I love the fact that this selloff started the MINUTE Barackus the Great gave his wonderful speech about how f***ing retarded (to coin a phrase) the banks are and he "will make them pay".

 

Let's all remember that.

I love the fact that this selloff started the MINUTE Barackus the Great gave his wonderful speech about how f***ing retarded (to coin a phrase) the banks are and he "will make them pay".

 

Let's all remember that.

Means nothing. Even if his plans are a bad idea (which they may be), remember too that the financial community was his target, and that's who TRADES. So no surprise there.

 

I love the fact that this selloff started the MINUTE Barackus the Great gave his wonderful speech about how f***ing retarded (to coin a phrase) the banks are and he "will make them pay".

 

Let's all remember that.

 

I love that the MINUTE Kap wrote this, the market came roaring back from its lows and finishing up slightly for the day.

I love that the MINUTE Kap wrote this, the market came roaring back from its lows and finishing up slightly for the day.

 

Yup. I'm glad to know that I have the same powers that Barackus the Great has. Oh the irony.

I love the fact that this selloff started the MINUTE Barackus the Great gave his wonderful speech about how f***ing retarded (to coin a phrase) the banks are and he "will make them pay".

 

Let's all remember that.

So, did y'all also notice how Bernanke's approval by the Senate also coincided with this downturn in the stock market? I blame him.

So, did y'all also notice how Bernanke's approval by the Senate also coincided with this downturn in the stock market? I blame him.

 

Actually they started the sell off before that, in response to his potentially not getting reapproved.

Actually they started the sell off before that, in response to his potentially not getting reapproved.

So he's not approved, the markets drop, he is approved, the markets drop. I believe Bernanke's existence therefore makes the markets drop.

So he's not approved, the markets drop, he is approved, the markets drop. I believe Bernanke's existence therefore makes the markets drop.

 

Once it was announced that he was going to clear cloture, the markets rallied.

Once it was announced that he was going to clear cloture, the markets rallied.

And then he was approved and look what happened this week.

 

It makes as much sense as Kap's point. And has exactly as much relevance to anything.

And then he was approved and look what happened this week.

 

It makes as much sense as Kap's point. And has exactly as much relevance to anything.

 

Only if you are missing Kap's point.

Only if you are missing Kap's point.

 

 

Yea... but that tends to get dismissed outright because those viewpoints do not goose-step in the lock stepping Barackus the Great's administration talking points.

Only if you are missing Kap's point.

So, let's see, which argument as to why that's stupid do I get to make?

 

1. The markets aren't the economy. The banks aren't the economy. They reflect it, but to base decisions on what is good for single-week stock market returns is ludicrous.

 

2. The banks aren't lending anyway. They're driving themselves into negative territory to pay out bonuses rather than lending.

 

3. Clearly, taking money away from the people who caused the bubble in the first place is a horrible thing.

 

4. It's frighteningly amazing how when the stock market falls in Obama's first month, it's 100% his fault. When the stock market rises 50% in the next year, none of the credit goes to Obama. But, Obama talks again on the banks this month...OH GOD WATCH OUT BELOW IT'S ALL HIS FAULT!

 

5. That whole correlation - causation thing.

 

6. It's an obvious asset bubble anyway.

 

7. Clearly, what you're arguing is that the more money the banks have, the more the market goes up, and the better we all are. Bail them out again!

There is one thing that is true, though, Balta, admit it or not... the markets react a LOT stronger (and more negatively) to this President's words then ever before. That's because he's anti-capitalist, just like you. And that doesn't roll on Wall Street. But that's a good thing, according to you.

 

Besides, you yourself have said over and over that Wall Street is only the entire recipient of the Treasury funds.

 

And, the bonues paid out are a pimple on an elephant's ass in the scheme of things.

 

Anyway, let's move along now. We need some more capitalism bashing.

So, let's see, which argument as to why that's stupid do I get to make?

 

1. The markets aren't the economy. The banks aren't the economy. They reflect it, but to base decisions on what is good for single-week stock market returns is ludicrous.

 

2. The banks aren't lending anyway. They're driving themselves into negative territory to pay out bonuses rather than lending.

 

3. Clearly, taking money away from the people who caused the bubble in the first place is a horrible thing.

 

4. It's frighteningly amazing how when the stock market falls in Obama's first month, it's 100% his fault. When the stock market rises 50% in the next year, none of the credit goes to Obama. But, Obama talks again on the banks this month...OH GOD WATCH OUT BELOW IT'S ALL HIS FAULT!

 

5. That whole correlation - causation thing.

 

6. It's an obvious asset bubble anyway.

 

7. Clearly, what you're arguing is that the more money the banks have, the more the market goes up, and the better we all are. Bail them out again!

 

Like I said, you completely do not understand what is being talked about here. When people talk about someone moving a market, there is nothing to do with a trend here. It is a momentary reaction to words being stated. The fact that you came up with this mess tells me that you don't understand the differences between market timing and trends. Its not a day, not a week, not a month, not a year. It is immediate. The President says something, and the markets go a direction. THAT is what is being talked about. Seeing as how I spent years in actual trading crowds, and you just get to read about that stuff on HuffPo, I think I understand a little better what is being talked about there.

Like I said, you completely do not understand what is being talked about here. When people talk about someone moving a market, there is nothing to do with a trend here. It is a momentary reaction to words being stated. The fact that you came up with this mess tells me that you don't understand the differences between market timing and trends. Its not a day, not a week, not a month, not a year. It is immediate. The President says something, and the markets go a direction. THAT is what is being talked about. Seeing as how I spent years in actual trading crowds, and you just get to read about that stuff on HuffPo, I think I understand a little better what is being talked about there.

And yet you're only willing to accept specific things as market-movers when they make your side feel correct. And you're also still under the illusion that what is good for the stock market is good for the country 100% of the time.

And yet you're only willing to accept specific things as market-movers when they make your side feel correct. And you're also still under the illusion that what is good for the stock market is good for the country 100% of the time.

 

And what specific things I am leaving out?

And what specific things I am leaving out?

Anything that might make Wall Street look bad or the President look good.

Anything that might make Wall Street look bad or the President look good.

 

Man I don't know if I can disprove such detailed evidence...

Man I don't know if I can disprove such detailed evidence...

Usually you guys get quite frustrated when I back up my statements, so I figured to go with your more classic "Ad hominem" style of posting.

Usually you guys get quite frustrated when I back up my statements, so I figured to go with your more classic "Ad hominem" style of posting.

 

Except here you haven't really understood your own statements, so it makes a big difference here. You have been trying to make arguments that make no sense.

Except here you haven't really understood your own statements, so it makes a big difference here. You have been trying to make arguments that make no sense.

"Giving all money to Wall Street is not always good" = a difficult to understand argument.

I should probalby step out before I go too far on this one. Apologies in advance.

"Giving all money to Wall Street is not always good" = a difficult to understand argument.

 

For some reason you have taken the fact that a person's words can instantaneously move the market, and tried to turn it into some sort of a partisan statement. Because it has happened adversely to Obama on multiple occasions, of course that means it is some sort of Republican conspiracy to discredit him, and therefore it has to be false. The idea that you seem to have adopted as the logic to discredit it, is that because the markets move up on another day, week, month, or whatever period of time can seemingly go against that, it therefore makes the idea of instant market reactions false. On that point, you and anyone else who thinks that way, could not be more wrong. I have experienced the very phenomenon on many different occasions, both good and bad, with many different people. Just because they point to specific people in good or bad light when trended together doesn't mean it isn't true. In Obama's case it means he likes to get in front of TV cameras and stay stuff that is easily taken as anti-market more often than other people who are historically paid attention to by the markets. Trying to be Bill Clinton and turn this into yet another Vast Right Wing Conspiracy completely misses the point of reality here.

9 straight months of the market going up, and not once do you guys point out a connection between the Pres. making a speech, and the moment it starts going down again and the market, it's immediately "Look how it started going down after Obama talked!"

Yes, we get it. Obama is the master and messiah. No one could have done it better.

 

All hail Barackus the Great.

 

"Government Saves".