CNN poll : 54% disapprove of Obama economic performance



".... this result stands out, especially after the Obama
administration’s attempts to both spin the numbers and blame George
Bush for the economy. Fifty-four percent of respondents to the latest
CNN poll disapprove of Barack Obama’s performance on the economy, a 17-
point swing in six weeks. That isn’t the worst of the poll, either;
57% now disapprove of Obama’s performance on health care, a 19-point
swing in that same time. CNN, of course, doesn’t mention the details
on either in its own reporting on the poll: ... "

PJ O'Donovan wrote:
> 
> CNN poll : 54% disapprove of Obama economic performance
> 
> ".... this result stands out, especially after the Obama
> administration’s attempts to both spin the numbers and blame George
> Bush for the economy. Fifty-four percent of respondents to the latest
> CNN poll disapprove of Barack Obama’s performance on the economy, a 17-
> point swing in six weeks. That isn’t the worst of the poll, either;
> 57% now disapprove of Obama’s performance on health care, a 19-point
> swing in that same time. CNN, of course, doesn’t mention the details
> on either in its own reporting on the poll: ... "
>
It would be interesting to interview those who like Obama's
economic performance. Apparently they like RECESSION.


-- 
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.

On 3/11/09 18:01, in article 4AF061EC.A8E1FB28@yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde {
'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" 
wrote:

> It would be interesting to interview those who like Obama's
> economic performance.


Investors have profited from the stock market performance.
The 3,5% GDP improvement was a surprise, larger than
expected. And the financial industry looks better now
than a year ago.

But as remarked on, the job situation is poor and will not
get better quickly.  The US has been setting itself up
for years creating a poor labor market, exporting jobs
along with money and borrowing internationally.

Next year will likely even be worse in Europe, the GDP
rise forecasted totday for the EU is 0,7%
which means more job losses. The US will also have
some but not as major.

So the big bubble break is leaving a lot of debris around
and few of you seem to understand that.



***

E.U. Lifts Growth Forecast for 2010
By DAVID JOLLY


PARIS — The European Union said Tuesday that the 27-nation bloc would be out
of recession by the end of the year, and it revised its forecast for
economic growth in 2010 upward. But it also warned that rising unemployment
would keep the recovery in check, and that European banks were not yet
completely out of the woods.

“A relatively strong temporary pick-up is in the cards for the near term,”
the European Commission, the E.U.’s executive branch, said in Brussels.

Gross domestic product should rise by 0.7 percent in 2010, the commission
said, still weak but better than the 0.1 percent contraction it projected
last spring. It forecast the E.U. economy would grow by 1.5 percent in 2011.

Despite the expected uptick in the latter part of the year, the commission
said that 2009 as a whole would show a contraction of 4.1 percent from 2008.
That was slightly worse than the 4.0 percent for the euro zone, a group that
does not include hard-hit Britain.

The International Monetary Fund took a more cautious view in its forecasts
last month, predicting a contraction of 4.2 percent in 2009 for the euro
zone, and growth of only 0.3 percent next year.

Despite some easing of frozen credit conditions over the past year, the
commission estimated possible further losses of €200 billion to €400
billion, or $295 billion to $590 billion in the European banking sector for
2009-2010. The efforts of households and companies to pay down debt and high
capital costs will hurt investment and consumption, it said.

The full impact of the crisis on the job market also is still to be seen,
the commission said. It projected the labor market would contract by about
2.5 percent this year, and by a further 1.5 percent next year. That would
mean a net 8.5 million jobs lost, or most of the 9.5 million jobs created in
the years 2006-08.

The E.U. unemployment rate will reach 10.25 percent next year, the
commission projected.

Hugo Sellert, head of economic research at Monster Worldwide, an online job
search site, said restructuring inside companies and across entire
industries, “has made the whole outlook extremely uncertain.” And while
there is still demand in the education and health care sectors, partly from
government spending, “by and large companies are just too cautious to begin
hiring yet.”

He predicted France would be the first big European country to show job
growth, followed by Britain. The outlook for Germany, despite government
efforts to save jobs with shorter work weeks and subsidies, is more opaque,
he said.

Fleshing out the picture of a dismal global job market, the International
Labor Organization cautioned on Tuesday that “the picture on wages is likely
to get worse,” regardless of other data suggesting a recovery. It said real
wages would decline for a second straight year in 2009, making it impossible
for many households to increase consumption other than by taking on debt.

Across Europe, the economies of Latvia and Lithuania will suffer the most in
2009, the commission said, shrinking by about 18 percent from last year,
before easing to more modest declines of about 4 percent in 2010. Ireland
will perform the worst of the 16 countries using the euro. It is expected to
decline by 7.5 percent this year and 1.4 percent next year.

The bloc’s public deficit is expected to rise to 7.5 percent of G.D.P. in
2010 before falling back slightly in 2011, the commission said, renewing
calls for it to be brought under control.

“By 2011, we believe we’ll be in a sustainable recovery,” Joaquín Almunia,
the European commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, told
journalists in Brussels. That will be the signal for governments to begin
withdrawing the stimulus measures they rushed out at the height of the
crisis, he said.

He also called on member governments to “fully implement all announced
measures and complete the repair of the banking sector” and consider the
longer-term effects that the crisis has had on the job market, public
finances and growth potential.

Earl Evleth wrote:
> 
> On 3/11/09 18:01, in article 4AF061EC.A8E1FB28@yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde {
> 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" 
> wrote:
> 
> > It would be interesting to interview those who like Obama's
> > economic performance.
> 
> Investors have profited from the stock market performance.
>
It amazes me how "investors" seem to profit from its ups but not
lose from its downs.


> The 3,5% GDP improvement was a surprise, larger than
> expected. And the financial industry looks better now
> than a year ago.
> 
I hope it is better. There are still bank failures going on.
Iceland lost McDonalds. I'm not sure if they have anything to eat
there.


> But as remarked on, the job situation is poor and will not
> get better quickly.  The US has been setting itself up
> for years creating a poor labor market, exporting jobs
> along with money and borrowing internationally.
> 
> Next year will likely even be worse in Europe, the GDP
> rise forecasted totday for the EU is 0,7%
> which means more job losses. The US will also have
> some but not as major.
> 
> So the big bubble break is leaving a lot of debris around
> and few of you seem to understand that.
> 
We aren't talking about the bubble, whatever bubble you are talking
about, we are talking about Obama. He's more of a bobblehead.




-- 
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.

Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
> 
> PJ O'Donovan wrote:
>> CNN poll : 54% disapprove of Obama economic performance
>>
>> ".... this result stands out, especially after the Obama
>> administration’s attempts to both spin the numbers and blame George
>> Bush for the economy. Fifty-four percent of respondents to the latest
>> CNN poll disapprove of Barack Obama’s performance on the economy, a 17-
>> point swing in six weeks. That isn’t the worst of the poll, either;
>> 57% now disapprove of Obama’s performance on health care, a 19-point
>> swing in that same time. CNN, of course, doesn’t mention the details
>> on either in its own reporting on the poll: ... "
>>
> It would be interesting to interview those who like Obama's
> economic performance. Apparently they like RECESSION.
> 
> 
I thought we had all agreed that it was
Bush's recession.  Actually it is neither Bush's
or Obama's - it's the Banks' recession and there
they are preparing the next one.

John Rennie wrote:
> 
> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
> >
> > PJ O'Donovan wrote:
> >> CNN poll : 54% disapprove of Obama economic performance
> >>
> >> ".... this result stands out, especially after the Obama
> >> administration’s attempts to both spin the numbers and blame George
> >> Bush for the economy. Fifty-four percent of respondents to the latest
> >> CNN poll disapprove of Barack Obama’s performance on the economy, a 17-
> >> point swing in six weeks. That isn’t the worst of the poll, either;
> >> 57% now disapprove of Obama’s performance on health care, a 19-point
> >> swing in that same time. CNN, of course, doesn’t mention the details
> >> on either in its own reporting on the poll: ... "
> >>
> > It would be interesting to interview those who like Obama's
> > economic performance. Apparently they like RECESSION.
> >
> >
> I thought we had all agreed that it was
> Bush's recession. 
>
It's Obama's recession because he's president now.


> Actually it is neither Bush's
> or Obama's - it's the Banks' recession and there
> they are preparing the next one.
>
Why would they want that?



-- 
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.

Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
> 
> Earl Evleth wrote:
>> On 3/11/09 18:01, in article 4AF061EC.A8E1FB28@yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde {
>> 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It would be interesting to interview those who like Obama's
>>> economic performance.
>> Investors have profited from the stock market performance.
>>
> It amazes me how "investors" seem to profit from its ups but not
> lose from its downs.

A rather naive comment from you, Earl. Firstly they are not
investors, they are speculators.  Secondly they profit
from the downs by selling short.   At least 80% of the
activity in the American stock market is down to speculators.
> 
>

John Rennie wrote:
> 
> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
> >
> > Earl Evleth wrote:
> >> On 3/11/09 18:01, in article 4AF061EC.A8E1FB28@yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde {
> >> 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It would be interesting to interview those who like Obama's
> >>> economic performance.
> >> Investors have profited from the stock market performance.
> >>
> > It amazes me how "investors" seem to profit from its ups but not
> > lose from its downs.
> 
> A rather naive comment from you, Earl. Firstly they are not
> investors, they are speculators.  Secondly they profit
> from the downs by selling short.   At least 80% of the
> activity in the American stock market is down to speculators.
> 
Speculators buy risk. There ae people who would like to sell off
risk.



-- 
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.

Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
> 
> John Rennie wrote:
>> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
>>> PJ O'Donovan wrote:
>>>> CNN poll : 54% disapprove of Obama economic performance
>>>>
>>>> ".... this result stands out, especially after the Obama
>>>> administration’s attempts to both spin the numbers and blame George
>>>> Bush for the economy. Fifty-four percent of respondents to the latest
>>>> CNN poll disapprove of Barack Obama’s performance on the economy, a 17-
>>>> point swing in six weeks. That isn’t the worst of the poll, either;
>>>> 57% now disapprove of Obama’s performance on health care, a 19-point
>>>> swing in that same time. CNN, of course, doesn’t mention the details
>>>> on either in its own reporting on the poll: ... "
>>>>
>>> It would be interesting to interview those who like Obama's
>>> economic performance. Apparently they like RECESSION.
>>>
>>>
>> I thought we had all agreed that it was
>> Bush's recession. 
>>
> It's Obama's recession because he's president now.
> 
> 
>> Actually it is neither Bush's
>> or Obama's - it's the Banks' recession and there
>> they are preparing the next one.
>>
> Why would they want that?
> 
> 
> 
They didn't 'want' the last one.  The young
ladies and gentlemen who bought and sold
derivatives, CDO's, CDS's or even Collateralised
Debt Obligations of Asset Backed Securities
thought they knew what they were doing; they
didn't.

John Rennie wrote:
> 
> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
> >
> > John Rennie wrote:
> >> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
> >>> PJ O'Donovan wrote:
> >>>> CNN poll : 54% disapprove of Obama economic performance
> >>>>
> >>>> ".... this result stands out, especially after the Obama
> >>>> administration’s attempts to both spin the numbers and blame George
> >>>> Bush for the economy. Fifty-four percent of respondents to the latest
> >>>> CNN poll disapprove of Barack Obama’s performance on the economy, a 17-
> >>>> point swing in six weeks. That isn’t the worst of the poll, either;
> >>>> 57% now disapprove of Obama’s performance on health care, a 19-point
> >>>> swing in that same time. CNN, of course, doesn’t mention the details
> >>>> on either in its own reporting on the poll: ... "
> >>>>
> >>> It would be interesting to interview those who like Obama's
> >>> economic performance. Apparently they like RECESSION.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I thought we had all agreed that it was
> >> Bush's recession.
> >>
> > It's Obama's recession because he's president now.
> >
> >
> >> Actually it is neither Bush's
> >> or Obama's - it's the Banks' recession and there
> >> they are preparing the next one.
> >>
> > Why would they want that?
> >
> >
> >
> They didn't 'want' the last one.  The young
> ladies and gentlemen who bought and sold
> derivatives, CDO's, CDS's or even Collateralised
> Debt Obligations of Asset Backed Securities
> thought they knew what they were doing; they
> didn't.
>
So you think they are making mistakes again? I think the market
works, you just can't let people off the hook for the long term
obligations they sell. In fact, letting them off the hook is a
little like letting someone who owes a debt assign the debt to
someone else without permission from the one who is owed the debt.




-- 
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.

Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
 wrote:

> John Rennie wrote:
> > 
> > Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
> > >
> > > John Rennie wrote:
> > >> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
> > >>> PJ O'Donovan wrote:
> > >>>> CNN poll : 54% disapprove of Obama economic performance
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ".... this result stands out, especially after the Obama
> > >>>> administration's attempts to both spin the numbers and blame George
> > >>>> Bush for the economy. Fifty-four percent of respondents to the latest
> > >>>> CNN poll disapprove of Barack Obama's performance on the economy, a 17-
> > >>>> point swing in six weeks. That isn't the worst of the poll, either;
> > >>>> 57% now disapprove of Obama's performance on health care, a 19-point
> > >>>> swing in that same time. CNN, of course, doesn't mention the details
> > >>>> on either in its own reporting on the poll: ... "
> > >>>>
> > >>> It would be interesting to interview those who like Obama's
> > >>> economic performance. Apparently they like RECESSION.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> I thought we had all agreed that it was
> > >> Bush's recession.
> > >>
> > > It's Obama's recession because he's president now.
> > >
> > >
> > >> Actually it is neither Bush's
> > >> or Obama's - it's the Banks' recession and there
> > >> they are preparing the next one.
> > >>
> > > Why would they want that?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > They didn't 'want' the last one.  The young
> > ladies and gentlemen who bought and sold
> > derivatives, CDO's, CDS's or even Collateralised
> > Debt Obligations of Asset Backed Securities
> > thought they knew what they were doing; they
> > didn't.
> >
> So you think they are making mistakes again? I think the market
> works, you just can't let people off the hook for the long term
> obligations they sell. In fact, letting them off the hook is a
> little like letting someone who owes a debt assign the debt to
> someone else without permission from the one who is owed the debt.

That's pretty much what caused the whole mess in the first place.  Banks
packaged possibly bad debts and sold them on to investors.  Looks like
they're doing it again and governments will be silly enough to bail them
out AGAIN.



-- 
The Professor: What's "Friends"?
Satan: A TV show.  Six characters in search of a smack in the mouth.
- Andy Hamilton, Old Harry's Game

> From: "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> 
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who  come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:42:17 +0000
> Subject: Re: CNN poll : 54% disapprove of Obama economic performance
> 
> 
> 
> Earl Evleth wrote:
>> 
>> On 3/11/09 18:01, in article 4AF061EC.A8E1FB28@yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde {
>> 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> It would be interesting to interview those who like Obama's
>>> economic performance.
>> 
>> Investors have profited from the stock market performance.
>> 
> It amazes me how "investors" seem to profit from its ups but not
> lose from its downs.
> 
> 
>> The 3,5% GDP improvement was a surprise, larger than
>> expected. And the financial industry looks better now
>> than a year ago.
>> 
> I hope it is better. There are still bank failures going on.
> Iceland lost McDonalds. I'm not sure if they have anything to eat
> there.
> 
> 
>> But as remarked on, the job situation is poor and will not
>> get better quickly.  The US has been setting itself up
>> for years creating a poor labor market, exporting jobs
>> along with money and borrowing internationally.
>> 
>> Next year will likely even be worse in Europe, the GDP
>> rise forecasted totday for the EU is 0,7%
>> which means more job losses. The US will also have
>> some but not as major.
>> 
>> So the big bubble break is leaving a lot of debris around
>> and few of you seem to understand that.
>> 
> We aren't talking about the bubble, whatever bubble you are talking
> about, we are talking about Obama. He's more of a bobblehead.

Bobblehead???  In addition, if you don't know what bubble we are talking
about, you, not Obama, are the bubblehead (or is it bobblehead?).

You seem to have made yet another typo bobble here.

Donna Evleth

 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.

Donna Evleth wrote:
> 
> > From: "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> > 
> > Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> > those who  come after us.
> > Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
> > Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:42:17 +0000
> > Subject: Re: CNN poll : 54% disapprove of Obama economic performance
> >
> >
> >
> > Earl Evleth wrote:
> >>
> >> On 3/11/09 18:01, in article 4AF061EC.A8E1FB28@yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde {
> >> 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It would be interesting to interview those who like Obama's
> >>> economic performance.
> >>
> >> Investors have profited from the stock market performance.
> >>
> > It amazes me how "investors" seem to profit from its ups but not
> > lose from its downs.
> >
> >
> >> The 3,5% GDP improvement was a surprise, larger than
> >> expected. And the financial industry looks better now
> >> than a year ago.
> >>
> > I hope it is better. There are still bank failures going on.
> > Iceland lost McDonalds. I'm not sure if they have anything to eat
> > there.
> >
> >
> >> But as remarked on, the job situation is poor and will not
> >> get better quickly.  The US has been setting itself up
> >> for years creating a poor labor market, exporting jobs
> >> along with money and borrowing internationally.
> >>
> >> Next year will likely even be worse in Europe, the GDP
> >> rise forecasted totday for the EU is 0,7%
> >> which means more job losses. The US will also have
> >> some but not as major.
> >>
> >> So the big bubble break is leaving a lot of debris around
> >> and few of you seem to understand that.
> >>
> > We aren't talking about the bubble, whatever bubble you are talking
> > about, we are talking about Obama. He's more of a bobblehead.
> 
> Bobblehead??? 
>
http://www.toylounge.com/


> In addition, if you don't know what bubble we are talking
> about, you, not Obama, are the bubblehead (or is it bobblehead?).
> 
I think there have been several bubbles in the last year or so that
have burst and supposedly others to come. Asking which you are
talking about isn't foolish.


> You seem to have made yet another typo bobble here.
> 
It was a pun, Donna.


-- 
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.

> From: "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> 
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who  come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:01:32 +0000
> Subject: Re: CNN poll : 54% disapprove of Obama economic performance
> 
> 
> 
> Donna Evleth wrote:
>> 
>>> From: "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
>>> 
>>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
>>> those who  come after us.
>>> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
>>> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:42:17 +0000
>>> Subject: Re: CNN poll : 54% disapprove of Obama economic performance
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Earl Evleth wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 3/11/09 18:01, in article 4AF061EC.A8E1FB28@yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde {
>>>> 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> It would be interesting to interview those who like Obama's
>>>>> economic performance.
>>>> 
>>>> Investors have profited from the stock market performance.
>>>> 
>>> It amazes me how "investors" seem to profit from its ups but not
>>> lose from its downs.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> The 3,5% GDP improvement was a surprise, larger than
>>>> expected. And the financial industry looks better now
>>>> than a year ago.
>>>> 
>>> I hope it is better. There are still bank failures going on.
>>> Iceland lost McDonalds. I'm not sure if they have anything to eat
>>> there.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> But as remarked on, the job situation is poor and will not
>>>> get better quickly.  The US has been setting itself up
>>>> for years creating a poor labor market, exporting jobs
>>>> along with money and borrowing internationally.
>>>> 
>>>> Next year will likely even be worse in Europe, the GDP
>>>> rise forecasted totday for the EU is 0,7%
>>>> which means more job losses. The US will also have
>>>> some but not as major.
>>>> 
>>>> So the big bubble break is leaving a lot of debris around
>>>> and few of you seem to understand that.
>>>> 
>>> We aren't talking about the bubble, whatever bubble you are talking
>>> about, we are talking about Obama. He's more of a bobblehead.
>> 
>> Bobblehead??? 
>> 
> http://www.toylounge.com/
> 
> 
>> In addition, if you don't know what bubble we are talking
>> about, you, not Obama, are the bubblehead (or is it bobblehead?).
>> 
> I think there have been several bubbles in the last year or so that
> have burst and supposedly others to come. Asking which you are
> talking about isn't foolish.
> 
> 
>> You seem to have made yet another typo bobble here.
>> 
> It was a pun, Donna.
 
If you are referring to a "bobblehead doll", your "pun" is feeble.  On the
other hand I don't really believe you when you say you made a pun.  I
believe you are once again trying to weasel out of admitting a mistake.

Donna Evleth

Donna Evleth wrote:
> 
> > From: "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> > 
> > Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> > those who  come after us.
> > Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
> > Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:01:32 +0000
> > Subject: Re: CNN poll : 54% disapprove of Obama economic performance
> >
> >
> >
> > Donna Evleth wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> >>> 
> >>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> >>> those who  come after us.
> >>> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc
> >>> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:42:17 +0000
> >>> Subject: Re: CNN poll : 54% disapprove of Obama economic performance
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Earl Evleth wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/11/09 18:01, in article 4AF061EC.A8E1FB28@yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde {
> >>>> 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" 
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> It would be interesting to interview those who like Obama's
> >>>>> economic performance.
> >>>>
> >>>> Investors have profited from the stock market performance.
> >>>>
> >>> It amazes me how "investors" seem to profit from its ups but not
> >>> lose from its downs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> The 3,5% GDP improvement was a surprise, larger than
> >>>> expected. And the financial industry looks better now
> >>>> than a year ago.
> >>>>
> >>> I hope it is better. There are still bank failures going on.
> >>> Iceland lost McDonalds. I'm not sure if they have anything to eat
> >>> there.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> But as remarked on, the job situation is poor and will not
> >>>> get better quickly.  The US has been setting itself up
> >>>> for years creating a poor labor market, exporting jobs
> >>>> along with money and borrowing internationally.
> >>>>
> >>>> Next year will likely even be worse in Europe, the GDP
> >>>> rise forecasted totday for the EU is 0,7%
> >>>> which means more job losses. The US will also have
> >>>> some but not as major.
> >>>>
> >>>> So the big bubble break is leaving a lot of debris around
> >>>> and few of you seem to understand that.
> >>>>
> >>> We aren't talking about the bubble, whatever bubble you are talking
> >>> about, we are talking about Obama. He's more of a bobblehead.
> >>
> >> Bobblehead???
> >>
> > http://www.toylounge.com/
> >
> >
> >> In addition, if you don't know what bubble we are talking
> >> about, you, not Obama, are the bubblehead (or is it bobblehead?).
> >>
> > I think there have been several bubbles in the last year or so that
> > have burst and supposedly others to come. Asking which you are
> > talking about isn't foolish.
> >
> >
> >> You seem to have made yet another typo bobble here.
> >>
> > It was a pun, Donna.
> 
> If you are referring to a "bobblehead doll", your "pun" is feeble. 
>
That is what a bobblehead is. I was saying that he was a
bobblehead.


> On the
> other hand I don't really believe you when you say you made a pun.  I
> believe you are once again trying to weasel out of admitting a mistake.
> 
I was sarcastically saying that Obama is a bobblehead. A
"bobblehead", as I pointed out, is a real thing.



-- 
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.

"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
> 
> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
>  wrote:
> 
> > John Rennie wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > John Rennie wrote:
> > > >> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
> > > >>> PJ O'Donovan wrote:
> > > >>>> CNN poll : 54% disapprove of Obama economic performance
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ".... this result stands out, especially after the Obama
> > > >>>> administration's attempts to both spin the numbers and blame George
> > > >>>> Bush for the economy. Fifty-four percent of respondents to the latest
> > > >>>> CNN poll disapprove of Barack Obama's performance on the economy, a 17-
> > > >>>> point swing in six weeks. That isn't the worst of the poll, either;
> > > >>>> 57% now disapprove of Obama's performance on health care, a 19-point
> > > >>>> swing in that same time. CNN, of course, doesn't mention the details
> > > >>>> on either in its own reporting on the poll: ... "
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> It would be interesting to interview those who like Obama's
> > > >>> economic performance. Apparently they like RECESSION.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >> I thought we had all agreed that it was
> > > >> Bush's recession.
> > > >>
> > > > It's Obama's recession because he's president now.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> Actually it is neither Bush's
> > > >> or Obama's - it's the Banks' recession and there
> > > >> they are preparing the next one.
> > > >>
> > > > Why would they want that?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > They didn't 'want' the last one.  The young
> > > ladies and gentlemen who bought and sold
> > > derivatives, CDO's, CDS's or even Collateralised
> > > Debt Obligations of Asset Backed Securities
> > > thought they knew what they were doing; they
> > > didn't.
> > >
> > So you think they are making mistakes again? I think the market
> > works, you just can't let people off the hook for the long term
> > obligations they sell. In fact, letting them off the hook is a
> > little like letting someone who owes a debt assign the debt to
> > someone else without permission from the one who is owed the debt.
> 
> That's pretty much what caused the whole mess in the first place.
>
I would say that allowing people to skip out on the risks while
enjoying the benefits was a big part of the problem. But let's not
forget ridiculously high interest rates and the view that increased
risk can be mitigated by just increasing those rates further. What
happens is that the very increased interest rates increase the risk
of defaults. This should be obvious, at some point no matter what
someone did, they couldn't sustain a rate that was ever increasing.
That's pretty invidious by itself, but consider also that the high
rates drive good debt away from the very companies that are
charging the high rates because they need the increased income. It
makes their portfolio contain a higher percentage of bad or
worsening debt. This can become a cycle.


> Banks
> packaged possibly bad debts and sold them on to investors.  Looks like
> they're doing it again and governments will be silly enough to bail them
> out AGAIN.
> 
I think that a set of general rules could be created that would
deal with a lot of this. Speculators buy risk. So how is that
different from what we are talking about? I think we need to work
to understand the good use of buying risk/selling risk and the bad
buying and selling of risk. 

Good: A farmer is worried about the weather and sells risk of crop
failure on the commodity markets. Over time, this levels his income
and makes it more likely that he'll succeed in farming. Or an
airline is worried about energy costs, so it buys future delivery
of fuel at present prices plus some amount based on the perceived
risk. This allows the airline to sell tickets for future delivery
of airline flights and prices that it can currently confirm. In
these situations, and many others, it is important that not all
players want to sell risk. So speculators provide liquidity and
willingness to buy up risk.

Bad: A broker sells a house to a person with food stamp level
income at a price that the house isn't really worth and then
resells the mortgage to someone else who doesn't understand that
this has been done. Sometimes the mortgage is split up and the risk
of default is then "insured" against by someone else. That someone
else might not be able to pay off all the defaults if the
overselling/bad selling is systematic might not be fully
considered. It obviously should be.

The question becomes, what are the real differences between the
above good and bad examples. It's probably got to do at least
partly with insuring against risk. Any time you do that, you
distort the market and can create disaster. Some insuring against
risk is important because it stabilizes markets and the economy as
a whole, at least for a time. Consider bank runs before the average
person had insurance protecting him to some amount in a bank. Most
people can't afford to lose  the funds they have in a bank so they
freak out when they think there might be a problem. But when you
insure, government or private, against speculation, disaster surely
awaits.

-- 
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.

On Nov 3, 1:14 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
recirculation' )"   wrote:
> John Rennie wrote:
>
> > Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
>
> > > Earl Evleth wrote:
> > >> On 3/11/09 18:01, in article 4AF061EC.A8E1F...@yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde {
> > >> 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" 
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> It would be interesting to interview those who like Obama's
> > >>> economic performance.
> > >> Investors have profited from the stock market performance.
>
> > > It amazes me how "investors" seem to profit from its ups but not
> > > lose from its downs.
>
> > A rather naive comment from you, Earl. Firstly they are not
> > investors, they are speculators.  Secondly they profit
> > from the downs by selling short.   At least 80% of the
> > activity in the American stock market is down to speculators.
>
> Speculators buy risk. There ae people who would like to sell off
> risk.

No they don't. Buying risk is buying equity with a high rate of return
bur having a Beta greater than the market average.

Speculators look for dollar differences between today's price and
tomorrow's. Has nothing to do with traditional concepts of risk.


>
> --
> What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.

On 5/11/09 21:10, in article
d6d7c96a-e634-45fc-9fa9-c2afb50a795a@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com,
"liberal2"  wrote:

> Speculators look for dollar differences between today's price and
> tomorrow's. Has nothing to do with traditional concepts of risk.

Money trading is a zero sum game meaning the bottom line
ìs zero.  So in that sense is it gambling, not   different
than playing poker. The exception is that commodity trading
can be done using high leverage therefore if one makes
money one makes a lot in fairly short period.  In the
case of 90% leverage, a 10% rise will generate a 100%
profit.  

Equity buying can result in the equity being worth more
in time, one is betting on the company doing better.
In bubble situations, the buyers are playing the game
that "some idiot will pay more" and that "I" can get
out before the crash. Equity buying for speculative
purposes has a much lower leverage.

The dot.com bubble burst largely hit individual investors
and not the banks. The subprimes were heavily leveraged
and so the bubble burst cause losses of other peoples
money.