2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe crashing stock market could crash Hillary's candidacy.
It's no coincidence that Hillary's first big tumble happened last September, exactly when the markets took their first big drop in years. It's not that Democratic primary voters were worried about their investments - instead, I think the sharp market drop reminded people of the reckless behavior that led to the 2008 crash and that still goes on down on Wall Street. It goes without saying that when the main issue is Wall Street greed and recklessness, Hillary doesn't do so well.
Well, the markets have started nosediving again - don't be surprised if you see a sudden and unexplained drop in Hillary's numbers as well in the weeks to come.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RandySF
(58,756 posts)Markets rise and fall. Corrections and rallies come and go. You can't count on this, And yes, some Dems actually do have investments.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)If the market continues to flounder, Maybe. That's a big maybe. She has bigger fish in the fryer that warrant concern. Like real big fish, there is a whale shark in the deep fry.
brooklynite
(94,501 posts)
The current market jitters are based on problems in China. Very, very serious structural problems with the Chinese economy. Wealthy Chinese concerned about the situation are buying up the US, just in case things there go further south. The influx of dollars going TO the US from China are now approaching past levels of US investment IN China, which are now almost nil.
China is a major player, for now. But they really don't buy much from us, so we'll not be losing any major markets.
But the big question for me is why Bernie did not run in '08, when both the markets and the political process in the US were arguably broken. One could argue that the situation in '08 would have been much more favorable for Bernie's 'revolution.' Of course, the nation did vote for change, and Obama's economic stewardship, though perhaps a bit too restrained for Bernie has nonetheless brought us out of a horrid recession, one which could have very easily led to another Great Depression. No wonder the Sanders folks minimize BHO's accomplishments.
Of course, middle class incomes have actually decreased a bit during this turnaround. But I suspect that is mainly due to demographics; boomers such as I (61 yrs) have lost our 'career' jobs to the recession, and were forced to take crappy pre-retirement jobs that only pay a fraction of what we used to make. Still, with houses paid off, IRA's and SS around the corner, many of us (not all) will do OK. Sadly, no 'revolution,' break up of banks or massive investment in infrastructure would ever be able to put the boomers back in their previous jobs.
mopinko
(70,077 posts)
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)A recession would hurt any Democrat in the fall since Democrats are the incumbent party.
Stop trying to grasp at straws to ruin Hillary.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)
AllTooEasy
(1,260 posts)How will "true progressives" inflate Big Oil and Gas stocks? How will "true progressives" rescue China's economy? How are "true progressives" going to force OPEC(Saudi Arabia) to reduce output so oil prices will artificially inflate? I thought "true Rethug" wanted those things.
eomer
(3,845 posts)True progressives want to pull back from a financial economy founded on speculation and return to an economy based on employment that delivers the results of productivity to the workers. An economy that drives a return of a strong middle class and that is not based on borrowing and leveraged gambling but rather on workers owning the results of their labor.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)coming home to roost. Most people in our country can barely afford food and rent let alone stuff made in China. On the Saudi's, they are the only country that can handle low oil prices and they will squeeze out of lot of other countries in the region so I think that's their plan. However, with Iran flooding the market with cheaper oil, it puts a dent in Saudi's plan. Will be interesting to see how that plays out. BTW, the bluedogs are basically repug lites and there is no way around that. So, connect these dots and look at the bigger picture. If we don't raise wages and start building shit in our own country, and just taking care of our own basic stuff, the house of cards is getting ready to come down and it wont be pretty.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)A consumer economy works for awhile as long as credits cards and fake equity mortgages are passed out like candy.
Well, that doesn't happen any more since the 08 crash and now people have to have actual money to buy anything.
When it came time to pay back on those loans the actual money wasn't there, and boom, here come the stacked cards. We are looking this situation right in the face again. Fingers crossed it wont be bad, but my gut tells me otherwise.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)issues and in particular, the overwhelming power of a few on Wall Street and in the financial sector. A huge part of our economy is controlled by a relatively small number of people in the financial sector.
The stock market no longer functions as it did 50 years ago. Power and risk are concentrated in fewer hands. I don't want to exaggerate just how few hands, but in addition to the relatively small number of people who can manipulate the market (not a tiny number, but relatively small), there are all kinds of ways that beliefs about where the stock market will go and other economic factors that relate to the course of the stock market can be not exactly manipulated but affected.
If enough people think the stock market will move in a certain direction, it will move in that direction. If oil prices go up or we have war in the Middle East, the stock market could be strongly affected.
A recession would help Bernie and hurt Hillary. Hillary is closely identified with the Obama administration's policies, more closely than Bernie.
A recession would increase the sentiments in voters that we need to reform Wall Street, and that is what Bernie says.
Beliefs can change what happens on Wall Street. Bernie does not criticize Obama's management of the economy, but is proposing positive changes that would make the stock market more honest. So a recession would strengthen the appeal of Bernie.
AllTooEasy
(1,260 posts)I'm positive that Bernie can still win with a great US economy. In fact, a better chance. A recession destroys any Democrat's hopes.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Not so true for other candidates.
Only Bernie is proposing really strong changes in economic policy.
But yes, I agree that Bernie can win whether the economy is good or bad.
Hillary cannot. The Republicans also probably would not gain as many votes from a bad banking or stock market crisis as Bernie would.
No absolutes here except that Bernie is the one candidate who is proposing really strong regulations for the financial sector and therefore no matter what happens with our economy, he has the proposals that can fix it and will win votes for him.
demwing
(16,916 posts)If one doesn't have the facts to outright accuse, just add the "Cavuto Mark."
The Cavuto Mark looks just like the Question Mark, but serves the specific function of turning a baseless accusation into an "honest" question:
becomes
I mean, I'm just asking...
enid602
(8,613 posts)And you've also got Juanita Broaddrick. See, things are looking up for you guys.
demwing
(16,916 posts)
There! The finger has been wagged, reformist2. Let that be a lesson to you!
pnwmom
(108,975 posts)a worldwide recession.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)any financial situation for any reason sets off the Wall Street dominoes falling and requiring bailouts again -- this will happen because "too big to fail" has not been corrected.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's what caused Carter to lose re-election. Reagan's first recession was far worse, but Reagan was lucky enough to have it in the middle of his first term instead of at the end.
senz
(11,945 posts)Of course, we can't regulate the global marketplace, but our nation does hold some sway, and a president who can put across a good rationale for better market regulation could begin the process of discipline here and abroad.
Of course, the libertarians would scream bloody murder, but they'd be screaming anyway.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It has to do with them jimmying their currency. Again.
There is nothing here regarding domestic market regulation, this is all fallout from overseas.
The case for some domestic market regulations can probably be made on other grounds, but not based on what's gone down this week.
senz
(11,945 posts)But I do find the current situation a reminder of the volatility and interrelationship of global markets.
AllTooEasy
(1,260 posts)Here's my problem with your post's reasoning:
1) The stock market has rules and regulations. In fact, a lot more R&Rs since Obama took office. I have friends who work on Wall St. and BOY are they mad at Obama for all the "stifling rules" that limit their boiler room aspirations. I drink their tears from a champagne glass.
2) Stock Market R&Rs are designed to protect investors from fraudulent brokers and companies who misrepresent share values and who also utilize unfair trade advantages(ex. insider trading). The top priority of these R&Rs is to ensure that investors are making informed decisions on a level playing field(LOL). However, no one is misrepresenting China's economic slide or the Oil glut. Those market grenades are easily verifiable!
3) Federal R&Rs can't prevent people from selling their stocks when markets open. Each US stock exchange can apply circuit breakers, but those breakers aren't controlled by the Feds because the Feds don't own the exchanges.
4) How does Our "market discipline" (yes, an oxymoron) translate to Their market discipline? Foreign markets don't have to follow our lead, they usually don't, and China obviously hasn't. OPEC is actively sending middle fingers to Wall St. with each oil barrel that they pump out the ground and into giant storage tanks.
5) Investors are selling because they are scared of China's possible inability to buy US products, and the decreasing oil stocks that have infected practically every fund and portfolio. I don't know how the Feds(Bernie, Hillary, Obama, etc.) can regulate fear...or hope.
senz
(11,945 posts)The details of the stock market have never been particularly interesting to me, so my reasoning may indeed be weak in places, but I've noticed that markets around the world respond to one another. Commentators talk about investors getting "nervous" when foreign markets tank, so it's fair to say there is a degree of interrelationship among markets. It's a "global economy" now whether we like it or not.
I'm an old fashioned Democrat, like government (as long as its democratic and relatively free of corruption, which ours isn't at present), distrust "free markets," and believe it's the job of regulators to do what they can to limit harm. So that's just where I lean.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)There's no doubt that she gets a lot of her money from Wall Street and that will cause many voters to wonder about why she has defended them so much these many years.
Bernie's recent speech about breaking up the banks is far more popular than bailing out the banks again.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)regardless of the state of the economy under the previous presidency.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Who could have guessed.
AllTooEasy
(1,260 posts)I'm no friend of US banks, but they are not the blame this time. The Oil Glut and China's economy are the current culprits. You're thinking about 2008's crash. The markets can be affected by everything from war to economic fraud to natural disasters to whatever. Perfect US bank regulation isn't going to reduce OPEC's output by one barrel, or boost China's growth by 1 percentage point.
BTW, all US stock markets are still double their value since the reforms.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Don't tell me it was Saudi princes.
Also "Wall St. banks" is a euphemism for any kind of globalized free-market investor that throws its weight around in the US.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)they are a normal and necessary function of the capitalist system.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)is somehow Hillary's fault? Especially when it is not even caused by the situation with US banks, but on external events?
Reinstating Glass-Steagal wouldn't be too helpful.
Get real, please, and stop seizing at just about any straw to tarnish HRC's candidacy. 
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)by tying Clinton and the Republicans to a nose-diving stock market, then let's take one for the team.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Hoping for a recession to get their candidate nominated? That's pathetic. This market drop is directly the result of what's going on in China. I'm surprised you're pretending otherwise.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Might as well have it now, so that the president who knows how to deal with it is in office when it strikes. God help us if St Hillary of Walmart is in office then: "welfare reform" would rise from its grave and start vampirising the whole of the USA. And the banks and the corporate elite would be coddled like never before, all in the name of "saving the economy", and by 2022 we'd have a new recession.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...frankly I'm not buying the idea that this type of rhetoric is from a true Bernie supporter.
Bernie ran on the Democratic ticket to avoid splitting the vote because he did not want to give a Republican any chance to win the GE. Yet there are people with your type of sentiment, and couple that with other statements made here that if Bernie isn't in the GE they will not vote for Hillary, because the USA deserves a Republican President to "teach them all a lesson". What utter bullshit.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Shame on you for twisting my words.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...it is all wrapped up in the same mentality and past statement here on DU, that people should suffer for the sake of getting Bernie into office.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)the chance to nominate and elect the man who knows how to deal with it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If you have evidence that a significant number of voters blame Hillary Clinton for the market correction please adduce it.
Thank you in advance.
This is the part that causes my nemeses apoplexy. I am literally willing to bet a limb no such evidence exists.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... I've seen it said by more than one from the "Bernie or Bust" crowd (Jury Note: I'm not referring to the OP or Sanders' followers in general... that's a specific reference to those few who proudly proclaim that they'd rather lose to a Republican than to ever sully themselves by stooping so low as to vote for Hillary.)
Apparently, it goes like this: In their minds, they think that if Americans are "too dumb" to truly understand "what's best" for the country, then Americans "deserve" the horrors that the Republicans will bring. These hardcore anti-Hillary folks presumably believe that a "better America" can only be achieved by allowing (or causing, or helping-along) the country to be destroyed by Republicans.
In other words, to "teach-America-a-lesson" (and get revenge) they'd rather burn-down-the-house and start from scratch, instead of fixing the leaky roof and painting the shutters.
This type of thinking is petty, selfish, vengeful and short-sighted.
livetohike
(22,138 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Especially considering how the most vulnerable members of society suffer the worst when this happens.
brooklynite
(94,501 posts)Oh, well...
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
merrily
(45,251 posts)so he could claim a veto-proof majority?
The Financial Services Act of 1999, aka Gramm, Leach, Bilily, aka Repeal of Glass Steagall and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (which, once again, then Rep. Sanders voted for before it contained the catastrophic language added in the Senate).
Didn't help that jobs had gone overseas or that welfare had been "reformed."
There's one big New Deal safety net left intact: Social Security. And, they are coming for it. Medicare too. Make no mistake. It may be fast; it may be slow, but they are coming for it. Will you let them? Will you enable the enablers?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 8, 2016, 11:43 AM - Edit history (1)
or the more liberal or more conservative, more leftwing, more rightwing - if markets crash and the economy goes bad - The incumbent and those associated with the incumbency will be blamed and it will hurt them badly at the polls. This is simple reality. It is not a matter of whose fault.
livetohike
(22,138 posts)stonecutter357
(12,695 posts) berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)When European markets opened, the nightmare continued. The DAX was down 459 points, and European stocks overall had their worst start to a year ever. In the U.S., it looked like we were on course for a truly historic day as well.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 467 points at one stage, but some very mysterious late day buying activity helped trim the loss to just 276 points at the close of the market. The sudden market turmoil caught many by surprise, but it shouldn’t have.
randome
(34,845 posts)This appears to be more of a downturn. Cyclical in nature. I am hardly knowledgeable about the stock market but that's what it sounds like to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)and this one amounts to about 5% points so far. I don't think this is cyclical though. I think this is the asian markets seeing an end to their growth bubble.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
onenote
(42,692 posts)I'm not going to predict whether, when, and/or how the China situation gets resolved. But relatively speaking, as crashes go, so far this one isn't exactly a doomsday event.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)At the end of Carter's term, the stock market (and rest of the economy) was far higher than the start of his term. But it was going down due to a recession. That cost him re-election, despite the higher absolute value.
What matters is the feeling that "things are getting worse" or "things are getting better". The fact that things are currently better or worse doesn't overrule that feeling of where the economy is headed.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)onenote
(42,692 posts)The Dow was at 15,666 in August 2015-- five months ago. It's still nearly a 1000 ahead of that mark. Whether this is a long term or short term drop can't be known with certainty at this point.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)It is probably coincidence, but we saw a market collapse in 2001 and 2008. Both times I moved my money to the "safe" 401(k) fund before it happened.
While the biggest collapse of 2001 was 9/11, it had been dropping steadily for quite some time before that. So that should have made me look brilliant! Except that I ended up losing 50% of my 401(k) value anyway because the "safe" fund was not safe.
I'm guessing I'm not the only one as we dumped that 401(k) fund manager shortly thereafter. And in 2008 I did not lose a penny. In fact, I made a bundle getting out ahead of the crash (probably for the wrong reasons), then jumping back about 3 months after the steady climb began. I don't mind missing that by a couple months. I'm conservative with my investments.
This year I was trying to figure out when to get out again. But it was so up and down that I screwed it up a couple of times. Also, they changed the "safe" fund, and I noticed my "safe" fund results were nearly as bad as the high yield funds. Plus, they added a rule that I can no longer use the "safe" fund until 3 months after the last time I pulled money out of it!
Most bizarrely, their website only shows me rates of return for funds in which I currently have money! I can not tell how a fund is doing until after I put money into it! WTF? I am thinking about putting at least a tiney amount into each and every fund just for that reason. What bullshit.
So much for "me" handling my own retirement funds. I can only handle it within the parameters set by the fund manager hired by my employer. And, of course, I'm not a fucking money manager. I have a full time job, thank you very much.
I suppose I could ensure half of it. I could borrow it, stuff it under the mattress and pay it back to myself (with interest) over the duration of the loan.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Really? I doubt it. It appears to be reacting to problems in Asian markets, particularly China. Stock markets do that from time to time.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)its global brought on mostly by all the greed invested in China. Market has done it several times in the past couple years it will come up again.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)CFMA which Sanders voted yea.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Thom Hartmann's book, The Crash of 2016.
It's coming folks. Hartmann is no crackpot and does his research.
Yet, another reason I'm for Bernie.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Now its apparently what some on the left are hoping for too.
Odd.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)The Bernie Supporters hoping for a recession.
The extremists on both sides are vile.