http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/...olumn.html

Interesting piece.

Highlights for me.

Nobody seems to call it that, however. Big business continues to grouse about the White House, as it has done pretty much nonstop since Jan. 20, 2009. The very day after the S&P record close (the index closed Monday at 2,001.54) came yet another attack on Obama's policies by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- this one a largely evidence-free assertion that the Affordable Care Act "has incentivized employers to hire part-time workers over full-time ones." Neither the Bureau of Labor Statistics nor the Congressional Budget Office has found signs of this effect, which is a favorite right-wing shibboleth.

The hostility of business and industry to Obama has become a byword over the years, from plutocrats complaining about being disrespected to bankers complaining that they're woefully misunderstood. Yet judging by the stock market's performance, no President has been as good for the capital markets since Bill Clinton (who also was detested by the business community). By some measures Obama also handily outranks that beacon of Republican business-friendliness, Ronald Reagan.


The booby prize belongs to George W. Bush, down about 39% during his term.

One frequently overlooked point is that, although presidents can't always do much to push the economy or stock market higher, their mistakes can do much more to push both lower. George W. Bush is the gilt-edged example here: His tax cuts, debt-fueled spending on military adventures, and indifference to regulation all helped drive the U.S. economy off the cliff in 2008. He deserves every scrap of blame that can be mustered for the 40% decline in the S&P 500 during his term, and for the years of hangover since.


One of the most persistent phenomenons in American history is that Big Business never recognizes when it's getting a break. In 1934, when Franklin Roosevelt watered down the Securities Act that created the Securities and Exchange Commission, progressives were outraged.

Wall Street should remember FDR "with gratitude," wrote an infuriated progressive in the New Republic. But he knew that wouldn't happen -- the stock exchange, he predicted, "will turn upon Roosevelt with fury." So it did, even though FDR did more than any other individual to save Wall Street from extinction.

The pattern still holds today.

ODS

but I will say this.

Has there ever been in our history a bigger disconnect between the market and the American Worker?

(09-10-2014 06:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/...olumn.html

Interesting piece.

Highlights for me.

Nobody seems to call it that, however. Big business continues to grouse about the White House, as it has done pretty much nonstop since Jan. 20, 2009. The very day after the S&P record close (the index closed Monday at 2,001.54) came yet another attack on Obama's policies by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- this one a largely evidence-free assertion that the Affordable Care Act "has incentivized employers to hire part-time workers over full-time ones." Neither the Bureau of Labor Statistics nor the Congressional Budget Office has found signs of this effect, which is a favorite right-wing shibboleth.

The hostility of business and industry to Obama has become a byword over the years, from plutocrats complaining about being disrespected to bankers complaining that they're woefully misunderstood. Yet judging by the stock market's performance, no President has been as good for the capital markets since Bill Clinton (who also was detested by the business community). By some measures Obama also handily outranks that beacon of Republican business-friendliness, Ronald Reagan.


The booby prize belongs to George W. Bush, down about 39% during his term.

One frequently overlooked point is that, although presidents can't always do much to push the economy or stock market higher, their mistakes can do much more to push both lower. George W. Bush is the gilt-edged example here: His tax cuts, debt-fueled spending on military adventures, and indifference to regulation all helped drive the U.S. economy off the cliff in 2008. He deserves every scrap of blame that can be mustered for the 40% decline in the S&P 500 during his term, and for the years of hangover since.


One of the most persistent phenomenons in American history is that Big Business never recognizes when it's getting a break. In 1934, when Franklin Roosevelt watered down the Securities Act that created the Securities and Exchange Commission, progressives were outraged.

Wall Street should remember FDR "with gratitude," wrote an infuriated progressive in the New Republic. But he knew that wouldn't happen -- the stock exchange, he predicted, "will turn upon Roosevelt with fury." So it did, even though FDR did more than any other individual to save Wall Street from extinction.

The pattern still holds today.

Because the effect on the vast majority of Americans and American businesses is zero.

Evers you have a head on your shoulders. You can not say what you just said with a straight face. Every workers 401k is back in business. Every American business is light years ahead of where they were in 08'. You can not possibly believe what you just typed.

Now the disconnect I see with wage pressure along with just the overall working climate of the blue collar wage earner. I do see that.

(09-10-2014 07:34 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 06:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/...olumn.html

Interesting piece.

Highlights for me.

Nobody seems to call it that, however. Big business continues to grouse about the White House, as it has done pretty much nonstop since Jan. 20, 2009. The very day after the S&P record close (the index closed Monday at 2,001.54) came yet another attack on Obama's policies by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- this one a largely evidence-free assertion that the Affordable Care Act "has incentivized employers to hire part-time workers over full-time ones." Neither the Bureau of Labor Statistics nor the Congressional Budget Office has found signs of this effect, which is a favorite right-wing shibboleth.

The hostility of business and industry to Obama has become a byword over the years, from plutocrats complaining about being disrespected to bankers complaining that they're woefully misunderstood. Yet judging by the stock market's performance, no President has been as good for the capital markets since Bill Clinton (who also was detested by the business community). By some measures Obama also handily outranks that beacon of Republican business-friendliness, Ronald Reagan.


The booby prize belongs to George W. Bush, down about 39% during his term.

One frequently overlooked point is that, although presidents can't always do much to push the economy or stock market higher, their mistakes can do much more to push both lower. George W. Bush is the gilt-edged example here: His tax cuts, debt-fueled spending on military adventures, and indifference to regulation all helped drive the U.S. economy off the cliff in 2008. He deserves every scrap of blame that can be mustered for the 40% decline in the S&P 500 during his term, and for the years of hangover since.


One of the most persistent phenomenons in American history is that Big Business never recognizes when it's getting a break. In 1934, when Franklin Roosevelt watered down the Securities Act that created the Securities and Exchange Commission, progressives were outraged.

Wall Street should remember FDR "with gratitude," wrote an infuriated progressive in the New Republic. But he knew that wouldn't happen -- the stock exchange, he predicted, "will turn upon Roosevelt with fury." So it did, even though FDR did more than any other individual to save Wall Street from extinction.

The pattern still holds today.

Because the effect on the vast majority of Americans and American businesses is zero.

This.

Seems mach and firm missed the articles about how most americans have missed out on this bull market.

Also missing is that the policy this idiot is celebrating is the monetary policy that leads to inflation. You know, this bull market can also be interpreted as inflated prices for stocks.

Finally, what are companies doing w/ large market values? Hoarding their money in off-shore accounts.

So it would seem the author and his reader don't understand the economics and financials behind the high valued stock market, while many others do, or at least have an intuition that there is more to life than the DJIA.

I expect to see a lot of these nonsense filled threads as November approaches.

Dims can see the bloodbath on the horizon now.

Well the simple answer is that Obama has had little of a positive impact on the market. It could be argued that had it not been for Obama's mis-steps in his first two years, the market would be far ahead of where it is today.

The market has not correlated with the economy. We see that the economy, both GDP and employment, has stagnated. Companies have increased profits by cutting jobs.

But the biggest reason for the Bull run is indisputable. The Fed has artificially held interest rates down and flooded the market with liquidity. This has led to a secular rotation out of bonds and into equities. Just this past weekend, the Wall Street Journal ran an investment advice column that suggested that going forward, returns were still going to be higher in equities than high yield securities (junk bonds).

Of course the Times article attempts to lay the blame on Bush, and he does deserve some. But consider that Bush led an attempt to rein in Fannie & Freddie and was rebuffed by Congress. The highlight was Barney Frank's comment (paraphrase) "I'm not worried about Fannie & Freddie." Had Bush been successful, it can be argued that the mortgage meltdown may have been less severe if not avoided.

(09-10-2014 07:43 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Evers you have a head on your shoulders. You can not say what you just said with a straight face. Every workers 401k is back in business. Every American business is light years ahead of where they were in 08'. You can not possibly believe what you just typed.

Now the disconnect I see with wage pressure along with just the overall working climate of the blue collar wage earner. I do see that.

401k is a long term plan. I'm not seeing any of these returns, other than on paper. The bubble will pop and inflation will keep real returns at 5-8% over the long course of the investment. What the stock market does today has no effect on most average peoples' lives and those that do have an effect, day traders, are the ones that are going to get screwed when it pops just like the house flippers 7 years ago.

And business is not ahead of where it was. Most people I know that own businesses are struggling. Our city's country club might have to shut down and sell because people have been and continue leaving in droves because business sucks and they can't afford it anymore.

Because the stock market is the indicator of how our economy is performing, right? #smdh

I thought the FED was the reason for the bull market. Go figure.

you obviously never read his first autobiography*. the man has a clinical hatred for a number of things, but two of them are hedge fund managers and stock brokers.

he would let the middle class can starve in the streets before he would willingly allow that his policies helped those evil** bastards.

*I think it was his first. it may have been his second. the silly, self obsessed man wrote two before he was out of his forties -- I get them mixed up.

**evil; a word he has not used to describe islamic radicals or terrorists.

Sometimes the boss gets the credit for things they had no particular hand in.

Boss gets credit for what??? If it weren't for this falsely propped up market by the FED Uncle Ben would be fighting mobs at the gates of 1600 Pennsylvania, Avenue.

To Mach's point of, "every worker's 401K",...he obviously is unaware that a very small portion of Americans participate with their employers plan, a very very small amount even to the point just for the match. This coupled with the fact that 50% of Americans 60 years of age or older have ZERO savings. Not a penny. But give BHO his props, I guess, but for what...?

(09-10-2014 11:56 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Boss gets credit for what??? If it weren't for this falsely propped up market by the FED Uncle Ben would be fighting mobs at the gates of 1600 Pennsylvania, Avenue.

To Mach's point of, "every worker's 401K",...he obviously is unaware that a very small portion of Americans participate with their employers plan, a very very small amount even to the point just for the match. This coupled with the fact that 50% of Americans 60 years of age or older have ZERO savings. Not a penny. But give BHO his props, I guess, but for what...?

Why folks don't participate in 401k with employer match is beyond comprehension. I mean, it's free money. I can see folks not being able to spare the income, but still, it's free money. Where on earth do you get 100% return on your own money?

Yes sir exactly. I read an article a few years ago that only 3% of all US workers participate in their company's 401k. Like my father always said, "pick dumb over stupid any day...you can't do anything with stupid".

(09-10-2014 08:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I thought the FED was the reason for the bull market. Go figure.

Curiously enough, some are

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/20...nomic.html

Mach... this is an opinion piece written by someone with an agenda. I could easily write just as 'interesting' a piece that made completely different conclusions using just as easily identifiable data.

The opinion that Presidents can't help but they can hurt a lot is somewhat true... but not really. As anyone who has invested in the markets will tell you... a significant contributor to the fall under Bush was the unbridled rise and leverage under Clinton. Is Bush responsible for CLinton tripling the size of the Federally supported mortgage market and for decreasing the bank leverage requirements on non-guaranteed mortgages from 100% to 20%? Does anyone deny that having to support 3 times as many assets with 1/5th as much capital is going to be a bigger problem in the event of a collapse?

It IS true that business generally finds a way to succeed... ESPECIALLY when you use indexes like the DJIA and the S&P 500 as a measure because companies that fail from these groups get deleted from the groups and replaced by companies that are succeeding. It takes a far broader view of things to decide whether or not a President's policies have helped or hurt.

Here are some pretty undeniable facts...

The recovery in GPD from the recession has been weak. Among the weakest in measured history. MAYBE that is Obama's fault... MAYBE things would have been even worse. Either argument will have at least SOME data to support it... and each side will find the data that supports their opinion and people who write articles supporting their opinions 'interesting'.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the wealth gap that the left said was the CAUSE of all of this trouble is getting worse, not better... and it's pretty hard to blame a party that really hasn't had much control in years for that... Either the dems caused it, or they let it happen despite telling everyone that they wouldn't. Not that the reps aren't just as bad... but on this issue, the dems are either liars, or incompetent.

I think the reason nobody talks about Obama's Bull Market is because the only people benefiting from it are the wealthy... and SUPPOSEDLY that isn't whom the Democrats care about... and the Republicans certainly don't want to tout it.

Rising stock prices doesn't always mean more jobs.... ESPECIALLY under the way that the stimulus and bail-outs were handled. We assumed that business would build factories thus create jobs in the US if we gave them money... and instead they merely dressed up their balance sheets and what few factories were built were often built overseas.