Worst Inauguration Day Selloff In History

[dapoes]

Barack Obama not only made history becoming the first black President of the United States Tuesday, but he was also inhospitably greeted by the biggest January Inauguration Day stock selloff ever.

At the closing bell, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down over four percent, with the S&P 500 and NASDAQ indices plummeting more than five percent.

As the Wall Street Journal's MarketBeat blog reported, this makes today's performance the worst since Inauguration Day was moved to January.

So much for hope and change... :down:

 

[restore03]

Nope, that was just the final kick in the rear telling Bush ADIOS.

 

[Cosworth]

The fact that the economy is in the tank and we had a recession had absolutely nothing to do with.

Keep throwing stuff at the wall. You're bound to get lucky. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[RDU Jetblast]

If that was what wallstreet thought of Obama yesterday, what was wallstreet thinking about Bush for the last 180 days?

 

[jimntx]

If the 332 point drop in yesterday's Dow was Wall Street voting on the inauguration, what does the 279 point rebound say today--his first full day on the job? Maybe it's telling us that Wall Street doesn't really like parades.

There seemed to be real glee on the part of the OP and PB over the drop as if a single day change in the Dow usually means anything. I guess they are donning sack cloth and ashes over the fact that the Dow came back today.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

I noticed "it" was heading for...(+) 300 today, but perhaps ...that makes no difference to some folks.

 

[Dignity]

the sell off to me was a bit disturbing... however I do not necessarily feel it may have been simultaneous with the inauguration, but may have been an indication the market sends a message the economy remains on a decline...interesting as mentioned the market strongly rebounded...in a strange way I feel its a good time to look at purchasing some stocks as some are showing better than expected profit.....maybe IBM?

 

[dapoes]

Day after 1st prez prime time televised speech...market tanks yet again.

 

[dapoes]

And so the PORKULUS passes and markets fall off a cliff...outstanding! :down:

 

[dapoes]

I'm not so sure you can argue cause and efffect.

The stock market is an odd duck, it tanks on bad news, it tanks on good news, so I guess today's question is what does the market reaction mean?

I sure as heck don't know and neither does anyone else.

I believe it has to do with the stimulus passing and wall street panicking about the latest bank plan

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner outlined a wideranging plan to buy toxic assets from banks and backstop credit markets.

 

[Cosworth]

Well I believe in Santa Claus and you can't prove he doesn't exist anymore then you can prove cause and effect regrading Obama and the Stock market

Pine,

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but ......

 

[dapoes]

Well I believe in Santa Claus and you can't prove he doesn't exist anymore then you can prove cause and effect regrading Obama and the Stock market

Oh really rudolph? Since you admitted having no idea on such matters, maybe taking a pass on the subject would be in order. But dont take my word for it, let your mouse wheel do the walking...markets closed up yesterday, Obama professes gloom and doom if the porkulous doesn't pass, markets open and start to tank off the bat. Geithner talks how screwed the banks are and the markets tank even further, porkulous passes and it falls off a cliff. Its not rocket science.

 

[dapoes]

You show me ONE person that can predict the future of the stock market. Warren Buffet is as close as we get and he bought a huge chuck of US Airways stock and we all know how that turned out.

How many times has the stock market gone up on horrible news?

How many time has it tanked on bad news?

If you want to look at the market in 24 hour increments be my guest. You can't PROVE cause and effect. The cause of the market dropping could be due to the political crisis in Belgium which effects the price of the best beer in the world.

I know plenty about the stock market and it's because of that knowledge that what triggers the market into sell offs or speculation is often anybody's guess and it often depends upon your ideological bent as to how you choose to view the events of the day.

For me I'm far more interested where the stock market is on October 11, 2009 then where it is tomorrow. By them we'll have some good evidence of whether the plan is working or if it plays out as I expect and we're worse off. Right now to me at least the trend is there is no trend.

Go ahead. Step up and do your research. I have. Its all over the news and financial wires. FYI there wasnt crisis in Belgium today either. Its all on Obamas back.

 

[Cosworth]

Piney,

Come on, facts and links just confuse the issue. Just trust her. It'll be all right .. really.

 

[dapoes]

PROVE IT!

SHOW A DIRECT CAUSAL LINK

You can't do it!

Then check this out

It's a Recession, Not a Catastrophe

Such curative processes do not take years, as the president suggests - unless the government does too much foolish tinkering. But recovery will require more perspective and patience than we've been seeing from the White House lately, because time really does heal many economic wounds.

Wall Street was looking for confidence in mondays 1st prime time televised speech. What it turned out to be was Obama repeating (or not answering at all) the same old tired canned rhetoric he said during his campaign. His constant framing the argument, as those who want to do something vs. those who want to do nothing doesn't wash with wall street. They want to see confidence which mondays speech lacked. There were several questions that took Obama over ten minutes to answer, as to which he never really did. Instead he pulled out the same lines from the campaign trail.

Plus the obvious lies

First, let’s start with his lies about Republicans:

1) As I said, the one concern I’ve got on the stimulus package, in terms of the debate and listening to some of what’s been said in Congress is that there seems to be a set of folks who — I don’t doubt their sincerity — who just believe that we should do nothing. Now, if that’s their opening position or their closing position in negotiations, then we’re probably not going to make much progress, because I don’t think that’s economically sound and I don’t think what — that’s what the American people expect, is for us to stand by and do nothing.

Republicans in both the House and Senate have offered at least two alternative stimulus packages. None of them demanded that Obama “do nothingâ€. In fact, it was the Congressional Budget Office and not Republicans that suggested that doing nothing might have a better effect than the Obama/Pelosi/Reid stimulus bill, as our friends at Power Line point out.

This lie is particularly egregious, as Nancy Pelosi locked Republicans out of drafting the bill altogether. Barack Obama talked about his own initiatives to reach across the aisle by naming three Republicans to his Cabinet, but what he didn’t mention was his and Pelosi’s version of bipartisanship in drafting the bill, which amounted to “we wonâ€. Had Republicans been given an opportunity to work on the bill, it would have been somewhat smaller with a different set of tax cuts, but probably in a range from $450-600 billion, which is what their alternatives proposed — and it would have gotten overwhelming support in Congress.

Second lie:

My administration inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion, but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression, doing little or nothing at all will result in ever — even greater deficits, even greater job loss, even greater loss of income and even greater loss of confidence. …

But what I — what I’ve been concerned about is some of the language that’s been used suggesting that this is full of pork and this is wasteful government spending, so on and so forth. First of all, when I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt, then, you know, I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history. I inherited the deficit that we have right now and the economic crisis that we have right now.

Obama tried a couple of times to lay the deficit off on the Republicans, but more than half of that deficit came from the bailouts of last year, which the Democrats pushed through Congress. Republicans balked at the massive TARP program, which Obama criticized in his press conference last night. The Bush administration didn’t partner with Republican leadership to get that passed; they had to get the Democrats to pass it, and Democrats have controlled Congress for the last two years. And the economic crisis came from the collapse of the housing market bubble created by the kind of intervention Obama proposes.

And now the historic illiteracy of Barack Obama:

I think that what I’ve said is what other economists have said across the political spectrum, which is that if you delay acting on an economy of this severity, then you potentially create a negative spiral that becomes much more difficult for us to get out of.

We saw this happen in Japan in the 1990s, where they did not act boldly and swiftly enough, and as a consequence they suffered what was called the “lost decade,†where essentially for the entire ’90s, they did not see any significant economic growth.

Er, what? Even the New York Times knows that Japan acted too swiftly, too boldly, and ran up massive deficits on infrastructure work that never stimulated the economy:

Japan’s rural areas have been paved over and filled in with roads, dams and other big infrastructure projects, the legacy of trillions of dollars spent to lift the economy from a severe downturn caused by the bursting of a real estate bubble in the late 1980s. During those nearly two decades, Japan accumulated the largest public debt in the developed world — totaling 180 percent of its $5.5 trillion economy — while failing to generate a convincing recovery. …

In the end, say economists, it was not public works but an expensive cleanup of the debt-ridden banking system, combined with growing exports to China and the United States, that brought a close to Japan’s Lost Decade. This has led many to conclude that spending did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for future generations.

In other words, Obama gets an F in economic history despite supposedly having the best and brightest cribbers working on his staff. He gets an F for honesty as well as an D- on bipartisanship. It’s a lousy start to his four-year class on how to be an executive.

You think these thing didnt get noticed by Wall Street???

Then the Porkulous gets rammed down the tax payers throat and on top of that Geithner comes out and only pushes it over the cliff.

However on the other hand...Obama understands history very well. He understands that if you lie about history enough, then the lie becomes the “truth†as far as the populace is concerned. Just like when Obama spoke to al-Arabiya TV and completely mischaracterized the “last 20-30 years†history between the Arab nations in the Middle East and the US. “A lie told often enough becomes the truth†who said that first? Oh, right… it was first said by Lenin! Obama knows history! And too many of us have forgotten.