Dow Drops More Than 500 Points

[SmootSmack]

Worst day since 2008

Market Report - Aug. 4, 2011 - CNNMoney

[firstdown]

I'm sure this is Bush's fault some how.

[JoeRedskin]

Yeah. Not good. There is just not a lot of job creation going on, stimulus has run its course and, on top of that, the "quantitative easing" and stimulus has flooded the economy with money - markets can see that. Lots of people are predicting serious inflation over by the end of 2012 (8 - 12%).

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yeah. Not good. There is just not a lot of job creation going on, stimulus has run its course and, on top of that, the "quantitative easing" and stimulus has flooded the economy with money - markets can see that. Lots of people are predicting serious inflation over by the end of 2012 (8 - 12%).

But I thought we were giving tax breaks for rich..I mean "job creators" so they can create jobs?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

But I thought we were giving tax breaks for rich..I mean "job creators" so they can create jobs?

Would raising taxes on the evil rich make things better right now?

Either way something needs to be done to encourage firms to start hiring again. No one is going to go anywhere if companies keep hoarding cash. For better or worse it looks like Obama is going to loose reelection.

Yeah Obama is on the outside looking in unless the economy is in much better shape then now come 2012

Also i heard this yesterday. What if we made the corporate tax rate zero but offset it by making the tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividens equal to individual's income tax rate and maybe even raise the top tax rate a little on those disgusting rich people. US corporate taxes are the highest in the world (prob the most complicated too) and are equal to only 15% of the total the IRS collects. Im sure that would attract new businesses and maybe spur production a little bit too.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

But I thought we were giving tax breaks for rich..I mean "job creators" so they can create jobs?

Well, we certainly aren't getting hired by poor people are we?

The job creators will create jobs only if it fits their business model. Most Americans don't seem to understand this. There's this notion that if you're wealthy, it's your natural patriotic duty to give up that money in the form hiring someone.

The job of a corporation/business is to remain profitable for their shareholders. That's it. It isn't their job to provide employment. In fact, if somebody runs the numbers and finds that operations can still be successful while reducing labor costs, hiring will stop and the workforce might be trimmed. On the other hand, if it's determined that it would be more profitable to expand services/operations, then you'll see more hiring.

If the rich are fearful that the government is set to confiscate even more of their money, which is what's scheduled to happen at the end of 2012 when the Bush tax cuts expire, you'll see timid, temporary hiring at best.

Now, if government would just get the hell out of the way, stop threatening the risk-takers, entrepreneurs, ... the "job creators" ... by taking more of their money, and instead adopted the policy of allowing people to keep more of what they earn and let them be as wildly successful as they can, then that's an economic environment we'd all want to be in.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Well, we certainly aren't getting hired by poor people are we?

The job creators will create jobs only if it fits their business model. Most Americans don't seem to understand this. There's this notion that if you're wealthy, it's your natural patriotic duty to give up that money in the form hiring someone.

The job of a corporation/business is to remain profitable for their shareholders. That's it. It isn't their job to provide employment. In fact, if somebody runs the numbers and finds that operations can still be successful while reducing labor costs, hiring will stop and the workforce might be trimmed. On the other hand, if it's determined that it would be more profitable to expand services/operations, then you'll see more hiring.

If the rich are fearful that the government is set to confiscate even more of their money, which is what's scheduled to happen at the end of 2012 when the Bush tax cuts expire, you'll see timid, temporary hiring at best.

Now, if government would just get the hell out of the way, stop threatening the risk-takers, entrepreneurs, ... the "job creators" ... by taking more of their money, and instead adopted the policy of allowing people to keep more of what they earn and let them be as wildly successful as they can, then that's an economic environment we'd all want to be in.

Great post. I would add the increased regulatory burden and the effects Obamacare will have when its fully implemented are major factors in keeping businesses on the sidelines until after 2012. If Obama is re-elected, it will extend the malaise another 4 years.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Great post. I would add the increased regulatory burden and the effects Obamacare will have when its fully implemented are major factors in keeping businesses on the sidelines until after 2012. If Obama is re-elected, it will extend the malaise another 4 years.

Interesting that you site regulation. Like, what industries have been "over regulated" under this administration? And what tangible data do we have to suggest that it's keeping employers from hiring.

[mlmpetert]

Yeah i think markets were really looking for a debt deal with around 4 trillion in cuts, not a 1.2 trillion deal without any revenue increases or entitlement reform. S&P is prob gonna downgrade us debt within the next 6 months, moodys might too. That combined with recent poor earnings and economic data makes for bad markets, and in this case real bad. I think qe3 is probably more of the boost to stock markets, a weak dollar and easy money is usually a positive to equities.

[hooskins]

This is going to need to get moved to the politics forum real soon lol.

But yes, it's all Bush's fault. Funny Onion article today:

Obama Turns 50 Despite Republican Opposition | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by hooskins

This is going to need to get moved to the politics forum real soon lol.

But yes, it's all Bush's fault. Funny Onion article today:

Obama Turns 50 Despite Republican Opposition | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Yeah I suppose I should put it there

[Dirtbag59]

So what does this mean? Is this a double dip recession?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

So what does this mean? Is this a double dip recession?

Ive heard a lot of things from completely partisan resources this week and largely the consencious is the likelihood of another recession in the near term is unlikely. Markets may be considered leading indicators but they are ususaly overly speculative.

Although i did hear yesterday that 70% or so of Americans still think were in a recession. So to most it doesnt really matter, theyre still hurting if we are technically in one or not.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Ive heard a lot of things from completely partisan resources this week and largely the consencious is the likelihood of another recession in the near term is unlikely. Markets may be considered leading indicators but they are ususaly overly speculative.

Although i did hear yesterday that 70% or so of Americans still think were in a recession. So to most it doesnt really matter, theyre still hurting if we are technically in one or not.

Either way something needs to be done to encourage firms to start hiring again. No one is going to go anywhere if companies keep hoarding cash. For better or worse it looks like Obama is going to loose reelection.

[firstdown]

Obama said we need to focus on creating jobs. Well what the hell was that 800 billion spent on? I have no problem with hitting the rich with higher taxes as long as we make other cuts to go along with them.