Markets up 32% since Obama signed the Economic Stimulus Package into Law

Up more than 50% since the money in the stimulus package started being used.

Yes, we still need to solve the unemployment issue. But this rebound of the market due to Obama's Stimulus Package will help millions of Americans who are trying to live off of their retirement savings, it will return confidence to the markets and businesses to begin taking risks and spending money. It's only been 6 months since the Stimulus package has had a real chance to impact the economy. This is just the beginning.

On Edit: This is an extremely important part of the Economic recovery. Many people are trying to live off their 401ks or soon will be living off of them. Many parents who are about to send their kids to college are now seeing their savings return. This is indeed very good for the economy and for many many average citizens.

DUers really would like all of us to be miserable, to lose nay investments we have, for tax revenues to continue to sink as long as the "rich" lose.

I've got news for the ones holding his opinion: the "rich" will never lose. But the rest of us will suffer and, of course, there will never be enough government money to help all of us.

group of trolls (who may not even post on DU) whose sole job appears to be Unrecing EVERY SINGLE PRO-DEM and POSITIVE post just as soon as it appears. I think they sit at their keyboards all day long and that is THEIR JOB - Unrec EVERYTHING.

Feel free to ignore it, and keep Recing worthy posts. We outnumber them.

And unfortunately we do have a loud and active pro-misery brigade on DU.

.... I have been here since 2002 and have a zillion posts. I am not a "troll" nor am I an idiot like you. And I am certainly not paid.

The fact that the stock market is doing well means JACK SHIT to the rest of the economy. And the "lagging indicator (talk about right-wing talking points)" is going to lag for a very long time because our economy has been GUTTED.

I'm sorry there are so many fools here who think that we in a "recession" and that all will be ok in another 6 months.

It won't, and a good reason it won't is that Obama is owned by the banks just like congress and the rest of our government and all they care about is getting their's, they have literally almost killed the golden goose and they keep sucking blood.

And as a president, Obama has been a bigger disappoint to me than Bush was. I expected nothing good from Bush, I expected as least something from Obama.

Not one piece of meaningful reform has been implemented to stop this shit from happening again. It is absolutely astounding.

It is nice to see the markets rebounding. Not sure the market and the economy are exactly the same thing though.

:hi:

The market is going up on good news from manufacturing companies like Intel. If more customers purchase chips, this means that their business is improving. When employers see an improvement, they will hire more employees. They will get off the "fence."

Also, when revenues of companies increase, so will their taxes.

This, of course, is an answer the Republicans who want to abolish business income tax. Someone has to contribute to the government funds and if not enough people have jobs on which they pay taxes, then, yes, it is the business and investors with their capital gains.

Does all correlation equal causation? Does any?

And you can bet your 401k that the Unemployment rate would be much higher had it not been for the stimulus package.

Clearly, I realize that the funds were not in action over this entire time period, nor were the stimulus funds zero sum (yes, they do something in terms of saving jobs). Despite them, presented in the quantity and manner that they were, the bleeding continues. Ill get excited when I see a net job increase

So...well...not sure what you are up to there.

Regardless, as I first posted, correlation is not causation. I think it can no more be said that the stimulus package is the number 1 reason for the market recovery, as it is the number one reason for the unemployment increase. We need a jumping to conclusions mat to arrive at that. And you know, the bank bailout may of helped the market a tad too, eh?

The increase would have been far worse without the stimulus.

And this is more than correlation. Had the stimulus *not* gone into effect, the markets would have crashed and unemployment would be much much higher. Every economist, including Krugman, agrees with that.

Agree. It probably would of looked like this without the recovery plan:



Does anyone think the increase would of been far less with a more robust, non-bi-partisan stimulus?

Its a moot point now.

and that it is also moot.

No decent paying jobs, not recovery

I disclaimed that up front.

3 years of bubble distance in 7 months. 5 times the speed of the late 90s bubble

better than crashing, but anything but healthy

so far all it's done, is transfer the value of the dollars in people's savings and wages, into the hands of people who hold stocks

so it's hardly 3 years of bubble distance here. The Dow went from 14k down to 6, if it levels off around 10 and increases 5-7% / year, we'll be fine.

The two wars, the bad economy, and shitty health care were all CREATED by Obama.

And if not, it should only take him a few months to turn everything around.

People are still hurting and impatient that the economy isn't improving as fast as they would like. People who were used to making money in the stock market were understandably pissed off when it crashed and are still very angry. People read and believe economic analysis shit online, written by people who pretend to predict the future.

It's great that the economy is improving, and I can say that as one who is probably much worse off than the DUers who are complaining. :toast:

Wall Street Billionaires making an extra billion is NOT a goddamned recovery.

Everyone who is capable of working having a living wage job is. And obviously, we ain't anywhere near that.

Are they not entitled to a recovery?

We are just at the beginning. Give the plan some time to create jobs. Unemployment is up only 0.5% since the stimulus package took effect.

is higher interest rates.

Most retirees are or should be living off of interest from savings, not speculating in the stock market.

Given that higher interest rates in a recession are in impossibility the market rising will help retirees.

Also retirees should be mostly bonds by retirement but they can still have exposure to equities.

It isn't like the day you retire you need 100% of the cash in your retirement account delivered to your house by armored car.

Given a retiree will make periodic withdraws and should plan on drawing for at least 20 years (planning for 30 would be better) a substantial portion of the retirement fund won't be touched for a decade or more.

They don't want to believe that a Democratic administrations policies are working.

Its just killing them fuckers.

Don

crowing about how Obama was hurting the DOW?

Now, they don't even mention the stock market, unless it goes down 20 points. Then, somehow, Obama breathing normally caused the stock market to drop.

“Nearly half of Americans reported incomes of less than $30,000, and two-thirds make less than $50,000.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/business/21tax.html

Q8. On average, what percentage of your household’s income do you save every year for retirement
—0% or nothing, 1% to10%, 11% to 20%, or more than 20%?

UNWEIGHTED BASE 1001
WEIGHTED BASE 1001
0% 28%
1% to 10% 33%
11% to 20% 16%
More than 20% 8%
Already retired (VOLUNTEERED) 8%
Don’t know 6%

Refused 2%

http://www.nfcc.org/NewsRoom/FinancialLiteracy/files/2008SummaryReportTopline.pdf

70% of households with incomes under $50,000 a year have retirement savings of less than $5,000


"The report concludes that dismantling the institutions of prudential regulation created by the New
Deal was a huge mistake and recommends that oversight of financial markets must return to the
pragmatic, progressive values and principles on which New Deal regulation was based.
“If policymakers do not admit or comprehend the pervasive and deep-seated flaws in financial
markets, they will fail miserably in their efforts to reform regulation, setting the stage for repeated crises
and scandals,” Roper said. “While some members of Congress and the Administration appear to recognize
that fact, others continue to argue against regulation as a solution. More than any single policy or practice,
that anti-regulatory bias among regulators and legislators is what needs to change if the goal is to better
protect consumers and investors and restore the health and integrity of our financial markets.”

http://www.consumerfed.org/elements/www.consumerfed.org/File/Press_Release_Market_Fundamentalism_4_06_09(1).pdf

I believe it was in his second term before we actually saw that amount of increase....

However when something shoots up in price real fast....I start to worry about a bubble.

Just doesn't seem rational for something to shoot up 50% in a 6 month period of time.

from a near crash. See my response #13 above.

It is either a bubble or it is a recovery. Time will tell. I hope it is the start of a recovery. I'm 50-50 on what it is.

Markets almost always overshoot or undershoot due to momentum.

So the market declined faster than was warranted. From peak to bottom it fell 52%. Once the scenario of complete econimic collapse was off the tablet that sort of devaluation was unwarranted.

Think about it on an individual basis. Say Walmart, do you think Walmart was worth half of what is was in 2007. Sure sales are down (9%) but they aren't down 50%. Earnings are down but not 50%. The outlook for next 10 years is down compared to 2006 but it isn't down 50%.

Instead of comparing only from the bottom till today (very artificial) why not look at last 24 months. The market is down 28% due to the real possibility of reduced economic output over next year or so.

:thumbsup:

Get real about 401ks--they are a small fraction of what people depend on to actually live. The median balance is about $43K.

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2009/10/whats_more_real.html

Industrial utilization index has risen for 3 months.
Home sales have risen for 6 months.
Home prices have risen for 3 months.
Consumer spending (excluding autos) was up last month.
GDP likely expanded in Q3 (will be months before we know the exact date).
Multiple companies (Intel, Cat, Alcoa have reported increased orders - output).

About the only indicator which hasn't turned positive in last couple months is jobs.

That shouldn't be much of a surprise in every recession jobs have lagged the inflection point by 9-12 months. This one won't be any different.

My SWAG (scientific wild ass guess) is that unemployment will continue to rise (albiet at slower and slower pace) until sometime between April - August of 2010. Once it peaks net job creation will initially be slow so unemployment will remain higher (7%-9%) for a couple years. We likely won't see "full employment" until 2012.

I'm betting that we will never see "full" employment again unless the financial sector is stripped of its parasitic role.

I know that is sad but the Boomers to Gen x represents a massive demographic shift.

Every boomer retiring will be replaced with 0.6 people entering work force (at current imigration rates).

Likely the US will raise imigration quotas to move that closer to 1:1 but even say 0.85 : 1 would mean a situation where full employment is reached without massive job increases.

It is weak but it is a fallback support.