Thailand Lounge and Chat area

[Franciscass]

It doesn't matter that 3-4 days later Bush and his fellow Republicans came out and said, "Hey, folks, come on back! We were only kidding.

I am not an American although I follow its politics and as an investor its imperative to know what is happening to the markets there.

I am apolitical although one cannot but be disgusted by the behavior and values of some individuals who get elected to the highest ranks of public office.

ET I feel when discussing consequences of a particular event it is prudent to leave political partisanship out of the discussion as it clouds sound reasoning. I may be wrong but in your somewhat not easy to follow post it seems that you are blaming Bush and the republicans for the shenanigans of Monday Sept 29 when in fact the bill failed to pass because a third of the democratic members of the house voted against it. Don't forget they held the majority after the 2006 midterms 233 to 202.

It was only 2 days to the Wednesday when the senate passed the bill at which time it was generally accepted with the revisions the house would pass it too.

While some details were changed the objective of the bill remained the same to put a floor under the financial system to stop it from collapsing altogether with the ensuing possibility of another great depression.

Was what happened in this relatively small time frame in a crisis which had been brewing for months and months on end, years if you go back to the beginning of the housing collapse the cause of the subsequent fall in stock markets worldwide?

On that ET we will have to agree to disagree.

[EihTooms]

Yep, most of the mainstream media can't be trusted.

...

BTW, are those linked sources really where you go to sort out the Fake News from the Real News?

[EihTooms]

Yep, most of the mainstream media can't be trusted. I was at this particular rally chanting CNN sucks. Good fun. CNN the next day made it seem like it was an angry mob and that Jim Acosta was in danger, but in reality we were having a good laugh. Then again, CNN is fake news so it wasn't surprising. They don't report the news anymore, they report their narrative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMzJsw3eFRQ

CNN fake Muslim protests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1gR37Wwakw

Top 4 reasons CNN is called fake news.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igfW_ogd0ZM

Top 10 fake news of 2016.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REPFH2V_EYo

How about the current one where the Dems are calling Trump a racist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCkt57w3Uu0

ABC fakes crime scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YwIkknxE8E

This one just makes me laugh since Don Lemon is such a hypocrite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LulNAEeTsrc

NBC blows up truck for fake news story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fslEpQGw0M

No doubt, mainstream media and niche media can and do shade and spin to fit an agenda. The agenda is more often than not just to attract more eyes and ears to their product, not to promote a political side. But economic data isn't a matter of mood, political bias or opinion. Someone can shade and spin all they want. But until the data is shown to be false, having been fabricated for some reason, it is what it is.

[EihTooms]

It is always a matter of speculation as to whether the outcome of a situation would have been different had this or that happened or not particularly one as complicated as a world economic crisis, we simply don't know.

I do accept markets are at times driven just as much by physiology as fundamentals and I agree the September 29th shenanigans in the house did not help but that said the bill was passed 4 days later.

I guess you are saying that delay made all the difference to what followed. Possible I suppose but in my opinion unlikely and so I stand by my contention and the commonly accepted explanation of the crash of '08 '09 being caused by a housing crisis that first began to appear back in 2006.

At a bare minimum I think you have to agree that had there not been this housing crisis in the first place there would have been no need for a TARP making whether it passed on Sept 29th or Oct 3rd irrelevant.

If not then ET let's agree to disagree.

I call that Sept. 29,2009 event the trigger for the panic selloff that followed because all evidence points to it being that. It was not a well-reasoned decision by forward thinking stock market investors considering the state of the country's finances and housing. They had almost a year of incremental, almost weekly awareness of that situation in the economy to bail out of the market in large numbers, but they didn't. I believe they didn't because it was assumed there would no "shenanigans" when the time came for the White House and Congress to do what is necessary to prevent another 1929. Housing, financial, banking, savings and loan crises, even (on rare occasion) deep Recessions can exist side-by-side with stock markets that continue on without a major, prolonged crash as long as there is ample reason to think there are enough clear heads willing to do the right thing to prevent a major Crash. We had all of those things during the Reagan and Bush1 years, but only one short term crash into 20% decline that only lasted a few days before recovering and nothing was done differently in terms of legislation in those few days.

That assumption came to a shocking halt on Sept. 29,2008. It doesn't matter that 3-4 days later Bush and his fellow Republicans came out and said, "Hey, folks, come on back! We were only kidding. We'll pass it this time, no kidding." Once panic sets in and the mob is racing for the exits, you don't reel them back in with immediate, largely improvised do-overs. Fed Chairman Paulson had been working since early 2008 on that bailout. Due diligence was baked in the market for why it was on the table for a vote and what it would likely mean. That quickly cobbled together do-over 3-4 days later, was not the same bill. Changes had been made in as much of a panic as the stock market investors running for the exits. And nobody thought this one legislation is all we'll need to pull us out of this crisis. It was merely the first one. There would be others. And more "shenanigans" when their time came? No thanks. I'm OUT.

It required a complete change in the political make-up of the Federal Government, replacing the one party well known throughout decades and decades of history for presiding over major economic declines and stock market crashes with the one that is as well known for pulling us out of them. In fact, the "shenanigans" did not even end from that former side. At virtually every step of the follow up measures required to pull us out of the Great Recession and get the stock market back on track for historic gains, the "shenanigans" side slow-walked, obfuscated, delayed, denied, blocked and obstructed them. It is one of the reasons this particular Dem recovery from a Rep decline was slower than the others. So, in a very real sense, the mob that ran for the exits in a panic starting Sept. 29,2008 and did not believe the calls to "come back, everything will be ok" 3-4 days later had it right as long as the Federal Government was in that side's control.

[Franciscass]

Yep, most of the mainstream media can't be trusted. I was at this particular rally chanting CNN sucks. Good fun. CNN the next day made it seem like it was an angry mob and that Jim Acosta was in danger, but in reality we were having a good laugh. Then again, CNN is fake news so it wasn't surprising. They don't report the news anymore, they report their narrative.

Right on Smoothy, got to go to Fox to get accurate news these days. Mainstream media are just Trump haters and fake news platforms. Same goes for the Washington Post and The New York times.

[Smoothy]

Fake news?

Yep, most of the mainstream media can't be trusted. I was at this particular rally chanting CNN sucks. Good fun. CNN the next day made it seem like it was an angry mob and that Jim Acosta was in danger, but in reality we were having a good laugh. Then again, CNN is fake news so it wasn't surprising. They don't report the news anymore, they report their narrative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMzJsw3eFRQ

CNN fake Muslim protests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1gR37Wwakw

Top 4 reasons CNN is called fake news.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igfW_ogd0ZM

Top 10 fake news of 2016.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REPFH2V_EYo

How about the current one where the Dems are calling Trump a racist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCkt57w3Uu0

ABC fakes crime scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YwIkknxE8E

This one just makes me laugh since Don Lemon is such a hypocrite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LulNAEeTsrc

NBC blows up truck for fake news story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fslEpQGw0M

[Franciscass]

If the interest rate was still zero, the numbers would be even higher for Trump. Interest rates remained zero for the entire Obama Presidency and would still be zero if Obama was President because he would not have invigorated the economy with jobs like Trump has to allow the interest rates to raise above zero. The interest rates remaining at zero for so long was borderline criminal.

I suppose Smoothy this comes down to whether one is a Trump supporter or not.

[Franciscass]

I agree that was the reason for the financial/housing crash. But I don't believe that was the reason the stock market crashed.

The stock market remained largely out of a Bear for months, almost a year during the revelations that the banks, rating agencies, regulators and, most importantly, Bush's Office of Thrift Supervision were not doing their job. It was stubbornly holding on within Correction territory through a whole slew of disastrous news and venerable investment institution collapses..

It is always a matter of speculation as to whether the outcome of a situation would have been different had this or that happened or not particularly one as complicated as a world economic crisis, we simply don't know.

I do accept markets are at times driven just as much by physiology as fundamentals and I agree the September 29th shenanigans in the house did not help but that said the bill was passed 4 days later.

I guess you are saying that delay made all the difference to what followed. Possible I suppose but in my opinion unlikely and so I stand by my contention and the commonly accepted explanation of the crash of '08 '09 being caused by a housing crisis that first began to appear back in 2006.

At a bare minimum I think you have to agree that had there not been this housing crisis in the first place there would have been no need for a TARP making whether it passed on Sept 29th or Oct 3rd irrelevant.

If not then ET let's agree to disagree.

[EihTooms]

...

I don't believe there has been a >20% decline/Crash triggering a Bear in the USA stock market with a Dem in the White House since before FDR. Beginning with Herbert Hoover roughly 90 years ago, Crashes or Bear markets have all begun under Republican presidents. That trend might even go back to 1907 under Teddy Roosevelt.

BTW, I should add that this current president has continued the Republican tradition of presiding over Bear market downturns or crashes, at least technically. In 2018, the USA stock market as measured by the Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index (essentially every stock in most of the other major Indexes combined) fell and closed 20.75% from its previous high, traditionally considered Bear territory. However, the S&P 500 Index, the one most often used to measure for this purpose, only fell and closed down 19.78%. So it depends on how traditional one wants to measure Bulls and Bears, either by the Total USA Stock Market or by the S&P 500 alone.

[EihTooms]

If the interest rate was still zero, the numbers would be even higher for Trump. Interest rates remained zero for the entire Obama Presidency and would still be zero if Obama was President because he would not have invigorated the economy with jobs like Trump has to allow the interest rates to raise above zero. The interest rates remaining at zero for so long was borderline criminal.

The Fed doubled the Fed Funds Rate from 0.25% to 0.5% roughly a year after the unemployment rate reached 6% and showed definite signs of continuing to fall and not rising. Considering the depth of the economic decline Obama inherited from Bush, it was prudent to give it a year to see if it sticks.

The unemployment rate reached and fell below 6% in less than half the time under Obama than Mitt Romney promised his (Mitt's) policies would get it there in his 2012 presidential campaign bid. That is essentially the rate the Fed had established as being "Full Employment" for this era, when we historically begin to see more jobs available than applicants to take them and wage inflation becomes a risk. It was in December 2015, a few months after Donald Trump first announced his run for the presidency when almost no one predicted he would be the Republican nominee much less the president.

[EihTooms]

The crash of 08 and 09 was a result of what was going on for years during the Bush 43 presidency in the mispricing by the rating agencies of collateralized reckless mortgage lending which was making billions for the banking industry. Even so it would be wrong to blame this on Bush who was busy screwing up in Iraq having being played by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

The responsibility properly rests with the banks, the rating agencies and the asleep at the wheel regulators.

As a matter of record not opinion a comparison of stock market performance for similar periods of the Obama and Trump presidencies show from inauguration and May 31st of their third year under Obama the S&P was up 56.4% Dow Jones Average was up 50.6% and the Nasdaq 92.9%. For Trump the numbers are 21.4%, 25.2% and 34.2%.

I agree that was the reason for the financial/housing crash. But I don't believe that was the reason the stock market crashed.

The stock market remained largely out of a Bear for months, almost a year during the revelations that the banks, rating agencies, regulators and, most importantly, Bush's Office of Thrift Supervision were not doing their job. It was stubbornly holding on within Correction territory through a whole slew of disastrous news and venerable investment institution collapses. The S&P 500 Index only fell about 3.5% on the news of Lehman Bros. declaring bankruptcy around Sept. 15 of 2008 and rebounded into Correction territory over the next few days on the assumption that America had learned and knew how to avert a Great Depression and was about to do the first most important thing in keeping bank's doors open when they passed the first TARP, scheduled for a vote two weeks later.

The world of stock market investors naturally assumed no Party could be idiotic enough to repeat the mistakes Republicans made back in 1929. But then that handful of House Republicans shocked the world by pulling that last minute political stunt, TARP failed to pass and the panic selloff promptly began, proving the world wrong. The S&P 500 Index fell about 8% that day and kept falling for weeks and months afterwards, no bounce back, not even a dead cat bounce.

Based on the behavior of the market leading up to that fateful day, it is very likely the stock market would have recovered quite nicely, perhaps even soared and never entered serious Crash/Bear Market territory had that initial TARP legislation passed on Sept. 29,2008.

[Smoothy]

The crash of 08 and 09 was a result of what was going on for years during the Bush 43 presidency in the mispricing by the rating agencies of collateralized reckless mortgage lending which was making billions for the banking industry. Even so it would be wrong to blame this on Bush who was busy screwing up in Iraq having being played by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

The responsibility properly rests with the banks, the rating agencies and the asleep at the wheel regulators.

As a matter of record not opinion a comparison of stock market performance for similar periods of the Obama and Trump presidencies show from inauguration and May 31st of their third year under Obama the S&P was up 56.4% Dow Jones Average was up 50.6% and the Nasdaq 92.9%. For Trump the numbers are 21.4%, 25.2% and 34.2%.

If the interest rate was still zero, the numbers would be even higher for Trump. Interest rates remained zero for the entire Obama Presidency and would still be zero if Obama was President because he would not have invigorated the economy with jobs like Trump has to allow the interest rates to raise above zero. The interest rates remaining at zero for so long was borderline criminal.

[Franciscass]

Yes and who was president of the USA then?

The crash of 08 and 09 was a result of what was going on for years during the Bush 43 presidency in the mispricing by the rating agencies of collateralized reckless mortgage lending which was making billions for the banking industry. Even so it would be wrong to blame this on Bush who was busy screwing up in Iraq having being played by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

The responsibility properly rests with the banks, the rating agencies and the asleep at the wheel regulators.

As a matter of record not opinion a comparison of stock market performance for similar periods of the Obama and Trump presidencies show from inauguration and May 31st of their third year under Obama the S&P was up 56.4% Dow Jones Average was up 50.6% and the Nasdaq 92.9%. For Trump the numbers are 21.4%, 25.2% and 34.2%.

[EihTooms]

Yes and who was president of the USA then?

Well, as far as who was president for the most recent USA stock market crash, that would be George W. Bush. The stock market had hovered within a few percentage points up or down of a traditional Correction (at or less than a 20% decline from the previous all time high) and not a Bear for most of 2008, weathering some scary venerable investment institution collapses like Bear Sterns and Lehman Bros. along the way. It had stubbornly resisted dipping well into Bear territory without bouncing back into Correction territory within a few days.

But it finally gave way and crashed demonstrably into Bear territory beginning on the afternoon of September 29, 2008, in response to a handful of House Republicans suddenly reneging on their already "whipped" Yes votes needed to pass the original TARP, causing it to fail to pass. According to them, they did that because their feelings were hurt by something rather ordinary and innocuous then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that morning before the vote. I am not joking about that.

It was that particular straw on the camel's back that triggered a massive panic selloff that sent worldwide markets crashing and our economy into paralysis on the reasonable assumption that the then current Republican influence in government left America without the political will and smarts to do what was necessary to avert another Great Depression. Indeed, that little stunt to cause the original TARP to fail passage looked very much like the exact wrong moves Herbert Hoover and his fellow Republicans made in response to their Crash in 1929 that exacerbated and deepened the Great Depression.

From that afternoon on, the USA stock market would not find a floor and begin to recover until the Republican presence and influence was switched in the White House and tilted more toward Democrats in Congress and their first major economic recovery legislation was passed with practically no Republican votes.

What followed was the longest uninterrupted economic recovery and Bull Market in USA history. Even better than the previous Dem recoveries from Republican economic downturns or crashes under FDR, JFK / LBJ, Carter and Clinton. Obama's was even better and, considering the near unified Republican opposition to his and the Dems' efforts to pull us out of yet another in a long list of major Republican downturns over the past 85-90 years, I would say a more impressive accomplishment than those as well.

Btw, there was no Crash in 2009. Only a continuation of the panic selloff Crash that began on September 29, 2008 until about March 9, 2009, a couple of weeks after that American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was signed and passed.

I don't believe there has been a >20% decline/Crash triggering a Bear in the USA stock market with a Dem in the White House since before FDR. Beginning with Herbert Hoover roughly 90 years ago, Crashes or Bear markets have all begun under Republican presidents. That trend might even go back to 1907 under Teddy Roosevelt.

[EihTooms]

Yes. Now can we please get back to pussy?

This is a thread where we can talk about these issues instead of pussy. See, if you think the links I posted were "Fake News", that was your cue to post similarly credible links showing, say, that Trump's economy has created almost 1,000,000 more jobs during the comparable timeframe than Obama's insread of almost 1,000,000 fewer jobs and that the economy is accelerating rather than slowing under Trump vs Obama.

Recommending we quickly change the subject to pussy doesn't exactly refute what is cited in detail in those links or prove they report "Fake News", which I assume was your intention, but instead looks a wee bit like even you know you cannot do that.