If you have "no place to go," come here!

Nice little economy you've got there

Be a shame if anything happened to it.

Pravda: Political push-back stalls stock market rally on Wall Street.

And so fucking what. The banksters are going to screw us again anyhow, since the same people who caused the crash are still in charge, haven't changed anything, they're bigger than ever, and now they own the government (and thanks to Citizens United, they can be perfectly out front about it).

When you ain't got nuthin...

NOTE Here are the "sources" for this piece of bankster-driven agitprop:

Neil Hennessy, who runs an investment firm that bears his name ...

Larry ...

Tom Sowanick, chief investment officer at Clearbrook Financial ....

Mark Coffelt, president and chief investment officer of Empiric Funds ....

Sean J. Ryan, a banking analyst for Wisco Research ....

Andrew Brooks of T. Rowe Price ...

Doug Roberts of Channel Capital Research ...

Looters and thieves, all of 'em, and no doubt on Monday morning they will, each and every one of them, start turning their quotability in Pravda into increased fees, since now they have the imprimatur of being politically wired, and after Citizens United -- love the name -- that's all that counts. Or perhaps they're already doing that out on the golf course right now.

No votes yet


okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

"The anti-Wall Street mood darkened after President Obama's Democratic Party suffered a stunning upset in the Massachusetts Senate race. That loss, attributed to concerns that the administration wasn't focused sharply enough on the country's continuing economic woes, came as many of the financial firms bailed out by taxpayers in the past two years reported massive profits and announced another round of big bonuses. "

Since when has a Democratic loss darkened the mood toward Wall Street? Simple answer? Since Barack Obama was nominated by the Democrats?

Again, from Epicurean Dealmaker:

"This explains not only their obvious lack of intellectual curiosity about the sources of the crisis—nothing remotely unconventional or even interesting on that topic left the mouths of any of the CEOs present at the hearing—but also their resistance to any major change in the way the industry or the markets are regulated. Why should they support change? It's hard enough just trying to keep ahead of the buzz saw of unbridled competition and unrelenting demands for profitability from lenders, shareholders, and employees without having to cope with changes in the rules as well. Of course they want to preserve their current profitability and size. Who wouldn't? But they do not assume—and neither, Dear Reader, should we—that changing regulations will necessarily make the industry less profitable. Investment bankers have well-justified confidence in their ability to turn new regulations to their advantage. It's just that, being in an industry that is constantly creating, reinventing, and destroying itself, investment bankers have a very healthy respect for change. You might even say we fear it."

Emphasis mine.

CMike's picture
Submitted by CMike on

Simon Johnson doesn't think so:

After a long tough argument, Paul Volcker appeared to have finally persuaded President Obama that the unconditional bailouts of 2008-2009 planted the seeds for another major economic crisis.

But how deep does this conversion go? ...

Increasingly ... there are very real indications that the conversion is either superficial (on the economic side of the White House) or entirely a marketing ploy (on the political side). Here are the five top reasons to worry ...

If Sec. Geithner is not out the door inside of two weeks you'll have the answer.

File this under "no way out:"

Federal Open Market Committee. The chairman of the FOMC, which sets interest rates, is elected to a one-year term by the committee’s members at the group’s first regular meeting of the year (January 26-27). When nominations are taken at that meeting, the chairman of the board by custom is the only one nominated. So Bernanke could remain as FOMC chairman even if Kohn had to be nominated as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. (This wouldn’t eliminate investors’ concerns entirely, but could limit some worries about the direction of interest-rate policy in the event of a bureaucratic delay.)

a little night musing's picture
Submitted by a little night ... on

Although I know all the Serious people take this as received wisdom (and this is one area where thinking it is so almost makes it so, because of the effect of "what people think" on the economy). But I wish we on the left would push back more against this unspoken formulation.

I'll recall this past Comment of the Day:

The economy doesn't have anything to do with the stock market. Given enough liquidty we could have 50% unemployment, canibalism in the streets and DOW 36,000. In fact that's my forecast. Bon Appetit.