news.yahoo.com — The Dow Jones industrial average crossed 13,000 on Tuesday for the first time since May 2008, when the Lehman Brothers investment bank was solvent, unemployment a healthy 5.4 percent and the worst of the Great Recession months ahead.
Feb 21, 2012 View in Crawl 4
particleman420Feb 22, 2012
no wonder they're trying to force their non-issue of contraception. anything to distract from them being wrong, again.
barackalypseFeb 22, 2012
Guess its a good thing we didn't waste any more money and pass Obama's jobs bill, since evidently everything is just fine without it.
letherialFeb 22, 2012
ya roads are bad,
barackalypseFeb 22, 2012
What percentage of Obama's jobs bill (or his stimulus) was roads? Of the $840 billion of the stimulus that has been allocated $33.2 billion was for transportation and $25.5 billion was for infrastructure. In other words, less than 7% of the stimulus went to anything resembling building roads or rail.
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx#ContractsGrantsLoansComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
letherialFeb 23, 2012
Stimulus bill and the jobs bill are two separate bills; one clue to this is the time line.
So everything you said is irrelevant.
barackalypseFeb 23, 2012
His jobs program had a similarly pitiful number for roads, $60 billion of out $447 billion, or 13.4% and $10 billion was just an infrastructure fund. I have now proven YOUR comment irrelevant.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/21/news/la-pn-senate-highway-bill-20111021Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
letherialFeb 23, 2012
FTA:
"$60 billion for highways, transit and airports -- as they attempt to pressure Republican opponents."
The 'jobs bill' was also broken up, this was a separate bill for transit...and voted down
my deduction is, we dont need roads...(cause we are in the future)
daimposterFeb 22, 2012
Our biggest gains both in jobs and GDP were back in 2010, when the effects of the stimulus were mostly at work. Can you imagine where we would be if nothing was done?
Also, I guess you think roads/bridges/rail are bad for a country.
barackalypseFeb 22, 2012
Do you think the stimulus was spent on roads and bridges? Less than 7% of it went to transportation or infrastructure, the bulk of it was tax breaks and entitlements.
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx#ContractsGrantsLoansComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterFeb 23, 2012
So why the hell does the right wing have a problem with infrastructure spending?
And the tax breaks, etc were meant to stimulate spending. You know, to stop the bleeding from the crisis that started in 2008 and wreaked havoc for 12 months. We went from -3% growth GDP in 2009 to +3% growth in 2010. If you don't think the stimulus bill had much of an effect, consider the following
GDP growth rate compared to previous quarter:
Q2-'08: -1.8%
Q3-08: 1.3%
Q4-08: -3.7%
Q1-09: -8.9%
Q2-09: -6.7% (stimulus bill passed)
Q3-09: -0.7%
Q4-09: 1.7%
Q1-10: 3.8%
Q2-10: 3.9%
Q3-10: 3.8%
Q4-10: 2.5%
It's no coincidence improvements started happening shortly after stimulus passed with major gains beginning 6-9 months later.
barackalypseFeb 23, 2012
We don't have a problem with infrastructure spending, we have a problem with people throwing out s**t responses like "I guess you think roads/bridges/rail are bad..." whenever we oppose hundreds of billions of dollars of spending where only a small percentage of it goes actually goes to that infrastructure.
I'm perfectly happy with the Government building roads and bridges, but don't think for a moment most of where your taxes go to are those things. Most of it goes to retirement, insurance, and welfare benefits, and most of the remainder goes to the military.
daimposterFeb 22, 2012
Forgot to add...as % of GDP, in the past decade the US spends about 50% less than Europe and 70% less than China on infrastructure.
ferretmanFeb 22, 2012
Though we have a vastly large GDP, so the raw numbers work out a bit differently.
publiclurkerFeb 23, 2012
We also have a lot more infrastructure. while china is bigger, it's also a lot more remote.
daimposterFeb 23, 2012
Are you serious? Fine, at all up all of Western Europe's GDP and it's similar GDP to the US but still double spending.
particleman420Feb 22, 2012
the article isnt about jobs, it's about the dow being up higher than its been since 2008.
caffienemanFeb 22, 2012
somehow the Republicans will put a negative spin on this
agmlauncherFeb 22, 2012
Nah, because unemployment is still really high, all of that extra money is consolidated in fewer pockets. There are less 401k and pensions to fund, so all of that money is making fewer people, a lot richer.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kwanijmlFeb 23, 2012
I'm not a republican, but I'm sure you could explain to me then, how/why stock markets being up means more economic well being or an improving economy.
Hint: in 1960 the DJIA reached a high of 685 . . .are we 19 times better off or the average person 19 times more wealthy today than in 1960?
Another hint: The stock markets were very high right before the crash. . . .we're we truly wealthy, or have a healthy economy, pre september 2008 and then all of a sudden it all just vanished, or was there merely an illusion of wealth and progress?
What metrics are you using, to determine that current real wealth, and the condition of the average person is a result of, or somehow positively correlated with, the current market highs? What is qualitatively different about the state of the economy now with the market at 13000, than it was around 2007-8 at 13000?
bdbrFeb 23, 2012
ALSO...is the economy really 21% better than it was in October, when the Dow was at 10,655? What turned completely around in three months?
Answer: nothing. The stock market is pumped up with speculation right now. It probably won't last.
kwanijmlFeb 23, 2012
Exactly. . . and not only will it not last, but the inevitable crash is likely to be as bad or worse than the 2008 crash. . . so much of what was mis-allocated in the economy then, has been propped up these few years, and festers even further. A high stock market right now, is more likely a sign of trouble than of any real growth.
Even for someone with heavy investments right now, their realized gains (while higher in dollar amounts) are probably not translating to real higher levels of wealth, as compared to prior times, because of higher costs of living, inflation, etc.
addiktionFeb 23, 2012
I'm not a Republican, but I smell fish when I'm near it. 13,000 today is not the same 13,000 as it was back in the day. The cash is littered with billions of dollars of bail outs. Inflation is the primary factor here.
If anything, I feel like the DOW would have to be a lot higher than it is now to account for the difference. if you don't know how inflation works, I recommend watching the movie "In Time".
zbeastFeb 22, 2012
The numbers on the Dow mean nothing.
it's not like the same company's make up the the Dow..
The Dow people kick the looser out and stick better company's in
The magically the down numbers grow bigger. All this is a bunch of crap.
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/22878
It's like checking to see if a school is doing better by only reporting the grades for your A students.
anomaly100Feb 21, 2012
Diggrepubs will be upset.
harveybettyFeb 21, 2012
Counting down till mass burying of your comment...
pivenFeb 21, 2012
How did you go bankrupt ?
Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.
― Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises
particleman420Feb 22, 2012
is it opposite day in conservative wonderland again?
pivenFeb 21, 2012
it is entirely due to the nearly $7 trillion pumped by global central banks into the world stock markets just in the past 4 years.
the aggregate global central bank balance sheet has doubled in four years, after doubling in the 5 years before that.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/CB%20total%20assets%20vs%20gold%20chart.jpgComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicFeb 22, 2012
If people don't want to use the DOW as a measure of anything, then they should stop, because you aren't going to ever get a simple message across (because it's not simple) as to why the index is where it is. So until it's not used up is good, down is bad.
bdbrFeb 22, 2012
Let's not forget that these banks have also set interest rates near zero. to pump savings and 401ks into risk assets. It's working. Most of them just leave their money in those accounts so they won't be selling now. Hedge funds are going to make a killing off of the collapse, and when the average saver withdraws in fear, institutional investors can get their 401k dollars at rock-bottom prices.
Ouzel7Feb 21, 2012
Repubs often have money in the stock market. Trust me. They are pleased.
craig1958Feb 21, 2012
Just about everyone has money in the stock market one way or another. Anyone with a 401k, a pension, a IRA, etc. is in the market.
Ouzel7Feb 21, 2012
That's true. I was responding to the original commenter, though. Seemed a childish comment, considering when the Dow does well, people with money in it are happy.
When it doesn't do well ... people s**t their pants.
craig1958Feb 21, 2012
Understand, the frustration is that it will take a while to translate into more/better jobs.
Ouzel7Feb 21, 2012
Sure ... and usually the Digg libs get upset over the stock market doing well because it means, "The evil 1% are getting even more wealthy!"
miklkitFeb 22, 2012
Nope.
It means that the party over country republicons will resort to more hostage taking and extortion in an attempt to wreck the economy and make Obama look bad.
Kinda like their grandstand act last summer that got our credit rating downgraded.
Are you wearing your American Flag lapel pin?
sloppyjoes7Feb 22, 2012
The Republicans haven't done anything to "wreck the economy."
The closest they came was when Bush signed the bailout bills, which were supported by most Democrats, and opposed by most Republicans.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Dub70sFeb 22, 2012
@sloppyjoes7 [The Republicans haven't done anything to "wreck the economy."]
What have they done to help the economy?
dirtyfriesFeb 22, 2012
I recall them campaigning on job creation. How'd that go?
craig1958Feb 22, 2012
Same way it always goes, the government can't really create jobs. All they can do is create a few incentives (tax cuts/refunds, government projects, stimulus packages, lower prime rate, whatever) and see what happens. We will never know if fewer jobs were lost due to these incentives. The economy will recover when it recovers. Economic cycles have very little to do with politics, they are more like the tides.
equinox2o12Feb 23, 2012
Someone needs to create a ASCII tumbleweed for slappy joe.
sloppyjoes7Feb 23, 2012
"What have they done to help the economy?"
*Tried* to stop the Democrats 2008-2010, and successfully stopped them since.
treehugger87Feb 22, 2012
You wouldn't know it by the comments by so-called Republicans in this story.
barackalypseFeb 22, 2012
Care to bet on whether 16,000 or 10,000 will be the next number it hits?
craig1958Feb 22, 2012
I think that 16000 is probably too high; how about 15000 before the next big correction in 3 - 5 years. This will continue to be a slow recovery. Hopefully, the employment numbers will get better before it turns again.
It's just a cycle with an overall upward trend (mostly due to slow inflation). It has very little to do with politics.
cherwilcoFeb 22, 2012
"Unemployment is down, confidence is up, DOW 5,000 above Bush - or as Republicans put it, let's talk about gay people and abortion!" ~Bill Maher
clitniblr036Feb 22, 2012
Exactly. If they can't engage Obama on the economy they will try to cut him down on other issues like contraceptives and religion, or being a secret Muslim sleeper agent sent to infiltrate the White House.
It'd be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
sloppyjoes7Feb 22, 2012
Imagine this situation:
1) A man is rushed into a hospital with a stab wound.
2) The emergency room doctor takes a scalpel, stabs the man again, who is then pushed to a waiting room.
3) The man dresses his own wounds, barely surviving the ordeal.
4) A month later, the man finally starts recovering, and is able to stand up and walk around.
5) The doctor then takes credit for saving the man's life.
Republicans want the economy to get better. We really, really do. But we fear that people will actually give Obama credit for it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
clitniblr036Feb 22, 2012
"Republicans want the economy to get better. We really, really do."
Really? Really really...?
All evidence to the contrary.
sloppyjoes7Feb 22, 2012
You say that for one reason: You think Obama's methods will work.
Republicans think Obama's policies will HARM the economy, (as well as cause other problems), so they're trying to stop him.
So, to answer you directly: Yes, Republicans really really want the economy to get better. That is why they are trying to stop Obama and the Democrats.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
auditortuxFeb 22, 2012
Some point to the fact that Republicans are so obstructionist that they want the economy to fail.
Do I think they're being a bit crazy? Yeah, but it also shows how little the Democrats are really interested in bipartisan compromise. It also shows how divergent their beliefs and theories are.
If you believe in the Up theory, which states that the Down theory is the worst thing ever, and your opponents believe the opposite, obstruction means you are doing your best for the country.
We're screwed, either way. Democrat and Republican. We need stimulus to get the economy moving, but we need to austerity to reduce the deficit/debt. Can't do both.
theonewhoknowsFeb 22, 2012
You are hurting your cause.
theonewhoknowsFeb 22, 2012
I believe you, but you can't have it both ways. Obama's policies either have an effect or they don't.
If they don't have an effect, then you are wasting your time opposing him. That would be like saying the economy is rebounding despite his policies. If that's the case, then he has no control, and you shouldn't be worried about it.
If they do have an effect, and the economy rebounds, then it is disingenuine to assume his effect was all negative and equal to a doctor stabbing a patient. That is just a dumb analogy.
Much like how you want it to improve, so does he. And he is working on it. There are probably better things he could be doing, but he's not stabbing it with a scalpel. The economy is getting stronger, slowly and gradually, as he predicted.
ultimisFeb 22, 2012
I think he is making the case that the there are *multiple* factors that affect the economy. So in his example the patient if left alone might have recovered in 3 weeks, if he had received the actual treatment he could've recovered in a week. But because he got stabbed, he barely survived and it took a full month to recover. It's not that the doctor stabbing him didn't have a effect, it's that the patient was resilient enough to survive it.
Economic cycles *happen*. Look at the entire history of this nation and we have recessions and booms going back to the founding of this country and beyond. If left along the economy *will* recover eventually. Can the government make things better? Yep. Can the government make things worse? Yep. I don't think anyone is making the case that he has no affect on the economy (you might make that case about Jimmy Carter) considering he spent a Trillion dollars on its recovery effort and enacted a massive financial regulatory overhaul. Either he made things better or he made things worse, it's unlikely he did nothing (though I guess it's possible). The "recovery" we witnessed in late 2009 happened before a single dollar of the stimulus went out and before the regulatory overhaul was put into effect. The economy has mostly be stagnate with incredibly weak GDP growth since the stimulus money started to flow and the regulation passed. You come to your own conclusion on how good Obama did.
particleman420Feb 22, 2012
"Republicans want the economy to get better. We really, really do. But we fear that people will actually give Obama credit for it."
so it's not really the economy getting better that you want, it's the credit for it?
that sounds like what you just said, which also lines up with the obstructionism the republicans are using to make sure that obama doesnt get credit, even though they havent done anything that would give them any credit.
"if we cant get it done, no one will, on our watch"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ultramagnus0001Feb 23, 2012
Why are you righties so violent?
atomheartmotherFeb 22, 2012
Debt.
publiclurkerFeb 23, 2012
which people like you seem to have no problem with creating when you are in power, but then lack the backbone to pay for later.
GoldJacketFeb 22, 2012
"Unemployment is down, confidence is up, DOW 5,000 above Bush - or as Republicans put it, let's talk about gay people and abortion!" ~Bill Maher
Bill Maher doesn't have kids, so I'm pretty sure he doesn't care if he puts future generations in debt.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ferretmanFeb 22, 2012
@anom - I see what you did there.... ;)
miklkitFeb 21, 2012
Oh no! We can't have that. It is now time for another credit rating dump.
stockjonesFeb 22, 2012
Dollar cost averaging over the years. The smarter man knows best.
barackalypseFeb 22, 2012
The smart man bought in after it crashed and has already sold and made his 50% profit.
novenatorFeb 22, 2012
Now we need some of that prosperity to finally trickle down to Main Street.
repinsFeb 22, 2012
if you have a 401k...it just did....
barackalypseFeb 22, 2012
Nice response. Unfortunately the something for nothing crowd expects to get something without having to contribute anything beyond what they already have.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stockjonesFeb 22, 2012
lol so true. But hey now the government leech show can be seen by all. It called Greece.
treehugger87Feb 22, 2012
No really. My 401(k) is up today, but what I really care about is what it will be like in 20 years.
novenatorFeb 22, 2012
The top 10% own 91% of the stocks in the US though, so the meager gains have a far less tangible effect on the average joe-6pack. It's primarily a measure of how much richer the rich are getting.
BTW, source (with some outstanding charts): http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
repinsFeb 22, 2012
How is that relevant? Your claim was this increase in the DOW did not effect "Main Street" and clearly it does.
As a side note, the DOW is only 30 stocks, the fact that the DOW is over 13K only shows how 30 companies are doing it is not an indicator of the economy as a whole.
source: http://money.cnn.com/data/dow30/
repinsFeb 22, 2012
also that means that the top 10% are responsible for 91% of the funding and risk for corporations.
theonewhoknowsFeb 22, 2012
Yeah, I wonder if their employees would buy some more stock if they were paid more?
repinsFeb 23, 2012
probably not, they would buy that new iPad,iPhone or some other gadget that is coming out...rather than invest in their own future.
atomheartmotherFeb 22, 2012
From the chart on your own link, the top 1% own 38.3% of the total stocks and mutual funds in this country, the next 9% own 42.9%. I realize that math (and truth) isn't your strong point, but that's about 80%, not 91%.
Secondly, haven't you and your Progressive minions been harping on "the 1%" for the last few months in an attempt to divide the country? Why are you now including the other 9%?
Could it be that if you'd simply reported the facts--that the top 1% own 38.3% of stocks-- it wouldn't make as strong a case to hate them?
I think it could.
psuckowFeb 22, 2012
Does anyone say, recurring bubble?
wayzupFeb 22, 2012
Perspective on how Wall Street is FUBAR: Facebook employs roughly 3000 people, produces nothing of tangible, truly quantifiable value and creates a limited amount of off-shoot jobs...it is valued by Wall Street at around $100 Billion. PepsiCo employs roughly 294,000 people, makes an iconic and proven product with a track record of high sales and creates a multitude of off-shoot jobs in warehousing, distribution, marketing and retail among others....it is valued by Wall Street at around $100 Billion.
What goes up, often comes sharply down.....
mrkenrayFeb 22, 2012
OOOOOOOOOO BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
barackalypseFeb 22, 2012
You know sometimes I just yell that out for no reason, its a fun name to say.
bdbrFeb 23, 2012
Yeah, but you probably say it like Darth Vader in that last prequel. ;-)
equinox2o12Feb 23, 2012
It is fun isn't it Bar!
thomastronFeb 22, 2012
Yay! Lets get really excited and act like this is THE turning point. That feeling will, by it's own nature, pull us upwards into the recovery. The stock market is an emotional barometer. It's a faith-based system and it requires that most of us drink the cool aid.
alecsputnikFeb 22, 2012
Thanks a lot Obama! Geez!
OswaldsBodyGuardFeb 21, 2012
Yeah except it makes no difference to Main Street.
Almost all of it is going to the scumbag 1 percent.
pivenFeb 21, 2012
Obama has raised more money from Wall Street than ...
Obama Has Handed The Election Over To The Super Rich .
-- ROBERT REICH:
miklkitFeb 22, 2012
There you go again.............
47% of his money came from us little people. If you average out the donations it works out to $54 per person. As of Dec. 31, 2011 Obama had taken in exactly $0.00 in PAC money.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638
pivenFeb 22, 2012
Not only did Obama not close Gitmo, but he also signed the NDAA which allows the government to send US citizens there without a trial.
cherwilcoFeb 22, 2012
you change the subject every single time someone challenges you
pivenFeb 22, 2012
Read the next comment
particleman420Feb 22, 2012
oh i know, he totally didnt close it.
but only after he said he would and republicans put up a stink and stopped it with their "not in my backyard" cop outs.
so yet again you're trying to blame obama for republican f**kups.
apokalyps2547Feb 22, 2012
piven: summarize, in your own words, Executive Order 13492, which is entitled "Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities"
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=85670#axzz1n89TofHv
pivenFeb 22, 2012
The sad truth is Obama has never really occupied the high ground. He refused public financing in 2008.
Once president, he didn’t go to bat for a system of public financing.
And now he’s made a total mockery of the Court’s naïve belief that super PACs would remain separate from individual campaigns, by officially endorsing his own super PAC.
So now a relative handful of super-rich Democrats want fight a relative handful of super-rich Republicans.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-08/politics/31036414_1_super-pac-donations-pacs-obama-campaign
-- by ROBERT REICH:
Obama Has Handed The Election Over To The Super RichComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
auditortuxFeb 22, 2012
"As of Dec. 31, 2011 Obama had taken in exactly $0.00 in PAC money."
Of course! He doesn't have any serious challenges and doesn't have a Republican to target. That's like saying that as of Dec. 31, 2011 the Republican nominee has taken in exactly $0.00 in PAC money.
There isn't a Republican nominee!
blydchyldFeb 22, 2012
Could this coincide with the release of the US investment bankers stock options for 2012...?
Most likely.
MunroeMotorsFeb 22, 2012
Great news. We are hiring a few people here at our shop too. Quantify the good and work with it, nice article.
kalvinbFeb 22, 2012
So it turns out the stock market can do "well" even when the economy is still in the dumps. And it's still 1000 away from it's peak in October 2007. It bottomed out in March of 2009 and has been rising steadily since. Even while Democrats continued to push stimulus money, printed trillions of dollars, etc and demonized Wall Street and focused on health insurance rather than jobs.
The stock market is based on speculation. The economy is based on reality.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ericschc1Feb 22, 2012
Job creation is also up & unemployment is tapering. Things aren't improving for Main St. as fast as they are on Wall St., but it hasn't been that way in recent history for Wall St. to not recover first.
ren1999Feb 23, 2012
I'm not helping the Republicans here but the stock market never indicates the health of the consumer economy. Most of us don't invest. Sure, employment is up for low wage jobs. But those middle management jobs are never coming back. The corporate bosses are pocketing that. The economy will never be what it was. Our fathers made an average of $50,000 to $70,000 a year in the 1970s and his sons and daughters earn $25,000 to $35,000 a year now. The blue and white collar poor is permanent. No recovery until employment and wages go up. So stop saying good times are here again.
connormatthews2222Feb 23, 2012
Watch IT will be back to 10,00
austinjameshereFeb 22, 2012
It's wonderful to see things are getting better. Looks like it's going to be a good year.
psuckowFeb 22, 2012
Haha, not bad for a year that was supposed to end an entire era at the Winter Solstice, right?
ferretmanFeb 22, 2012
Good for my 401K.....keeping my fingers crossed.
wkrausmannFeb 22, 2012
It would have happened sooner, but you know, had to have the stimulus, Obamacare and the jobs package first. Couldn't just leave s**t alone. Wouldn't you know, just in time for the election.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rasyidridho07Feb 22, 2012
right,,
pivenFeb 21, 2012
It is a rigged Casino flooded by federal government money printing.
Does not end well
olegkheysonFeb 21, 2012
I wonder how does it help an average human being?
youareretardedFeb 22, 2012
My retirement money is finally growing again.
pmrcorpFeb 22, 2012
Here come the higher mortgage rates! Go to www.perfectmortgagerate.com to pick your lender.....
blaker00Feb 22, 2012
yeah based on inflation. Gas is also going up as well...
eazybuzyFeb 22, 2012
awsome article with much information and facts...you may also visit eazybuzy.com