« | »

Dow Falls To Lowest Point Since Clinton

From a suddenly shocked and dismayed Associated Press:

(Click to enlarge)

Dow industrials fall below 7,000; lowest since ’97

By Tim Paradis, AP Business Writer

NEW YORK – The Dow Jones industrial average has fallen below 7,000 Monday for the first time in more than 11 years as investors grow even more pessimistic about the health of banks, and in turn the economy.

A staggering $61.7 billion in quarterly losses at insurer American International Group Inc. is touching off fresh fears about the health of the nation’s financial system.

Those worries pushed the blue chips below 7,000 for the first time since Oct. 28, 1997. The credit crisis and recession have now slashed half the average’s value since it hit a record high over 14,000 in October 2007.

The Dow is down 225 at 6,837.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 index is down 26 at 708.46, and the Nasdaq composite index is off 38 at 1,338.

The dot in the chart marks November 4, 2008.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, March 2nd, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

66 Responses to “Dow Falls To Lowest Point Since Clinton”

  1. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    Perhaps it has something to do with Obama taking money from successful banks and businesses and giving it to those that are failing. Kind of like industrial welfare. Wait until he caps profits to help pay for all this spending. Oh, and those carbon credits are going to do wonders for those manufacturing jobs.

  2. proreason says:

    Am Thinker points out that since Obamy reached 50% in the polls, the Dow is down 32%.

    They correctly state that correlation does not prove causation, but then state (in their opinion), that the market is scared to death of him and rightly so,

    But we don’t have to be cautious and prudent on this site, so I feel free to say that THE MORON IS DESTROYING THE COUNTRY.

  3. GL0120 says:

    In case no one’s realized it, that’s his intention.
    Follow the money; all records relating to Obama have been / are being sanitized (his name is being removed from past votes for earmarks for example.).
    He voted present during most of his time in the Illinois legislature so you can’t nail him down based on his record there.
    He was well taken care of with admission to prestigious schools yet he left no paper trails.
    He was introduced to top people in Chicago and once again, he was taken care of.
    It takes a lot of money to grease the skids so thoroughly; who has it?
    Well, there is George Soros, a big fan of Global Government.
    How do you get Global Government?
    Easy – ruin the top economies.
    See any connection?
    Of course the MSM will never mention this and so the sheep, I mean population, will be blissfully ignorant until the New World Order is securely in place.

  4. Steve says:

    “But we don’t have to be cautious and prudent on this site, so I feel free to say that THE MORON IS DESTROYING THE COUNTRY.”

    I have to say I think you are quite incorrect to characterize Mr. Obama as a “moron.”

    He is anything but. He is following a carefully crafted plan that he has enunciated in his two autobiographies — especially his second, which was written seven years ago.

    What he is doing is quite purposeful. And he would have gone this same route if the economy was rosy or in a depression.

    But he would have found some crisis to enact his agenda. And that is why he is exploiting and perhaps even exacerbating the current economic downturn.

    It make little difference to him, as long as he has the conditions to ram his programs through. And he is doing so at a pace far exceeding FDR or LBJ.

    So whatever else Mr. Obama is, he is far from a moron.

    Indeed, would that he were one.

    • proreason says:

      He’s a Moron because he is destroying the country.

      And as you know, I view him as the front man, not the brains behind the criminal operation.

      In addition, he routinely demonstrates an appalling ignorance of history and other topics (tire inflation better than offshore drilling?. He may not be a clinical moron but he isn’t as smart as most of the people posting on S&L.

      And I love the word Moron.

    • 1sttofight says:

      When you have over half the voters with their hand out for gov. largees, the republic as we know it is finished.

    • aze_216 says:

      I agree – no moron is he. I’ll bet he is a malignant narcissist. He’s the perfect storm of an angry man who has 0 allegance or understanding of this country and has an agenda… (probably has mommy issues too..) Normally, this guy would simply be teaching university students about how evil capitalism and the U.S. is. For him, though – he got lucky.. Harry Reid, Nancy P., democrat (facist) controlled congress, a completely STUPID 53% of the electorate and the willingness of the press to give him a pass on everything and anything.

      What I really don’t get is how wall street isn’t lighting torches and grabbing pitchforks.. or even anyone who has $20 saved or has pension plans, insurance, etc..

  5. Gladius et Scutum says:

    Afraid I’m with Steve. I think that, if the economic crisis had not been so conveniently available, he would have engineered it. I believe that he intends to take us down further, and further crank up the “failure of private firms to regulate themselves” etc. But whether using this to implement Euro style socialism is the limit of his ambition is a matter of opinion.

    Marxism, but especially Leninism, rejects the notion of an elected ascendency of the proletariat. The changes they seek to make in society are too profound to be accomplished by, or left to the whim of, mere elections. “The duty of every revolutionary is to make the revolution.” Lenin taught that electoral politics were to be used for purposes of propaganda, agitation, and most especially to acerbate the situation. Speaking of the reform movement in the Duma, he said “We do not criticize them to point out their mistakes, but to highten the contradictions”.

    I expect that in 2010, we will all be informed that only federal largess can stave off famine. Perhaps after that, that the capitalists have stolen everything, and ….

  6. proreason says:

    We aren’t that far apart.

    But I think people give far to much credit to The Moron.

    He was picked for the role because he is bi-racial and fairly well-spoken.
    He was trained to be what he is. He repeats what he is told.
    His ascendency is the result of a long-term plan that was well-executed and thoroughly evil. The lynchpin of the plan is class warfare.

    I see no evidence that he is the master of his own fate. He can’t even control himself enough to be allowed to speak without a teleprompter.

    • reefdiver says:

      Proreason said: “I see no evidence that he is the master of his own fate. He can’t even control himself enough to be allowed to speak without a teleprompter.”


      Exactly what I’ve been thinking since the election. This guy is a sock puppet for Soros, or a group of world government goons (IMO). No true leader and genius needs a teleprompter to introduce a cabinet nominee or talk to a group.

  7. Gladius et Scutum says:

    Pro: Sorry, haven’t downloaded blogging software yet to get proper “Reply”.

    When you pointed out the tire inflation canard, and the re-written history, I was reminded of something that happens to me a lot.

    ME: This fellow made fourteen consecutive “mistakes” with the account that caused $ 27,454.37 to be converted to cash, and then to disappear.
    VICTIM: He says they were mistakes. He wouldn’t LIE about it, would he?

  8. proreason says:

    The Moron has already trounced his hero FDR!!!

    From Nov 4, 1932, the Dow fell 19% until Feb 27, 1933, and never again approached that low.

    Obamy has already achieved a 30% drop from his election day.

    He must be so proud of his accomplishment. So much wealth destroyed. Lenin smiles fondly from above.

    Who wants to bet the Moron goes for a 50% drop in the next couple of months?

    • VMAN says:

      Hey Pro I don’t think Lenin is smiling about anything from the stinking HELL he’s in. Just had to give you a little tweak.

    • proreason says:

      see RB’s comments Vman. I can handle your mild rebuke. My back is stong and I have the RBtini recipe. Carrying on.

  9. Reality Bytes says:

    Incidentally, I predicted a 6,000 floor when my expert hedgefund clients were assuring 9,000. After 6K? We’ll all be sleeping next to “KEEP OFF THE LAWN!” posts.

  10. U NO HOO says:

    Mobama promised us change back to Clinton.

  11. Reality Bytes says:

    Look! I don’t care what Pro says about Obama lookin dreamy in Spandex, I AIN’T NO MONICA LEWINSKYIN’ THAT MORON NO MATTER WHAT!!!

  12. russ51 says:

    Interesting comment proreason: “Obamy has already achieved a 30% drop from his election day“…

    From Rasmussen’s Obama Approval Index History: Total Approve: 58%, Total Disapprove: 41%

    Total disapproval has risen 11% since Obama started defiling the Oval Office…

    When you have over half the voters with their hand out for gov. largees, the republic as we know it is finished“…

    Well 1sttofight if that’s the case then we’ve been toast for a little while now if the Christian Science Monitor knows what its talking about: Slightly over half of all Americans – 52.6 percent – now receive significant income from government programs, according to an analysis by Gary Shilling, an economist in Springfield, N.J. That’s up from 49.4 percent in 2000 and far above the 28.3 percent of Americans in 1950. If the trend continues, the percentage could rise within ten years to pass 55 percent, where it stood in 1980 on the eve of President’s Reagan’s move to scale back the size of government

    • proreason says:

      1st’s point about 52.6% on the take from The Moron is the scariest thing.

      It may come down to a taxpayer revolt.

      Didn’t some other country try that a few hundred years ago?

  13. GetBackJack says:

    I love it when Victor D Hansen agrees with me.


  14. VMAN says:

    The really sad part is that all the Obamabots think as the Dow goes down it’s just racking up mo money for them.

  15. dr tecate says:

    See the dot? In the middle of a plummeting DJIA. It was down to nearly 8k just before Obama took office and then continued to fall after. You can’t be serious? I found this blog through CPAC as it was awarded blog of the year. I was hoping I would find bright comments and interesting posts. Something to battle the Left’s Netroots and DailyKos. This is pathetic. We’re doomed.

    But congrats on that award. I’d hate to see the competition.

    • 1sttofight says:

      You must have missed graph reading class dr tecate. The market was going up until obama was elected and has been in a nose dive ever since dropping over 2500 points since the election.

      Anybody else noticed the increase in seminar posters lately?

    • pdsand says:

      Being as the point of the market is both to determine what a company is worth now, and to bet on the future, then I would hate to imagine you really think Obama can not have had a negative impact on the stock market before his inauguration day.
      I am reminded of the day in 1994, I was but a wee sprout in the 8th grade, and for social studies class we played “the stock market game” run by the state of Georgia. Well by whatever coincidence I had noticed a trend in Grumman stock going up, so we bought 1,000 shares, and it just so happened that we were still holding these shares on the day after the Republican revolution. Grumman’s shares went up $40 in one day, and we ended up winning the game from our school on account of that trade.
      You can’t tell me that the stock market won’t account for who’s running the country before they actually get sworn in and their laws start taking effect.

    • pdsand says:

      It is really annoying. You shall know them all by their professions, “I was just thumbing through my copy of “See I told you so” by Limbaugh, when I came upon this hateful site, and my aren’t you all so dumb? Why don’t we just give Obama a chance?

    • proreason says:

      What’s so hard to understand about a 30% drop? Even The Moron probably gets it (but he sees it as a good thing, not a bad thing).

      tecate is clearly a product of public education

  16. dr tecate says:

    No. My point was this is indicative of a trend that started in 2007 when the dow peaked. Is your argument that the markets knew Obama was going to be President before he had even decided to run?

    This is lunacy.

    There is a credit crisis. It is the result of fake wealth the never existed. Look how fast the market climbed from 2002 – 2007 where it THEN started to fall. Not Nov 4 2008, but 2007 was the beginning of this event. This was the result of well over a decades worth of bad policies from both the 43rd and 42nd President.

    Is it not possible to talk facts? Is there an intelligent conservative political blog? Because I’d really like to discuss reality with folks who live in it. This is a sideshow and it sounds like you’ve all got the aluminum wrapped a little too tightly.

    • 1sttofight says:

      Then leave.
      Jan 2007 was when the dems took over congress.
      Coincidence? Hardly.

    • proreason says:

      The fact is that the market has gone down 30% since The Moron was elected.

      The markets peaked in Oct 2007, and fell about 30% by the election, and half of that was in Sept and Oct, immediately after McCain took the lead coming out of the convention.

      In the Summer of 2008, GDP was normal, employment was low, PE’s were strong, core inflation was normal. In other words, every indicator of economic health was good, except the toxic loans and the related housing market. And the toxic loans were known and understood in Oct 2007. There was no new revelation in 2008. If every one of them had defauled, it would have been a fraction of the cost of what has now been poured into the “crisis”. By the way, consumer lending continued to increase at an annualized 10% even in Q4 of 2008. Personlly, I refinanced a mortgage and took out 2 other loans between Oct 2007 and Nov 2008. So where was the credit crisis, genius?

      But we got one now. Yessiree bob. We sure do. As Rahm Emmanuel has said, “no crisis should be wasted”. He should have preceded it with, “nobody gets elected without a good crisis”.

      The crisis has been manufactured by radicals, including George Soros (who made $2.4B in the year preceding June, 2008) to win the election and take over the country. They began massively shorting the market in late 2007, and when they hadn’t achieved their goal by the time the Republican Convention was over, they attacked and broke Lehman Bros, and then generated a MM run that panic’ed Paulsen and Bernacke. Now, they don’t want to solve the crisis, they want more power.

      It’s amazing that NOBODY is looking into the real root causes of the meltdown. The credit problems were an issue, certainly, but there is a lot more to it than that.

      Yet the libwits claim to know EXACTLY what to do about it.

      And virtually every market observer now agrees that the 30% drop from Nov 4 is due to panic about THE MORON, not the credit situation.

    • dr tecate says:

      Your reply is amazing.

      I asked “Is it not possible to talk facts? Is there an intelligent conservative political blog? Because I’d really like to discuss reality with folks who live in it.”

      You said “Then leave”

      Point taken. Facts and reality are not discussed on this site.

      But let me see if I can get the second part right.

      “Jan 2007 was when the dems took over congress. Coincidence? Hardly.”

      Considering it was nearly an entire year after dems took over congress that the Dow peaked and started the fall which we are still seeing, this argument is silly.

      So is it the dems taking over congress, and the markets did no react for a year? Or is it preemptive reaction before Obama was elected? Why can’t we acknowledge that this is the result of Clinton and Bush and the deregulation that came out of both of their administrations?
      Why must you find some insane viewpoint that everything bad is a result of the Dems? We have had a pretty good handle on power since Regan. Guess what? We blew it under Bush. Let’s get a real party going. Not this nonsense.

      Again, try a dose of some facts. You gripe about media bias but here you are licking up this nonsense BS with absolutely no substance.

      I need a shower. This is dirty.

    • Consilience says:

      1sttofight you’re spot-on correct. As this wears on (and I suspect the Dow will bottom-out in the vicinity of 5K), TO will continue to hang this on Bush—-Bush tried to fix the mortgage mess in 2003—-but Slick Willie set the standard in 1999 by ramping up the “enforcement” of lending to the unworthy—-then “home ownership” became yet another BS method for measuring a president’s achievements. Jan 2007 marked some significant economic changes—the run on oil and the beginnings of a flee of capital (I got out of most of my non-sentimental positions in Nov 2006 after the dems won congress—I was a teenager under Carter and remember the havok these nitwits bring).
      tecate—the lunacy is the expectation that any actions other than tax-cuts/tax-suspensions can encourage capital back into this market—-stimuli don’t work, never worked and never will. The markets don’t lie, but politicians do, and TO is already in the liar’s hall of fame. Your comments reveal the mind of someone unfamiliar with reality or you wouldn’t be bemoaning this blog—no one begged you to join or comment, if you find the content “below” your standards, you should keep looking and don’t let the door hit you…

    • proreason says:

      “Why must you find some insane viewpoint that everything bad is a result of the Dems?”

      Because Drooling Barney Franks and his co-conspirators make a unilateral decision with no public discussion to force banks to make stupid loans to deadbeats, and the result is retired people plunged into poverty, millions of people thrown into unemployment, and generations of our children burdened with debt they can never pay thanks to The Moron and his handlers.

      That’s why.

    • Reality Bytes says:

      Calm down Dr. T. You don’t know who you’re talking to around these parts.

      You’re forgetting the democrats & their love for affordable housing. I know the drill. My clients are hedge funds & financial, but when Congress who oversees GSE’s turns them into vacuum cleaners for worthless loans to be bundled & sold off around the globe, well frankly it proved to be a disaster – fueled by guess what – the increased wealth created by Bush tax cuts.

      There! I just managed to give democrats a reason to rail against Bush tax cuts (again). Without them, the liquidity to generate investment into OOPS! a bad ponzi scheme that makes Bernie M look like the Martin Luther (now that’s a trick) would not have been possible.

      Solution here at S&L Is: Cut taxes – make the Bush cuts stay – eliminate or halve cap gains – let bad inc’s go to Cpt 11 – reorg them – maybe even lend buyers of pieces of them – but let them go without sticking the tab on American taxpayer’s grandchildren.

      RB Out!

    • Colonel1961 says:

      ‘Fake wealth that never existed’. I’ll try and keep this short: very little of the wealth of nations (which would be a great name for a book) or of peoples is intrinsic, i.e., it is mostly fake and it never existed, nor will it ever – doesn’t matter which president or what era. Was your statement meant to enlighten the great unwashed at S&L? But, please – the credit crisis was not caused by ‘fake wealth’. You can figure it out. Hint: it’s in the antepenult of this paragraph.

      With which mutual fund do you work? I’d like to keep my friends and family the hell away…

  17. dr tecate says:

    “And virtually every market observer now agrees that the 30% drop from Nov 4 is due to panic about THE MORON, not the credit situation.”

    Ha. How about quoting some legitimate ones? Seeing as I work for a mutual company and we specialize in wealth management services and investment analysis, I’d be really surprised by that. How can a recession that began before THE MORON even decided to run be attributed to him?

    Again, try facts. They help back up the points you are trying to make. If only you had valid ones.

    Enjoy your isolation.

    • proreason says:

      If you are so smart, mr. “work for a mutual company”, tell us about how your “mutual company’s” funds are doing?

      I’m lookin for some good investments. Sounds like your company is on top of the market…. :-D

    • proreason says:

      this is really too easy:

      “On approximated October 3, 2008, when Candidate Obama crossed 50% in the polls, the Dow was at 10,325. As those poll numbers held up, the DJIA immediately factored in his win and dropped 18% during the week of Oct 17 and never recovered.

      Blame it on the seized-up credit swap market if you like, but around October 3rd, when Candidate Obama crossed 50%, the market concluded he would be President and acted in its self interest.”


      What do you do for the “mutual company”……add up the losses?

    • proreason says:

      I can’t help myself.

      “Stocks plunged again today, following the latest episode in the Treasury bailout of insurance company AIG. The Dow closed down about 300 points.

      There’s a pattern here. Stocks fell last Friday following the latest bailout chapter for Citigroup. And stocks fell last Thursday after the release of Obama’s budget, with its breathtaking expansion of government and its war on entrepreneurs, investors, banks, and so on. Stocks also fell after Obama’s address to Congress, and they collapsed after Tim Geithner’s misbegotten financial speech. So you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to see a pattern of government announcements leading to falling stocks”


      These “mutual company” guys, who have presided over the greatest loss of wealth in the last 80 years STILL think they are the smartest guys in the room.

      It’s unbelievable.

      Do you have any “stock tips” for us Dr. Tecate, after all, you work for a “mutual company”, so I know we can depend on your knowledge of “the facts”.

    • oldswimcoach says:

      “How can a recession that began before THE MORON even decided to run be attributed to him?”

      A recession is defined as two CONSECUTIVE quarters of negative economic “growth”. That did not occur until the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2008. The 2nd consecutive quarter of negative growth (required to meet the definition of a recession) actually occurred AFTER Obama was elected, but before he took office.

      For one who wants people to “try facts” you’re playing a little fast and loose with the accepted economic definition of a recession and with your assertion that the recession began before Obama decided to run.

    • dr tecate says:

      A recession is defined as two CONSECUTIVE quarters of negative economic “growth”.

      Fail #1

      A Recession is actually started at 6 mos.

      That did not occur until the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2008. The 2nd consecutive quarter of negative growth (required to meet the definition of a recession) actually occurred AFTER Obama was elected, but before he took office.

      Fail # 2

      The National Bureau of Economic Research said that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, making official what most Americans have already believed about the state of the economy .

      That’d put it at about the middle of 2008. Let’s keep the facts to the facts.

    • oldswimcoach says:

      Dr tecate – so two consecutrive quarters no longer equals six months? Were you eduacated in the public school system or are you just math impaired?

    • oldswimcoach says:

      Also, can’t vouch for the NBER, their data or their agenda (and agenda matters), but Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell (you may not have heard of them since they are economists!) support my position and definition.

      2006, 2007, and 2008 never had two consecutive quarters of negative growth until 3rd and 4th quarter of 2008. So if NBER is an economic site touting a recesion when there wasn’t one, I think either their agenda or their academic rigor and quality must be questioned.

  18. 1sttofight says:

    lets recap;
    dr posts calling everyone an idiot and since has been refuted on every “fact” he/she has presented.
    Sorry dr but I am forced to call your mother and tell her what you are doing with her computer.

  19. dr tecate says:

    “stimuli don’t work, never worked and never will.”

    What began to curb the Great Depression?

    Please don’t give me the load about the war as the healing had begun before then.

    What helped Japan in “The Lost Decade”? Note that when they backed off gov’t spending in fear of the debt they were growing, things got worse. The fact is, economic models built to model boom times are worthless in recessions. Worse than worthless, actually, as the same factors that can cause a bubble only serve to aggravate the problems once the down cycle has begun.

    In both the Great Depression and the Lost Decade, it wasn’t stimulus that failed. Only when the government put deficit concerns ahead of stimulus efforts (as the United States did in 1937) did recovery falter.

    • 1sttofight says:



    • proreason says:

      Look dodo, the Great Depression was just as bad on Dec 6, 1941 as it was the day FDR was elected.

      Not only didn’t “stimuli” get us out of it, they PROLONGED AND DEEPENED it.

      And there were dozens of “stimuli” during Japan’s lost decade. They all failed.

      What has always worked are tax cuts.

      But that fact doesn’t fit your libwit agenda, so you ignore it. Go read some more fantasy columns from Paul Krugman. He is great at making stuff up.

  20. dr tecate says:

    Sorry Proreason quoting an equally absurd blog, (let’s remember this is the BEST of 2009!) is hardly a fact. But go ahead and read that sentence out loud. When has any poll been accurate enough that the entire free market would assume and react to, immediately no less, a candidate winning at 50%?

    The quote doesn’t make a lick of sense, “On approximated Oct 3rd…the market reacted immediately” How can it be immediate on an approximated date?

    There were still plenty of polls going into November that had McCain leading. Your argument continues to jump all over the place. In fact the National RCP average doesn’t show Obama hitting 50% until Oct 13 after which he went back down and didn’t regain it for a week, whereupon it went down yet again, not to be regained until Oct 31.


    and FYI
    Northwestern Mutual would be my employer, and we are among the strongest company standing amid this disaster with $4.6 BILLION in dividends coming. So we are doing quite well. Feel free to look into it.

    • oldswimcoach says:

      So you’re an insurance agent, not a stock market or mutual fund manager/rep?

      Read “Roosevelt’s Folly” for a rather academic (but readable) treatment of the economic policies and their consequences of the New Deal. It explains in detail why it didn’t work.

      Reagan had a significantly worse economic mess when he came into office than the current administration. His economic team CUT taxes and the economy was off and running in faily short order.

      I’ll pick Reagan’s solution over Roosevelt’s every time!

    • proreason says:

      Gallup had McCain in the lead for the first time the weekend of Sept 6/7, widely reported on the 8th. Gallup is the most respected poll.

      On the 8th, market volume jumped about 60% above previous 6 months average and stayed there for months. That kind on jump happened ONE OTHER TIME in the prior 60 years.

      The drop from Sept1 to Oct 30, 2008, was the greatest of any election year of ALL TIME for the 2 months prior to a national election, including the Great Depression.

      The entire drop in 2008 was the 2nd greatest OF ALL TIME.

      The MM run on Sept 18 was unprecedented and caused Paulsen and Bernecke to panic and declare the universe would end without TARP I.

      And don’t forget the 60 day drop in oil prices….all unprecedented.

      All facts as well.

      Here are the funds Northestern Mutual recommends:

      American Century Investments
      American Funds
      Fidelity Investments
      MFS Investment Management
      Russell Investments

      All heavy losers in the market meltdown.

  21. dr tecate says:

    look dodo, you have yet to yield any sources for your babble

    “Look dodo, the Great Depression was just as bad on Dec 6, 1941 as it was the day FDR was elected.”




    Table 2: Unemployment (% labor force)
    Year Lebergott Darby
    1933 24.9 20.6
    1934 21.7 16.0
    1935 20.1 14.2
    1936 16.9 9.9
    1937 14.3 9.1
    1938 19.0 12.5
    1939 17.2 11.3
    1940 14.6 9.5
    1941 9.9 8.0
    1942 4.7 4.7
    1943 1.9 1.9
    1944 1.2 1.2
    1945 1.9 1.9

    don’t look that way to me.

    This is common knowledge. I’m not a liberal, far from it. I’m just not brain dead.

    “What has always worked are tax cuts.” Weren’t these a big part of Bush’s economic policy? Shouldn’t we be rolling in it?

    • proreason says:

      unemployent 14.6 9.5, whatever that means, doesn’t look like anything to brag about to me.

      I’m not going to produce graphs of the market for you dolt. Go to Yahoo yourself.

      You acutally seem to be claiming that 1940 was a good year for the economy.
      And you are claiming the wikipedia is a legitimate source for economic information.

      And by the way, to claim that stimuli had impacted the economy in 1940 is beyond ludicrous. The U.S. was heavily engaged at that time creating war materials for England and Russia. Is THAT the stimuli you are talking about.


    • dr tecate says:

      That would be the two different measures of unemployment. If you don’t know the difference between Lebergott and Darby you don’t have a leg to stand on when arguing about unemployment rates. And no, I made no claim that 1940 was a good year for the economy, it was better than the previous 7 years though. I’m pretty sure I remember a certain dodo stating that “Great Depression was just as bad on Dec 6, 1941 as it was the day FDR was elected” you’ve got a lil egg on your face there dodo.

      I’m not saying things were great what I’m saying is this is down from 24.9%.

      And you aren’t going to produce graphs of the market to back up your point because they don’t exist. Everyone one of those graphs are sourced and you can trace it back to legitimate FACTS. I’m not into blind partisanship. I’d prefer good policies, good idea, and most importantly good facts to base them on. By 1940 “The U.S. was heavily engaged at that time creating war materials for England and Russia. ” It had also been 7 years since the first New Deal had been enacted. By the way, got any numbers to go along with that assertion? Got anything to back you up?

  22. proreason says:

    “A recession is defined as two CONSECUTIVE quarters of negative economic “growth”.

    Very true, coach, but the msm has rewritten history and now it’s widely reported that the recession went back to Oct 2007…..a lie of course……but it fits the libwit agenda.

    As I said earlier, the economy right up to Sept 07 was normal by ALL of the common measures. The only real problem was the Democrat created toxic loans, and that situation had been around for 11 months with no “crisis”. Paulsen was loudly proclaiming in th summer of 08 that he had the credit crisis under control. PAULSEN SAID the economy was fine.

    But then in Set 2008, the libwits needed a crisis……so click…..they created one.

  23. oldswimcoach says:

    These stats are slightly different, but point taken, unemployment in 1941 at 9.66% is not equal to the rates of 1931-1940.


    However, from 1931-1940 unemployment was never below 14%. 1929-1930 unemployment was at 3.14% and 8.67% respectively. So basically, the new deal roughly doubled unemployment rates for nine consecutive years. In 1941 the lend lease act was passed, and Britain supplied the Army while we supplied the material. 1941 has to be seen (from an economic perspective) as the year we mobilized for World War II.

    I think the point is valid that World War II is what resolved the great depression – largely by eliminating many of the New Deal’s more fascistic elements, and forcing the government back to a free market model. That and the Supreme Court decisions in the late 1930’s that reversed much of the key New Deal legislation.

  24. dr tecate says:

    Ok lets take these numbers:

    1929 – 3.14%
    1930 – 8.67% up 5.53%
    1931 – 15.82% up 7.15%
    1932 – 23.53% up 7.91%

    Enter The First New Deal

    1933 – 24.75% up 1.22%
    1934 – 21.60% down 3.15%
    1935 – 19.97% down 1.73%
    1936 – 16.80% down 3.17%
    1937 – 14.81% down 1.99%

    1937 in fears of the size of National Debt gov’t spending is Cut

    1938 – 18.91% back up 4.10%

    Regardless of what you might think resolved the Great Depression, how can you argue against the progress shown in your own numbers?

    • oldswimcoach says:

      1-2% is easily accounted for by WPA hiring to manipulate unemployment numbers. There were also supreme court case that eliminated some of the more onerous aspects of new deal ledgislation, and to some extent there is always some level of market fluxuation in a free market economy – some level of economic uncertanty is the “cost” of overall economic growth under a free market.

      The better question is, how did Roosevelt’s policies fix the depression from 1933-1940? Seven years is a long time.

  25. Clarissimus says:

    Correlation does not imply causation. So far I’ve seen a couple dozen posts on both sides of this poorly-argued debate that basically say “X and Y happened around the same time, therefore X caused Y.” I think we can all agree that the bursting of the housing bubble was a major contributor to our current economic difficulties. Whether or not the market fears Obama’s plans for the future would best be determined by asking investors if this is the case, not pointing to dates on graphs. It’s that kind of shoddy reasoning that contributes to the “industrial activity causes global warming” myth.

    Also, dr tecate, I don’t think anyone is fooled — we all can see you’re not the conservative you claim to be. If you want to argue that central government planning is the best way to run an economy you should at least be honest about where you’re coming from.

    • proreason says:

      5 once-in-multipe-lifetime events happened in Sep / Oct 2008:

      1. Biggest market drop 2 months prior to a national election ever.
      2. Massive 60% steady volume increase for 2 months (1 other time in 60 years)
      3. Biggest drop in oil prices ever
      4. Huge run on money markets Sept 18 that panic’ed the Fed and Treasury.
      5. Unprecented failures of major financial institutions that resulted in the rushed and tragic $700B bail-out

      All started immediately after McCain took the lead in Gallup polls Sept 7/8.

      Obama crossed 50% permanently Oct 4. Since then, the Dow has dropped 30%. After every announcement from The Moron, the market drops some more (but of course, who could say that one caused the other, in such a complex world. It could be sunspots, after all.)

      Now, maybe it looks like happenstance to you. Certainly nobody in the msm is investigating it. And why should they? After all, their guy got elected. Who cares what made it happen.

      But for me, when a volcano erupts and minutes later hundreds of people are scalded to death, I stop worrying about “correlation” and “causation” and run for cover.

  26. artboyusa says:

    Here’s what the headline should be: Market to Government: ‘Stop Helping!’

  27. Yarddog1 says:

    I am soooo glad our new President has inspired so much confidence in the financial markets. Just look at its recent successes.

  28. Alice L. says:

    This is the Obama depression – he is going to have to stop blaming Bush. Notice that he refuses to address the Stock Market as our 401(k)s disappear.

  29. Barbie says:

    I appreciate the ‘let’s be cognizant of X does not cause y’ logic, but I refuse to ignore common sense assessment. Plenty of investors have been asked, and there are plenty of articles by economists and business reporters who assert this causal connection so, please, these are not wild allegations and, from what I can tell, these are not poorly formed arguments. Investors invest in the stock market to get a return on their money (I think we all agree that’s the motivation), and Obama is overtly planning to deny those returns. Why would anyone invest when they know they’re going to lose their money (or will , most likely).

    I would have to suspend common sense and reasonable knowledge to believe there’s not a relationship between Obama’s nomination/election and the stock market woes. Seriously, Obama is extremely anti business, stronlgy anti capitalism, pro wealth vengeance redistributionist, denigrator of personal achievement – and I’m suppose to think ‘hey, there’s no correlation’. I fully admit I’m in no way any type of expert, but I also know I’m not going to sit around waiting for the Obama governnment approved version of this before I draw my own conclusions.

    • 1sttofight says:

      Not only that but if an invester were able somehow to make a profit it would be taken away via taxes. Sit on your money and wait for better times or convert it to something like gold or other precious metals because inflation is about to hit and hit hard IMHO.

    • proreason says:


      The money supply has TRIPLED in the last several months.

      It’s not going into the Stock Market. It’s not paying off mortgages. It’s on the sidelines in Treasuries and CDs, waiting for some stability in the economy.

      When the economy does stabalize a bit, that money is coming out from under the matresses, and there will be inflation like a tsunami.

      But of course, that is only one factor. The massive, 90% useless 787B to 3.2T “stimulus” might, just might encourage a wee bit of inflation as well.

      But if The Moron’s handlers are correct, it won’t hit full force until after the 2010 elections.

      We’ll see about that.

    • TNpatriot says:

      I agree with you 100% and would even go so far as to say people invest in the stock market based solely on the future. You do not buy a stock because the price appreciated and they paid a hefty dividend last year. You look at prior years performance then analyze future market trends and invest purely on the assumption that the company will pay off in the future.

      I tried to have this very same discussion with several loons on the Huffpost yesterday and could not get them to move beyond the “its all Bush’s fault argument.” Obama owns this market. It is taking a nosedive because no investor has confidence that the policies being implemented will be conducive to businesses.

  30. proreason says:

    Typical day in Obama’s market.

    Thursday, 2:30 pm ET, Dow down 235 points.

    So far in his life, he has always got what he wants.

    But that is going to change soon.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »