the rich people are selfish sons of bitches?

barfo

What if all the rain drops were lemon drops and gum drops?

Throughout history, there have always been enough like-minded rich people.

The March of Dimes isn't some rich family funding research into childhood paralysis. It's Jerry Lewis doing telethons raising money from the masses. Those people CHOOSE freely to donate.

 

[Denny Crane]

This type of investment is great for a sharply targeted goal, just as big pharma is great for sharply targeted goals. But if science only tries to solve these easy to reach goals pretty soon progress halts.

Example, right now companies employ the shotgun method to solve issues like inflammation. They may design a way to test 100,000 samples at a time to see if pro IL1 beta is cleaved, signifying inflammation. Then they go through a catalog of every owned molecule to see which ones cleave. Those that do, are then moved on to further research. This is great to come up with a new medication and it makes sense financially.

However, they are not researching the mechanism that leads to the cleavage of the pro il1beta. Why, because this is a much longer term project that requires new techniques and much trial and error with far less likelyhood of success. However, over the long haul, it is this type of research that will lead to understanding of how to manipulate the inflamasome and cure issues like septic shock.

You may find a billionaire, company or devoted group that will invest in highly targeted science, but not in the basic sciences. And it is not the because people are uncaring or stingy, it's because science is hugely complicated and even a fellow scientist that did not work on a specific area could not understand the minutia in that area.

Both types of investments are needed to keep the USA a top scientific nation. Govt needs to be involved for the benefit of the nation, the economy, the future, the health, and the innovative structure our society is built on.

How was nylon invented?

I think you downplay what the private sector has always done. In fact, virtually every scientific discovery before 1960 (aside from the a-bomb) was private sector.

 

[jlprk]

Surely the suppository was Federally-funded. It wasn't invented in the private sector. Anyone's.

 

[Denny Crane]

After reading that article, I'd say it's clear that the American Public is generally unhappy with all of its' leadership.

Kinda interesting that despite the disapproval of Republicans, and the thought that they're to blame for the gridlock, their approach to the deficit is more favored than Obama's.

Huh?

There's more! Even WaPost is piling on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...a79-11e2-a051-6810d606108d_story.html?hpid=z1

Obama’s approval drops as Americans take a dimmer view of his economic policies

 

[Denny Crane]

Let's see some compromise. No to the taxes. More cuts along the lines in the Ryan budget. I mean, Murray wants to cut $800B over 10 years. How about Dems stop obstructing what needs to be done and cut $3.25B (meet in the middle) in spending? Another rhetorical question: why should we pay for govt.'s reckless spending habits?

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...udget-includes-nearly-1-trillion-in-new-taxes

Senate Democrats’ budget includes nearly $1 trillion in new taxes

Murray argues that her budget cuts $1.85 trillion from deficits over 10 years. But once the sequester cuts are turned off, Murray’s budget appears to reduce deficits by about $800 billion, using the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline. The Murray budget does not contain net spending cuts with the sequester turned off.

The details of Murray’s budget came hours after House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) released his budget, which reduces tax rates and slashes spending much more deeply that Murray’s budget.

The Ryan budget would balance in 10 years without raising taxes and by reducing spending over the next decade by $5.7 trillion compared to the CBO baseline.

 

[blazerboy30]

in all honesty, only a tiny bit of the success or failure of the stock market should be laid at the feet of the President. But, all the republicans were so quick to make blustery accusations about how reelecting Obama was going to kill the market, that if that logic did hold water, then Obama should receive accolades for the strong market. But of course, republicans are quick to say if anything goes wrong its because of that Kenyon, but if anything goes right its in spite of that Kenyon. Bull Shit. Bull shit on all counts.

Blah, blah, blah. Strawman, stawman, strawman.

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama should get credit for the stock market. Due to his spending, the Fed feels compelled (though independent) to keep interest rates low so the federal government isn't paying vast sums of tax revenue out as interest payments. To do so, they're printing money and buying back notes the govt. issues to borrow money. Reducing the supply of bonds increases the price which inversely decreases the yield.

Printing money causes inflation. Why wouldn't the price of stocks go up? The price of everything else seems to have gone up, too (gas, food, etc.).

To boot, with the treasury bonds paying near 0% interest, the stock market is a reasonably safe alternative to putting your savings somewhere that won't earn less than the rate of inflation.

 

[blazerboy30]

Obama should get credit for the stock market. Due to his spending, the Fed feels compelled (though independent) to keep interest rates low so the federal government isn't paying vast sums of tax revenue out as interest payments. To do so, they're printing money and buying back notes the govt. issues to borrow money. Reducing the supply of bonds increases the price which inversely decreases the yield.

Printing money causes inflation. Why wouldn't the price of stocks go up? The price of everything else seems to have gone up, too (gas, food, etc.).

To boot, with the treasury bonds paying near 0% interest, the stock market is a reasonably safe alternative to putting your savings somewhere that won't earn less than the rate of inflation.

Interestingly, these policies are just helping the rich get richer and richer while raising costs on the poor and middle class. The ability to borrow almost-free money and an ever-rising artificial stock market provides a MUCH larger advantage for those with income to invest and will just increase the disparity between rich and poor.

I wonder how the progressives on this board feel about that dilemma.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Interestingly, these policies are just helping the rich get richer and richer while raising costs on the poor and middle class. The ability to borrow almost-free money and an ever-rising artificial stock market provides a MUCH larger advantage for those with income to invest and will just increase the disparity between rich and poor.

I wonder how the progressives on this board feel about that dilemma.

Don't know if I buy all this, but if the rich get some windfall from Obama being president, I got no problem with that. I still consider him to be more of a president for the middle and lower class, so if the rich get some benefits while he is in office, seems fair.