GatewayRedbirds.com

Cramer seems to still be stuck in that "What's good for Wall Street..." mindset. This stimulus package was essentially a relief measure. It was not intended to prop up the stock market, so it's no real big surprise that it didn't include anything aimed at that.

One of the more promising things I've heard lately is that Obama's administration is going to stop the practice of measuring the success of every move daily by its immediate impact on the stock market. Some people may live and breathe investor confidence, but we've made no progress by attacking that angle, so why not try mending the economy from other angles? At the very least nobody will be getting rich off of this stimulus package.

cpebbles wrote:Cramer seems to still be stuck in that "What's good for Wall Street..." mindset. This stimulus package was essentially a relief measure. It was not intended to prop up the stock market, so it's no real big surprise that it didn't include anything aimed at that.

One of the more promising things I've heard lately is that Obama's administration is going to stop the practice of measuring the success of every move daily by its immediate impact on the stock market. Some people may live and breathe investor confidence, but we've made no progress by attacking that angle, so why not try mending the economy from other angles? At the very least nobody will be getting rich off of this stimulus package.

Best thing I've read all day.

lukethedrifter wrote:I'm trying to understand this. We need to spend money that we don't have in order to keep afloat businesses that are getting killed right now because the economy crashed because we spent money that we don't have. Is this close to correct?


Me thinks we need a new economic ... yes, I'm going to use paradigm .... paradigm.

++
Part of our problem was too much stimulus over the prior decades - an economy reliant on brain-dead debt-fed consumption and stoopid expansion, rather than living within our means and smart growth. Today is what you get after a long sugar caffeine and cigaratte buzz wears off. Eventually, it'll be a new paradigm - adjusting to a new normal of yes, I'm going to use pragmatism. Pragmatism.

lukethedrifter wrote:I'm trying to understand this. We need to spend money that we don't have in order to keep afloat businesses that are getting killed right now because the economy crashed because we spent money that we don't have. Is this close to correct?

Close enough for government work, pun intended.

Rising asset prices (home values) essentially fed a Ponzi scheme-like mechanism where you could borrow, get in, and make a killing if you got out time. Now the government is trying to figure out how to stabilize asset prices so consumers and investors might start consuming and investing again. Problem is we are borrowing out the wazoo to try to stabilize the asset prices...

cpebbles wrote:Cramer seems to still be stuck in that "What's good for Wall Street..." mindset. This stimulus package was essentially a relief measure. It was not intended to prop up the stock market, so it's no real big surprise that it didn't include anything aimed at that.

One of the more promising things I've heard lately is that Obama's administration is going to stop the practice of measuring the success of every move daily by its immediate impact on the stock market. Some people may live and breathe investor confidence, but we've made no progress by attacking that angle, so why not try mending the economy from other angles? At the very least nobody will be getting rich off of this stimulus package.

This is terrible. The first day after the markets opened all indexes lost about 4%. Today, the DOW dropped to the lowest it has been since 1997. Are you serious that no one is getting rich? Do you know what short selling is? People are making a killing by stock prices falling and these same people are causing it to fall further. On Friday, a guy named John Paulson made 65 million dollars in 25 minutes because of the drop in a single firm's price.

The American markets are a reflection of the U.S. economy. There isn't a way to tackle this problem without it effecting the stock markets. If you do something to help the economy the markets will go up, if the economy gets worse they will go down. It's very simple. You can't throw money at long-term government spending when most of the benefits of such projects (both from economic production and the completed product) won't be realized for 5 years. If there was any glimmer of hope in this bill for the economy the markets wouldn't have tanked in a single day after it was signed into effect.

You'd do a lot more to stimulate the economy by just giving the stimulus package to everyone in America. If you divide the $787 billion among the entire U.S. population regardless of age, income, etc. every American would receive a $2,580 check.

Obama's administration is going to stop the practice of measuring the success of every move daily by its immediate impact on the stock market.

Meh. This is largely Obama-speak in reaction to the market's dismissal of Geitner's detail-light plan to get credit markets working again.

Re the markets, I think things will improve dramatically when consumers start acting like consumers again. Per previous comments, housing, employment, and personal income are key drivers here. When these things are restored, the markets will follow.

AdmiralKird wrote:This is terrible. The first day after the markets opened all indexes lost about 4%. Today, the DOW dropped to the lowest it has been since 1997. Are you serious that no one is getting rich? Do you know what short selling is? People are making a killing by stock prices falling and these same people are causing it to fall further. On Friday, a guy named John Paulson made 65 million dollars in 25 minutes because of the drop in a single firm's price.

The American markets are a reflection of the U.S. economy. There isn't a way to tackle this problem without it effecting the stock markets. If you do something to help the economy the markets will go up, if the economy gets worse they will go down. It's very simple. You can't throw money at long-term government spending when most of the benefits of such projects (both from economic production and the completed product) won't be realized for 5 years. If there was any glimmer of hope in this bill for the economy the markets wouldn't have tanked in a single day after it was signed into effect.

You'd do a lot more to stimulate the economy by just giving the stimulus package to everyone in America. If you divide the $787 billion among the entire U.S. population regardless of age, income, etc. every American would receive a $2,580 check.

I don't care if people get rich off the stock market, just that they aren't getting rich by skimming off of the government rescue attempts. We've already thrown well over a trillion dollars at trying to prop up the paper economy, and the end result has been that we're spending billions to buy a few days' respite. It's a short-sighted approach that isn't sustainable. The majority of the public is overjoyed that he's moving away from this tactic, and I for one am happy that he's tying so much of this stimulus to the kind of long-term investments in education, health care, and energy that we should have paid more attention to earlier.

Stock prices are determined by the same geniuses who were willing to pay $120 for a share of Bear Stearns stock a year ago. Basing policy on pleasing these people is obviously a fool's errand.

Even people on Wall Street don't use the stock market as an indicator of economic success/failure in the short term. The S&P over something like 6-12 months might give you a long term reflection of the economy, but for short term stuff they use everything from basic indicators like employment numbers and consumer confidence, to more arcane things like changes in machinery orders at factories.

Geitner making a speech and the market reacting means little to nothing.

maddash wrote:Even people on Wall Street don't use the stock market as an indicator of economic success/failure in the short term. The S&P over something like 6-12 months might give you a long term reflection of the economy, but for short term stuff they use everything from basic indicators like employment numbers and consumer confidence, to more arcane things like changes in machinery orders at factories.

Geitner making a speech and the market reacting means little to nothing.

++

The stock market lags behind the economy.

If you want to know how the economy is doing, a good rule of thumb is to look at the steel, aluminum, copper, and fiber optic suppliers/distributors.