Activism Discussion: Stock Market Tanks Under Bush

Stock Market Tanks Under Bush
Posts: 8

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Barney Lyon
2006-01-03 14:22:26 EST
In February 2004, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao was on CNN defending the
Bush administration's economic policies. When Judy Woodruff noted the
president's poor record on job creation, Chao suggested there's only
one number that matters.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/06/ip.00.html

Woodruff: I want to cite the one economic analyst with Credit Suisse
First Boston. He said, these are his words, quote, "very disappointing;
we're not getting the jobs to replace the stimulus in the economy which
will fade once the first quarter ends." Another economist said, "It's
the weakest job-creation rate relative to economic growth on record."

Chao: Well, the stock market is, after all, the final arbiter.

In retrospect, Chao may have wanted to pick a different standard of
measurement, because if the stock market is "the final arbiter," Bush
has some explaining to do. The Dow ended 2005 lower than when it
started 12 months ago. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10643624/

In fact, while it was the 0.6% decline for the year that generated
headlines, most seem to have overlooked the fact that on the day Bush
was sworn into office in January 2001, the Dow Jones stood at
10,732.46. As of now, it's at 10,717.50.

In other words, after five years of Bush's presidency, the stock market
has a cumulative gain of negative 15 points.

Under Reagan, the Dow went up 148%. Under Clinton, it grew 187%. After
five years, Bush isn't quite breaking even.

Sure, Republican administrations have consistently under-performed
Democratic administrations on stock market growth
(http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/hal/NYTimes/2003-11-20.html),
but who would have guessed that nearly five years after Bush took
office, the Dow wouldn't have grown at all?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/007905.php


JB
2006-01-03 14:32:03 EST

Barney Lyon wrote:

> but who would have guessed that nearly five years after Bush took
> office, the Dow wouldn't have grown at all?

Me.


Bobby D. Bryant
2006-01-03 17:07:40 EST
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006, "Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In February 2004, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao was on CNN defending the
> Bush administration's economic policies. When Judy Woodruff noted the
> president's poor record on job creation, Chao suggested there's only
> one number that matters.
> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/06/ip.00.html
>
> Woodruff: I want to cite the one economic analyst with Credit Suisse
> First Boston. He said, these are his words, quote, "very disappointing;
> we're not getting the jobs to replace the stimulus in the economy which
> will fade once the first quarter ends." Another economist said, "It's
> the weakest job-creation rate relative to economic growth on record."
>
> Chao: Well, the stock market is, after all, the final arbiter.
>
> In retrospect, Chao may have wanted to pick a different standard of
> measurement, because if the stock market is "the final arbiter," Bush
> has some explaining to do. The Dow ended 2005 lower than when it
> started 12 months ago. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10643624/
>
> In fact, while it was the 0.6% decline for the year that generated
> headlines, most seem to have overlooked the fact that on the day Bush
> was sworn into office in January 2001, the Dow Jones stood at
> 10,732.46. As of now, it's at 10,717.50.
>
> In other words, after five years of Bush's presidency, the stock market
> has a cumulative gain of negative 15 points.

I'd hardly call that "tanking", but yeah, it has really been flat, except
for the post-911 dip:

<http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EDJI&t=my&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=>

I rather suspect that that flatline is why he was so eager to divert
a few trillion(?) dollars of Social Security money into the stock market,
and why he lost interest in "saving" Social Security when he found out
that that plan wasn't going to fly.


> Under Reagan, the Dow went up 148%. Under Clinton, it grew 187%. After
> five years, Bush isn't quite breaking even.
>
> Sure, Republican administrations have consistently under-performed
> Democratic administrations on stock market growth
> (http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/hal/NYTimes/2003-11-20.html),
> but who would have guessed that nearly five years after Bush took
> office, the Dow wouldn't have grown at all?
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/007905.php


--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Tim McGaughy
2006-01-05 02:28:38 EST
JB wrote:
> Barney Lyon wrote:
>
>
>>but who would have guessed that nearly five years after Bush took
>>office, the Dow wouldn't have grown at all?
>
>
> Me.

Gee. How did you guess that a failed business man would also fail to
properly manage the economy?

KK
2006-01-05 12:49:00 EST
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 01:28:38 -0600, Tim McGaughy wrote:

> JB wrote:
>> Barney Lyon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>but who would have guessed that nearly five years after Bush took
>>>office, the Dow wouldn't have grown at all?

And inflation's been as low as it can get, home ownership is at an
all-time high, and average net worth is over $100K for the first time.

Oh yeah, with low unemployment.





JB
2006-01-05 13:37:34 EST

Tim McGaughy wrote:
> JB wrote:
> > Barney Lyon wrote:
> >
> >
> >>but who would have guessed that nearly five years after Bush took
> >>office, the Dow wouldn't have grown at all?
> >
> >
> > Me.
>
> Gee. How did you guess that a failed business man would also fail to
> properly manage the economy?

Yeah, not the toughtest prediction, was it? LOL.


P*@shamrocksgf.com
2006-01-07 18:34:53 EST
In talk.atheism KK <_KK_@furburger.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 01:28:38 -0600, Tim McGaughy wrote:

>> JB wrote:
>>> Barney Lyon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>but who would have guessed that nearly five years after Bush took
>>>>office, the Dow wouldn't have grown at all?

> And inflation's been as low as it can get,

Very low inflation is a BAD thing. It's usually (as in this case)
accompanied by a higher unemployment rate and is always indicative of a
stagnating economy. A healthy economy actually needs inflation over a
certain level (but not too far over.)

home ownership is at an
> all-time high, and average net worth is over $100K for the first time.

And, with inflation, we'll wind up with an average net worth of over $200k
at some point. But that won't mean things are going well.

> Oh yeah, with low unemployment.

LOW? Where are you getting your figures? Oh, yeah, you're looking at the
filing rates. Now look at the employed rate. Job growth has sucked. If you
start with 1,000,000 people employed and 50,000 of them then lose their jobs
and they file for unemployment, you have a 5% unemployment rate, with the
way the government figures it. But if you then have all of them run out on
the unemployment and another 25,000 lose their jobs (assuming no creation of
jobs here) you now have only a 2.6% unemployment rate because the 50,000
that have "given up" are no longer counted. But when you look at the number
of employed versus the number employable, you get a 7.5% unemployment rate.
So the "official" figure when down when the REAL rate went up.

--
Mike

-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004

TheNIGHTCRAWLER
2006-01-08 17:07:17 EST
> Very low inflation is a BAD thing.

And Bush is very bad bad bad.

Page: 1   (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron