Stock Market Bullish On Obama Future

Start your own blogg, sanjay. The owners of this blogg can do what they like with it - it is their site.

“Stock Market Bullish On Obama Future” Change we can believe in; yes, we can.

wow, sanjays panties are way to tight!! my stuff gets moderated all the time…so what. any ways, the market was supposed to fly through the roof once the “one” was elected wasn’t it? thats what the media told ne and i believed them, the liars. just kidding. all was supposed to well remeber? so how do they explain all iof the downturn in the market? its in a freakin free fall and it doesn’t seem to be stopping. guess we will find out who has it and who doesn’t. i am personally freaking out, not because i am out of resources, but because i would rather no tap those resources. so far my business hasn’t seemed to slow down, that is a good thing, though most will be going a bit longer between services, but at least hey will still be coming in.

Obama’s election is destroying the stock market. A classic logic error:

“The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. *Post hoc reasoning is the basis for many superstitions and erroneous beliefs.*”

And what happened to that bull market we were experiencing before November 4?

Dave Noble
“Obama’s election is destroying the stock market. A classic logic error:
“The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. *Post hoc reasoning is the basis for many superstitions and erroneous beliefs.*”
And what happened to that bull market we were experiencing before November 4”

Last question first: Prior to November 4 there was uncertainty in the markets and the market and its participants hate uncertainty.

As to your Post hoc reasoning being fallacious: Yours is the classic error in logic. President elect Obama said a number of things to which investors are responding.

1) Despite the fact that raising the capital gains tax will reduce the federal governments’ income he will raise it because, “it is the fair thing to do.”

If you are an investor and have capital gains in any investments whether they be securities or a piece of art, or to a lesser extent real estate, you are a complete fool if you do not make adjustment to avoid onerous taxes.

2) You may not conclude that simply because one thing preceded another it was not influenced by the sequence. You may, however, conclude it was influenced by the sequence if you understand the implications of the occurrence(s).

3) Never draw conclusions from assumptions, that is logic in a vacuum and nothing lives in a vacuum.

Red,

And just what is my logic error or my assumption made in a vacuum? I missed that. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Not the stock market plunge. Not Obama’s election.

1) The stock market was reeling and plunging long before November 4. You know that and I know that.

2) There is uncertainty before any President takes office.

3) You cite a number of things Obama said that allegedly rocked the market. You only cite one re: capital gains taxes.

4) Investors in the United States and worldwide, though they may be concerned about the future status of the capital gains tax, have far more to worry about than that. Isolating Obama’s tax policy out of that multiplicity of variables and blaming it for the stock market plunge. Now that’s cherry pickin’, Mr. Alphabet.

5) If you understand what makes the stock market move, you and Mike are wasting precious moments on this blog. You could be out there making billions.

Okay let’s take another abstract view of this Dave;
Your Point #1:
Why did Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the housing market financiers tank AFTER Obama won the DNC primary?

Your Point #2:
There is some uncertainty with each administration. But only a fool does not consider similarities in historical platforms and policies into account and plan accordingly. Obama’s plans look like Carter & FDR economics on crack.

Your Point #3:
You don’t see a connection there and with Obama’s ‘get out the vote’ agency Acorn who also ‘coincidentally’ is the same organization that used high pressure tactics to force banks to approve unqualified borrowers? Actions spoke louder than words and it’s not all about “Capital Gains Taxes”.

Your Point #4 (& in answer to the question I pose after #2):
If you were an real estate investor and were looking at the possibility of a presidential administration that would do everything in their power to allow more of the same, wouldn’t you throw up your hands and and surrender like the housing market did? Then beg for a bail out and/or ‘cut your losses and run’? Why are auto makers now doing the same? Did you even read the bail-out bill that was posted and some of the nonsense it included, such as giving the government the ability to look at individual mortgages and say, “You know what? You are loosing this house, but since you’ve tried to make some payments, and your mortgage company didn’t foreclose, we’re going to call this loan ‘paid in full’ and the government (i.e. taxpayer) will eat the loss.” What kind of dumb $h!7$ do you take us for?

Your Point #5:
You can’t ‘make billions’ in a Stock Market crash, unless you wait until it bottoms out and buy those stocks that look like they might survive. To do that, you have to hedge your bets, sell out to salvage what you can so you have the means to reinvest. So Mike, Red and the rest are not likely to be billionaires within the next 4 years.

Many eyes here on FA were watching Obama’s poll numbers and comparing them to the Wall Street tickers. We saw this coming and advised readers to “sell now”. Missy’s apparently is happy her husband listened. If you really believed you’re own rhetoric you would be telling people to “buy now” because those stocks are undervalued. Are you putting YOUR money where your mouth is? If you were, you and all Democrats would be capitalizing on that future and buying into Freddie Mac & Fanny Mae ‘like big dogs’. But we don’t see any rebounds do we? So obviously you’re not that brave. Instead, you try to convince everyone we were delusional. Your position is everyone should ignore that stupid man behind the curtain and listen instead to the voice of the great and powerful Obama. Oh we listened, but like Toto, we weren’t buying it. The FA authors pulled that curtain aside to reveal your ‘Professor Marvel’ for the humbug he was. Now we are waiting to see what he delivers.

Bluff all you want, but your poker face is showing. We think you’re holding five unmatched cards of differing suits and it ain’t a straight. We call.

Dave Noble,
Nothing lives in vacuum. Your assumption that people think Obama’s election, per se, crashed the market is false because they are responding to his pre-election statements, and non-statements. They feel that anyone reading the caption is smart enough to figure out they are talking about Obama’s total package. It is kind of shorthand, like headlines.

Spreading the wealth around is Marxist and not conducive to economic growth in a capitalist society, or any other for that matter.

He also said he would bankrupt the coal industry thereby putting thousands out of work and wrecking an already fragile energy system. A wrecked energy system will shut down thousands of factories that will also lay off people.

True that the pre-presidential election period is a period of uncertainty, but none in my fifty years of watching these things unfold ever produced the wide market swings of this election. Uncertainty mostly created by the “great orator’s” ability to speak eloquently and say nothing of substance.

On this subject of market volatility John McCain must take some responsibility for his flip-flopping. But, McCain did not ever suggest we need a new Bill of Rights, or that the Supreme Court should aim toward “wealth redistribution.”

All of you Obamaites have filled the blanks of his speechifying with your own visions of what you want; you have no idea what he wants. That is also logic in a vacuum.

Read Missy’s post and discover that some people did manage to escape the Obama market.

Most market participants are much like lemmings. They follow in huge packs, and when some are selling because of the capital gains statements others follow. When corporations’ profits slump because of the media’s constant drumbeat that everything is going to hell in a hand basket causing buyers to become reluctant to spend, still others sell. And the cycle continues.

Prior to the election there was volatility. After the election there is only a downward spiral.

I did not pick on Obama’s “tax policy,” only the capital gains part. Everything else is speculation, except his “spread the wealth” statement, and even that lacks substance. It is a philosophical statement that scared the hell out of anyone who knows first hand what socialism does to a country.

His other nonsense statements concerning foreign policy scare the hell out of investors since we are in a global economy.

The election did not happen in a vacuum but because of the vacuum between the ears of Obama’s constituency.

What is with the Mr. Alphabet? I did not alphabetize anything but did number points.

He is more Marxist than Lincolnesque.

Hi, I am a chinese money manager in SEAsia.

Before the election, I bet with the guys in my trading room that we would see a drop of about 500-1000pts in the dow in the next ONE session if Obama won. I missed it by just a touch–in the next 2 sessions the dow dropped almost 1000pts.

Its sad and interesting to see how you americans chose a marxist radical to be your next president. I understand that McCain was unpopular amongst his own republicans and could barely raise any money–not a good sign. I liked what I saw in Palin, but was surprised by all the vitriol thrown at her by your media. She probably was the greatest danger to Obama and was best fought by ridiculing her.

The way I see it, anyone who believes that Karl Marx is the solution to the world’s problems is even more stupid than someone who thinks the earth was created 4000 years ago. Not only stupid, but dangerous.
Here in the east, we are trying to go the capitalist way(tho not successful sometimes). It is so funny to see the world’s best model of capitalism and human rights(the US) sliding back down into the swamp we have been trying to drag ourselves out from.

I really hope Obama does not lose control of the US dollar in the next few years and also does not act as stupid as he appears to be. Bailing out everybody will create another japan of the 90s except that it will be done with massive borrowing or money printing, putting the US in further debt or wiping out the US dollar. At least japan had real capital to burn and throw away….you americans have only capacity to borrow and print money.

Raising taxes??? Capital and business will just leave america and come to us. Thanks.

And if it stays in america, the increased cost will just get passed on to the consumer.

In short, you americans have just hung yourselves economically and financially by electing a marxist radical as your president. I never thought americans could be as dumb as this, but obviously occasional stupidity is a trait inherent in all societies……chinese, japanese, russian, african…….and now american.

Hope you guys survive the next 4 years economically.

At least now the domestic chinese stockmarket is reviving, so we will be able eat subsistence foods for the next few years while your markets tank further to Dow 6000 and stay there.

I cannot believe you guys elected Obama. It must be a racial thing….the overwhelming desire to elect a black POTUS to show that america has expiated its sin of slavery(which is minor compared to africa itself and the islamic world). Maybe also tiredness after two terms of GWB, who actually wasn’t too bad as a POTUS. Over here, everyone respects GWB, even if they curse him and ridicule him, they respect and even fear him. But Obama??? This guy looks alot like a conman and a crook. Those that you try to cheat if he does not cheat you first.

Let me tell you americans something–when the people here praise a POTUS, it means they have managed to con him, or get their way with him, or think they are going to be able to get their way with him easily. If they CANNOT con him or get their way with him, then they will criticise him or ridicule him. GWB falls into the latter category. As for Obama, we’ll see how it goes.

Red,

“Your assumption that people think Obama’s election, per se, crashed the market is false because they are responding to his pre-election statements, and non-statements. They feel that anyone reading the caption is smart enough to figure out they are talking about Obama’s total package. It is kind of shorthand, like headlines.”

There is no substantive difference between saying that Obama’s election caused the stock market to plunge and saying Obama’s “total package” caused the plunge. Both statements blame someone who hasn’t even been inaugurated yet for a worldwide economic meltdown that is driven by a complex set of variables.

Red says:

“Spreading the wealth around is Marxist and not conducive to economic growth in a capitalist society, or any other for that matter.

He also said he would bankrupt the coal industry thereby putting thousands out of work and wrecking an already fragile energy system. A wrecked energy system will shut down thousands of factories that will also lay off people.

True that the pre-presidential election period is a period of uncertainty, but none in my fifty years of watching these things unfold ever produced the wide market swings of this election. Uncertainty mostly created by the “great orator’s” ability to speak eloquently and say nothing of substance.

On this subject of market volatility John McCain must take some responsibility for his flip-flopping. But, McCain did not ever suggest we need a new Bill of Rights, or that the Supreme Court should aim toward “wealth redistribution.”

All of you Obamaites have filled the blanks of his speechifying with your own visions of what you want; you have no idea what he wants. That is also logic in a vacuum. ”

This is what you really want to say, Red. And it’s nothing new or insightful. I’ve been reading it on this blog for months now. And only in your mind does it provide any kind of reasoned link between Obama’s election and the state of the market.

*you have no idea what he wants. * You’re a mind reader now? Or, alternatively we’ve had long talks?

Sorry, you missed the joke about Mr. Alphabet, Red. It wasn’t directed at you. Look at the post below yours with the proliferation of letters and something about buckets of cherries. That’s Mr. Alphabet.

Dave Noble,
I want to say what I said, nothing neither more nor less. Please do not try to put words in my mouth. You are ill prepared.

OK, you tell me what he said and what he will do regarding taxes, the economy, and foreign policy.

After this I’m going out a make another billion.
Under George Bush this country enjoyed seven years of unprecedented growth but watching the nightly news during those seven years you would think we were in recession.

The news media pounded away on Iraq but never let the true story be told, and the same with the economy. They now reap what they sowed, and they are not finished yet. Until Obama the Great gets into office and actually fixes everything as only He can we will be pounded by more crap. Watch the weeping and gnashing of teeth when The Great One turns on them.

Some people did not participate in the growth, and there are some who will never participate in any growth. To participate requires discipline.

Obama said he is modeling his policies after FDR’s, which prolonged the depression, and that is according to two economic professors from UCLA, which is not a bastion of conservative thinking.

Actually I am going to play World of Warcraft where I get to indiscriminately kill everything is sight. Great stress relief.

@Red73:

Yes, Red, dash on over to Obie’s website.

You can look at his campaign site or his change.gov… site but be sure to check out the cached versions of both sites to get the full assortment of the candidate’s varied positions on everything from A to Z.

Obie has held just about every possible position on every issue so I’m sure you’ll find something in there that you will like. You’ll just have to wade through the BS and ever evolving, morphing spin in order to get there.

Nuance, you know.

Nuance.

Me: “I really hope Obama does not lose control of the US dollar in the next few years”

Other contributor:
“Put not your faith in kings and princes. Neither Obama nor any other president has control of the dollar. The dollar is actually holding up remarkably well so far; whether this is because US Treasuries are the final bubble, or because all other countries are also having similar or worse problems, I can’t say”.

Me: “At least now the domestic chinese stockmarket is reviving”

Other contributor:
“Good luck with that. China is in a world of trouble, and while they have the advantage of vast reserves they also have a financial and economic system as yet untested by severe shock. Hopefully you’re actually in Singapore.

Oh, and FWIW I agree with Dave Noble - trying to ascribe a rise or fall in the market to Obama’s election is goofy. As if electing McCain would have somehow straightened out all the structural problems that are making things come apart at the seams”.
———————————————————-

Not here to argue, but want to elaborate.

When I said Obama might lose control of the dollar, I did not mean that such control of the dollar as to determine its monthly or yearly trend. No one in this line would assume that.

What I meant is that if he does not have a STRONG foreign policy, then more and more countries will STOP using the dollar as an important or reserve currency. Eg: OPEC still takes dollars for its oil so countries that buy oil from OPEC have to hold dollars to pay OPEC. Also many countries have linked their currency to the US dollar, thus making it very important.

If for some reason OPEC no longer takes dollars, then a lot of demand for dollars will be lost, and this will have a severe impact on its value as against other currencies, given the massive borrowing and money printing that is behind the dollar. The dollar is only “strong” because of its demand by OPEC and its linkage to other currencies.

This will really wipe out the dollar, and I am not sure what impact this will have on the SEAsian currencies and renminbi(yuan or CNY).

Thus, every POTUS has to have a strong foreign and economic policy that discourages OPEC and other countries from replacing the dollar as their important requirement.

This is something basic that everyone knows.

The recent strength in the dollar against some currencies is because lots of funds have been running out from higher yielding foreign currencies back into the dollar as interest rates have crashed everywhere. It isn’t because of the “strong fundamentals” of the dollar. People tolerate the dollar simply because they know that the american military is the last enforcer of the dollar’s demand.

Anyway, I’m not here to argue, because I don’t think I am going to change anyone’s opinion by talking on the internet, but hopefully I can gain something from reading all this americana on the internet and improve my writing also.

Maybe I shall join the NRA also. Reading about the Second Amendment has really taught me something about why the US Constitution is such a great beacon of freedom, human rights and freedom from oppression.

Its sad that many domestic americans cannot understand how good they have it and are foolish enough to happily unfurl the Soviet flag when Obama gave his victory speech. I saw this on your Fox News and was just amazed. Communism is responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people, and your college students thought it was fashionable.

——————————————-

On the the proposition that Obama’s election isn’t causing the recent downtrend in the dow the last couple of weeks, we can argue forever about that. However looking at past trends, it seems rather obvious that foreign investors have rerated the US markets downwards not only because of the housing bust and associated problems stemming from it, but also because of fear that Obama’s marxist inclination will preclude him doing what is necessary to make the markets recover.

That 1000pt drop in the 2 sessions after Obama won, that I betted on and got correct, is a very clear indication of how the market saw his election. His election simply made a bad situation even worse. You can’t ask for a clearer signal from the market than that.

So what’s going to happen now???

Well, Citigroup seems to be one of the drivers leading your market down. The Singaporeans bought into Citi at near $30, thought it was a bargain, and now it is near $5.

The big energy shares like ExxonM that did not invest to much into new assets when oil was $147 have held up pretty well in your market. With Obama’s disinclination towards increasing your domestic energy production, once there is some recovery in the rest of the world, demand will cause energy prices to come back quite fast, since there won’t be any new supply coming in under Obama. Also the massive stimulus, low rates and printing of money will eventually result in weak currencies that usually help commodity prices once demand comes back.

If your Citigroup can do something to improve its situation, you might get some sort of rally in your markets, but I see Obama as being a drag on your markets, so any recovery in US markets will be not as good as in foreign markets like SEAsia and China. Nobody is going to commit big sums back into the US if they think Obama is going to raise taxes and mess up the economy further. So we’ll have to see what he does.

It’s just that your markets are down so much already that even with whatever new nonsense Obama brings in, they may not have that much to drop from here, unless Obama raises corporate taxes or does something really foolish.

I would say the market has already fallen much earlier in the last few months in discounting the risk of Obama to the economy.

OK, cheers and let’s hope for the best. At least with Obama as POTUS, you conservatives will have lots to write about!

I would love to see a chart of the markets and housing values before the election, you know covering the time of President Bush, and oh, isn’t he still responsible until January?

Hi, craig and missy

Hope I am not imposing on you people here.
Stay safe and hope u don’t suffer too much thru these tough times.

Over here, some of the older folks here got conned by the local banks into buying Lehman bonds with their life savings and ended up losing everything. In this place, there were about US$400M of Lehman bonds sold. All ended up zerorized. It was really quite sad to see all these old couples crying and begging the authorities to help them out. There is some response, but nowhere near as what it should be. Legal suits will start soon.

Many other bank-sold products to investors and retirees were structured based on the credit worthiness of institutions like Lehman, and they also lost the majority of their value.

Going back to the US, it is very interesting to see what will happen with your automakers. I understand lots of people will lose their jobs and undergo hardship if there is no bailout, but maybe a managed bankruptcy as suggested by your Mitt Romney politician is the best way. Like that, there may be a couple of years of suffering, but then you could really restructure and change your automakers with real change for the better instead of just throwing money at them and not really solving the problem. You could also use some of the money as a monthly helpout to the workers while real restructuring takes place. Basically you need REAL change, or else the money will be wasted.

Where will it stop next??? I understand a bailout of the financial system is needed or else the whole economy will stop, but the automakers are a different story. Why not the airlines, hotels, shippers, farmers next??? Where do you draw the line??? Sure we need to help the workers, but it has to be done in a way that brings real change or else you are only delaying the pain. Maybe this is the only way politically……..

The japanese did this in the 90s and there markets and companies became half-dead zombies for a decade. Whereas in S Korea and some other places, they bit the bullet and emerged fairly quickly out even stronger.

Psss, het blast, the economic crisis is courtesy of the dems. Bush and the Reps tried to stop it, but the dems saw to it that their cash cows were protected.

Bush and the Reps tried to stop it

And despite controlling Congress from 2003-2007 (or 2001 to 2008 if you want to be more generous) they were somehow unable to stop those dastardly Democrats!
Please, accept that the Republicans (and especially Bush) bear some responsibility for this mess. Go back and look at the speeches Bush gave in favor of increased homeownership and see how he just kept the ball rolling (I grant you he didn’t start it).
Or if you like, point me to one concrete thing Bush did to ‘try to stop it’ (and no, signing a $700 billion bailout after the torpedoes have already exploded does not count). I’ll give him full credit for keeping America safe from terrorist attack, even if I disagree with some of the policy details - but his economic policies have been quite poor. A lot of that is inherited (Greenspan’s bubble, Clinton’s housing policies) but even so you’re talking about six years without any attempt to fix the problems that he started with.

Sorry, Aye Chi, I missed you.

Nuance, God forbid! Let’s run the country on bumper stickers. Simple ideas for a simple world.

Blast,

So you are saying that Obama’s statements and actions have nothing at all to do with the market going down, but the market going up when he chooses his Treasury Sec. is like a magic gift?

Let me make sure I have the Obamatron logic down. Market goes down, Bush’s fault. Market goes up, Obama is directly responsible.

I would say that you can’t have it both ways, but logic and common sense never did have anything to do with Obama worship.

With the dow having dropped like a 1000pts in the last few days, anything perceived as good news can just make it jump up 500pts easily, when trading shorts cover back or funds that are too cashed-up get scared and buy stocks. If you look at many of the well-known hedge funds(eg Tudor, etc), they are like 80-90% in cash. It doesn’t mean that the markets are in for a sustained rally, tho that might start from any low point.

We’ll only know a week or so later, if the markets can stay up for at least so many days, be resistant to bad news, react bullish to good news, etc.

It’s still very tough to call the lowest point in your market, we’ll probably only know it from hindsight, but I think with the uncertainty of what Obama will do later on, there is still potential for downside. On the other hand, the markets have dropped so much already, that it’s possible they don’t have that much more to drop unless Obama does something really stupid.

In other words, the markets have always disliked Obama, and acted months BEFORE in selling down because they were betting Obama would win, since he was leading in all the polls for months up to the elections. But I am repeating myself.

———————————————————————-

Mike on energy and possible gas tax:

Hi Mike, best wishes to your family and stay safe in these tough times. I don’t think I want my writing put up as an opinion piece, I’m publicity shy and I don’t think that I am writing anything important enough or well enough to merit such an “honor”.

———————————————————————-

On what Mike said about energy and energy-related taxes, first of all, I will give a prejudiced opinion because I am long in energy shares for SEAsia personally and also for my clients. Basically, I am betting energy prices will go up from around here.

I’d like to talk on what I think is the background before I start:

I think we all know, higher energy prices don’t always translate into higher profits for energy coys because if they are refiners as well as producers, it is the spread between their raw materials(crude) and refined products that gives their margin.

Generally the margins in asia tend to be higher than the margins in europe and north america. India has the highest margins, as far as I know(as much as US$15 a barrel sometimes). This quarter, maybe we are looking at abt US$5 a barrel in some places here.

I believe ExxonM(XOM) refines almost double what it produces, as you can see, it hasn’t dropped much so far in this savage downtrend in the markets. Thus those people with faith in “Big Oil” so far have lost not much in the markets compared to those who had faith in, let’s say, Fannie and Freddie.

I think Obama has talked about two taxes: A windfall tax on oil companies and a tax on gas consumption.

There are many well-written articles in your financial media(eg: IBD)on why a windfall tax isn’t logical for ExxonM and the other large oil coys. I think the main argument is that XOM’s margin is nothing exceptional, it is lower than many other industries, it is just that their business is very big, that is why profit is large.

The way I see it, when marxists like Obama see a huge clump of $$$ somewhere, be it in ExxonM or industries not supportive of democrats, they will always try to steal it away via taxation and then dole it out to their supporters or cronies. They talk about social justice and helping the poor, but actually the unsaid proposition is to make a whole new class of voters support him and his party because they will be getting other people’s money from him.

This is just base human nature, so we shouldn’t blame Obama for it, but we should realize that this has nothing to do with social justice, but rather with power and control through controlling money. Social justice is just the excuse to justify it. That’s my personal opinion.

The other secondary aspect is that taking away XOM’s money will probably just make prices rise as company passes on the additional cost to consumers. Stop that with price controls, profit vanishes and the industry languishes and production goes down and this creates even more shortage. This is just basic economics and you can see it happen all thru history and even nowadays in different parts of the world right in front of your eyes, but Obama and his gang of marxist buddies don’t subscribe to this…….they are only looking at the money, the power and control and the votes that money can buy, IMHO.

What about R&D and money for investment into greater production to increase supply??? Obviously additional taxation will reduce all this. Taking away money from a proven energy supplier like the oil industry and throwing it on what politicians decide are desirable alternative energy sources(that his buddies have invested in, incidentally), might be driven more by idealogy and special interests rather than reality.

Last time during the Mao era, the central govt tried to direct agriculture, industry and everything else. They did not do a good job and everything messed up and many people died of starvation. I guess you americans are now doing it in a milder form. There can be some govt direction, but it has to be a light touch, and the right touch. I am guessing that Obama doesn’t have it.

A tax on gas consumption will just be an additional burden on businesses and the economy. I don’t think Obama can do it now in the present economic climate, but later who knows?

I guess this is basically an argument against more taxation.

If Obama justifies such a tax on gas consumption by saying it will be used solely to develop alternative energy sources(that are invested in by democrats and their supporters), then the argument will spread out to such issues as whether such alternative energy is viable and whether global warming is really caused by man’s activities.

Mike, you said it right.

Actually I don’t want to sound so preachy because back here we don’t have that much to be proud of.

But at least we have got our economies going and raised our material living standards without needing the american military to come in and regime-change us. And most importantly, we did it by embracing the main elements of capitalism, not marxism.

Back in the late 70s and early 80s, the central govt used the Singapore model of a govt directed economy to boost foreign investment and create a manufacturing base that has now pulled in a lot of investment and money into the mainland and also SEAsia. It worked because the model they used had worked before, in Singapore and SEAsia.

It is my hope that with improved economics, better education and knowledge on the mainland, we will slowly see a change for the better society-wise, with more electoral representation, more human rights and freedom. I believe it is always economics first, then elections and human rights later, if the society is going to change from within.

Already such large societies like Russia and China are no longer the threat to other countries they used to be. That is already a great improvement. Their style now, is if we want to conquer you, instead of using our military, we’ll just wait until your markets crash, then buy up all your assets and companies.

I don’t know about Russia, but China(the mainland) has changed a lot since my parent’s time. Now a lot of the young people speak passable english(as a second language) and educational standards have gone up a lot. And while criticism on domestic policy is still restricted or “guided”, the young people will shoot anything they want to say about the rest of the world, and by this exposure and discussion, I think we will grow as a society.

For the islamic world, it is a different story.

Places like Iran, I think, are still horribly backward in terms of social development. Don’t talk about the 4 wives and women’s rights, when my youngest sister went to Iran as part of some middle-level govt-to-govt project she complained that she was “felt-up” or molested dozens of times by the iranians there.
“You mean the normal people?” I asked her.
“No,” she said, “the bureaucrat types also.”
But she kept her peace so not to cause any diplomatic problems. She told me she now understood it was part of the culture there. I was very surprised, because before this everyone was saying that the iranians are very civilised. My sister has this type of civil service job where part of her duties are to host around foreign VIPs like the BMW CEO, arab princes, etc, bring them to meetings, take care of their hotel and so on. There was even this arab prince who kept on wanting to date her after she hosted him around and when she kept on refusing, he smashed a chair right in front of her.

While silly behavior is not restricted to any one one race or society, and there are many arabs that are polite and considerate, I am beginning to suspect that it is a cultural thing.

Anyway, maybe what is more interesting to discuss is how Obama’s plans to stimulate your economy with massive spending on various projects and alternative energy are playing out.

On your Fox News, I see he also wants to take off the Bush tax cuts(ie: RAISE taxes at the same time). This seems rather contradictory to me, unless we are looking at it from a marxist angle, then it makes perfect sense.

Create a welfare system under guise of stimulating the domestic economy by building unnecessary things and maniacally promoting unproven alternative energy industries. Then finance it partially by taxing the actual productive part of the economy, those companies that actually make viable products and provide viable services that actually compete and win against the rest of the world.

Under Obama, america will end up wasting money if cannot afford to(since it is all borrowed) like the japanese did in the 90s with their crazy bridges to nowhere, while well-run and viable companies will also be hurt by his taxation regime.

Well, they could say, Obama can see a marxist paradise from the Whitehouse!!!!!

Post-Scriptum: China is wise. They know that to avoid war, they have to be ready. With their huge Army, nobody feels like attacking them. Israel is alson wise, they did the same thing.

Again I agree with you on Obama’ economy plan. He want to destroy capitalism and he will. Look what Rupert Murdoch thinks of it:

NEWS Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch says B. Hussein Obama’s economic solution is “crazy.” His tax policies are not at all logical.

His projection to “hand out tax rebates to most Americans and to increase taxes for people earning more than $250,000″ is not on target at all per Glenda Korporaal’s “Barack Obama ‘could worsen crisis’: Rupert Murdoch” per The Australian Business with the Wall Street Journal.

Murdoch stated that B. Hussein’s promise to give tax rebates to 95 percent of Americans was “rubbish.”

That’s strong language. But it’s time that reasonable voters get the truth-in-the-face or our Republic will soon be destroyed by the arch deceiver, B. Hussein.
B. Hussein is off the charts on most of his agendas because of the bottom line — he’s not experienced in anything but style and glitz. He’s all showmanship and connections with terrorist ties and the Islamic underground.

As Sarah Palin stated simply, B. Hussein is “dangerous.”

“Americans are exceptionally concerned about their wallets right now. Rightly so. Therefore, on that front, when an expert like Mudoch speaks “crazy” and “rubbish” concerning the mask Muslim who wants to sit in the Oval Office, that warning should be shock enough to knowledgeable Americans.

Murdoch “rejected suggestions that Tuesday’s US election could act as a circuit breaker for the current crisis of confidence in world financial markets.

“‘To some extent it is beyond the power of politicians,’ he said. ‘You are going to find that the politicians are very limited in what they can do: they can make it worse but they can’t stop it.’”

Making it worse is exactly what inexperienced B. Hussein and cadre will do to the Republic. They simply don’t have the know-how. They are jesters. They are shadow boxers. They are superficial to the limit.

The are devilment in the flesh. Not good for the USA.”

Read “Barack Obama ‘could worsen crisis’: Rupert Murdoch” at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24584219-643,00.html

Lightbringer, no I am speaking to the bs involved in the whole argument to blame Obama one way or another. Bush is president and he is responsible for the actions of this government which has been a sleep at the switch on 9/11 and again for the financial crisis. Oh, and it is just like I did not blame Bush for economic problems he had after the Clinton tech bubble burst… but Bush has been president for nearly 8 years, so he owns this.

I think we have to place the bulk of the blame for this crash mostly on the democrats.

1)subprime lending started under the CRA(community Reinvestment Act) under Carter. Well meaning, but later it became a political monster. Banks were forced to loan to various communities with poor credit history and poor earnings, as part of political welfare.

2)Subprime mortgages were allowed to be securitized and sold as mortgage-backed securities under Clinton. This allowed unhappy banks to pass the risk of default of the subprime mortages they were forced by democrats to make, onto other parties. Suddenly banks realized they could make mortgages out of the air and sell them away for a nice profit. Find a vagrant on the street, give him a 100% mortage, then securitize it and sell it into the market. Easy money.

3)Fannties and Freddie went wild buying trillions of mortgage-backed securities, creating a huge market for them. Fannie and Freddie are democrat supported and directed institutions, their boards packed with Clinton-era advisors and supporters of the DNC. When others tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie to stop their insane buying of bad mortgage-backed securities, such efforts were blocked in the House by democrats.

4)Fannie and Freddie busted, triggering a knock-on effect on the swaps held by AIG, the other mortgage-backed securities held by investment banks, everybody got burnt.

As Mccain said, My Friends, even from SEAsia we know who is to blame……that’s why we think rather poorly of Obama and his gang of cronies.

This subprime crisis has hardly anything to do with Bush. Fannie and Freddie went wild during the last 2-3 years, and by then dems controlled the House and nobody could stop Fannie and Freddie from imploding because the dems were protecting Fannie and Freddie from efforts to regulate them.

A classic case of political stupidity on the part of your democratic party.