Investor class favors Kerry over Bush

[JoFerret]

http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/29/news/economy/election_investors/

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The nation's investors give Democratic presidential contender John Kerry a slight edge over President Bush, according to a new poll that also shows health care costs and deficit reduction are investors' most pressing concerns.

[childslibrarian]

1. That is very encouraging

Very good link, thank you.

[w4rma]

2. Awesome. (n/t)

[Taeger]

3. The investors realize ...

This may sound a bit sinister. So called "invetors" are often at odds with workers for a share of the pie.

But I think they also realize that the president is spending like a drunken sailor and will eventually cause the stock market to crash because of his gross irresponsible behavior.

[mobuto]

4. Its not a zero-sum game

In a rising economy, all should do well, investors, workers and management. Its only in a declining or stagnant economy that their interests are set off against one another. Democrats are good for the economy - history shows that again and again. Bush has been extraordinarily bad for it. This makes a lot of sense.

[salin]

5. per the health care question in this scenario

I have long believed that the question of healthcare would eventually be dealt with when the continuing escalating costs to businesses were to get to the point that it had an impact on the bottom line.

Working in the nonprofit sector, I can attest that the rate of escalation (especially with a smaller workforce) is getting so high, that one cannot adequately predict costs for future budgets (e.g., estimate an annual 3.5% increase.) The high profile grocery store strikes in California (that for a little while appeared to risk spreading throughout parts of the midwest) were all about this issue. The companies costs of providing healthcare are escalating, and thus were proposing to push some of the costs to the workers. The concern I heard expressed here in the midwest from the Union spokespersons was that overtime the incremental increases sought for employee contributions to healthcare would outstrip any raises - in essence due to inflation and raising healthcare costs they were suggesting that overtime workers would lose ground economically. Agree or disagree with this supposition - it raises a point - that when on a larger scale can have a huge impact on the corporate bottom line.

The issue is that at the higher level positions there is more competition. We seldom here of executives having to start covering parts of the costs of benefits - especially at a level where those costs would outstrip wage gains (salary increases). We also don't hear a great deal of this discussion at the midmanagement level (though I would guess that in smaller companies there is more cost sharing for employees.)

It seems to me (granted I may have a simplistic view of this), that when it seems less expensive to corporations to support some sort of govt sanctioned program (be it universal, or single payer, or other) where there is some sort of increase in costs (through tax mechanisms) - rather than to continue paying the ever escalating health insurance rates for employees, at that point in time more corporate interests would become a powerful voice to changing public policy. If this point were to reach a critical mass (among the corporate class - and the investor class that has vested interest in the success of the corporations), then the power of the health insurance and related industries to lobby and block all such public policy discussions would be out-trumped.

If I am correct in this assumption - I have no idea when this would rise to a signficant enough issue to change the public discussion. Two years or twenty years? However I am accutely aware that while health insurance costs have been escalating for years, the rate increases post 911 (when companies really did have to raise new revenue to make up for depleted investment funds for payoffs that occured in the two major stock drops after 911 and then after the 2002 corporate implosions) have been steeper and demonstrate no sign of slowing down (even after the reserves have been restored.) It is sort of like the sentiments about taxes... once you implement new ones it become unlikely that they will ever go away... in this case once the steep rate hikes for health insurance began to come down the pike, it was unlikely that even after the "crisis" passed that a) the rates would return to previous levels; or b) that the size of rate hikes would deescalate (i.e., once known that folks would keep paying it - then the companies will keep charging it.)

This is just one area in which the policies of the extreme neocon economic theories can begin to be perceived to have negative long-term economic impact, and that the extreme adhesion to ideology over any public policy discussions ensures that no rememdies that will address the problem will likely emerge. Suddenly the blind belief that short-term gains (e.g., tax cuts) that might be realized through allegiance to the contemporary GOP gets shaken when long-term strategic planning must consider long-term viability for corporations and organizations. And with those calculations the bushteam loses some of its luster.

[stevedeshazer]

7. Great post

I agree that, in essence, a tipping point will be reached where the government and the corporations will have to decide how to handle health care, because the system is broken.

People won't stand for the erosion of health care in the long run; the current path is unsustainable.

[tapper]

12. Businesses are talking reform...

Looking at your message, I remembered that I'd heard on NPR some time ago that Ford had come out in favor of some sort of national health plan, because health costs was hurting the company where it competed with companies based in countries with national plans (e.g. Europe). This link doesn't exactly back up that memory, but it does speak to business concern.

http://www.inbusinesslasvegas.com/2004/02/06/feature2.html

(I would've thought that *small* businesses and their organizations really ought to be calling for national health care, but maybe they are and just aren't getting heard...)

[salin]

13. thank you

for the article (and validation of my gut read on this issue). I think that some small businesses ARE - but don't have much voice when put against big insurance and healthcare entitities.

[F.Gordon]

16. "We" (small business) are very vocal about it

But no one is listening. I'm active in a number of Small Business groups/associations, and it is the number one issue discussed and conveyed to deaf ears. Insurance companies are usually capped for maximum annual increases, but if they want even more they just dump your "plan" and force you to buy the higher priced "plan". We're already anticipating the same thing this year when our policy is reviewed in May.

Right now,just for the two of us (no kids) we pay $9,000 a year for "very good" Health Insurance, and even with our "very good" Health Insurance we still paid out an additional $5,500 last year in deductibles, copays, etc. You do the math.

I could rattle on for hours about this. I know a number of Small Businesses where the spouse has quit and got a "real job" just for the Health benefits. A "rich" Doctor I chatted with recently about this can't even afford Health Insurance. He is 60 and his premimum rates were $4,500 a month.

Every time I see Bush* talking at one of his "Small Business Dog and Pony Shows" I want to reach in the TV and throttle him...

Speaking of Business, I have to get back to work. Lurked long enough. Thanks for your awareness and for bringing this up.

[YearOfTheLLama]

10. He's worse than a drunken sailor

A sailor only has his own pay to squander. Bush, by his own admission, is spending "the people's money, not the government's." And Bush has about $3 trillion to mess around with.

[david_vincent]

22. Even worse still

He's spending the money of our children, and their children, and their children.

[newyawker99]

32. Hi YearOfTheLLama!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[roberthall10]

6. Not Surprising

The investor class has a lot to lose from a continuation of gimcrack, clown-show Republican economic management.

[Dr Fate]

8. I love that word...

...you have been reading your H.L. Mencken ?

[asthmaticeog]

9. Not to mention

that the W* administration hasn't exactly gone after the corporations that profitted from ripping off investors with anything resembling gusto.

[Tempest]

11. The Democratic Dividend

The Democratic Dividend
The stock market prefers Democratic presidents to Republicans. Why?

By Carol Vinzant
Posted Friday, October 4, 2002, at 4:15 PM PT

http://www.slate.com/?id=2071929

President George W. Bush inherited the lousy end of the business cycle. The stock market has been falling throughout his entire term, battered by war, a feeble economy, and corporate scandals. Yet this decay still hasn't shaken Americans' faith that Republicans are better for the economy and the market. Poll after poll shows that when Americans divide up the chores of running the country, they tend to think of the economy and stock market as Republican domain and delegate softer issues, like the environment, to Democrats.

But Democrats, it turns out, are much better for the stock market than Republicans. Slate ran the numbers and found that since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the S&P 500, but Republicans only an 8 percent return. In 2000, the Stock Trader's Almanac, which slices and dices Wall Street performance figures like baseball stats, came up with nearly the same numbers (13.4 percent versus 8.1 percent) by measuring Dow price appreciation. (Most of the 20th century's bear markets, incidentally, have been Republican bear markets: the Crash of '29, the early '70s oil shock, the '87 correction, and the current stall occurred under GOP presidents.)

<more>

[pacifictiger]

18. Maybe they do better

because dems put govt money into domestic programs that benefit the the many, which in turn benefits business; repubs pour money into the military which in turn goes up in smoke and creates chaos, benefitting the profiteers.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. To call this a serious problem for Bush is an understatement

If Bush represents nothing else, he represents the primacy of the investor class over the rest of us. He may even have uncharacteristically honest reasons for holding to the view that government should do more for investors than for common people.

So, Bush cuts taxes to the wealthy in the hopes that it will spur job growth.

However, this survey shows that investors don't think that what Bush has done has worked and that somebody else would do better. In short, they think Bush is bad for business.

It's hard to imagine the investors rejecting Bush for ideological reasons; on the other hand, for purely practical reasons, they would be foolish to stick by him.

[joeunderdog]

15. This is why Chimp is getting negative press. Business runs America.

As long as MONEY players see an advantage in Kerry, they will allow the media to show the advantage. Trust me, if the big shots who are really in charge thought it would be better to have Shrub back, they would've buried the AWOL story (and others just like it) like they did last time.

[mobuto]

20. Big shots? Huh?

How do investors express any control over the media whatsoever?

Trust me, if the big shots who are really in charge

Who are these "big shots?"

The Jews? The Illuminati? The Masons? Skull and Bones?

The names may change but the mentality remains the same.

[DBoon]

21. They express control

beacuase they OWN the media. Ownership implies control.

The "investor class" is a fact of capitalism, not a secretive conspiracy.

Some investors own a whole lot more than others. This makes them "big shots".

To find out who the "big shots" are, read the business section of your local paper.

[mobuto]

23. ROTFLMAO

Investors don't control corporations, although they should. Management does.

To find out who the "big shots" are, read the business section of your local paper.

So CALPERS runs the world? I would never have guessed.

[joeunderdog]

24. Investors (Wall St.) promote Walmart anti-empoloyee policy.

They would dump stock if Walmart said they wanted to help with employee insurance. Read about that anywhere.

Exxon pays $800,000 to GWB campaign fund. Gets $1B in EPA and Energy policy benefits. They just set the record for quarterly profits.

Banks and Energy companies underwrite the Gropenators (S)election. The first thing Ahnold does is say "we're gonna drop that silly $8B lawsuit against the nice Energy people, then we're gonna go to junk bond status." Ahnold will make megamillions on that deal.

The banks now lead the ranks of Shrubs leading investors. If he is NOT re-elected, then the blind eye pardon they now receive from the SEC goes away and costs them hundered of millions.

Advertisers don't like the fact that Asia and Europe are boycotting consumer goods from America. They call the media they advertise on.

The Big Boys are definitely not in the White House.

"Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed."
--Abraham Lincoln

Also--Read "Blinded by the Right" and you'll see how incestuous the relationship is between judicial and executive branches, corporations, Wall St. and The Media. (Example Scalia's hunting trip with Cheney and Exxon.) These are NOT passive relationships in any way. They are contrived and planned on a global scale.

[mobuto]

29. Wall Street wants profits

They don't want to see workers screwed or un-screwed, they just want to make money. And as long as WalMart's making them money, they're not going to question its management's business practices. The point is to make management's business practices costly - if workers organize and strike, that will cost investors money, and they will in turn force management to change.

Exxon pays $800,000 to GWB campaign fund. Gets $1B in EPA and Energy policy benefits. They just set the record for quarterly profits.

Yup - politics is dirt cheap. When you look at how much politicians cost, and how much corporations get in return, you realize just how meaningless current CFR laws are. We need to get serious about this. But I don't see what that has to do with the argument.

Also--Read "Blinded by the Right" and you'll see how incestuous the relationship is between judicial and executive branches, corporations, Wall St. and The Media.

I read it when it first came out. I think you're misinterpreting things here, though. Wall Street and Corporations are very different interests. Sometimes they're on the same page and oftentimes they're not. What happens more times than you may realize, however, is that workers and investors find themselves united against management.

[DBoon]

26. No..

Calpers doesn't own a controlling interest in anything (AFAIK). They do have some influence if they work in concert with other pension funds and like minded consequential investors. They have exerted this influence in the past and HAVE changed management in some particularly extreme cases.

The business section of the paper (or the WSJ or any other business rag) will give you an idea who owns controlling interests of various entities, who buys them, who sells them, and yes who hires and fires management. They players who leverage large amounts of capital ultimately determine corporate governance. Any management that tries to operate against these individuals finds itself out of management very quickly.

Michael Eisner is now finding this out (as a specific example)....

[mobuto]

28. The point is that exactly

They have exerted this influence in the past and HAVE changed management in some particularly extreme cases.

That's precisely what large investors can do. What they don't and can't do, however, is exercise control over the day-to-day affairs of corporations. That's why the idea that large investors are secretly conspiring to promote or squash certain news stories across the board is absolutely ludicrous.

The business section of the paper (or the WSJ or any other business rag) will give you an idea who owns controlling interests of various entities, who buys them, who sells them, and yes who hires and fires management.

Management are rairly accountable to investors, and almost never are when profits are up. Moreover, there is no evidence that "The Media" is manipulated across the board by investors who want to promote or quash stories. For one thing, media companies are too big. What investor is going to tell the management of NBC, a division of General Electric, what to do? Who has a controlling interest of Viacom? There are enormous problems with media coverage, and even with management manipulation of news. But investor manipulation? Its practically unheard of.

[joeunderdog]

30. You musta missed the Howard Stern thing this week.

His ranting about Bush for and hour or so was followed by his being suspended "indefinitely". They blamed it on the usual obscenity that has netted them $$$$$$$ over the years. Puh-leeeease.

It was a shot across the bow because his Viacom boss and The Chimp are tight and Viacom has benefited from FCC changes and the Bush Agenda. And because the media's position directly effects polls and outcomes of political races.

Or maybe Stern being disciplined after he started dissing Chimp was all just a coincidence.

Look at the ties Bush has to Big Oil, the Carlyle group and Halliburton. These are direct ties between big business and public policy. Absent Bush's ties to those companies, we would not be in IRaq, and the media would not have promoted what any responsible individual knew was a war created on false premises. The information was available well before the war.

The media editorializes and politicizes everything (in this country) and is part of a bigger machine. You are naive if you think it's not coordinated on a large scale.

[mobuto]

31. I'm not saying that many corporations aren't right wing

I think Clear-Channel - which went so far as to organize official pro-Iraq War rallies - would be the epitomy of a right-wing corporation.

What I am saying is that investors don't generally influence media coverage. Management may, but investors don't.

The media editorializes and politicizes everything (in this country) and is part of a bigger machine. You are naive if you think it's not coordinated on a large scale.

Coordinated on a large scale? Well, it all depends on what you mean by that. If you mean that the Media are easily manipulated, you're right. If you mean that they're more interested in following the herd than in reporting new news for themselves, you're right. If you think they shy away from substantive criticism of any politicians, but especially Republicans, you're right. If you think that a few media outlets have a real conservative bias, you're right as well. What there isn't, however, is any sort of central office that tells the media what to do. There isn't a grand conspiracy.

[Manix]

17. Will the last shrub supporter leaving please turn out the lights.

nt

[pacifictiger]

19. I'll bet these savvy logical people

are starting to see how illogical he can be when he's pandering to the fundamentalists who take the bible as literal.

[dusty64]

25. This is kick ass news.

Imagine the support when they here about the agenda and how much better it is for most people in contrast to the extreme right's.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.